The compassion of socialism. [Archive]

InsaneApache

10-05-2008, 21:43

I'm not entirely sure where the socialism comes in. Labour doggerel, perhaps, but when was the Labour party last socialist?

Surely socialism would have sucked you dry by taxation in order to provide whatever drugs were required, on demand, for as long and expensively as possible. Regardless of how much personal wealth the recipient had stashed away. Your story only shows a government pretending to supply universal healthcare, but actually penny-pinching in the finest tradition.

I am however, uplifted by the intimation that the market has proven so much more compassionate in every way.

:stupido2:

The socialism comes in the form of state healthcare free at the point of delivery. IE the NHS, set up after the Beveridge report. I'm aware that the treasury is not a bottomless pit and that not everything can be afforded.

My point is that the terminally ill patients are being punished for 'topping up' their healthcare via private means. To withdraw all NHS treatment because a person dying of cancer decides that they might like to live a bit longer is outrageous. After all, this is done in the name of avoiding a two tier healthcare system, (when was the last time a government minister went NHS?) which is the credo of the political left.

We all know that our Great Leader is a wassock. Now he's a murdering wassock at the alter of equality. Nasty.

In Capitalististan, the government would gladly pay their inhabitant's health care? My, we are confused

I am after that post. Did you read the article?

Viking

10-05-2008, 22:03

I am after that post. Did you read the article?

No, I thought that your quote would cover the basics.

Socialism sounds more like denying people to pay more, rather than making people who pay more, pay even more. In Capitalististan, the government would pay nought in support. You complain not about socialism in itself, but the way socialism works in the UK with regards to NHS, no?

InsaneApache

10-05-2008, 22:35

The government has decreed that anyone who uses their own money for drugs not available on the NHS will have all NHS support withdrawn. This is done in the name of equality.

From the article...

In an attempt to give Simmons more time, her family paid privately for a drug called Avastin, which was not available on the NHS. They believe it prolonged her life.

However, under government rules their NHS treatment was then withdrawn. As well as the cost of Avastin, the family had to pay about £20,000 for routine drugs, scans and consultant appointments that would otherwise have been available on the NHS.

To punish someone who's dying for a political dogma is criminal

Redleg

10-05-2008, 22:50

Wait for the Solent Green before we claim socialism is compassionate.

Oh wait socialism is not about compassion at all, regardless of the attempts to claim that it is.

Kadagar_AV

10-05-2008, 23:00

Strike For The South

10-05-2008, 23:02

CountArach

10-05-2008, 23:12

From a Socialist - this is utterly deplorable. Everyone has the right to the same quality of healthcare without question.

Rhyfelwyr

10-05-2008, 23:22

And for all the people who can't afford healthcare in capitalist USA? Well I suppose they deserve it for not working hard, right? Neither do their children of course, for being born into such a lazy family.

Ice

10-05-2008, 23:25

Charity should come for other people not forced from the government :yes:

You seem to have developed that libertarian streak I had during my first couple years of college. :2thumbsup:

Redleg

10-05-2008, 23:25

wait...

This is one case, in one country, and it is used to deem out socialism as a whole?

Interesting logic. I am saying "interesting logic" because this forum has strict rules about language. However, if you would so choose, you can replace the "interesting" with a stronger word of your choice. Like "Fragd up logic", or *gasp* even worse.

Like I said before socialism is not about compassion at all, do you care to prove that socialism is compassionate. How about I site several instances where socialism has not been compassionate at all?

In fact look at the definition for socialism in Wikipedia

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.[1][2] Modern socialism originated in the late nineteenth-century working class political movement. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution, it being the transitional stage between capitalism and communism.[3][4]

Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth into a small section of society who control capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.[1]

Socialism is not a discrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split on how a socialist economy should be established between the reformists and the revolutionaries. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; while others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies combined with tax-funded welfare programs; Libertarian socialism (which includes Socialist Anarchism and Libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, Yugoslavian, Hungarian, Polish and Chinese Communists instituted various forms of market socialism combining co-operative and State ownership models with the free market exchange.[5] This is unlike the earlier theoretical market socialist proposal put forth by Oskar Lange in that it allows market forces, rather than central planners to guide production and exchange.[6] Anarcho-syndicalists, Luxemburgists (such as those in the Socialist Party USA) and some elements of the United States New Left favor decentralized collective ownership in the form of cooperatives or workers' councils.

Now one might argue that socialism is more compassionate the Capitalism, Communism (as practiced in countries claiming to be communist) and even other political forms, but in itself Socialism is not about compassion.

Even the egalitarian society that is the goal of socialism does not promise compassion only something else. from the same source of wikipedia

Egalitarianism (derived from the French word égal, meaning equal) is a political doctrine that holds that all people should be treated as equals, and have the same political, economic, social, and civil rights.[1] Generally it applies to being held equal under the law and society at large. In actual practice, one may be considered an egalitarian in most areas listed above, even if not subscribing to equality in every possible area of individual difference

Compassion again requires something else besides socialism

CountArach

10-05-2008, 23:26

I'm not entirely sure where the socialism comes in. Labour doggerel, perhaps, but when was the Labour party last socialist?
GFT.

Strike For The South

10-05-2008, 23:27

You seem to have developed that libertarian streak I had during my first couple years of college. :2thumbsup:

I've always felt this way.

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 00:33

Utterly disgusted with the policy of withdrawing treatment to cancer patients. Why? Well because they had the timerity to purchase a life saving drug and so had NHS support terminated.

All this to satisfy a political ideology. Outrageous. Another example of socialsm and fascism being two cheeks of the same arse.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882645.ece

This sounds like a crappy situation, but you honestly believe that privately paid insurance models are any better? I can tell you a lot of stories to the contrary. People winding up having to pay huge sums even when insured and/or losing a house over medical problems is pretty common in the U.S.

Gaius Scribonius Curio

10-06-2008, 01:58

Wikipedia does not know all, Redleg.

One definition of socialism is indeed the economic one, as quoted above. But the idea that everyone should be helped by society at large is also socialist in conception.

And nobody should be forced to pay for treatment that is ordinaraly subsidised, due to paying for extra treatment, its ridiculous.

Got to rush, be back later with more solid opinion.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2008, 02:00

Is socialism perfect? NO!

is capitalism more caring of their citizens? Hardly.

case closed.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-06-2008, 02:04

Is socialism perfect? NO!

is capitalism more caring of their citizens? Hardly.

case closed.

Capitalism does emphasize this nice little thing called personal responsibility.

CountArach

10-06-2008, 02:06

Capitalism does emphasize this nice little thing called personal responsibility.
That isn't more caring though. Whether or not you believe it is a good thing, you must admit it is less caring.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 02:12

That isn't more caring though. Whether or not you believe it is a good thing, you must admit it is less caring.

Its not about caring It's about government control of private citizens.

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 02:13

Capitalism does emphasize this nice little thing called personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility only ever applies if you're poor. Period.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2008, 02:20

Capitalism does emphasize this nice little thing called personal responsibility.

Personal responsibility... for getting cancer? For losing your arm when hit by a car? Or what?

I am 100% in favour of personal responsibility... If some fat :elephant: who weights 160kg has heart problems he should pay it himself, or die while eating more hamburgers.

If someone overdoses from heroine, let the :elephant: die.

However, if someone is not at fault for whatever happens to them, the state SHOULD have an obligation to take care of him/her.

No?

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 02:22

Personal responsibility... for getting cancer? For losing your arm when hit by a car? Or what?

I am 100% in favour of personal responsibility... If some fat :elephant: who weights 160kg has heart problems he should pay it himself, or die while eating more hamburgers.

If someone overdoses from heroine, let the :elephant: die.

However, if someone is not at fault for whatever happens to them, the state SHOULD have an obligation to take care of him/her.

No?

Personal responsibility in questions of medical care always seems to translate into "whatever your condition, it's up to you to pay for it." I would only agree in cases like plastic or cosmetic surgery. Other than that telling a poor couple to take full personal responsibility for their son being born with a defective heart valve is not very moral or enlightened.

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-06-2008, 02:22

That isn't more caring though. Whether or not you believe it is a good thing, you must admit it is less caring.

I'd say it is more caring.

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
http://digg.com/politics/Conservatives_Give_More_to_Charity_Than_Liberals

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 02:22

No. I also find it very funny the same people who want more social liberalism want more government control over there lives. It is an odd mindset

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 02:25

No. I also find it very funny the same people who want more social liberalism want more government control over there lives. It is an odd mindset

How does that follow? I don't want the state to tell me I can't have an operation but I don't like an HMO or insurance company telling me that either.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 02:27

How does that follow? I don't want the state to tell me I can't have an operation but I don't like an HMO or insurance company telling me that either.

Well I guess that begs the question how much do you want? Socialism is the ultimate affront to the citizen. Government control disguised as charity.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2008, 02:32

Well I guess that begs the question how much do you want? Socialism is the ultimate affront to the citizen. Government control disguised as charity.

I live in a socialistic state... Contrary to YOUR country we can not be jailed without evidence, the state does not have the right to read our E-mail traffic...

Care to explain again why capitalism is better?

And also, comparing contrys and ideologies is two different things...

I went along with the charade only to please the VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT ruleset of this topic...

CountArach

10-06-2008, 02:34

I'd say it is more caring.

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/204/story_20419_1.html
http://digg.com/politics/Conservatives_Give_More_to_Charity_Than_Liberals
That's not the government doing it.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 02:40

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 02:41

Well I guess that begs the question how much do you want? Socialism is the ultimate affront to the citizen. Government control disguised as charity.

I think you are confusing Socialism and Communism, Strike. I don't know where this component of "the state controls your life and tells you what to do" comes into the discussion. I just think we all have a common stake in the common welfare of our country and that the individualistic free market attitude of "get as much as possible while paying the least back in as possible" is not good, and is less than forgiveable in the richest nation on earth if it means people lose their homes because of cancer (not because of reckless spending or whatever.)

m not comparing countries amigo. My country is ruled by a self perpetuating oligarchy. Crippling taxation, removing the citizens right to choose, red tape up the rear. Socialism by definition invites the government into your home. I do not need a government with power much less allot of it

You think we pay more taxes than a lot of European countries?

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 02:42

CountArach

10-06-2008, 02:44

I dont need my money going to fund state programs. How bout that?
Enjoy living without roads.

PanzerJaeger

10-06-2008, 02:44

I live in a socialistic state... Contrary to YOUR country we can not be jailed without evidence, the state does not have the right to read our E-mail traffic...

Must you use every thread as a segway to attack America? It gets old. This is about the healthcare system in Britain, or socialism in general - neither of which have much to do with the United States.

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 02:44

I dont need my money going to fund state programs. How bout that?

Okay, do you want to pay the next time a storm blows over the power lines in your housing track? Or go out and fill in the potholes on your street yourself? What if you live at the bottom of a hill where rainwater runs down and you get 5x more potholes than anyone else? Tough luck?

Evil_Maniac From Mars

10-06-2008, 02:46

That's not the government doing it.

No, it is the individual against socialism that is doing it.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 02:47

Enjoy living without roads.

Oh my my my. The Fed should do

-Maintain interstate highways
-Raise and pay military
-Regulate disputes between states
-Have an organization like FEMA

All else should be left to the states and even then they should have very little power. I guess I need to be more clear thats two of you guys.

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 02:48

Must you use every thread as a segway to attack America? It gets old. This is about the healthcare system in Britain, or socialism in general - neither of which have much to do with the United States.

It became relevant because in the OP the "travesty" being proclaimed is something that would be par for course in America's private health insurance system. Like my mom's insurance company refusing authorization for her khyphoplasty surgery on the Friday afternoon before it was scheduled on a Monday morning at 7am, and then their authorization phone number was closed until Monday morning, and the doctor said he wouldn't mind going ahead with the procedure except she'd have to pay and fight it out wtih the insurance company later. Cost about $25,000. Victory for the free market and personal responsibility.

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 02:49

Oh my my my. The Fed should do

-Maintain interstate highways
-Raise and pay military
-Regulate disputes between states
-Have an organization like FEMA

All else should be left to the states and even then they should have very little power. I guess I need to be more clear thats two of you guys.

No regulation then? :)

P.S we had this system before, it was called the Robber Baron era.

KarlXII

10-06-2008, 02:53

In Capitalististan, the government would gladly pay their inhabitant's health care? My, we are confused.

They'd also pay off student loans, car payments, and dog's surgery.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 02:53

No regulation then? :)

P.S we had this system before, it was called the Robber Baron era.

As little as possible.

In an educated society the robber barons would not happen I will also play devils advocate and say the robber barons perpetuated the USA onto the world stage.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2008, 02:55

Must you use every thread as a segway to attack America? It gets old. This is about the healthcare system in Britain, or socialism in general - neither of which have much to do with the United States.

Oh come one, if an :elephant: american talks about "the ultimate affront to citizens" I can not help it.... If you make a volley, I will smash;)

I dont need my money going to fund state programs. How bout that?

This is a WELL THOUGHT OUT answer indeed...

So anarchy (sp?) is your ideal solution?

PanzerJaeger

10-06-2008, 02:56

It became relevant because in the OP the "travesty" being proclaimed is something that would be par for course in America's private health insurance system. Like my mom's insurance company refusing authorization for her khyphoplasty surgery on the Friday afternoon before it was scheduled on a Monday morning at 7am, and then their authorization phone number was closed until Monday morning, and the doctor said he wouldn't mind going ahead with the procedure except she'd have to pay and fight it out wtih the insurance company later. Cost about $25,000. Victory for the free market and personal responsibility.

That sucks. I'm really sorry to hear that and I hope she manages to get it out of the insurance company. There's definitely cause to have a thread about the state of health care in America.

However, the OP mentioned nothing about the US, and certainly nothing about government wiretapping or holding people without trial. Kadagar_AV's comment was a broad and unrelated attack on America - which he seems to make a habit of doing.

Oh come one, if an american talks about "the ultimate affront to citizens" I can not help it.... If you make a volley, I will smash;)

And what does the government reading emails have to do with.... well.. anything?

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 02:57

Oh come one, if an :elephant: american talks about "the ultimate affront to citizens" I can not help it.... If you make a volley, I will smash;)

This is a WELL THOUGHT OUT answer indeed...

So anarchy (sp?) is your ideal solution?

Why do you insist on yelling in bold? I prefer a government that is ruled by the people and the best way to do that is give the least amount of power and money. When citizens cease to be vigilant authoritarianism reigns.

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 02:57

As little as possible.

In an educated society the robber barons would not happen I will also play devils advocate and say the robber barons perpetuated the USA onto the world stage.

Strike, within the confines of the modern world, we have basically had this ideology be dominant for almost 30 years now. It's been deregulate, downsize (except the big inflations of gov't under Reagan and Bush, but those were mostly in defense areas so people don't seem to mind), even Clinton cut welfare and such. It hasn't worked in creating a free market utopia. Even the so called free market people never really want a free market, you can see that with Wall Street asking for a bailout. They want a crybaby free market with loopholes and illegal immigrant labor and tax benefits for outsourcing and no responsibility or accountability when they flop an industry or default on promised pensions. If we got rid of all the "wasteful" safety nets and combined it with all the people who've lost their retirement, investment accounts, and mortgages, we'd be looking at 1929 again. I just don't see how this can look like a good thing to you.

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 02:59

That sucks. I'm really sorry to hear that and I hope she manages to get it out of the insurance company. There's definitely cause to have a thread about the state of health care in America.

However, the OP mentioned nothing about the US, and certainly nothing about government wiretapping or holding people without trial. Kadagar_AV's comment was a broad and unrelated attack on America - which he seems to make a habit of doing.

It becomes relevant though if the implied argument is that a private insurance system is better. It's not.

Thanks for the kind words. She was horrified at the price tag but she had been completely unable to get up for a month already because of the fractured vertebrae. (That's what khyphoplasty is for, it's kinda like vertebrae superglue procedure.) The insurance company told her doctor that "the surgery was not warranted because more conservative measures should be exhausted first, such as wearing a back brace." A back brace don't fix a fractured bone in your spine. :oops:

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 03:00

Strike, within the confines of the modern world, we have basically had this ideology be dominant for almost 30 years now. It's been deregulate, downsize (except the big inflations of gov't under Reagan and Bush, but those were mostly in defense areas so people don't seem to mind), even Clinton cut welfare and such. It hasn't worked in creating a free market utopia. Even the so called free market people never really want a free market, you can see that with Wall Street asking for a bailout. They want a crybaby free market with loopholes and illegal immigrant labor and tax benefits for outsourcing and no responsibility or accountability when they flop an industry or default on promised pensions. If we got rid of all the "wasteful" safety nets and combined it with all the people who've lost their retirement, investment accounts, and mortgages, we'd be looking at 1929 again. I just don't see how this can look like a good thing to you.

The American government has descended into an oligarchy. How many times must I say this? America got sick at appomattox and died in 33.

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 03:03

The American government has descended into an oligarchy. How many times must I say this? America got sick at appomattox and died in 33.

Descended into? Who do you think started this country? Oligarchs. Pennsylvania was a land grant to an English noble. Texas was a bunch of rich guys who insisted they wanted to take over all that land even though the government said no, that's Mexico, and brought a lot of poor landless farmers along with them. This is nothing new. What you propose would make it even worse. America would look like what you saw in "Titanic" again. Dirt poor and filthy rich. No in-between.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2008, 03:07

Why do you insist on yelling in bold? I prefer a government that is ruled by the people and the best way to do that is give the least amount of power and money. When citizens cease to be vigilant authoritarianism reigns.

Well, using bad words is not allowed on this forum... Sarcasm however is... That is a way of highlighting the sarcasm. I agree it sticks in the eye, but one has to use the tools handed...

panzer,
And what does the government reading emails have to do with.... well.. anything?

I have to explain it again? is it OK if I just copy and paste my previous post?

"if an american talks about "the ultimate affront to citizens" I can not help it.... If you make a volley, I will smash"

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 03:11

Descended into? Who do you think started this country? Oligarchs. Pennsylvania was a land grant to an English noble. Texas was a bunch of rich guys who insisted they wanted to take over all that land even though the government said no, that's Mexico, and brought a lot of poor landless farmers along with them. This is nothing new. What you propose would make it even worse. America would look like what you saw in "Titanic" again. Dirt poor and filthy rich. No in-between.

I dont think it would but we may never know. People who do not remain vigilant deserve what they get. We are seeing that right now.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 03:13

Well, using bad words is not allowed on this forum... Sarcasm however is... That is a way of highlighting the sarcasm. I agree it sticks in the eye, but one has to use the tools handed...

panzer,

I have to explain it again? is it OK if I just copy and paste my previous post?

"if an american talks about "the ultimate affront to citizens" I can not help it.... If you make a volley, I will smash"

All I see is anti-americanism thank you for playing.

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 03:14

I dont think it would but we may never know. People who do not remain vigilant deserve what they get. We are seeing that right now.

What are you implying? Civil war?

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 03:17

What are you implying? Civil war?

No. American citizens today couldn't stomach it we really cant seem to stomach much of anything anymore. I've decided to live my life and protect my (one day) family to the best of my ability. Rebillions are best left for schoolboys with dreams

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 03:18

No. American citizens today couldn't stomach it we really cant seem to stomach much of anything anymore. I've decided to live my life and protect my (one day) family to the best of my ability. Rebillions are best left for schoolboys with dreams

How does no safety net and no reliable healthcare help protect your family?

PanzerJaeger

10-06-2008, 03:19

It becomes relevant though if the implied argument is that a private insurance system is better. It's not.

I'll grant you that an argument based on that using the US as an example would certainly be OT. Thats not the argument he made though.

Thanks for the kind words. She was horrified at the price tag but she had been completely unable to get up for a month already because of the fractured vertebrae. (That's what khyphoplasty is for, it's kinda like vertebrae superglue procedure.) The insurance company told her doctor that "the surgery was not warranted because more conservative measures should be exhausted first, such as wearing a back brace." A back brace don't fix a fractured bone in your spine. :oops:

That's terrible. :shame:

panzer,
Quote:
And what does the government reading emails have to do with.... well.. anything?

I have to explain it again? is it OK if I just copy and paste my previous post?

"if an american talks about "the ultimate affront to citizens" I can not help it.... If you make a volley, I will smash"

Poor form on your part. You don't like America or Americans? Great. Start a thread about it..

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2008, 03:20

All I see is anti-americanism thank you for playing.

Once again, I can see that you are indeed a great thinker.

*I didn't highlight anything this time, I will let people use their imagination*

Seriosly though...

A) Drawing conclusions of a political system from ONE incident in ONE country is... Showing that deep minds have neen involved in the process.

B) I am no US basher... I am wayyyy more right-wing than most of sweden, i applaud a lot of things in the US, I have a great many friends over there...

However, when someone talks about socialistic states intruding on citizens, when they are from america who are about as intrusive as communist China, then I can not help but laugh.

It is funny, I have an old G.I. Joe (my heroes) comic... The characters talk about what is so bad about Russia, "The state tracks peoples communication" is mentioned as no. 1 thing... Hello Echelon:)

You have to find that ironic, no?

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 03:23

Once again, I can see that you are indeed a great thinker.

*I didn't highlight anything this time, I will let people use their imaginaton*

Seriosly though...

A) Drawing conclusions of a political system from ONE incident in ONE country is... Showing that deep minds have neen involved in the process.

B) I am no US basher... I am wayyyy more right-wing than most of sweden, i applaud a lot of things in the US, I have a great many friends over there...

However, when someone talks about socialistic states intruding on citizens, when they are from america who are about as intrusive as communist China, then I can not help but laugh.

It is funny, I have an old G.I. Joe (my heroes) comic... The characters talk about what is so bad about Russia, "The state tracks peoples communication" is mentioned as no. 1 thing... Hello Echelon:)

You have to find that ironic, no?

Thats actually one thing I like about the internet. It's tossing a lot of Europeans and Americans together in mixed environments. Fifteen, twenty years ago, people just bashed on anything Socialist like it was the absolutely worst run thing conceivable. But you would probably have a hard time convincing most Europeans that what they "really" want to do is privately pay for all thier own healthcare even if they can't afford it, and how terrible and awful their healthcare system is. That's basically what all Americans twentysomething or older grew up with being told over and over, that Europe was awful where you paid huge taxes and had SOCIALIST MEDICINE and had to wait 19 months in a queue to have a doctor look at your broken finger. I don't know anyone (personally) from Europe who thinks America's social systems are better.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 03:24

How does no safety net and no reliable healthcare help protect your family?

I plan to be a vigilant citizen. I plan to get health care and save excess money and not live beyond my means. God forbid something cataclysmic happens and even if it does I will look to my church or my friends not my government I refuse to give those bastards the satisfaction.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 03:26

Once again, I can see that you are indeed a great thinker.

*I didn't highlight anything this time, I will let people use their imagination*

Seriosly though...

A) Drawing conclusions of a political system from ONE incident in ONE country is... Showing that deep minds have neen involved in the process.

B) I am no US basher... I am wayyyy more right-wing than most of sweden, i applaud a lot of things in the US, I have a great many friends over there...

However, when someone talks about socialistic states intruding on citizens, when they are from america who are about as intrusive as communist China, then I can not help but laugh.

It is funny, I have an old G.I. Joe (my heroes) comic... The characters talk about what is so bad about Russia, "The state tracks peoples communication" is mentioned as no. 1 thing... Hello Echelon:)

You have to find that ironic, no?

We are no longer talking about the article but the merits of socialism. I have already stated that I hate my government and they are an oligarchy. We seem to have different views on government. Do you want to add something?

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 03:27

I plan to be a vigilant citizen. I plan to get health care and save excess money and not live beyond my means. God forbid something cataclysmic happens and even if it does I will look to my church or my friends not my government I refuse to give those bastards the satisfaction.

That sounds like the mentality of Wall Street until they needed a bailout. :) I'm not saying you're insincere Strike, but I think lecturing people about being more responsible, you really should have found a way to go to nightschool and get a better job, when their kid is dying, is rather cruel.

CountArach

10-06-2008, 03:29

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 03:30

That sounds like the mentality of Wall Street until they needed a bailout. :) I'm not saying you're insincere Strike, but I think lecturing people about being more responsible, you really should have found a way to go to nightschool and get a better job, when their kid is dying, is rather cruel.

Im not lecturing people at all. Everyones family has problems everyones family has tough times. But giving more power to the government and taking away more of you neighbors money is not the answer especially when its coerced and especially when the government is notoriously bad at solving anything in the first place.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 03:32

An educated society... without public education, right?

states problem. Very little I learned has come through the public education system anyway and that is why I majoring in History and minoring in 2ndary education and Spanish. Dont assume Dundee

Redleg

10-06-2008, 03:34

Wikipedia does not know all, Redleg.

LOL your beginning to sound like someone else.

One definition of socialism is indeed the economic one, as quoted above. But the idea that everyone should be helped by society at large is also socialist in conception.

Actually socialism doesnt talk about helping everyone at large, it states something about equality - which is what the word mentioned in the second part of my post refers to. But I will play along provide a source that states socialism is about compassion for everyone.

And nobody should be forced to pay for treatment that is ordinaraly subsidised, due to paying for extra treatment, its ridiculous.

Your at the mercy of the state on certain things with socialized medicine, personally I dont know which system is better or worse, both have some major faults that must be retificied if a true compassionate system is to be

Redleg

10-06-2008, 03:37

Personal responsibility only ever applies if you're poor. Period.

Incorrect. Personal responsiblity applies to all. Now if your arguement is about how the legal system applies that standard then you have to actually begin to demonstrate it. A good examble is in the bail out thread.

Now socialized medicine has an element of personal responsibility also. Just like any other system, all have the personal responsiblity to insure they take care of their body and therefor their health. You can not give that responsiblity to the state had remain free.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2008, 03:38

Thats actually one thing I like about the internet. It's tossing a lot of Europeans and Americans together in mixed environments. Fifteen, twenty years ago, people just bashed on anything Socialist like it was the absolutely worst run thing conceivable. But you would probably have a hard time convincing most Europeans that what they "really" want to do is privately pay for all thier own healthcare even if they can't afford it, and how terrible and awful their healthcare system is. That's basically what all Americans twentysomething or older grew up with being told over and over, that Europe was awful where you paid huge taxes and had SOCIALIST MEDICINE and had to wait 19 months in a queue to have a doctor look at your broken finger. I don't know anyone (personally) from Europe who thinks America's social systems are better.

QFT

I will share a story from "socialist Austria".

I have a friend who just had a REALLY bad break up... basicly, he moved to Austria to live together with his girlfriend (an austrian)... He quit his job in Sweden, he sells his apartment.

5 days after he gets here, she breaks up with him.

He was in shock, did not eat the whole day, only drank vodka and smoked weed...

Now, to set something straight, my friend is normally the most responcible person ever, he never msoked weed, and he drinks very moderatly... However, the situation was.........

I helped him pack his things and stuff, and then we went out on the town to get him something to eat.

He fainted, totally passed out on the street. Suddenly he just crashed down, not breathing.

I called an ambulance and did some CPR (learned it in the army).

The medics was there within 5 minutes, they noted he was dehydrated, and they gave him an infusion...

Cost: 0€

How much would that bad breakup have costed in the US? Or some other capitalistic state?

When I was in the US, I hurt my ribs... I knew the injury was not that bad, however, the ambulance my friends called insisted I would go to the hospital and see the doctor, to get X-ray and stuff...

I was fine, just had a small crack on the ribbs, and got some pain-dampening pills...

I had pay what I earn in 5 months for an X-ray and some pain relievers...

So, basicly, I think europe has a better system than the US.

Redleg

10-06-2008, 03:39

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 03:41

Im not lecturing people at all. Everyones family has problems everyones family has tough times. But giving more power to the government and taking away more of you neighbors money is not the answer especially when its coerced and especially when the government is notoriously bad at solving anything in the first place.

I know you're not lecturing people. But that is the argument against any form of safety net. That people should just be responsible for themselves. This isn't the Wild West anymore nor should it be. If we want the Wild West then fine, corporations can hand back in all their tax incentives and deductions for raping the public and we can stop doing "interventions" overseas so that American industries can go in and get lucrative tax subsidized contracts to do reconstruction work or oil distribution.

And, I don't have any neighbors making millions of dollars, do you? My neighbors probably pay a couple thousand (like, 5 or less) each April. They're on the higher side of middle class and all have homes and insurance. I don't see any of them being coerced out of anything. You make it sound like the taxman comes to a struggling family's house and beats them up until he gets a cut. Let's talk about who we're really talking about. Corporations and the wealthy and the upper middle class and above.

Do you know, btw, any stable investments I can put money in where less than 3% of their costs go to administrative costs and bureaucracy and hedge fund manager paychecks? Cause I'll put the money there instead of SS, if you can guarantee it's not going to grab all the money and duck out to Switzerland or the Caymans and leave me broke. I doubt there is one, though.

The idea that everything private runs better than everything government is just myth, Strike. Current events should be testament to that. Enron, Citibank, Wall Street, Countrywide, mortgage lenders, WAMU, the CA energy contractors, Halliburton... If you want to talk about humans being corrupt and greedy, okay, but I don't see why you would draw a line that private is better than public in that regard. I see no evidence of it.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 03:41

Redleg

10-06-2008, 03:43

I think you are confusing Socialism and Communism, Strike. I don't know where this component of "the state controls your life and tells you what to do" comes into the discussion. I just think we all have a common stake in the common welfare of our country and that the individualistic free market attitude of "get as much as possible while paying the least back in as possible" is not good, and is less than forgiveable in the richest nation on earth if it means people lose their homes because of cancer (not because of reckless spending or whatever.)

Again you don't lose your house because of cancer. One has to look at the complete picture. Consumer debt and the loss of income that is associated with a bad health condition is one of the main causes of bankruptcy. Again look at the figures of raising bankruptcy in even socialized medicine nations where loss of income from a severe illness are also increasing

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 03:46

I know you're not lecturing people. But that is the argument against any form of safety net. That people should just be responsible for themselves. This isn't the Wild West anymore nor should it be. If we want the Wild West then fine, corporations can hand back in all their tax incentives and deductions for raping the public and we can stop doing "interventions" overseas so that American industries can go in and get lucrative tax subsidized contracts to do reconstruction work or oil distribution.

And, I don't have any neighbors making millions of dollars, do you? My neighbors probably pay a couple thousand (like, 5 or less) each April. They're on the higher side of middle class and all have homes and insurance. I don't see any of them being coerced out of anything. You make it sound like the taxman comes to a struggling family's house and beats them up until he gets a cut. Let's talk about who we're really talking about. Corporations and the wealthy and the upper middle class and above.

Do you know, btw, any stable investments I can put money in where less than 3% of their costs go to administrative costs and bureaucracy and hedge fund manager paychecks? Cause I'll put the money there instead of SS, if you can guarantee it's not going to grab all the money and duck out to Switzerland or the Caymans and leave me broke. I doubt there is one, though.

The idea that everything private runs better than everything government is just myth, Strike. Current events should be testament to that. Enron, Citibank, Wall Street, Countrywide, mortgage lenders, WAMU, the CA energy contractors, Halliburton... If you want to talk about humans being corrupt and greedy, okay, but I don't see why you would draw a line that private is better than public in that regard. I see no evidence of it.

And if we had let those fat cats fail they would've learned there lesson (hence the oligarchy) My neighbors are pastors and insurance salesman rather bland. Investment is filled with risk which is why you need to diversify and always be prepared. I do not hate the rich and powerful I hate when the government needs to bail them out. Me and you are the same on different ends of the spectrum. A large government lends itself to corruption and power grabs. Why make it bigger and bind the people to it?

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 03:47

Again you don't lose your house because of cancer. One has to look at the complete picture. Consumer debt and the loss of income that is associated with a bad health condition is one of the main causes of bankruptcy. Again look at the figures of raising bankruptcy in even socialized medicine nations where loss of income from a severe illness are also increasing

This is a distinction without meaning. Arguing that the free market is better because the sick person has the mortgage, normal bills, AND their medical bills to pay instead of just the first two is a very weak position.

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 03:49

And if we had let those fat cats fail they would've learned there lesson (hence the oligarchy) My neighbors are pastors and insurance salesman rather bland. Investment is filled with risk which is why you need to diversify and always be prepared. I do not hate the rich and powerful I hate when the government needs to bail them out. Me and you are the same on different ends of the spectrum. A large government lends itself to corruption and power grabs. Why make it bigger and bind the people to it?

Are you serious? Are you saying we have local strongmen with a bit of cash taking over the government over and over occurs less in third world countries with weak governments than here?

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2008, 03:50

anecdotes do not make a very good case. Neither does saying "He drank allot till he died but he was responsible" Hell Im responsible to but If I go out tomorrow and drink 4 bottles of vodka in an hour Im not going to think "Hey Ive built up enough responsibility credits I can do this"

So... if a normaly controlled person gets into a very unusual situation, and it ends with him being hurt (by himself) than he is to blame?

Again, this is the most church-going-super-nice-guy ever...

he :elephant: up once, cause of the circumstances. Should he then also lose his house to pay for the bill?

Again, I dont advocate free healthcare for people who do NOT deserve it... like, again, fat people with heart problems or heroinists.

However, I believe the states responcibility is to look after the citizens. As long as the citizens honour the state.

Redleg

10-06-2008, 03:54

So... if a normaly controlled person gets into a very unusual situation, and it ends with him being hurt (by himself) than he is to blame?

Again, this is the most church-going-super-nice-guy ever...

he :elephant: up once, cause of the circumstances. Should he then also lose his house to pay for the bill?

Again, I dont advocate free healthcare for people who do NOT deserve it... like, again, fat people with heart problems or heroinists.

However, I believe the states responcibility is to look after the citizens. As long as the citizens honour the state.

Okay playing the devil's advocate - your friend actually committed personal abuse of his body - so why should the state have to pay for his health condition that he brought on himself from his behavior?

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 03:56

Okay playing the devil's advocate - your friend actually committed personal abuse of his body - so why should the state have to pay for his health condition that he brought on himself from his behavior?

Because the long-term benefit to the state in having a healthy, non bankrupt citizenry able to work and produce outweighs the precarious hazards of someone who might do something unwise or have bad health issues. The argument that wasteful people will run around bankrupting the system is weak given that a) people are doing precisely that right now in our "free system" because they have to go to a taxpayer subsidized emergency room for treatment if they can't afford it b) people pay more in tax/healthcare than the actual cost because of all the poeple who can't pay anyway c) it has failed to bankrupt European countries having socialized medicine.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2008, 03:57

Okay playing the devil's advocate - your friend actually committed personal abuse of his body - so why should the state have to pay for his health condition that he brought on himself from his behavior?

Because humans from time to time error... even law-abiding ones?

Again, third time, there is a difference between :elephant: up once, and having something as a habit.

If you have something as a habit, that hurts you, you are to blame.

If you however try to live a good life, but get dealt bad cards, the state should help.

I am GLAD my taxmoney went to helping him. Would not you be? Could not you be in the same situation once?

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 04:00

I would also add, Redleg, that it sounds like some of your position is based on the idea of "who deserves healthcare."

I would submit that someone working two jobs who still can't afford a grand a month for health insurance who gets sick, deserves it every bit as much, if not more, than some jerkoff born rich who does coke everyday of his life from the time he's 17 but never worries about how he will pay for his healthcare.

If the argument of "what's fair" comes into play, again, the free market doesn't win. Because it's not based on what's fair, it's based on who can afford it.

seireikhaan

10-06-2008, 04:00

My apologies for the troll. However...

This thread is perhaps the single greatest joke of a thread I've seen in a long while here in the backroom. "Socialism=teh evilz" vs "leave poor socialism alone, it never did nothin'!" mixed with snide personal insults. Brilliant.:thumbsdown:

InsaneApache

10-06-2008, 04:06

I live in a socialistic state... Contrary to YOUR country we can not be jailed without evidence, the state does not have the right to read our E-mail traffic...

Care to explain again why capitalism is better?

And also, comparing contrys and ideologies is two different things...

I went along with the charade only to please the VERY WELL THOUGHT OUT ruleset of this topic...

Where I live the government can do all those things.

Ministers are considering spending up to £12 billion on a database to monitor and store the internet browsing habits, e-mail and telephone records of everyone in Britain.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882600.ece

and then there's 42 days detention without charge...

The Terrorism Act 2006 increased the pre-charge detention limit from 14 to 28 days. The imminent abandonment of the proposal to extend this further to 42 days comes after mounting criticism from senior figures in the fight against terrorism.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece

So apart from locking us up without charges being brought (although thank god for the House of Lords), spying on our calls and mails......

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 04:09

Where I live the government can do all those things.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882600.ece

and then there's 42 days detention without charge...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4887653.ece

So apart from locking us up without charges being brought (although thank god for the House of Lords), spying on our calls and mails......

The U.S. is rolling back its civil liberties, and the U.K. apparently is as well from what you say.

The point was, none of this had anything to do with socialism.

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2008, 04:11

The U.S. is rolling back its civil liberties, and the U.K. apparently is as well from what you say.

The point was, none of this had anything to do with socialism.

That is kind of the point;)

InsaneApache

10-06-2008, 04:20

The point was, none of this had anything to do with socialism.

Our current government, The Labour Party. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(Britain))

The Labour Party grew out of the trade union movement and socialist political parties of the 19th century, and continues to describe itself as a party of democratic socialism.

:bow:

Redleg

10-06-2008, 04:21

Because humans from time to time error... even law-abiding ones?

Again, third time, there is a difference between :elephant: up once, and having something as a habit.

If you have something as a habit, that hurts you, you are to blame.

If you however try to live a good life, but get dealt bad cards, the state should help.

I am GLAD my taxmoney went to helping him. Would not you be? Could not you be in the same situation once?

This arguement seems slightly hypocritical given your comments concerning the individual who is fat. For instance what about the individual who is fat because of a thyroid condition?

Kadagar_AV

10-06-2008, 04:23

There is a difference between someone with a thyroid condition and someone eating at mc donalds 7 times a day. No?

Redleg

10-06-2008, 04:25

Because the long-term benefit to the state in having a healthy, non bankrupt citizenry able to work and produce outweighs the precarious hazards of someone who might do something unwise or have bad health issues. The argument that wasteful people will run around bankrupting the system is weak given that a) people are doing precisely that right now in our "free system" because they have to go to a taxpayer subsidized emergency room for treatment if they can't afford it b) people pay more in tax/healthcare than the actual cost because of all the poeple who can't pay anyway c) it has failed to bankrupt European countries having socialized medicine.

Since my arguement has not been present on that particlur issue its a bit early to actually address it. My point was to address the inconsistent arguement as present by Kadagar.

If an individual who abuses himself a single time is warranted medical treatment - then as he stated "Again, I dont advocate free healthcare for people who do NOT deserve it... like, again, fat people with heart problems or heroinists. " These people are also entitled to adequate health care. To state otherwise is being un-compassionate which is the initial arguement of this thread.

So with that in mind - do you wish to reconsider your two previous posts since you assumed something not in evidence?

Redleg

10-06-2008, 04:29

There is a difference between someone with a thyroid condition and someone eating at mc donalds 7 times a day. No?

Why should there be, under a socialized system and if the arguement is that its more compassionate then the individual's reason for needing care is "mote", "a small spect of sand in the sun" an insigficant issue concerning the need for care.

Your doing very well in demonstrating that socialized medicine and socialism is just as big a failure in compassion as any capitialistic system

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 04:36

Our current government, The Labour Party. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Party_(Britain))

:bow:

So by this reasoning neocons in the U.S. are socialist.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 04:38

Are you serious? Are you saying we have local strongmen with a bit of cash taking over the government over and over occurs less in third world countries with weak governments than here?

That is not a comparable example. The constitution enumerates very few powers for a reason. Simply because two governments happen to be small does not mean they will follow the same path.

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 04:38

Since my arguement has not been present on that particlur issue its a bit early to actually address it. My point was to address the inconsistent arguement as present by Kadagar.

If an individual who abuses himself a single time is warranted medical treatment - then as he stated "Again, I dont advocate free healthcare for people who do NOT deserve it... like, again, fat people with heart problems or heroinists. " These people are also entitled to adequate health care. To state otherwise is being un-compassionate which is the initial arguement of this thread.

So with that in mind - do you wish to reconsider your two previous posts since you assumed something not in evidence?

I can't speak for Kadagar's view. If individual European countries with socialized medicine have rules that can get you bumped out of coverage, that's up to them. I was expressing my own view about why the state has a vested interest in a healthy citizenry, even if some of those health problems are individually self-created.

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 04:41

That is not a comparable example. The constitution enumerates very few powers for a reason. Simply because two governments happen to be small does not mean they will follow the same path.

The further back you go into our history, before all the "unnecessary and wasteful additions" to government that people rail about, you can still find as much oligarchical corruption and such as today. And people lived shorter and were less well off and their biggest hope in life was that their kids had only 1 bad harvest out of 5 instead of 2. I don't think anyone wants to seriously return to the days when the government did nothing but diplomacy and defense, and if they do, I think that a cush suburban life has completely alienated them from the reality of what such a society would be like.

Redleg

10-06-2008, 04:48

I can't speak for Kadagar's view. If individual European countries with socialized medicine have rules that can get you bumped out of coverage, that's up to them. I was expressing my own view about why the state has a vested interest in a healthy citizenry, even if some of those health problems are individually self-created.

Then you share my view on health care. THis is why I was addressing the lack of compassion for individuals regardless of the reason for being in that condition that Kadagar's view was expressing.

Now there will be differences in that view because I do beleive there is a great personal responsiblity for one's health - a responsiblity that is the citizen's not the governments. Now health care itself is to me a shared responsiblity between the individual and the state. The state can do more to regulate the insurance industry to insure adequate coverage would be one examble.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 04:51

The further back you go into our history, before all the "unnecessary and wasteful additions" to government that people rail about, you can still find as much oligarchical corruption and such as today. And people lived shorter and were less well off and their biggest hope in life was that their kids had only 1 bad harvest out of 5 instead of 2. I don't think anyone wants to seriously return to the days when the government did nothing but diplomacy and defense, and if they do, I think that a cush suburban life has completely alienated them from the reality of what such a society would be like.

I think one can thank the advancement of technology for the run of good harvests we have been having lately. The government screws you in the end. A necessary evil. I dont see how more power and more tax dollars solves anything. America should never follow Europe's lead in anything. We fought a war because of it. Not to mention people always point to countries like Norway and wonder why we cant be more like them. They dont realize we have 75 times the POP of Norway they red tape would be chrusing. I'd rather keep my money and take my chances. "cush suburban life"? Your Berkley is showing:clown:

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 05:00

Then you share my view on health care. THis is why I was addressing the lack of compassion for individuals regardless of the reason for being in that condition that Kadagar's view was expressing.

Now there will be differences in that view because I do beleive there is a great personal responsiblity for one's health - a responsiblity that is the citizen's not the governments. Now health care itself is to me a shared responsiblity between the individual and the state. The state can do more to regulate the insurance industry to insure adequate coverage would be one examble.

Yeah I think that disqualifying people on a case by case basis out of shifting and arbitrary rules of who is "bringing bad health on themselves" is just ripe with abuse potential and we see that in the private insurance system, with people being bumped off because a condition was "pre existing" or "congenital" or whatever, even if the patient was not aware of it beforehand. And I think that in some part you can ultimately argue ANY health problem is in some way individually created. Like people knowing there is a genetic illness in the family having kids anyway, or heart disease being the leading cause of death among Americans with their diet and high fat intake, etc. So to start disqualifying people because they contributed to their own condition in some way seems like just an excuse not to have any form of insurance or healthcare system at all. That is in fact my problem with insurance companies.... they want, and have the profit motive, to only want to offer coverage to people who are unlikely to ever get seriously sick! And want to bump off, disqualify or reject treatment for people who do. So it's like, what's the friggin point?!

And I do not agree that every person should at all times be constantly submitting themsleves for testing for every possible expensive ailment or else it's their own personal responsibility fault when they do get sick with something unforeseeable. That's just not realistic. If you're talking about people smoking crack all day that's one thing, but I think that if you get nitpicky then everyone can be blamed for every health condition and it gets silly.

KarlXII

10-06-2008, 05:00

Once again, I can see that you are indeed a great thinker.

*I didn't highlight anything this time, I will let people use their imagination*

Seriosly though...

A) Drawing conclusions of a political system from ONE incident in ONE country is... Showing that deep minds have neen involved in the process.

B) I am no US basher... I am wayyyy more right-wing than most of sweden, i applaud a lot of things in the US, I have a great many friends over there...

However, when someone talks about socialistic states intruding on citizens, when they are from america who are about as intrusive as communist China, then I can not help but laugh.

It is funny, I have an old G.I. Joe (my heroes) comic... The characters talk about what is so bad about Russia, "The state tracks peoples communication" is mentioned as no. 1 thing... Hello Echelon:)

You have to find that ironic, no?

Sweden, Anti-Americanism, and Communism go hand and hand....and hand I guess :juggle2:

:2thumbsup:

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 05:07

I think one can thank the advancement of technology for the run of good harvests we have been having lately. The government screws you in the end. A necessary evil. I dont see how more power and more tax dollars solves anything. America should never follow Europe's lead in anything. We fought a war because of it. Not to mention people always point to countries like Norway and wonder why we cant be more like them. They dont realize we have 75 times the POP of Norway they red tape would be chrusing. I'd rather keep my money and take my chances. "cush suburban life"? Your Berkley is showing:clown:

I think not following a good idea just because Europe is doing it is dumb.

And, I have always shown you respect Strike, so I would ask you not to make stupid assumptions about what I think or where I get my ideas based on where I went to school. But since my going to Berkeley apparently "disqualifies my credibility" on every conceivable topic, let me give you a little edification. The Cal Berkeley Republicans is the largest student group on campus. You need a 4.0+ GPA and at the time I applied, 1400ish on the old SAT system (max 1600) to get in, plus other considerations, they weighed the entrance exam more than any of the other UC's did. The school is predominantly Asian American; mostly conservative (socially and financially) academic minded Asian kids who put their heads down and go to class. The big majors are the MBA program and microcellcular biology-- a majority of the kids you will meet from Berkeley never even set foot in a polysci class or ethnic studies class or anything that might expose them to anything "radical." The "reputation" of Berkeley is much better suited today for a school like Eugene, Oregon or maybe Santa Cruz, and the idea that it's just some brainwashing leftie Che Guevara separatista academy is not only bigoted but outdated and uninformed. So I would thank you not to respond to me by throwing out a sentiment along the lines of "oh well yeah of COURSE you think that, you're from Berkeley", especially since I do not do that to you. I'm not ashamed to have attended what was at that time (I don't sit around checking rankings) the top public university in the United States nor do I feel that should have any bearing on what I say anymore than me saying "yeah well, stupid people come from Texas and they're all Republican so of course you'd say that."

I didn't make that comment (about cush suburbans) at you individually... I think if people think going back to an unregulated Robber Baron period is a good thing then they are delusional or just have no conception of what a society like that would be like compared to what they are used to. It's just like people complaining all the time about city life and loving the great outdoors but do they want to go live there with no electricity and no running water 365 days a year? Hell no.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 05:27

I don't think not following a good idea just because Europe is doing it is dumb.

And, I have always shown you respect Strike, so I would ask you not to make stupid assumptions about what I think or where I get my ideas based on where I went to school. But since my going to Berkeley apparently "disqualifies my credibility" on every conceivable topic, let me give you a little edification. The Cal Berkeley Republicans is the largest student group on campus. You need a 4.0+ GPA and at the time I applied, 1400ish on the old SAT system (max 1600) to get in, plus other considerations, they weighed the entrance exam more than any of the other UC's did. The school is predominantly Asian American; mostly conservative (socially and financially) academic minded Asian kids who put their heads down and go to class. The big majors are the MBA program and microcellcular biology-- a majority of the kids you will meet from Berkeley never even set foot in a polysci class or ethnic studies class or anything that might expose them to anything "radical." The "reputation" of Berkeley is much better suited today for a school like Eugene, Oregon or maybe Santa Cruz, and the idea that it's just some brainwashing leftie Che Guevara separatista academy is not only bigoted but outdated and uninformed. So I would thank you not to respond to me by throwing out a sentiment along the lines of "oh well yeah of COURSE you think that, you're from Berkeley", especially since I do not do that to you.

I didn't make that comment (about cush suburbans) at you individually... I think if people think going back to an unregulated Robber Baron period is a good thing then they are delusional or just have no conception of what a society like that would be like compared to what they are used to. It's just like people complaining all the time about city life and loving the great outdoors but do they want to go live there with no electricity and no running water 365 days a year? Hell no.

I didnt mean any disrespect merely a jest Im sorry:bow: What it all boils down to for me is this. Its not the healthcare its the taxes and the power. I see my father and mother put 100 hours at the grocery store only to see a third of their paycheck going to things great social experiments all while trying to raise 6 kids. I see a government which not only takes my folks money but then decides it can tell them what to do and its not like we have any say in anything since we dont have money our congressman wont listen hes to busy with the NRA or planned parenthood. Maybe I have a skewed view from being with my uncles who were and still mostly are blue collar blowhards. I was taught to look down on people who didnt bust hump for a living. Who didnt spend there entire lives working to provide for there families.

Its not like there isnt a flip-side to this though. I look at my grandfather now and am saddened. He was run into the ground by a life of back breaking work. His arthritis and the years of smoking and drinking to cope with the hours leave the shadow of what was once a powerful man. Whenever a topic like this comes up with us he always tells everyone around the table he never "took a damned cent from the government" and I wonder it might have been better if he did. My father was luckier and I was even luckier (I got to continue with my education and go to college) Maybe in a couple of years I will realize that I have been indoctrinated and be more forgiving with my views. but as of now I see government as nothing more than an oppressive tool used to keep us down.

I wrote nothing of substance Ill come back with something better tmrw its bedtime

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 05:34

I didnt mean any disrespect merely a jest Im sorry:bow: What it all boils down to for me is this. Its not the healthcare its the taxes and the power. I see my father and mother put 100 hours at the grocery store only to see a third of their paycheck going to things great social experiments all while trying to raise 6 kids. I see a government which not only takes my folks money but then decides it can tell them what to do and its not like we have any say in anything since we dont have money our congressman wont listen hes to busy with the NRA or planned parenthood. Maybe I have a skewed view from being with my uncles who were and still mostly are blue collar blowhards. I was taught to look down on people who didnt bust hump for a living. Who didnt spend there entire lives working to provide for there families.

Its not like there isnt a flip-side to this though. I look at my grandfather now and am saddened. He was run into the ground by a life of back breaking work. His arthritis and the years of smoking and drinking to cope with the hours leave the shadow of what was once a powerful man. Whenever a topic like this comes up with us he always tells everyone around the table he never "took a damned cent from the government" and I wonder it might have been better if he did. My father was luckier and I was even luckier (I got to continue with my education and go to college) Maybe in a couple of years I will realize that I have been indoctrinated and be more forgiving with my views. but as of now I see government as nothing more than an oppressive tool used to keep us down.

I wrote nothing of substance Ill come back with something better tmrw its bedtime

I'm sorry as well :bow: I just wanted to address that openly because you are not by far the first person to reference my going to UC Berkeley and I do not let anyone simply pour ideas into my head, so I very much resent the implication from anyone that I'm just repeating things I heard during my Berkeley education, which was over five years ago now. My education neither started nor stopped at UC Berkeley nor did I have all liberal/progressive professors, nor am I just repeating things I heard there from radicals.

I agree the political system is very corrupt and very much bent to the will of BIG special interests and corporations with the mega millions to do largescale lobbying and fly Congressmen around on private jets and golf resort trips. But, I simply feel that a smaller government with less regulation would create more of that, not less. In all of our history there has been instance after instance of concentrated wealth rising up and completely dominating the landscape of our social, economic and political existence until they wrecked something, and then normal people having to take the "responsibility" for it and pick up the pieces and dust off America. I don't think we disagree on the problem, I just think that your solution would make that problem worse, instead of better. And I think the huge scandals we have seen in recent years resulting from decades of dedicated "deregulation" and trying to get government "off people's backs" is evidence of it.

And yes, there are a lot of people like your grandfather, who didn't sit around suckling off welfare for a living, but still are going to retire with near nothing, or bankrupt, or without a house. And even once we eliminate the people who were irresponsible, the people who didn't save well, the people who made poor investments, or the people who didn't take Olympic level care of their physical health for their whole lives (and who the hell can while working, anyway?) , you are still left with what I believe is the majority of people who try to do the right thing and work and save and live within their means and still, cancer comes along or a layoff comes along or a corrupt company bails and files chapter 11 erasing stock values and pension funds while the CEO's run off with a golden parachute and that's all it takes to wipe out a lifetime of work from a person who tried to be responsible. And I think there would be more of that, not less, with a tiny government and no regulation.

Strike For The South

10-06-2008, 05:38

Well It seems were just on different ends of the spectrum. I dont know how much longer we can beat these ideologies to death. You're keeping me up you know. Im a growing boy for gods sake!

Koga No Goshi

10-06-2008, 05:48

Well It seems were just on different ends of the spectrum. I dont know how much longer we can beat these ideologies to death. You're keeping me up you know. Im a growing boy for gods sake!

Sorry about that, I slipped some tylenol PM into your booze if that helps. ;)

Incongruous

10-06-2008, 05:59

Utterly disgusted with the policy of withdrawing treatment to cancer patients. Why? Well because they had the timerity to purchase a life saving drug and so had NHS support terminated.

All this to satisfy a political ideology. Outrageous. Another example of socialsm and fascism being two cheeks of the same arse.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article4882645.ece

Umm, since when has New Labour been aquainted with anything other than the ideology of bollocks and its fervent enactment by The Great Blair and Comrade Brown?

CountArach

10-06-2008, 09:28

states problem. Very little I learned has come through the public education system anyway and that is why I majoring in History and minoring in 2ndary education and Spanish. Dont assume Dundee
The states would be incapable of running a universal public education system (Especially because you have already said you want them to have fewer taxation powers) and it would lead to broad geographic inequalities. Consider North Dakota for instance. It has a smaller population that is far less dense than the North-Eastern region. This means that it has fewer options for corporations and mass industry that could allow for large levels of taxation income. This means that the amount of money it could put into the education system per student is far lower than that of New York, which in turn means their economy could not improve. This is why the Federal Government is there - to supplement the income of states so that parts of the country are not left behind.