• Follow our Instagram!
  • Curious about what we're currently doing about bots? Check out the latest updates from staff in this thread.

Election 2008, United States

Who would you vote for if the presidential race is held now?

  • Barack Obama

    Votes: 415 72.4%
  • John McCain

    Votes: 130 22.7%
  • Other (Please specify)

    Votes: 28 4.9%

  • Total voters
    573
You are missing the point I was trying to make: that no rights are guaranteed except by social agreement, after long periods of struggle and debate. I was also pointing out that the founder's (and Deck Knight's) concept of "inalienable rights" was (is) based on theological grounds and therefore has no value if you do not accept the main premise: that a "creator" actually exists; furthermore, that in outlining such "rights", the founders were exceedingly hypocritical, as were subsequent leaders who chose to ignore rather than correct this blatant contradiction. An example of this hypocrisy is Jefferson himself, who consistently denounced slavery and slaveholders, yet owned nearly two hundred of his own slaves.

Even though the framers made mention of a "creator," His very mention was contentious and it is unlikely that given the separation of church and state a literal creator was really meant to be the source of inalienable rights. Therefore it seems ridiculous to me to say that our rights are founded on the basis of a worldview that is not even universal.

More accurately, inalienable rights are those taken as given by our society, for our society is founded with the assumption that those rights are automatically given and cannot be taken away. Even though these rights are "only" guaranteed by social agreement, the theory behind them forms the basis of our law and our codes for social interaction so that if they were to be waived, it would be tantamount to saying that our entire society is founded on fictions. While this may be true in an absolute sense, a government that recognizes that its present governing philosophy is based on fiction opens its law to becoming meaningless.

Also, consider that "man" simply meant something different back then than it does now, and that Jefferson was probably able to rationalize his ownership of slaves. Not that it justifies anything, or even has any relevance to the argument to bring up Jefferson...
 
What I find so hilarious about Republicans is their consistent touting of Obama as socialist and left-wing, which just comes off as really ignorant to me. I've heard of complaints that say with socialised health care, you don't get the best health care; yet most European countries have standards of health care at least equal to that of the United States.

Giving everyone help isn't socialism or a bad thing. It's your fucking duty. Spending money on other people: in the eyes of a republican, a sin. And this is why I really hate politics, because in the end it's a game of who wins the most; politics should serve the people. I always feel that people serve politics. That is a really messed up way of life. You guys have all got to understand one thing and that is that the whole point of ruling a country is to make sure there are rules and constitutional benefits that are for everyone. It seems like Republicans secretly seem to say "there's benefits for you, as long as you have x creed" and that sort of elitism really disgusts me. I'm all for people working to where they get, and accepting the consequences of their actions, but that is the deliberate exclusion on no moral grounds, and that is disgusting.

That is why I also hate this election and the Republican warmongering and Obama slamming just to give him a negative image. It serves no purpose. When can politics be about content and not showoffmanship again? I hear so many people say this and that and all sorts of bullshit that we know is not true; why did foul play become such a big part of our politics. Aren't you guys as a democratic, fair nation supposed to be above that or is the very foundation of US society, The American Dream, so blinding to you? That's a question I have for the Republicans.

I can't vote, so I am keeping myself out of the technical discussion. I'm not an American, I'm Dutch, so for me the political system is different; I also laughed at the touting of Obama as socialist when compared to what the Dutch or the Germans or the French call socialist politics, Obama is fucking extremist right wing or something. Given, he's very central now; I find that appealing as a future relationship partner. Since when is socialist, as Deck Knight seems to imply, a vulgarity? I have always been raised with the notion that helping each other out is a good thing. I don't know about you guys, but doesn't this notion of "me first" go against your very common sense?

Just some questions I would like to raise in this topic because you guys seem so US-focused and I'd like this topic to get thinking a bit instead of concentrating itself on all the mudslinging.
 
Even though the framers made mention of a "creator," His very mention was contentious and it is unlikely that given the separation of church and state a literal creator was really meant to be the source of inalienable rights. Therefore it seems ridiculous to me to say that our rights are founded on the basis of a worldview that is not even universal.

It seems quite clear from the abundant literature written on "natural law" during the Enlightenment that our founders took it as axiomatic that such rights did ultimately stem from some form of deity. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of such a view based upon the very line of reasoning that you have taken. I am not saying that the Declaration of Independence is irrelevant, or that its assurance of "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" is ignoble (or incorrect), rather that "inalienable rights" do not exist outside of social conscience.

More accurately, inalienable rights are those taken as given by our society, for our society is founded with the assumption that those rights are automatically given and cannot be taken away. Even though these rights are "only" guaranteed by social agreement, the theory behind them forms the basis of our law and our codes for social interaction so that if they were to be waived, it would be tantamount to saying that our entire society is founded on fictions. While this may be true in an absolute sense, a government that recognizes that its present governing philosophy is based on fiction opens its law to becoming meaningless.

Much of our society is founded upon fictions, but, at any rate, I agree with your definition. However, those rights are not actually "inalienable" outside of belief that they are. Perhaps a better term is "universal rights": rights accepted by practically every society. I have no problem with the idea of "rights", but assuming that they emerge fully-formed because of a document's saying a "Creator" has bequeathed them upon humanity is ahistorical. There was a time when few could imagine the existence of "women's rights". Many still struggle with the concept. Years of feminist organization and activism forced a reevaluation of our moral framework, just as it did for blacks and is now doing for gays. My entire original argument was that rights do not arise ex nihilo from a document and are not ensured by a deity, rather that they arise from cultural values and various awakenings of social conscience to perceived injustices. This conversation has rapidly become a debate over semantics, which accomplishes little.


Since when is socialist, as Deck Knight seems to imply, a vulgarity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_scare
 
I think Altmer's point is that that kind of anti-socialist thinking should be outdated by now. It is also something I am inclined to agree with.

Some of our closest allies have policies and systems of government which would be considered laughably left wing as a proposal in America, and would be shot down as "Communist" or some garbage. Americans really have been conditioned to assume that anything communist is bad, which obviously makes sense given our history, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the most beneficial attitude to take. I am not saying that potential policies that some people here call "socialist" (things like universal health care and steeply scaled taxes) would necessarily work, as America has a few very significant problems to take into account that the European pseudo-socialist countries don't have to deal with (namely Illegal immigration and the fact that we are much, much bigger). But I think that in such a financially and socially crucial time it's a bit silly totally shoot down the potential best option just because of fifty-year-old social implications.
 
I also think Europe isn't socialist; they are social-democrats. With some liberal streaks here and there. I think Europe, as a group of smaller nations, have clustered together and seen that after WWII, unity is the only way to prevent war with all the different movements and factions and countries. We have realised that to be a functioning unit, you have to work together. Europe's "government" is still dysfunctional and plagued by not enough power (many things still are dependent on the laws of individual countries) and rivalry between the bigger nations (France, UK, Germany, Italy, East Bloc countries now that they have entered the EU), but I think America has to realise that the EU is a major political ally for them and that European nations have repeatedly aided in American wars and initiatives. America has to realise that Europe has realised when to be social and when to be liberal a lot better; of course, some European countries are still suffering the effects of the crisis, and European stock markets are plummeting. But Obama has already said he will impose legislation that is definitely stooled on European themes; and I think he has seen that Europe has become something of a hybrid. It is weird how EU mimics US on a lot of occasions, but on political and socio-economical issues, they are just that bit more left-wing and socially liberal. It works out, I think.

It is also funny to watch the polls and newspapers here, the ones that describe the American elections. The newspaper I personally read is consistently reporting on the US elections, but they are almost hilariously insinuating between the lines that McCain is a failure and that Obama should by right get the presidency. There are lots of subtle cracks at Palin. Maybe it's because I read a more leftist, labor party favouring newspaper, but I've also read articles that describe that in many European countries, Obama is highly favoured as a new president for possible relations. It seems many Europeans too are sick of the Bush administration, and that they want the change that Obama advocates.

I also find the anti-socalism that TAY mentioned hilariously stupid, because what you guys are fighting against is in practice here and it generally seems to work. I think Americans, especially Republicans, are just scared of losing their money.

And TAY, Europe deals with lots of illegal immigration everyday. People from Morocco take boats to get into Spain. People try to get into Greece, Italy. People flee to Germany or the Netherlands as political or economical fugitives. From countries that are war zones, but where the fighting has now ceased and the previous government tried to eject them (and failed.) I have heard stories about people that got damaged in Chechnya or Iraq and have to be sent back because they reside here illegally; yet they have family and friends and a life here and prefer the Netherlands to their country of origin. Their children are born here and don't even speak their native tongue, just Dutch. When I go on the train to a big city, I see so many people wearing turbans and head scarves. Turkish and Moroccan immigrants. I see them every day. Some of them are idiots, and you wish they didn't ruin it for all the cool people. But then someone sees you're cold, and he offers you food and asks you what's wrong: and that's a spirit that I so sorely miss. That's what I find important. And it seems to me that such a simple issue as that is overlooked in what is touted as the biggest election ever.

Can you guys see where I'm headed with this? I wish politics would get back to the essence.
 
Heh I think "hilariously stupid" is a good way to describe it. Even the left wing candidates (aka the Democrats) are scared to mention socialized anything for fear of alienating constituents.

Regarding illegal immigration, I find it unlikely that any country in Europe could have as many immigration problems as California or Texas. Here in California (which is comparable to Spain in population), it is estimated that the state will be majority Mexican in 40 years. So you can say what you will about illegal immigration in European countries, but I would bet a lot of money that no country is going to have its immigrants become the majority within any of our lifetimes.
 
Giving everyone help isn't socialism or a bad thing. It's your fucking duty.

No, giving everyone help is not a "duty", it is a free moral choice.

But further, you miss the point.

No it is NOT a bad thing to give people help. But it IS a bad thing to give everyone help at the point of a gun.

Liberals have good intentions for the most part...but they misunderstand the basic nature of government:

Government is force.

And in this case, we're talking about charity by force. There is absolutely nothing moral about forced charity or forced goodness or forced generosity. It is not moral to take by force from people and give it to other people, no matter how rich or poor they may be.

Furthermore, because of government's monoply on the use of force, government is dangerous...but we can check the danger that government poses through a constitution, though the education of the populace, through checks and balances, and through limiting the size and power of the government as much as possible.

In short, all policy decisions must be considered with the power of State to destroy, harm and ruin in mind. That is why the founders advocated limited government - they realized thatgovernment has a tendency to lean towards tyranny (see the Bush years) and thus sought to limit its power in the lives of the citizenry. Thus, even for something as noble as charity, the power of the State should not be invoked, or only invoked to the least extent.

(not even getting into the fact that government attempts to help the poor have all failed spectacularly)


TAY socialized medicine has failed everywhere it's been tried in the U.S. Everywhere. It failed in Tennesse, it failed in Massachussets, it just failed in Hawaii.
 
It is not moral to take by force from people and give it to other people, no matter how rich or poor they may be.

I argue that it is. On the grounds that we as humans have no moral right to possession of anything. This world wasn't just you know, given to humankind to exploit. This is a world on which we ALL live. You. Me. Everyone. We have to share it or we will not survive. I argue that we take away bonuses for chairmen and donate them to education everywhere. I argue that we take away the ridiculous salaries, the Ferraris, everything. We have finite resources, my friend. To encourage capitalism is to encourage your own destruction through greed. You have to take money by force from people, taxed or otherwise, because if you don't, an elite will sit on a fuckzoid of money drinking wine at their tables while everyone else screams for pennies. And fuck me with a stick if the elite did all that on their own. Do you really think all the millionaires got to where they were cheaply? Are you this naive?

It is blind to ignore the principles of nature. If America will not see that its capitalist premise is inherently selfdestructive and needs limitation and rules to keep the selfdestructive tendencies of humankind in check, then I will let them destroy themselves. I have hope that Obama makes it so that this will take precedence over anything else. If anything, we are all people; let us be modest enough to realise that we are all just people. Your oblique claims of possession and force are void in ways of thinking that preclude the very nature of greed. Humans have to realise that their intelligence does not mean they have everything for the taking.

If we are to be sapient beings, we should finally get off our ass and take the responsibility for what we do to the Earth on a daily basis. That means that we stop this ridiculous wealth gap growth between the elite rich and the massive poor. And Ancien Regime: Socialised health care works fine in the country I live in. It works fine in all of Europe. If yours failed, you're doing it wrong.

Then I have to say that for this reason my favourite US Presidents are Roosevelt and Clinton, so you know where I stand.
 
I argue that it is. On the grounds that we as humans have no moral right to possession of anything.

If you have no moral right to possession of anything, then why can't I go through your house and steal everything you own?



I argue that we take away bonuses for chairmen and donate them to education everywhere. I argue that we take away the ridiculous salaries, the Ferraris, everything.

So let's go back to a medieval level of existence? Let's destroy all incentives for anyone to produce anything, because you're not allowed to make or keep wealth. The global per capita income is under $8,000/yr...I'm sure you want everyone to be impoverished or near impoverished, right?

(and btw this is with the countries that benefit from the dynamic albiet constrained growth potential of capitalism - imagine how bad it'd be if every country practiced socialism)


We have finite resources, my friend. To encourage capitalism is to encourage your own destruction through greed. You have to take money by force from people, taxed or otherwise, because if you don't, an elite will sit on a fuckzoid of money drinking wine at their tables while everyone else screams for pennies. And fuck me with a stick if the elite did all that on their own. Do you really think all the millionaires got to where they were cheaply? Are you this naive?

"no."

You see, the rich get to where they are by providing goods and services that people want and need, while providing jobs so that they may purchase those goods and services. How the fuck do you think people make money? By um...stealing from people? Bill Gates and Steve Jobs got rich because they designed products that people find useful, and that people were willing to pay money for, thus making a profit. Repeat over and over and over again until you have billionares.

And no, people will not be screaming for pennies - they will work, save, invest, and if they're lucky, become rich themselves (usually stepping over the corpse of some other rich guy who got careless assuming that they didn't get bailed out). That's how capitalism works.

It is blind to ignore the principles of nature.

Yes...but you are the one ignoring the principles of nature!

What you don't understand is that capitalism has human greed in its design - by basing an economy based on the satisfaction of wants and needs, rather than political power and force, human greed is harnessed to provide an incentive to produce goods and services that help everyone.

The greedy socialist will simply take a bigger and bigger share of the public treasury. The greedy capitalist will build a computer - or a bridge, or a car, or a skyscraper, or a (of course in mixed economies the greedy capitalist can do BOTH - that's the real problem)

That means that we stop this ridiculous wealth gap growth between the elite rich and the massive poor.

Wealth gap? The person at poverty line is fabulously wealthy by the standards of 1900, and middle-class by the standards of 1950. There's a wealth gap for you. Sadly, government inflation kind of skews that, but still. Bitching about how much more money the rich is envy, pure and simple.

And even at that, the wealth gap would not exist to this extent if government did not use its power to favor some businesses over others thus distorting the capitalistic process.

And Ancien Regime: Socialised health care works fine in the country I live in. It works fine in all of Europe. If yours failed, you're doing it wrong.

except when people die because they can't get lifesaving procedures done in time because of health rationing

i'd rather not have central planners (who are oh so great at running anything economic *sovietunioncough*) decide who gets to live or die
 
I argue that it is. On the grounds that we as humans have no moral right to possession of anything. This world wasn't just you know, given to humankind to exploit. This is a world on which we ALL live. You. Me. Everyone. We have to share it or we will not survive.

Capitalism is a system of sharing opportunity. It results in everyone sharing more prosperity. It grows the pie instead of rationing it.

I argue that we take away bonuses for chairmen and donate them to education everywhere. I argue that we take away the ridiculous salaries, the Ferraris, everything. We have finite resources, my friend. To encourage capitalism is to encourage your own destruction through greed.

I for one believe Altmer makes too much money. He should be forced to give 90% more of it away to the public treasury. Altmer is not doing his fair share. We all have finite resources my friend. You're using too many of them. He makes a clearly ridiculous compensation according to my new socialist government. I shall call this new tax to "increase fairness (~Barack Obama)"the "fairness tax." It is only fair that Altmer give up an additional 90% of his government. That is fairness. That is fairness. That is fairness. That is fairness. That is fairness. That is fairness. That is fairness.

You have to take money by force from people, taxed or otherwise, because if you don't, an elite will sit on a fuckzoid of money drinking wine at their tables while everyone else screams for pennies. And fuck me with a stick if the elite did all that on their own. Do you really think all the millionaires got to where they were cheaply? Are you this naive?

Or the "elite," like they do in America, will build a business that employs people who make goods and services for that company that other people buy. People who buy those goods will see a need for some other good in the market, and they will build a business and employ people. The more left-wing you are in America, the more of your own money you hoard. You know why? Leftists think charity is the government's job.

The socialist elite can't be bothered to drop their Chardonnay and Brie, they are the upper crust, you see. They support income redistribution, and quite frankly, that's good enough for them. The beggar at their feet? Fuck him. Let him go to the government for money. He wants my cloak? Get the fuck away beggar! It is mine! Get in line at the Ministry of Cloaks. We're trying to have a discussion about the abolition of private property, beggar! So get out of my massive four floor mansion! Begone from this place, your filth and poverty disgust me! I have the government pay plenty of money out to the Ministry. You should have gotten in line sooner! We have limited resources! *BURP*

It is blind to ignore the principles of nature. If America will not see that its capitalist premise is inherently selfdestructive and needs limitation and rules to keep the selfdestructive tendencies of humankind in check, then I will let them destroy themselves.

Yes, the world's only Hyperpower is surely on the path to self-destruction, what with people from every other nation willing to violate our laws to jump onto our clearly sinking ship. Ignore the principles of nature? What about the principle of nature that when you give a greedy socialist bastard a gun he will take your money, spend it frivolously because he did not work for it, and then call you uncharitable before sending you off to the re-education camp? (See: Soviet Union, Maoist China, Nazi Germany)

I have hope that Obama makes it so that this will take precedence over anything else. If anything, we are all people; let us be modest enough to realise that we are all just people. Your oblique claims of possession and force are void in ways of thinking that preclude the very nature of greed. Humans have to realise that their intelligence does not mean they have everything for the taking.

Look Foreigner, get out of our elections. There's a reason the Netherlands is a forgotten blip on the radar who rely on their neighbors for basic defense if an actual crisis were to occur. Socialists worldwide live in safety knowing that when their ass is in the fire, bighearted Americans will sacrifice everything so they can continue to eat brie and drink the finest aged wines and tell us how we're a bunch of uncharitable bastards, despite our penchant for outpouring more money per capita than any other nation. Despite our willingness to shed blood on your soil for your fat, bloated, entitlement centered socialist hellholes across the pond. You will always be there when you need us.

I'm glad you're healthy Altmer. I imagine your tune about socialist medicine would change rapidly if you were sick. Just ask all the people who died from diseases that are easily treatable in early stages that were told to wait by the health care bureaucracy. They were forced to wait, their disease went to the next stage and beyond care, and they died. We have finite resources. So if you aren't fast enough and can't afford private care, just go die, you are a drain on the state. That's the Socialist Way. Free care for the young healthy, Death for the sick and elderly. Truly "advanced" society you've got there. Herd animals treat their vulnerable and wounded better than socialists do.

If we are to be sapient beings, we should finally get off our ass and take the responsibility for what we do to the Earth on a daily basis. That means that we stop this ridiculous wealth gap growth between the elite rich and the massive poor. And Ancien Regime: Socialised health care works fine in the country I live in. It works fine in all of Europe. If yours failed, you're doing it wrong.

How about we stop China from polluting the hell out of everything instead of bitching about capitalists, the driving force behind innovative technologies? It wasn't government bureaucrats who invented solar panels, wind turbines, hydroelectric dams, or nuclear reactors. The Communist nations are the world's largest polluters, hands down. This is because in capitalist democracies, the government is forced to listen to the people instead of follow their blind socialistic vision.

Then I have to say that for this reason my favourite US Presidents are Roosevelt and Clinton, so you know where I stand.

Roosevelt at least fought off fascism to his credit. Clinton was a womanizer and a lout. Both of them are infinitely better than OFraud. Call me when a dark skinned man of any sort, especially the inexperienced, unrepentant terrorist hugging, radical racist embracing kind gets elected for the highest office in The Netherlands. If you won't accept his ilk in your country, don't foist him on us. The World Citizenry can keep Obama, we want a United States citizen as President.

Socialism is not charity, it is spending other people's money. Would you like your paycheck cut a solid 90% Altmer? No? But, don't you care about the poor? We have finite resources, you know. And we can't grow them either. That would be capitalistic, and capitalists are greedy. This is about fairness. And the amount of money you make is unfair. I can spend it better. Give it to me instead.

Oh, and Obama is a socialist. In addition to telling Joe the Plumber all about how he'll spread the wealth, a new tape of an interview from 2001 has Obama talking about the best way to redistribute wealth (whether it is a good thing to do at all did not come up, oddly enough). He also seems to think the Founding Fathers had a blind spot for not making the Constitution a document that enables government instead of limiting it. [Thus ignoring the entire purpose of the Constitution]

In short, he's an anti-American socialist mobster of the European variety. Europeans are not and have never been Americans (until they realize Europe is a stuffed-up hole and move here). They are senile old fools that act like giant babies when we don't take the sagely advice that led them into complete defenselessness, massive entitlement programs, negative ecomonic growth, and double-digit unemployment.

You can be born in Britain and live your entire life in France and never become French. In America you can come from ANY country in the world and become an American. That doesn't happen through socialism, because socialism is based on the idea that economic classes are frozen and upward mobility is a myth. America is different from Europe, and will long outlast her unless we follow down their road. Which is exactly what we will do if OFraud is elected.
 
Socialism is not charity, it is spending other people's money. Would you like your paycheck cut a solid 90% Altmer? No? But, don't you care about the poor? We have finite resources, you know. And we can't grow them either. That would be capitalistic, and capitalists are greedy. This is about fairness. And the amount of money you make is unfair. I can spend it better. Give it to me instead.
It is not 90% of the paycheck in any country, and unlike popular belief, capitalism does not make resources grow on trees. It encourages multiple types of the same product, and typically the consumer only chooses one; therefore 5/6 of the limited resources go to waste. There is a limit, and capitalism is the main attributing force to it.



In short, he's an anti-American socialist mobster of the European variety. Europeans are not and have never been Americans (until they realize Europe is a stuffed-up hole and move here). They are senile old fools that act like giant babies when we don't take the sagely advice that led them into complete defenselessness, massive entitlement programs, negative ecomonic growth, and double-digit unemployment.
Obama is not anti-american, he never has been, and never will be. Even with it's flaws, European socialism works better than the current american capitalist system.

You can be born in Britain and live your entire life in France and never become French. In America you can come from ANY country in the world and become an American. That doesn't happen through socialism, because socialism is based on the idea that economic classes are frozen and upward mobility is a myth. America is different from Europe, and will long outlast her unless we follow down their road. Which is exactly what we will do if OFraud is elected.

You can live your entire life and not become a citizen in a lot of countries, capitalist and socialist. You can live your entire life and not become a citizen in a lot of countries. This has nothing to do with a socialist or capitalist system.
 
Darkflagrance, I just think that is simply untrue in the modern context. In the past, parties were establishing their standing in politics: Federalists versus Anti-Federalists, Tories, Whigs, so on and so forth; there was an election where a man almost got elected on (essentially just this) the issue of gold versus silver in 1896. That is not our world anymore. This is a modern world with a vastly overwrought political system in which I do not see how the Republicans or Democrats could ever lose power. (I sure hope that I am wrong though)
 
Darkflagrance, I just think that is simply untrue in the modern context. In the past, parties were establishing their standing in politics: Federalists versus Anti-Federalists, Tories, Whigs, so on and so forth; there was an election where a man almost got elected on (essentially just this) the issue of gold versus silver in 1896. That is not our world anymore. This is a modern world with a vastly overwrought political system in which I do not see how the Republicans or Democrats could ever lose power. (I sure hope that I am wrong though)
It might mean something if Obama messes up on the same scale as Bush, and a strong 3rd party candidate emerges, just maybe. As I recall, people had good expectations of Bush, and people certainly have good expectations about Obama. So what happens when both parties fail them... *shrugs*
 
I could tolerate my paycheck being cut by 90%..
Can't tell if that's sarcasm or not, but I'm assuming it's not. If you don't have a problem with it, fine. Give it to charity, give it to the government, etc. etc. But I do have a problem with that, and you don't have a right to take 90% of my wealth to give it to the poor and whatever.

You have to take money by force from people, taxed or otherwise, because if you don't, an elite will sit on a fuckzoid of money drinking wine at their tables while everyone else screams for pennies. And fuck me with a stick if the elite did all that on their own. Do you really think all the millionaires got to where they were cheaply? Are you this naive?
And how did the elite get that money? Hmmm....it couldn't be by providing businesses and jobs, could it?

Then I have to say that for this reason my favourite US Presidents are Roosevelt and Clinton, so you know where I stand.
To which that proves to me that you know nothing about socialism. After all, Clinton passed welfare reform and NAFTA - hardly the socialist policies that I think you support. And FDR was a bastard who prolonged the New Deal for political reasons. Period.
 
A cut paycheck means the government pays for more social programs, therefore you aren't really losing as much.

I'm pretty sure NAFTA was passed before Clinton (either Bush or maybe even Reagan).
 
As a European (Well, technically, Australian, but given that EVERY OTHER MAJOR COUNTRY IN THE WORLD is 'socialist' by the definition you're using, I probably count), I should point out to Deck Knight that living under my "Oh noez socialism is taking monies from me!" government is proving pretty good. For starters, I can afford to get a tertiary education, thanks to government assistance and a government-run student-loans system - they give me an interest free loan for the cost of my education, and I pay it back when I start earning. It's indexed to inflation, but that's about it.

I like not having been bankrupted because I needed some reasonably extensive dental surgery and a bit of toe surgery. I'm not sure what my choices would have been in America - get a loan to fix my mouth? Put my parents under financial stress for years to come? Do nothing and let my teeth turn into splinters?

There's a reason the rest of the world looks down on America, and it's not just because of the Iraq war. It's because you're a first world nation with third world healthcare, third world education, and third world poverty - unless you happen to be at least middle class.

And how did the elite get that money? Hmmm....it couldn't be by providing businesses and jobs, could it?

It couldn't be by providing as few jobs paying as little as possible, could it?

EDIT: Oh, and seriously, 90%? Has any modern government ever had a 90% tax rate for personal income, ever? Try not to exaggerate. Even if they did, the people on that tax rate would be in the absolute top tax bracket - the sort of people who can probably afford that much tax, and probably earn all their money in the Caymans, anyway.
 
But I do have a problem with that, and you don't have a right to take 90% of my wealth to give it to the poor and whatever.
Why not? Assuming we are talking about a democracy, if the will of the people is that that should be so why wouldnt they have the right?

It isnt government by the people for the people so long as you dont tax Kay too much..

Have a nice day.
 
Deck Knight, do you realize how ridiculous your entire post reads? An entire paragraph dedicated to poorly lampooning socialists as beggar-hating bastards? Ad hominem attacks against someone's home country - just because it isn't America? Statements like "Socialists worldwide live in safety knowing that when their ass is in the fire, bighearted Americans will sacrifice everything", where you pretend that it is only socialists who benefit from America's help and not everybody living in any given American-allied country? More unsubstantiated attacks on Obama that you know are absolute bullshit yet continue to parrot with unrelenting furore ("unrepentant terrorist hugging, radical racist embracing")?

Any points you may have made in your favor - and I'm sure there were some - are lost in the never-ending wave of bullshit we have to first wade through in order to find them. Cut out the needless attacks and the sensationalist approach and you might find yourself with some more eager listeners.
 
As a European (Well, technically, Australian, but given that EVERY OTHER MAJOR COUNTRY IN THE WORLD is 'socialist' by the definition you're using, I probably count), I should point out to Deck Knight that living under my "Oh noez socialism is taking monies from me!" government is proving pretty good. For starters, I can afford to get a tertiary education, thanks to government assistance and a government-run student-loans system - they give me an interest free loan for the cost of my education, and I pay it back when I start earning. It's indexed to inflation, but that's about it.

I like not having been bankrupted because I needed some reasonably extensive dental surgery and a bit of toe surgery. I'm not sure what my choices would have been in America - get a loan to fix my mouth? Put my parents under financial stress for years to come? Do nothing and let my teeth turn into splinters?

There's a reason the rest of the world looks down on America, and it's not just because of the Iraq war. It's because you're a first world nation with third world healthcare, third world education, and third world poverty - unless you happen to be at least middle class.

Ridiculous. I'm sorry, the biggest health concern with the American poor is OBESITY. Our poor people are FAT for f*cks sake. "Third world-poverty." What universe do you live in? Our government bends over backwards to give money to people who game the system.

As to our education, that's because our professors are more interested in teaching "Heather has Two Mommies" than they are in Science and Math. OFraud is a great example. When he had a 50 million dollar grant to spend on Chicago schools, he rejected algebra and science funds and instead sent it to Ayers good buddy Afrocentric separatist Rashid Khalidi, who thought schools should focus more on the threat of white devils than the threat of being unable to utilize algebra.

See, this is why Foreigners should butt the hell out of American policy and especially American politics. They show a complete, total, and utter lack of even basic understanding about America. They think because they pay homage to Queen Lizzy (wonderful lady, btw,) that they know America better than Americans. Or whatever stupid reason it is. I guess when you used to be ruled by Monarchs, Socialism isn't too unreasonable a step.

Moreover, whenever any rich person gets sick, where do they go for medical care? The United States. Why? We have all the latest technology because we haven't turned health care into a profit-free government bureaucracy that rations funds. R&D is the first thing to go when you are paying for every procedure.


It couldn't be by providing as few jobs paying as little as possible, could it?

EDIT: Oh, and seriously, 90%? Has any modern government ever had a 90% tax rate for personal income, ever? Try not to exaggerate. Even if they did, the people on that tax rate would be in the absolute top tax bracket - the sort of people who can probably afford that much tax, and probably earn all their money in the Caymans, anyway.

I see you're an ignoramus on business too. If your boss pays you shit, in America you can choose to work for someone else. If your boss is a stickler he will get that reputation, his business fails, and he loses his shirt too. But I imagine you went to the Karl Marx school of Business, where anyone who wants to build a better life for themselves and escape their divinely decided class, they are an evil, greedy person.

Socialism punishes success. Probably why the Cloward-Piven strategy of manufactured crisis came out of socialist halls. If there's anything socialists know how to do, it is manufacture systemic failure. That's about the only think that gets manufactured when you give "workers (Party Bureaucrats)" the means of production.

90% was an arbitrary number. I chose it because that is what Socialism is. Government arbitrarily deciding what is "fair." You know you're speaking to a socialist when they start talking about "fairness." They think it is fair for them to decide how much of the money you earned should be redistributed to people who did not earn it.

Here's what Socialist vermin don't get: It's your money, not theirs.

@SubVersion:

Everything I say about OFraud is 100% backed by fact. Prove they aren't lies. I know you didn't read about it in the NYT, but they are in the tank for OFraud, a man so scurrilous that he cannot even abide basic, standard security measures on his own donations page. OFraud will not be my President. He is the candidate of election fraudsters (ACORN), housing fraudsters (Rezco), race fraudsters(Wright, Khalidi) and credit card fraudsters(his own donation page).

Socialists are beggar-hating bastards. I seem to recall that socialist countries, for all their pomp about delivering equality for "the workers" never seemed to do it. You had party elites who ordered the peasants stomped out of existence on a whim and then the peasants. Socialism is inherently hypocritical. The redistributionists are self-serving thugs who always take the biggest piece of the pie for themselves. Mao, Stalin, and their respective party officials never lived in the same squalor the peasants did. After OFraud is done bringing "Hope and Change," OFraud will still be a millionaire, his brother George will still be living in a hut in Kenya (apparently he is not actually his Brother's Keeper), and everyone else will be crushed under his huge new taxes. He's a malevolent Herbert Hoover combined with a naive Jimmy Carter, with some Lenin thrown in for good measure.
 
Kay said:
Can't tell if that's sarcasm or not, but I'm assuming it's not. If you don't have a problem with it, fine. Give it to charity, give it to the government, etc. etc. But I do have a problem with that, and you don't have a right to take 90% of my wealth to give it to the poor and whatever.

First off, nobody is taking 90% of anyone's anything here. Barack Obama wants to raise the top marginal tax to 39.6%, less than the 50% rate under Ronald Reagan. Was the man behind the personality cult of the modern conservative movement in America a socialist? I don't think so. You'd have to have quite a large income to face any tax increase under his plan, let alone a significant one. It's one thing to get a little greedy when you're actually rich, but another thing to be middle class and have Joe the Plumber style fantasies about the socialists taking away your hypothetical wealth that you would hypothetically have if the socialists weren't taking it away. Secondly, it's a predictable libertarian rhetorical tactic to pretend that taxation exists for the sole purpose of giving handout checks to supposed welfare queens and ignore any spending that benefits all or most of society, such as public education, scientific research or even universal health insurance. That is... Except for militairy spending, which even the most hardened objectivists never seem to have issues with.

Kay said:
And how did the elite get that money? Hmmm....it couldn't be by providing businesses and jobs, could it?

Well, Bill O'Reilly has a $10 million salary, and I haven't seen him create any jobs recently. It's hard to say that everybody gets paid exactly what their work is worth without creating a tautology. The capitalist class undoubtedly serves a useful purpose, but is the person who figures out how to profit off stuff that other workers make really that much more vital than the workers who make that stuff? Nobody is saying that millionaires and billionaires have to give up their entire salaries, just that they should should pay a little more than they already do to help the rest of society.

Kay said:
To which that proves to me that you know nothing about socialism. After all, Clinton passed welfare reform and NAFTA - hardly the socialist policies that I think you support. And FDR was a bastard who prolonged the New Deal for political reasons. Period.

That has more to do with the watering down of the term socialist as a political insult than anything else... Besides, it just goes to show that the modern Democratic Party is nowhere near as radical as Deck Knight's hysterics might lead someone to believe.
 
I see the "I reject your reality and substitute my own!" technique is still popular amongst extreme conservatives. I was typing out a longer response, but managed to accidentally lose it while looking up exactly how uneven american wealth is. Probably not much of a loss, I'm sure you would have explained how America having higher rates of povery, more inequality, and a lower Human Development Index than the vast majority of developed nations - Britain being a notable exception - was a good thing, and then proceeded to produce more bullshit about Obama (Along with scary scary names! Rashid Khalidi, wooooooo! Sounds like an araaaaaaaaaab!)

I shall merely point out that you don't know what socialism is, what modern liberal democracies are supposed to do, that you continue to confuse stalinism with communism, and that even if you expand the pie, 0% of a larger number is still 0.
 
I'm a conservative democrat and going to vote for Bob Barr. The reason? Obama is too big government and economically left wing for me and McCain is too socially conservative for me.
 
Back
Top