]]>
]]>
Quote:
Yes, I do fear the red menace. Not the USSR, but the self destruction of my nation, which I love very much, due to the increasing prevalence of socialist ideas.
Oh god, yes, look at how poorly countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland have fared.
How'd Greece do with their Socialist tendancies?
Statistics: Posted by Magicana Drofulcus — October 14th, 2011, 12:43 am
]]>
Oh crap, my reply messed up. Sorry for the wait.
I do dislike socialism, because it's a failed system that lowers the quality of living, of the entire income spectrum over time. In addition it required that liberties be forfeited and that individual decisions are made by crooked politicians. Keep in mind politicians have the same desires as the CEOs they like to attack. Money and power.
I think it's important to ask this question before anything else. Where do you draw the line that health care funded by tax payers is socialism? Why haven't you ever made mention of publicly funded streets, parks, schools, and so on? Are you trying to say that as of right now, politicians aren't being bought as commodities to have the best interest in mind of big banks and corporations?
Quote:
Yes, cherry picking is a good idea. It is my opinion that capitalism only works if you have a safety net, and even more importantly, some form of quality free education. At the same time though, I will say that the United States has over the last 200 years picked far, far to many cherries. We have done well until now, however, our standard of living has fallen as the price of socialist policies has become to high for economic profit to cover.
The standard of living hasn't fallen because "socialist" policies, it's because the free markets don't even exist; there is absolutely no competition. It's all a matter whom the government chooses to not tax and not regulate that succeed on top and all of those record breaking profits aren't going back to the country nor are new jobs being created because it all goes outside of the USA.
Quote:
Socialism and communism have destroyed nation, lives, and livelihoods. While in theory, communism could work (it would still be wrong because it requires that individual rights be forfeited), people in power have (like I said) the same goals as CEOs, and cannot, under any circumstances, good intentions or not, be trusted.
Could you explain to which countries were lead under a socialist or communist regime and explain to me why that country has fallen? What individual rights to be forfeited are you talking about? The right to be underpaid while all profit is appropriated to the person that owns the means of production? Communism doesn't call for individual rights to be abolished, you still have the right to property and to make a living, what it calls for is the means of production belonging to the people and not just one individual.
Quote:
How many politicians from either party are actually honest and do what they say they will? How many follow our most fundamental laws? Very few.
Oh, I can definitely agree with you there.
Quote:
EDIT: Yes, I could give you a long list of flaws of the public healthcare that has failed in the UK and Canada (to name a couple). I could tell you that the government has no business telling me to buy yet another insurance: while I'd voluntarily buy it regardless, I'm not going to have them tell me. I could say that 30% of businesses are cutting care. I could say that it's expensive. I could say that the policy will become worse over time, like Social Security (a very reasonable policy when it was invented, FDR made lots of promises which have all been broken now, resulting in today's instability and expense of the system.)
Well then, please list out to me the flaws of public healthcare system in Canada. I live in Canada and I would dare not to live in the USA so it would be interesting to see an outsider's point of view... Could you explain the benefits of your healthcare system over that of a publicly funded one? By the way, are you covered by a health insurer? How has that been like?
Statistics: Posted by Regulus — October 13th, 2011, 3:17 pm
]]>
Yes, I do fear the red menace. Not the USSR, but the self destruction of my nation, which I love very much, due to the increasing prevalence of socialist ideas.
Oh god, yes, look at how poorly countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Iceland have fared.
Statistics: Posted by Arnaud — September 13th, 2011, 1:40 pm
]]>
I could give you a long list of flaws of the public healthcare that has failed in the UK
Please do.
Statistics: Posted by Nate — September 5th, 2011, 9:27 am
]]>
]]>
I do dislike socialism, because it's a failed system that lowers the quality of living, of the entire income spectrum over time. In addition it required that liberties be forfeited and that individual decisions are made by crooked politicians. Keep in mind politicians have the same desires as the CEOs they like to attack. Money and power.
Yes, cherry picking is a good idea. It is my opinion that capitalism only works if you have a safety net, and even more importantly, some form of quality free education. At the same time though, I will say that the United States has over the last 200 years picked far, far to many cherries. We have done well until now, however, our standard of living has fallen as the price of socialist policies has become to high for economic profit to cover.
Code: Select all
My definition of economic profit based on common law: The benefit resulting from a trade or transaction in which both parties voluntarily conduct the transaction and value what they received more than what they gave. (at least immediately following the trade, the may have made an economic error and discover later.
Yes, I do fear the red menace. Not the USSR, but the self destruction of my nation, which I love very much, due to the increasing prevalence of socialist ideas.
Socialism and communism have destroyed nation, lives, and livelihoods. While in theory, communism could work (it would still be wrong because it requires that individual rights be forfeited), people in power have (like I said) the same goals as CEOs, and cannot, under any circumstances, good intentions or not, be trusted.
How many politicians from either party are actually honest and do what they say they will? How many follow our most fundamental laws? Very few.
I will not give up my rights, and I must inform you as a fellow voter. You don't have the right to take them.
EDIT: Yes, I could give you a long list of flaws of the public healthcare that has failed in the UK and Canada (to name a couple). I could tell you that the government has no business telling me to buy yet another insurance: while I'd voluntarily buy it regardless, I'm not going to have them tell me. I could say that 30% of businesses are cutting care. I could say that it's expensive. I could say that the policy will become worse over time, like Social Security (a very reasonable policy when it was invented, FDR made lots of promises which have all been broken now, resulting in today's instability and expense of the system.)
I could say that healthcare will become a bureaucratic institution just like every other place our government sticks it's fat head. But I don't want to go into it.
Statistics: Posted by Razick — September 5th, 2011, 6:15 am
]]>
So maybe the idea leans towards the socialism side. So what? Capitalism isn't perfect. Neither is socialism. What if we weren't transitioning from one to the other, but cherry picking ideas from both that are right for us as a nation?
You've only explained why his healthcare is bad because it's socialism, not why it's bad because of its own flaws. Do you have some kind of fear of "the Red Menace?"
Come'on dude. Get over it. The Cold War's over.
Statistics: Posted by Nateman — July 13th, 2011, 10:01 am
]]>
I don't judge him solely on what he's been able to do, but what he has done.
Moderates in both parties and the right have forced him to town down his agenda (thank god). He is, however, a Socialist.
----
I'll look at that link. However, I'm going to answer in advance: I know Communism is supposed to be like that (I do believe it's inventors, while misguided, did have their hearts in the right place and wanted to make life better for people.) I just believe it's impossible.
The kind of society in which it would work is the kind of society that doesn't need it.
"If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If men were governed by angels they would need no restrictions on their power" -James Madison (Paraphrased)
This pretty much sums it up. In our society, it doesn't work, in perfect society, you don't need it.
Statistics: Posted by Razick — July 8th, 2011, 3:15 pm
]]>
Quote:
A communist state has no government.
Umm, that's not true at all. There has to be some sort of powerful organization to enforce the system.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pure_communism
Razick wrote:
Quote:
Please explain to me how Obama is a socialist.
He tried to pass public healthcare, aka socialized medicine, and succeeded in a slightly toned down version. I could go on and on... but I think this makes my point, and I'd probably give myself carpel tunnel if I tried.
Slightly? More like extremely town downed. There's still millions of Americans that aren't covered by health care and fees still remain exorbitantly high. No please, do go on. I want to see the rest of socialist Obama. Were you to tell me that Candidate Obama was socialist, I would have to agree with you to an extent. President Obama? He's just another corporate puppet that's the lesser to the two evils.
Statistics: Posted by Regulus — July 8th, 2011, 2:31 pm
]]>
Please explain to me how Obama is a socialist.
He tried to pass public healthcare, aka socialized medicine, and succeeded in a slightly toned down version. I could go on and on... but I think this makes my point, and I'd probably give myself carpel tunnel if I tried.
Statistics: Posted by Razick — July 8th, 2011, 1:57 pm
]]>
Like it or not, America's current system of Government was brought about by democratically elected leaders. Furthermore, the democrat party have acted completely on their manifesto, meaning they have both a legal and moral mandate to do what they have.
Does this apply to the Republican party's mandate in November of '10?
Quote:
If you don't like it, why don't YOU move?
1. Is there any nation that is less corrupted and leftist? I love America and there's really no other choice. There are plenty of communist and socialist nations, and very few do well at all.
2. America was founded by capitalist small government, pro-liberty individuals. Our constitution guarantees many aspects of the system I want. Unconstitutional acts of law that violate are illegal.
Statistics: Posted by Razick — July 8th, 2011, 1:55 pm
]]>
A communist state has no government.
Umm, that's not true at all. There has to be some sort of powerful organization to enforce the system.
Quote:
A system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
Now here's what you are referring to:
Quote:
a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
However, it has to be controlled by the state, because individuals won't self enforce a system the dislike.
Statistics: Posted by Razick — July 8th, 2011, 1:51 pm
]]>
Socialism is NOT a perfect system AT ALL, under ANY realistic circumstances, it is a HORRIBLE system. If you don't like america and it's ways, move to the UK or Canada. Or Mexixo (they seem to be doing well
).Like it or not, America's current system of Government was brought about by democratically elected leaders. Furthermore, the democrat party have acted completely on their manifesto, meaning they have both a legal and moral mandate to do what they have.
If you don't like it, why don't YOU move?
Statistics: Posted by Nate — July 8th, 2011, 10:34 am
]]>
Eadwulf wrote:
Razick wrote:
You end up failing like EVERY COMMUNIST NATION THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.
Name all of them.
Soviet Union (Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Kyrgystan, Lithuania, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany (East), Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Rep. of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia Slovenia. ), China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Angola, Benin, Dem Rep. of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mongolia, and Yemen.
If anything, you just named countries that were under the guise of communism and are most likely forms of dictatorship or pseudo-socialism. A communist state has no government.
Statistics: Posted by Regulus — July 8th, 2011, 10:05 am
]]>
Razick wrote:
You end up failing like EVERY COMMUNIST NATION THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.
Name all of them.
Soviet Union (Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Tajikistan, Moldova, Kyrgystan, Lithuania, Turkmenistan, Armenia, Latvia, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Germany (East), Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Rep. of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia Slovenia. ), China, Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Angola, Benin, Dem Rep. of Congo, Ethiopia, Somalia, Eritrea, Mozambique, Afghanistan, Cambodia, Mongolia, and Yemen.
Statistics: Posted by Magicana Drofulcus — July 7th, 2011, 9:47 pm
]]>
You end up failing like EVERY COMMUNIST NATION THAT HAS EVER EXISTED.
Name all of them.
Statistics: Posted by Eadwulf — July 7th, 2011, 8:13 pm
]]>
Now, our favorite socialist Mr. Barrack Obama
Please explain to me how Obama is a socialist.
Anyway, I'm far left centrist. I live in Canada and obviously we're not governed by any leftist party but rather by conservatives. I will say this, the Canadian conservatives have handled the economy quite well so kudos to them. So realistically speaking, I'm for right wing beliefs in handling the economy but on the flip side, I'm also for many social services, government regulations, workers' rights (equal appropriation of profit made), free post-secondary education, universal health care, and welfare (as long it's for the working poor and not the lazy poor).
Statistics: Posted by Regulus — June 26th, 2011, 11:35 pm
]]>
and some that should be made for them--which is how our current system works. The consumer can't choose a product with known safety risks, as that product will already have been recalled. I guess I'm in the minority here in that I trust certified experts to make decisions for me, and will trust them over my own judgment so long as they can satisfactorily answer my questions (which any expert worth their salt can, in my experience).
That idea terrifies me. You argue against it yourself. People will always have their own motives, insurance agents are experts, but they don't work for you.
The consumer should make their own decisions. At this point it's not a matter of opinion, if you want to take away my rights by having others make my decisions you are WRONG. I'll make my decisions and anyone who says otherwise is wrong.
Of course within reason, I shouldn't be able to decide to kill. However, I should pick what I eat, who I sell services to, what car I drive, what job I have, what school I go to, where I live, what I say, what websites I make (within reason), what procedures are done on me, how long I sleep, what I wear, what products and services I buy, how much money I donate, and what weapons I use for sport (within reason).
-----
Now, who decides within reason? Liberals often ask for reasonable regulation. Opinions differ. That's why regulation should be a bit on the light side instead of the heavy side.
-----
Yes, I should be able to buy products with known safety risks as long as I'm made aware.
-----
Yes you are in the minority, but listen. I have no problem with you listening to experts advice, or even allowing them to decide. However, it has to be the consumer's choice. They can't be forced to obey the experts.
Statistics: Posted by Razick — June 19th, 2011, 12:21 pm
]]>