Obama The 1st Black President

[hblask 1]

<br />LOL@nonsense?<br /><br />You're saying that I am a bad thing. What makes me bad?<br /><br />I haven't killed anybody, in-fact I'm a peace loving individual.<br />

Socialism/central planning is a scourge on the world. Hundreds of millions of lives have been lost to the notion that a few can run the lives of the many.Is Hillary's brand of socialism that deadly? No, of course not. But it does harm people. It's a sliding scale. If you start at "rule of law/property rights", and slowly move along the line to "poverty programs" to "corporate welfare" to "socialized <big chunk of economy>" to "Hillary's socialism" to "full-scale socialism", at each point, you've caused more and more suffering and more and more economic damage and yes, more and more deaths.

[SlapStick 0]

I have always had the opinion that the Irish cities are crime ridden. My mother in law was mugged while visiting, and the IRA etc seems to keep it in a constant war zone. Since my wife and I are protestants, I have honestly wondered if I am safe in all parts of Ireland.But I am going to vacation there this summer. I'm sure I will find it just like I found New York city last year, more untruths than truths. But I still watch my wallet, keep my eyes scanning the crowd, and bring a gun everywhere I go in case I get looked at funny.kidding about the gunIt's a knife

He's australian.I wanted to leave it at that and laugh at your mistake..... but " Since my wife and I are protestants, I have honestly wondered if I am safe in all parts of Ireland."just in case this is true, you said "honestly" being Protestant is nothing to worry about in Ireland. at least 2 of our greatest freedom fighters politicallyand in combat were protestant.(Parnell is my favourite Irish person) 2 of my best friends are protestant, its really a non issue. There are some very small areas where being a catholic or being a protestant you would'nt last long, but you would never see them and if you did somehow end up there, if you are stupid enough to mention your religion well good luck to youAnd obv, the IRA is nothing to worry about anymoreAnd you won't get mugged, not crime ridden at all

[Nimue1995 1]

You missed the point of the graph. Being left of the Democrats is a very, very bad thing. It costs lots of lives and suffering worldwide.

I believe you're wrong there, because the rightwing mistakes ARE so lethal and monumental. When the left makes one of its numerous errors, it ends up wasting some money, or time on a fruitless and perhaps misguided effort to HELP someone. The rightwing writes their errors in blood, and exponentially greater dollar signs, along with a huge dose of national humiliation and bitter regret. At the end of the day, it's kind of hard to disguise or spin that. And, we are now at the end of their day. For a while.

[hblask 1]

<br />I believe you're wrong there, because the rightwing mistakes ARE so lethal and monumental. When the left makes one of its numerous errors, it ends up wasting some money, or time on a fruitless and perhaps misguided effort to HELP someone. The rightwing writes their errors in blood, and exponentially greater dollar signs, along with a huge dose of national humiliation and bitter regret. At the end of the day, it's kind of hard to disguise or spin that. And, we are now at the end of their day. For a while.

Leftist/central planner death tolls:Stalin: 43 million.Mao Tse-tung, 38 millionAdolf Hitler, 21 millionChiang Kai-shek 10 millionVladimir Lenin 4 MillionTojo Hideki 4 MillionPol Pot 2.4 MillionDon't worry, I know the next argument, those deaths weren't *because* they were leftist, it's because they were kooks. It's just a coincidence that they happen to believe that central planning is better than individualism, that people are cogs for the greater good rather than individuals with wishes. Every time it's happened, it's been a coincidence.Unfortunately for that argument, we don't have to look to individuals, because the regimes persist beyond the specific leaders:USSR, 1917-1987 -- 62 Million deathsPeople's Republic of China, 1949-1987, 35 million deathsGermany, 1933-1945, 21 million deathsnationalist China, 1928-1949, 10 million deathsJapan, 1936-1945, 6 million deathsetcetcetcThese aren't accidents. These aren't coincidences. A philosophy that believes that humans are cogs to be used for the greater good will *always* treat them, well, like cogs, to be used and discarded as necessary.Does this make Hillary a killer? Of course not. But each step down that road puts us one step closer, and it's such a dangerous road, why even start?And that's not even counting all the indirect deaths and suffering due to the economic harm caused by central planning. This experiment has been done, there's no need to try it again. Causing harm a little bit at a time isn't a good idea just because we can say that "Stalin was worse".

[Nimue1995 1]

Leftist/central planner death tolls:Stalin: 43 million.Mao Tse-tung, 38 millionAdolf Hitler, 21 millionChiang Kai-shek 10 millionVladimir Lenin 4 MillionTojo Hideki 4 MillionPol Pot 2.4 MillionDon't worry, I know the next argument, those deaths weren't *because* they were leftist, it's because they were kooks. It's just a coincidence that they happen to believe that central planning is better than individualism, that people are cogs for the greater good rather than individuals with wishes. Every time it's happened, it's been a coincidence.Unfortunately for that argument, we don't have to look to individuals, because the regimes persist beyond the specific leaders:USSR, 1917-1987 -- 62 Million deathsPeople's Republic of China, 1949-1987, 35 million deathsGermany, 1933-1945, 21 million deathsnationalist China, 1928-1949, 10 million deathsJapan, 1936-1945, 6 million deathsetcetcetcThese aren't accidents. These aren't coincidences. A philosophy that believes that humans are cogs to be used for the greater good will *always* treat them, well, like cogs, to be used and discarded as necessary.Does this make Hillary a killer? Of course not. But each step down that road puts us one step closer, and it's such a dangerous road, why even start?And that's not even counting all the indirect deaths and suffering due to the economic harm caused by central planning. This experiment has been done, there's no need to try it again. Causing harm a little bit at a time isn't a good idea just because we can say that "Stalin was worse".

You're saying all dictators are leftist? That's a load of BS.

[hblask 1]

You're saying all dictators are leftist? That's a load of BS.

Which of the ones listed did not believe in the ability of central planning to get better results than the freedom of individuals making voluntary consensual decisions?

[Kaveros 0]

Father Ted: To China! [everybody cheers] Chinese man: [raising his glass] To Craggy Island! [everybody cheers] Father Ted: More drink! [everybody cheers] Bar tender: I'm sorry, the bar's closed. [everybody cheers] Father Ted: How about we all go back to my place for a drink? [everybody cheers] Father Dougal: Wait, I need to go to the toilet first. [everybody cheers]

You are going to have to help me out. I dont get it

[jmh06 0]

You're saying all dictators are leftist? That's a load of BS.

His were. Most dictators are left leaning, it's how they come to power by promising social and economic reform to help the (insert largest/poorest social class here) out. It's too easy to come to power as a dictator in a way, just brainwash the largest social class and either they vote you in or fight you in. Only other way I can think of is a coup with the army.And I always wondered what happened to the IRA. So they are still around? They used to make headlines all the time back in the day and you never hear crap out of 'em now.

[SlapStick 0]

His were. Hitler wasn't leftAnd I always wondered what happened to the IRA. So they are still around? They used to make headlines all the time back in the day and you never hear crap out of 'em now.

The IRA officially ceased trying gain Ireland's unity through forceful means, last year. They disarmed with an official weapon's inspector, a catholic priest and a protestant priest. The main loyalist party asked for their own inspection and to witness the destruction of the weapons, they recieved neither.The IRA will now try to reach their goals through political means.There was worry about a lot of parts of Northen Ireland, as the IRA controlled a lot of the crime rings, without the backing of the IRA a lot of people were expected to recieve retaliation attacks and gang wars over the newly released areas. Seems to have gone ok, but I have been travelling for 2 years and Im from the south.I always agreed with IRA goals, just never with their terrible methods.

[colonel Feathers 5]

Being black isnt as cracked out as its made to be. No pun intended

[hblask 1]

Hitler wasn't left

LOL, the Nazi's official name was "National Socialist German Workers' Party". They took control of every major industry, told them what to produce, who they could hire, how much they could charge, who they could sell to.So I guess if you mean they weren't leftist besides calling themselves socialist and doing everything socialists do, then I suppose you are correct. (What does that leave? Oh yeah, nothing except a name on a piece of paper saying the owners still owned the companies).Or is your argument that the 3rd worst mass murderer of all times was less leftist than the others in the top 10? I've never seen a discussion of that point, I suppose because it is irrelevant.

[SlapStick 0]

Or is your argument that the 3rd worst mass murderer of all times was less leftist than the others in the top 10? I've never seen a discussion of that point, I suppose because it is irrelevant.

No, I didn't make an arguementHitler was a facist. Sorry

[hblask 1]

No, I didn't make an arguementHitler was a facist. Sorry

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. " -- WikipediaFascism 1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls-- About.comThese are lefist ideas, the notion that central planning works and that individuals should submit to the greater good called "society".But in the end, as was discussed in the other thread here, it's probably obsolete to discuss left/right in these cases. Statist vs Individualist is probably more accurate, and in this case, the common element in all of the cases I listed is more power to the government, i.e., statism. If you don't want to call it "left", that's fine, I'm happy to call it statist. I assume when a previous poster said they were left of Hillary, they meant that they want to move even further toward statism, and that was my whole point here, that such a movement is terrible and scary.

[SlapStick 0]

"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. " -- WikipediaFascism 1. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls-- About.comThese are lefist ideas, the notion that central planning works and that individuals should submit to the greater good called "society".But in the end, as was discussed in the other thread here, it's probably obsolete to discuss left/right in these cases. Statist vs Individualist is probably more accurate, and in this case, the common element in all of the cases I listed is more power to the government, i.e., statism. If you don't want to call it "left", that's fine, I'm happy to call it statist. I assume when a previous poster said they were left of Hillary, they meant that they want to move even further toward statism, and that was my whole point here, that such a movement is terrible and scary.

I was avoiding your whole arguement, you'll notice all I said was "Hitler wasn't left"Facism is right wing, and thats what he wasThats all i was saying

[timwakefield 68]

Obama is black??????

[hblask 1]

I was avoiding your whole arguement, you'll notice all I said was "Hitler wasn't left"<br />Facism is right wing, and thats what he was<br />Thats all i was saying

Uh, no.If it walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist, governs like a socialist, and CALLS ITSELF SOCIALIST in it's party name, it's pretty safe to say it's socialist. Socialism is traditionally considered left, but as I said, I'll be happy to play your "pretend it's something it's not" game and call it Statist, because my original point is the same. Moving left of Hillary/Obama is a terrible idea.

[All_In 0]

Which of the ones listed did not believe in the ability of central planning to get better results than the freedom of individuals making voluntary consensual decisions?

there are different shades of socialism. the fact that u lumped fascism with socialism shows that u do not know as much on the subject as u think.Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada...just a few of the countries considered 'socialist', and they are consistently ranked among the best countries in the world to live in, much higher than the US.

[hblask 1]

<br />there are different shades of socialism.<br /><br />Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Canada...just a few of the countries considered 'socialist', and they are consistently ranked among the best countries in the world to live in, much higher than the US.<br />

Yeah, and that's what the ranking system is trying to get at. The difference between, say, the US and Sweden is dwarfed compared to what occurs on a world scale. But the trend is still clear: the bigger the government, the worse the economy. Considering that wealth is the strongest indicator of longevity worldwide, it's dangerous to play the "let's just do a little socialism" game.The Euro socialist lite nations have had slower economic growth and higher rates of unemployment for decades. Their economies are generally described as "sluggish". So what are the exceptions? Ireland, who freed their economy and moved up on the "Economic Freedom Index"; they are now one of the fastest if not THE fastest growing economies in Europe.As I said, this experiment has been done, we don't need anymore painful trial runs.

[Balloon guy 158]

Yeah, and that's what the ranking system is trying to get at. The difference between, say, the US and Sweden is dwarfed compared to what occurs on a world scale. But the trend is still clear: the bigger the government, the worse the economy. Considering that wealth is the strongest indicator of longevity worldwide, it's dangerous to play the "let's just do a little socialism" game.The Euro socialist lite nations have had slower economic growth and higher rates of unemployment for decades. Their economies are generally described as "sluggish". So what are the exceptions? Ireland, who freed their economy and moved up on the "Economic Freedom Index"; they are now one of the fastest if not THE fastest growing economies in Europe.As I said, this experiment has been done, we don't need anymore painful trial runs.

QFTLatest Swedish Pres ran on a right leaning patform of economic reform, leftist ideals were BKing the system.

[All_In 0]

Yeah, and that's what the ranking system is trying to get at. The difference between, say, the US and Sweden is dwarfed compared to what occurs on a world scale. But the trend is still clear: the bigger the government, the worse the economy. Considering that wealth is the strongest indicator of longevity worldwide, it's dangerous to play the "let's just do a little socialism" game.

longevity? the US does not have the longest lifespan in the world. it is BY FAR the richest country. i would say genetics is a much stronger indicator than wealth.

The Euro socialist lite nations have had slower economic growth and higher rates of unemployment for decades. Their economies are generally described as "sluggish". So what are the exceptions? Ireland, who freed their economy and moved up on the "Economic Freedom Index"; they are now one of the fastest if not THE fastest growing economies in Europe.As I said, this experiment has been done, we don't need anymore painful trial runs.

if things are so dire for the euro socialist states, why are they consistently ranked as the top countries to live in? what u r saying is in direct contradiction to the facts (in terms of the doom and gloom u talk about w.r.t. these countries).What about right-wing dictators/fanatics? socialism does not have a monopoly on those. there are countless examples of right wing and capitalistic countries causing great harm to others and their own people. when the whole thought process for a country is just making the most $$, bad things inevitably happen. where's the morality and compassion? it is just not part of the equation, while socialism by definition considers those things.

[SlapStick 0]

Uh, no.If it walks like a socialist, talks like a socialist, governs like a socialist, and CALLS ITSELF SOCIALIST in it's party name, it's pretty safe to say it's socialist. Socialism is traditionally considered left, but as I said, I'll be happy to play your "pretend it's something it's not" game and call it Statist, because my original point is the same. Moving left of Hillary/Obama is a terrible idea.

lol I wasnt talking about your point, I didnt say it to you, as I wasn't trying to enter your arguement. I brought it up when someone else brought it up.FACT: Hitler was a facist. Feel free to look it upYour views still stand, and I leave the arguement.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Meh. I've heard your argument before, HBlask, about socialism and death. It's really not all that convincing.For example, do you really think all of Hitler's deaths came because he nationalized some factories? Or did it maybe have to do with the fact that he burnt jews, gypsies, blacks, and homosexuals in ovens? Stalin killed most secret police.Mao is the best example that fits what your argument is trying to say since most of the deaths under his regime came from incompetence. But again, they came because he directly forced people off of their land and into communes.Just because something hits a maximum at an extremum doesn't mean it's necessarily a sliding scale. You can't simply look at the far end of a function and extrapolate the nuanced details of that function toward the center. Especially when the function is something as complicated and jumbled as "quality of life" versus "lack of government control on economy."But really, it's beyond silly to say that it was Hitler's "socialist" tendencies that caused the deaths. Rather, it was his "murder jews" tendencies. If you want to argue that he wanted to murder jews because he was a socialist and therefore viewed them as cogs, well, you're free to do that, but it's a terrible, terrible argument.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Yeah, and that's what the ranking system is trying to get at. The difference between, say, the US and Sweden is dwarfed compared to what occurs on a world scale. But the trend is still clear: the bigger the government, the worse the economy.

It's not clear, though. I wish I had the raw data so I could do a real analysis, but if you look at the highest few points in terms of GDP, they are more or less flat as a function of "economic freedom." The highest isn't the most economically free, the second highest certainly isn't and is a huge outlier, and the rest are more or less flat. If you really wanted to do this right, you could break up your graph into smaller parts and use higher order functional extrapolations to see what the curve really looks like (because just drawing a line is a bit meaningless). So, again, the overall trend doesn't tell you how the function will look at a particular point. Unfortunately, the world is a bit more nuanced than a simple line.I mean, I obviously agree with most of the graph:Lower taxes (in the greater scale) = goodLess government control (as compared to Red China) = goodprivately owned factories = goodI think most people would agree with this, even most Democrats. Maybe Marx wouldn't, but he's dead, so there.

[irishmon 0]

what the hell have i started???????????im now thinkin if any terrorist wanted to do some damage they should drop a bomb right here on this thread cause we have brought up every race in the solar system, even the I.R.A got a mention WOW!!!so maybe i should run the country!

[hblask 1]

longevity? the US does not have the longest lifespan in the world. it is BY FAR the richest country. i would say genetics is a much stronger indicator than wealth.

The US is among the top in both per capita GDP and in longevity. Perhaps you were thinking it was an exact formula ($X GDP = Y years of life expectency), but that's not how it works. Scientists and economists have been trying to tease out the contribution to longevity of various genetic contributions of ancestors, but it is a long and difficult process. But just because they don't know *exactly* what the contribution of wealth is doesn't mean it's not a factor. It clearly is the biggest factor in longevity -- bigger than smoking, in fact.

if things are so dire for the euro socialist states, why are they consistently ranked as the top countries to live in? what u r saying is in direct contradiction to the facts (in terms of the doom and gloom u talk about w.r.t. these countries).

Why are they ranked highly? I don't know, because people think quaint outdoor cafes are more important than adding a couple years to their life? Again, if you want to argue that the other things gained from socialized programs offsets the harm to the economy and to the health of the people, at least that's an honest argument. But pretending you can get a free lunch by expanding the government is just plain silly. If you keep biting the hand that feeds you, you will not be fed for long.

What about right-wing dictators/fanatics? socialism does not have a monopoly on those. there are countless examples of right wing and capitalistic countries causing great harm to others and their own people. when the whole thought process for a country is just making the most $, bad things inevitably happen. where's the morality and compassion? it is just not part of the equation, while socialism by definition considers those things.

Could you give an example of a dictator that believed in smaller government and capitalism that caused great harm to others and their own people? Since there are "countless examples", perhaps you could at least give one. Hint: the number you are shooting for is 138 million dead for the top 5 regimes, 122 million for the top 7 individual dictators.And LOL at socialism being more moral than capitalism. I think the numbers of dead speak for themselves. That's a mighty fine morality you got there. Sure, hundreds of millions died, but they died knowing they were "equal partners in society". It was a compassionate and fair death, right?