How do you justify this lunacy?

#151
#151
BigPapaVol said:
you should have just PMd him if you only wanted his answer.
Click to expand...

Sorry. I should've replied this way:

"BPV, Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it. It was concise and thoughtful, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. I would like to wait to reply to allow the original prompter of my question, jasmesd, to answer, as I'd like to see what his perspective on the issue is. At that point, we all can engage in a robust discussion on the topic."

That's what I intended when I wrote:

"I'd like to hear jamesd's answer also."
 
#152
#152
TennNC said:
Sorry. I should've replied this way:

"BPV, Thank you for your answer. I appreciate it. It was concise and thoughtful, and I'm sure I'm not the only one who feels this way. I would like to wait to reply to allow the original prompter of my question, jasmesd, to answer, as I'd like to see what his perspective on the issue is. At that point, we all can engage in a robust discussion on the topic."

That's what I intended when I wrote:

"I'd like to hear jamesd's answer also."
Click to expand...
I would likely have responded in a very similar fashion, just because it's you.
 
#153
#153
The anointment of the Obamasiah continues.

(Sorry to interrupt the argument but I wanted to share the following.)

“What Barack Obama has accomplished is the single most extraordinary event that has occurred in the 232 years of the nation’s political history. The event itself is so extraordinary that another chapter could be added to the Bible to chronicle its significance,” declared Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. of Chicago.
 
#154
#154
BigPapaVol said:
the transaction highlighted above is vastly different than everything else. I really don't have a problem with the food stamp program, even though I know it's ineptly administrated by typical socially minded folks and heavily abused. My problem is the vast amount that is otherwise distributed and is discretionary to the recipient, but is equally poorly administrated.

No doubt we agree that the vast gov't infrastructure is out of control. Similarly out of control is the number of people who expect the gov't to fix their individual problems.
Click to expand...


A significant part of my livelihood is defending lawsuits brought by people who expected the police to fix their personal problems. Thing is, if they interfere they get sued. If they don't, and things go from bad to worse, they get sued.
 
#157
#157
Obama isn't a true Marxist, but then neither was Marx.

he's a neo-socialist, believing in keeping just enough capitalism around to pay for his expanded government programs.

but make no mistake, black liberation theology is steeped in Marxism. Obama's remarks regarding the "collective", his raising of taxes as a matter of "fairness", and his gifts to labor unions (he supports eliminating the secret ballot) are all very socialist in nature.
 
#158
#158
MG1968 said:
Obama isn't a true Marxist, but then neither was Marx.

he's a neo-socialist, believing in keeping just enough capitalism around to pay for his expanded government programs.

but make no mistake, black liberation theology is steeped in Marxism. Obama's remarks regarding the "collective", his raising of taxes as a matter of "fairness", and his gifts to labor unions (he supports eliminating the secret ballot) are all very socialist in nature.
Click to expand...

Ding...ding...ding.... we have a winner!
 
#159
#159
TennNC said:
What equates to "going beyond this"? Where is the line drawn? Bridges, roads, tunnels - those aren't necessary to defend life, liberty and property, are they? Libraries? Museums?
Click to expand...

Libraries and museums paid for by the government definitely fall into the socialistic category. Infrastructure is probably borderline - I would say a case could be made either way. Presumably, infrastructure benefits all equally, and it arguably does help protect life, liberty and property. For example, the interstate highway system is part of our national defense (or at least started out that way). On the other hand, infrastructure could probably be handled more cheaply and more efficiently as a private enterprise. Regardless, it's pretty clear that the vast majority of the government's activities go far beyond what is required to protect individual life, liberty and property.
 
#161
#161
OrangeEmpire said:
Government should go back to pre civil war days!
Click to expand...

You jest, but in terms of the role of government, we would all be much better off. Does anyone think that private enterprise couldn't handle infrastructure such as roads? The system would be similar to toll roads. I'll bet those construction projects wouldn't take so damn long. Are they still working on I-40 through Knoxville? That project was underway when I was a student at UT over 10 years go. Way to go, government.
 
#163
#163
I don't jest, government should be out of our lives except for the smoking ban stuff.

That benefits me greatly!
 
#167
#167
jamesd1628 said:
You jest, but in terms of the role of government, we would all be much better off. Does anyone think that private enterprise couldn't handle infrastructure such as roads? The system would be similar to toll roads. I'll bet those construction projects wouldn't take so damn long. Are they still working on I-40 through Knoxville? That project was underway when I was a student at UT over 10 years go. Way to go, government.
Click to expand...

Still working on it. If you want to continue on I-40 through Knoxville you must now get on the 640 bypass.
 
#169
#169
lawgator1 said:
I don't think its accurate to label Obama a socialist anymore than it is correct to describe McCain as a warmonger. Granted, Obama believes in a larger role of government in our economic lives than would McCain and McCain is more apt to resort to force in foreign policy than is Obama. But for one thing its all relative. And for another you are giving the office way too much credit for having the power to either go to war willy nilly or move to a government single payor system in health care.

I'm not saying these aren't legitimae ways to distinguish candidates and one can choose a general direction in exercising their vote. But don't think for one minute that a vote for Obama means socialized medicine or that a vote for McCain means WW III.
Click to expand...

To compare Socialism to warmongering is a mistake. Socialism is a defined policy and Obama's plans fall sqarely into the accepted definition of the policy. To call him anything other than a Socialist is dishonest. Comparatively, war is an action based on policy, not a policy in and of itself. To say that McCain's policy might more often lead to war might be okay, but comparing a policy to an action based on a policy is grossly misleading.
 
#170
#170
BigPapaVol said:
the gov't has no such obligation, explicit or implicit. The gov't functions are reasonably defined in the constitution. Neither taking or giving away my money is anywhere in that document. Nothing about level playing fields either. Nothing about federalized healthcare.

I like the Utopian ideal, but asymmetrical weighting of the burden is inherently socialist. Moving further in that direction hastens us toward the European model, and that's a disaster.
Click to expand...

BPV, I have to respectfully disagree. It is the govt's job to create a level playing field. The issue arises in what constitutes a level playing field. To a Socialist, a level playing field requires the govt to to rectify every disadvantage that God/the universe/Mother Nature has bestowed upon a given individual (e.g., lower intelligence, reduced motivation, physical limitations, etc.). In contrast, a non-Socialist believes a level playing field is the ability to pursue and protect life, libery and propery with whatever facilities you have been given. The govt's job is to protect and enforce that right, and that alone constitutes leveling the playing field. The problem that Socialists have is that they want to play God by correcting whatever disadvantages nature has defined for a particular person.
 
#171
#171
jamesd1628 said:
You jest, but in terms of the role of government, we would all be much better off. Does anyone think that private enterprise couldn't handle infrastructure such as roads? The system would be similar to toll roads. I'll bet those construction projects wouldn't take so damn long. Are they still working on I-40 through Knoxville? That project was underway when I was a student at UT over 10 years go. Way to go, government.
Click to expand...

Building roads and bridges costs money. How do you raise the money to build those?

Does every single road have a toll? Doesn't sound very appealing to me. Then again, I loathe traffic.

Who decides how big they are and where they're built? How do you make those decisions?

Also, tell me more about this "government" you reference above - do you think solely "government" employees do the work our taxes pay for? Do they never hire out private contractors to do the work, such as planning and building and maintaining things like roads and bridges and buildings? How about the following private businesses that make a nice profit from our tax revenue? Halliburton, Boeing, Raytheon, Northrop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Honeywell, Textron, Blackwater, Kellogg Brown and Root, local architects, private contractors, lawn and garden companies, cleaning companies, custodial services, advertising agencies, clothing manufacturers...just to name a few.
 
#172
#172
jamesd1628 said:
BPV, I have to respectfully disagree. It is the govt's job to create a level playing field. The issue arises in what constitutes a level playing field. To a Socialist, a level playing field requires the govt to to rectify every disadvantage that God/the universe/Mother Nature has bestowed upon a given individual (e.g., lower intelligence, reduced motivation, physical limitations, etc.). In contrast, a non-Socialist believes a level playing field is the ability to pursue and protect life, libery and propery with whatever facilities you have been given. The govt's job is to protect and enforce that right, and that alone constitutes leveling the playing field. The problem that Socialists have is that they want to play God by correcting whatever disadvantages nature has defined for a particular person.
Click to expand...

we're definitely defining playing field differently.
 
#173
#173
jamesd1628 said:
The govt's job is to protect and enforce that right, and that alone constitutes leveling the playing field.
Click to expand...

That constitutes access to the field. There's no guarantee it's going to be level once you get there . . . but I think that is what you are saying in a roundabout way.
 
#175
#175
jamesd1628 said:
America already has the best health care in the world.

Socialist health-care systems in other countries don't work.

Virtually anything the government tries to operate is a failure.

Socialism has been tried over and over again - it has never worked. It never will.

Obama saying that he will provide healthcare is nothing more than an attempt to buy votes based on ignorant sympathies. Unfortunately, that seems to work.

The government can't provide anything - all they can do is take money from one part of the population and give it to someone else. That's called theft, robbery, plunder, etc. It's a crime if an individual tries to do it, it's called Socialism if the government does it.
Click to expand...


Universal health care isn't working?? Are you sure? Our "Socialist" allies must all be idiots!

The United States is the only developed nation without universal health care. Although health insurance systems worldwide are straining as populations age, safety nets have largely remained in place. Here are brief descriptions of insurance systems of several nations..

France

Health care as percentage of GDP: 9.6

Health expenditure per person: $2,567

Universal care funded through mandatory health insurance provided by Social Security, with private supplemental coverage filling gaps..

Germany

Health care as percentage of GDP: 10.8

Health expenditure per person: $2,820

All individuals are enrolled in government-approved health insurance plans partly financed by employer and employee contributions, although high- income workers may buy private insurance instead..

Japan

Health care as percentage of GDP: 8

Health expenditure per person: $2,131

A dual system in which workers enroll in insurance programs through their jobs, while all others join Japan's national health insurance plan..

United Kingdom

Health care as percentage of GDP: 7.6

Health expenditure per person: $1,989

A publicly funded National Health Service provides free care, with the option of private insurance for those wanting treatment outside the state system..

United States

Health care as percentage of GDP: 13.9

Health expenditure per person: $4,887

Federal and state governments pay most of the cost of care for seniors and the poor, with employer or individually financed insurance available for others. About 45 million people lack coverage.

*2001 figures

Source: World Health Organization, Chronicle research
Click to expand...
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top