hblask 1 Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Rather, the perfect government isn't derived from a perfect general and overarching philosophy, but instead from a giant collection of good ideas, good leaders, and good legislation. Tell you what, if you happen to find some good leaders making good legislation, let me know, OK?In the meantime, I'd prefer to deal with the real world. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Consistent?lolHave you investigated Mr. Paul?"Have you ever read about the reasons they attacked us? They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years."When asked by a moderator whether he was suggesting the United States invited the attacks, Paul said: "I'm suggesting we listen to the people who attacked us and the reason they did it. And they are delighted that we're over there because Osama bin Laden has said, 'I am glad you're over on our sand because we can target you so much easier.'"Sorry, but any candidate that feels that we deserve to be bombed by the Terrorists doesn't get my vote even if he is pro marijuana. I'd rather vote for RuPaul.Sigh, why do people have so much trouble catching his point. He doesn't say "we deserve it", he says "our policies led to this result." The people who are saying "9/11 happened because they hate our freedom and success" are saying the same thing -- that it happened because of our policies. And after all, he has a point. If the people who attacked us say "we did it because of your presence in the Middle East", it would be pure insanity to say "no, they're wrong, we know the real reason."There is a big difference between "federal policies caused" and "innocent office workers deserved". Sigh. Link to post Share on other sites
whatgreatis 0 Posted September 1, 2007 Share Posted September 1, 2007 Hitler's socialist paradise would've worked if he just implemented it right.Hilter had a right-wing government, they were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS, wayyy different than plain socialists. In fact the USSR and Germany (in Hitlers days) couldn't have been further apart on the ideological scale. You know, these are probably the same people who are complaining about being forced to pay their taxes on Poker winnings. They want to freeload and have "free" health care. Everything should be paid for by someone else.For the record I don't mind paying taxes as long as it goes towards helping the general public. I do have a problem for paying taxes that end up in the Iraqi Oil Ministers back pocket. I know we can all agree on that.EDIT: John Edwards or Dennis Kurch fo' prez Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Wait...hold on.... you started with Social Security, something that some left wing people may have feelings about, and slowly through closer and closer increments proved that all socialists are actually Nazis! OMG, you're right! Well done, sir!Seriously, though, all left wing Democrats actually do think that communism would have worked if it had only been implemented correctly. See, the desire to fix huge problems in the USA's health care system really comes from the fact that we all want to live on giant farms and collectivize the land. You figured it out. I want everyone to earn the same amount of money so I'm not better than a hobo and no worse than Bill Gates. Only then will the great revolution of the proletariat have succeeded and finally we shall become the vanguard!! Eh, comrades, eh?Okay, this time really seriously though. I think you guys have to stop thinking in such black and white terms about the issue. For instance:Come on, you're better at logic than this. Small social programs are obviously better than full on communism, therefore the perfect solution is pure capitalism. There's obviously no reason to think that the "worth" of a program is a linear relationship based on level of socialism due to examining one extreme. Just because communism was bad doesn't mean that anything organized by the government is bad. I will be willing to bet that the older a person is, the more likely they will pause before they agree.Also, I do agree that in the glaring examples to which you all love to allude (you know who you are) that Communism and full on Socialism weren't "done correctly." Does this mean that I think they would work or be a good idea if actually done correctly? No, but it's still pretty obvious that Stalin was no more than a full on dictator.Finally, though I'm arguing for the merits of social programs, I do agree that many social programs in the US really do suck pretty hard. Social Security is really run pretty horribly. For the amount of money they take from us (which is a whole lot) they do very little for any given indivudual. I would prefer a system that focuses more on care for the elderly, though homes and nurses or whatever, than a system that gives them a crappy check that no one can live off of or whatever the heck SS does these days. Although it did give me that sweet number that I have to write on everything. So maybe it's worth it. Who knows?The real culprit in all government run systems is who runs it;non elected officials that will generally take their cut first, and maintain their larger piece of the pie.orelected officials that will generally promise a larger cut for people in exchange for re-election, regardless of the outcome of their decisions.The larger a program, the more likely it will not be able to preform correctly. To not accept this truth will lead people into thinking such foolish thoughts such as healthcare for 300 million people can be run by the same type of people that couldn't see the far enough in the future to prevent the Iraq mess, the same type of people that maintained the levies in New Orleans, the same people that think a 10 year old girl's need to remove her shoes equates to air travel safety.You want to take care of yoursef and your family? Don't rely on the government, rely on yourself. Then help the people you can that didn't listen to this advice. And give to religious charities, they help people everyday in every community. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 A little late to the party, I think I called for your service about 4 pages ago As I said before, if this coversation goes much further we may be in need of a little McArthyism.I was in Maui. Smoking cigars Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 I mean, I would argue that over the past 100 years the living and working conditions for the vast majority of the people not only in the United States but over the world entirely has dramatically improved, and I believe a major part of that is due to certain legislation which you would consider to be "government oversight" or even "social." I also know that it's impossible to look at development over the past century, though, and attribute it to one aspect (either the presence or the lack of social programs). The same goes for using any particular country as an example for/against socialism. I also know that there will never be a truly "correct" way to manage things, to steal your word. All systems are imperfect. Moreover, I think that the idea that there is one correct way to manage gets in the way of the real argument. There is no philosophy or general concept that we can fall back on to give us perfect government. It simply doesn't exist. It isn't pure laissez-faire capitalism, it isn't communism, it isn't socialism. Rather, the perfect government isn't derived from a perfect general and overarching philosophy, but instead from a giant collection of good ideas, good leaders, and good legislation. At some point, you simply have to get your hands dirty and make decisions. The success of these decisions is not based on how well they demonstrate a greater principle but rather how well they work, how well they improve the lives of the people in a general way.nope...Monarchy. Works 50% of the time...everytime! Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 EDIT: John Edwards or Dennis Kurch fo' prezIf tomorrow you cured cancer, than discovered an alternative fuel source, while perfecting space travel...I would still think you are an idiot for the above statement.good luck Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Hilter had a right-wing government, they were NATIONAL SOCIALISTS, wayyy different than plain socialists. In fact the USSR and Germany (in Hitlers days) couldn't have been further apart on the ideological scale.Exactly, they are always not "real" socialists.... it just happens to work out that way. Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 How long did it take this thread to violate Godwins Law? Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 How long did it take this thread to violate Godwins Law?People like to pretend that socialism in small doses is fair and just, but socialism in large doses is harmful. It's a fair comparison. It's called The Road to Serfdom. Nobody gives up their rights in one giant step. It happens a little at a time. It's important for people to know where they are going before they get in the car and start driving. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 How long did it take this thread to violate Godwins Law?Glad you made me look that up.good stuff, but it's vaguely Goeblesque in it's simplicity. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Sigh, why do people have so much trouble catching his point. He doesn't say "we deserve it", he says "our policies led to this result." The people who are saying "9/11 happened because they hate our freedom and success" are saying the same thing -- that it happened because of our policies. And after all, he has a point. If the people who attacked us say "we did it because of your presence in the Middle East", it would be pure insanity to say "no, they're wrong, we know the real reason."There is a big difference between "federal policies caused" and "innocent office workers deserved". Sigh.Our "policies" didn't "cause" terrorists to fly planes into buildings. Radical views about and hatred of American values did. Link to post Share on other sites
El Guapo 8 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 I was in Maui. Smoking cigarsDon't you look on here 25 hours a days even on vacation.?How long did it take this thread to violate Godwins Law?Never heard of this, but perfect use. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Our "policies" didn't "cause" terrorists to fly planes into buildings. Radical views about and hatred of American values did.How did you come to that conclusion, when the people who plannded it and flew the planes into our buildings said that it is our Mideast policies that made them do it? Do you think they are self-deluded, or lying, or ???? Wouldn't their actual words matter more than the words of people who are trying to get political mileage out of the event? Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 Never heard of this, but perfect use.FYI, invoking Godwin's Law is the new Godwin's Law. Link to post Share on other sites
Pot Odds RAC 23 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 How did you come to that conclusion, when the people who plannded it and flew the planes into our buildings said that it is our Mideast policies that made them do it? Do you think they are self-deluded, or lying, or ???? Wouldn't their actual words matter more than the words of people who are trying to get political mileage out of the event?You act like a terrorist flying planes into buildings killing thousands of innocents is a reasonable response to "policy" - it isn't. Link to post Share on other sites
hblask 1 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 You act like a terrorist flying planes into buildings killing thousands of innocents is a reasonable response to "policy" - it isn't.I didn't say it's a reasonable response to "policy". It's not a reasonable response to anything. We're talking about what it is a response to, not the reasonable-ness of that response. And the terrorists have been quite clear about why they did it. Link to post Share on other sites
LongLiveYorke 38 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 How long did it take this thread to violate Godwins Law?It hasn't and obviously never will, since Hitler already came up. Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 People like to pretend that socialism in small doses is fair and just, but socialism in large doses is harmful. It's a fair comparison.People wanting to provide universal, subsidized health care ........... A genocidal group bent on world domination.Yeah. OK.Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.I don't happen to think abstract corollaries are valid if they address polar opposites that are only tangentially connected by fragments of philosophy or an infrequent, common nomenclature. The same logic that connects the sniveling, flaccid, irrelevant failures that are present day socialists to Nazism would also connect sex between a married couple to forced intercourse with a predatory rapist. Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted September 2, 2007 Share Posted September 2, 2007 It hasn't and obviously never will, since Hitler already came up.Oh for Christs sake. You and minutiae. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 People wanting to provide universal, subsidized health care ........... A genocidal group bent on world domination.Yeah. OK.Toe-may-toe, toe-mah-toe.I don't happen to think abstract corollaries are valid if they address polar opposites that are only tangentially connected by fragments of philosophy or an infrequent, common nomenclature. The same logic that connects the sniveling, flaccid, irrelevant failures that are present day socialists to Nazism would also connect sex between a married couple to forced intercourse with a predatory rapist.Oh yea? Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Yea! Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Yea!okay then.....yea, I didn't understand what you wrote..I'm not afraid to admit it. Link to post Share on other sites
scram 1 Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Don't worry. I didn't either. Link to post Share on other sites
Balloon guy 158 Posted September 3, 2007 Share Posted September 3, 2007 Takes a big man...Shoot..now this thread will go e-gay and I will ignore it Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now