Telling Obama 'You Lie!'

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
101

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Keep in mind that socialism FORCES one man to serve another through taxation, then redistribution. Taxation puts a claim on part of a man’s lifespan. After all, the man has had to use his time (something we only have a limited amount of before we’re dead) to produce those taxes. To add further insult, he watches it redistributed away. Often enough, to people who expect a whole hell of alot more out of everyone else, than they do of themselves. Also, in these discussions I’ve noticed that I’m to be forced into responsibility for the needy, but they have no responsibility towards me.

How could I possibly be considered free in such a system? They have laid claim to part of my life.

Very well put. I think I’m really starting to understand the American concept of Liberty. I’ll be honest, I’ve never really given this much thought before. However, I still have an objection to the realism of the ideal. Which is essentially what Liberty is - an ideal.

Think about this. Liberty for all would theoretically be a valid concept if all the citizens in a society started with essentially the same resources and opportunity. Then the fruits of one’s labor should be his and his alone. Some will do better than others due to hard work and innovation, and some will be lazy and lose it all. And then I agree. Why should the lazy benefit from the hard work of someone else? Why should wealth be redistributed? They were free to do nothing, they should suffer the consequences.

But the real world doesn’t work that way. We live in a world where some people have had all sorts of opportunities piled on them, with all the tools and education necessary to succeed in life. Then we have the groups that have been shit on for years upon years. Liberty wasn’t granted to the Native American, or the African, or the Chinese or Mexican laborers. For decades Liberty was granted only to the Protestant white man. While those blessed with Liberty acquired their property and status, they simultaneously held down others and benefited from the labor of the non-white non-protestant. Only recently in history Liberty was granted to all (although some may argue this point). But the game’s already been fixed. The outcome is easy to determine. Those whose families have the wealth - regardless of how that wealth was acquired - fight tooth and nail for Liberty because it benefits them. They can use their influence to keep the game fixed.
[/quote]

First of all you say that liberty was a privilege of white men. Granted, but how you feel about that? It seems that you feel that that is a) wrong and b) makes the ideal of liberty questionable.

I say it makes the claims of those questionable who demanded liberty and yet denied it to others.

As to your idea that the game is rigged. Yes, it is. It always was. In fact the very idea that you could rig the game for your children made the middle class work hard to get them a decent start in life.

Most millionaires though are self made millionaires and have not visited a prestigious college so the real world numbers do not seem to support your point. Asian minorities especially are doing quite well in America without receiving any special treatment.

102

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

That’s one of the main freaking goals of the bill: to do to the rest of the nation what they (big business republicans and the libs) did to California. They want to replace the current population with a new peasant one from Mexico and central America through free OB/GYN care to illegal immigrant Mexicans/Central Americans who pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them.

They never ask you if you’re a citizen right now when you go into the ER anyway.

TRUTH. [/quote]

These are FACTS! The current healthcare bills being proposed are, in reality, a secret plot by those in power to replace the current white, rich population with a brown, peasant one from Mexico and Central America. The easiest way to do this is OBVIOUSLY through the OBGYN, obviously. It is also, obviously, a FACT that illegals “pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them.”

I just have one quick question for you PRdude. Do you think all brown people “pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them” or do you think it’s just the ones here illegally? Maximus, I want to personally thank you for supporting these statements. We wouldn’t want people to think it was only PR with these genius thoughts.

103

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Keep in mind that socialism FORCES one man to serve another through taxation, then redistribution. Taxation puts a claim on part of a man’s lifespan. After all, the man has had to use his time (something we only have a limited amount of before we’re dead) to produce those taxes. To add further insult, he watches it redistributed away. Often enough, to people who expect a whole hell of alot more out of everyone else, than they do of themselves. Also, in these discussions I’ve noticed that I’m to be forced into responsibility for the needy, but they have no responsibility towards me.

How could I possibly be considered free in such a system? They have laid claim to part of my life.

Very well put. I think I’m really starting to understand the American concept of Liberty. I’ll be honest, I’ve never really given this much thought before. However, I still have an objection to the realism of the ideal. Which is essentially what Liberty is - an ideal.

[/quote]
So is freedom, right and wrong, democracy, justice, equality est.

Being an ideal (even an un-perfectible one) doesnâ??t mean it isnâ??t worthy of pursuit.

No. Liberty once again only means a guarantee of negative rights. Equality to an American is equal opportunity, NOT equal result. My dad started out poor, worked himself through college, worked himself up the company ladder, and gave me a good start. Because my dad worked his ass of, you think I donâ??t deserve where I am and feel you have the (positive) right to make things more fair?

I think everyone agrees that denying liberty to Natives, African, Irishmen, est was bad. Thatâ??s what Iâ??ve been saying all along. The denial of negative rights is always bad. And positive rights (entitling you to the work of others) is always bad. Whites used the government in the early days of the union to entitle themselves to the productivity of Blacks. You see, slavery was a government entitlement program that guaranteed positive rights for some at the expense of negative rights for others (something that always happens with positive rights).

And just as a note there were white slaves early in this country, and many of our founding fathers were far from protestant. (Jewish, deist, Unitarian, est.) Discrimination was not strictly based on religious or racial lines.

Statistically the wealthier people just plain work harder. Period. They also give large amounts to charity, create most of the jobs, and pay most of the taxes.

You see thatâ??s the cool thing about liberty, YOU are free to work hard, make money and help out whomever you wish with your own funds. You honestly think itâ??s right to come to my house put a gun to my head, take my money, and spend it on other people? That is literally what the â??stateâ?? does. Itâ??s a group of people that get together and do that. It is literally no different that what organized crime does, only the government is a larger group whom are supposedly bound to me with a contract called the constitution. Without the constitution, something most politicians today laugh at, the government is no different that the mob. Itâ??s why we care about it so much.

104

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Well…I’d be a fool if I said that I have a full understanding of the illegal immigrant issue with the health care bill…but from the surface it does look FUBAR’d. And just let it be known…I haven’t been a big supporter of this bill…too much mangled shit for information to understand what it consists of. But I also don’t buy all the rhetoric and rumors surrounding it either. We need reform…but it needs to be done right. But we will never agree on what is “right” for it to happen anytime soon. [/quote]

I’d still like to know why one person has to involuntarily pay for the health care of another. Wasn’t slavery abolished long ago?

When I pay my tax dollars over, to fund someone else’s needs, should I now say: “Yazzuh, Mister Boss-man…yazzuh!!!”

105

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Well…I’d be a fool if I said that I have a full understanding of the illegal immigrant issue with the health care bill…but from the surface it does look FUBAR’d. And just let it be known…I haven’t been a big supporter of this bill…too much mangled shit for information to understand what it consists of. But I also don’t buy all the rhetoric and rumors surrounding it either. We need reform…but it needs to be done right. But we will never agree on what is “right” for it to happen anytime soon.

I’d still like to know why one person has to involuntarily pay for the health care of another. Wasn’t slavery abolished long ago?

When I pay my tax dollars over, to fund someone else’s needs, should I now say: “Yazzuh, Mister Boss-man…yazzuh!!!”

[/quote]

You sure that you are responding to the right post?

106

[quote]Gregus wrote:

I find your logic to be faulty. It’s riddled with white guilt and such. You have little understanding of human nature in general. Because if you did, you would not think along the lines you outlined. But life is a journey and knowledge evolves. Good Luck. [/quote]

I can understand if you disagree with my views, but your comments are brash and without value in this discussion. Although the world may seem black or white to you, I AM continuously learning on this journey and don’t pretend to have all the answers. Your pretentious condemnation of my understanding of human nature and my “faulty logic” shows that you are a close-minded, obtuse individual. If your goal was to simply insult me, you have succeeded, but in the process you’ve also exposed yourself as weak in spirit and lacking civility. Why don’t you keep your comments to yourself and let the adults talk now.

107

[quote]Mikeyali wrote:
It’s refreshing to have someone as open minded as yourself.

Liberty is not granted to anyone. Liberty is the birthright of all men by nature’s God. Note I do not say the Christian God. I could expand the nature’s God bit, but that’s not the point of the post. Suffice it to say that it’s a rule of nature, much like gravity. You are born into this world with certain inalienable rights. Governments come to pass to protect those rights from others, but eventually all government seems to get the idea that they grant the rights and tyranny ensues.

Our Bill of Rights enumerate several of those rights. They are rights common to all men worldwide.

As for some men coming into the earth with unequal opportunities, this is true. Where we cross paths is in the matter of perspective. You are looking at this from a very materialistic standpoint. Fairness and liberty are two separate concepts. In order to achieve fairness, you must violate liberty. The idea of liberty is primarily based around one major principle: you own your own body. From here, gentlemen may disagree, but the main idea is that you own your own body. This allows you do do anything you wish so long as you do not violate anyone else’s liberty.

Where liberty and fairness collide is when fairness dictates that a sovereign individual with rights to his body and his actions, behaves in a particular way in order to make things fair for someone else. In order to make things fair we would have to put everyone on the same level from the moment of birth. But in order to do that you would have to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body and the property I secured honestly. Do you see where I’m going with this? It’s a shame that the world isn’t fair, but no amount of violating people’s rights will make it that way.

mike[/quote]

I think this is one of the best responses I’ve read so far. I feel like a light has gone off in my mind and I thank you for taking the time to present your side without resorting to simply attacking mine.

In many ways I agree with what you say - that every man answers only to himself unless he infringes on the rights of another. My argument is that in practice this concept is violated constantly. Everywhere. This is why I think that Liberty - as you put it - is valid, but at the same time it is simply an ideal. The corrupt in this world look very much like the honest and it’s sometimes very hard to determine where the line has been crossed. Shades of grey, and all. I guess that I also put value in fairness as well as liberty. I realize that in practice this concept is flawed as well, as it also opens the door to corruption.

Personally, I feel that the best solution needs to incorporate the concepts of liberty, fairness, equality, and justice into one system that may not elevate the status of any ideal over another. In a society we can’t always be looking out for number one at the expense of the rest any more than we can put the needs of all others above our own.

108

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
It’s refreshing to have someone as open minded as yourself.

Liberty is not granted to anyone. Liberty is the birthright of all men by nature’s God. Note I do not say the Christian God. I could expand the nature’s God bit, but that’s not the point of the post. Suffice it to say that it’s a rule of nature, much like gravity. You are born into this world with certain inalienable rights. Governments come to pass to protect those rights from others, but eventually all government seems to get the idea that they grant the rights and tyranny ensues.

Our Bill of Rights enumerate several of those rights. They are rights common to all men worldwide.

As for some men coming into the earth with unequal opportunities, this is true. Where we cross paths is in the matter of perspective. You are looking at this from a very materialistic standpoint. Fairness and liberty are two separate concepts. In order to achieve fairness, you must violate liberty. The idea of liberty is primarily based around one major principle: you own your own body. From here, gentlemen may disagree, but the main idea is that you own your own body. This allows you do do anything you wish so long as you do not violate anyone else’s liberty.

Where liberty and fairness collide is when fairness dictates that a sovereign individual with rights to his body and his actions, behaves in a particular way in order to make things fair for someone else. In order to make things fair we would have to put everyone on the same level from the moment of birth. But in order to do that you would have to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body and the property I secured honestly. Do you see where I’m going with this? It’s a shame that the world isn’t fair, but no amount of violating people’s rights will make it that way.

mike

I think this is one of the best responses I’ve read so far. I feel like a light has gone off in my mind and I thank you for taking the time to present your side without resorting to simply attacking mine.

In many ways I agree with what you say - that every man answers only to himself unless he infringes on the rights of another. My argument is that in practice this concept is violated constantly. Everywhere. This is why I think that Liberty - as you put it - is valid, but at the same time it is simply an ideal. The corrupt in this world look very much like the honest and it’s sometimes very hard to determine where the line has been crossed. Shades of grey, and all. I guess that I also put value in fairness as well as liberty. I realize that in practice this concept is flawed as well, as it also opens the door to corruption.

Personally, I feel that the best solution needs to incorporate the concepts of liberty, fairness, equality, and justice into one system that may not elevate the status of any ideal over another. In a society we can’t always be looking out for number one at the expense of the rest any more than we can put the needs of all others above our own.[/quote]

Isn’t it fair to say that you get what you work for? And in doing so, the most beneficial advances to mankind have come with self interest in mind. With the freedom to work for your own volition, through innovation, dedication and perseverance look how far computer technology has come in a short amount of time. Men who invented the technology for artificial hearts did so from their own volition that benefited themselves, but more importantly, benefited an untold amount of strangers.

If you’re really interested in understand exactly what liberty is I suggest you read The Constitution of Liberty by Fredrich Hayek

109

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
Mikeyali wrote:
It’s refreshing to have someone as open minded as yourself.

Liberty is not granted to anyone. Liberty is the birthright of all men by nature’s God. Note I do not say the Christian God. I could expand the nature’s God bit, but that’s not the point of the post. Suffice it to say that it’s a rule of nature, much like gravity. You are born into this world with certain inalienable rights. Governments come to pass to protect those rights from others, but eventually all government seems to get the idea that they grant the rights and tyranny ensues.

Our Bill of Rights enumerate several of those rights. They are rights common to all men worldwide.

As for some men coming into the earth with unequal opportunities, this is true. Where we cross paths is in the matter of perspective. You are looking at this from a very materialistic standpoint. Fairness and liberty are two separate concepts. In order to achieve fairness, you must violate liberty. The idea of liberty is primarily based around one major principle: you own your own body. From here, gentlemen may disagree, but the main idea is that you own your own body. This allows you do do anything you wish so long as you do not violate anyone else’s liberty.

Where liberty and fairness collide is when fairness dictates that a sovereign individual with rights to his body and his actions, behaves in a particular way in order to make things fair for someone else. In order to make things fair we would have to put everyone on the same level from the moment of birth. But in order to do that you would have to tell me what I can or cannot do with my body and the property I secured honestly. Do you see where I’m going with this? It’s a shame that the world isn’t fair, but no amount of violating people’s rights will make it that way.

mike

I think this is one of the best responses I’ve read so far. I feel like a light has gone off in my mind and I thank you for taking the time to present your side without resorting to simply attacking mine.

In many ways I agree with what you say - that every man answers only to himself unless he infringes on the rights of another. My argument is that in practice this concept is violated constantly. Everywhere. This is why I think that Liberty - as you put it - is valid, but at the same time it is simply an ideal. The corrupt in this world look very much like the honest and it’s sometimes very hard to determine where the line has been crossed. Shades of grey, and all. I guess that I also put value in fairness as well as liberty. I realize that in practice this concept is flawed as well, as it also opens the door to corruption.

Personally, I feel that the best solution needs to incorporate the concepts of liberty, fairness, equality, and justice into one system that may not elevate the status of any ideal over another. In a society we can’t always be looking out for number one at the expense of the rest any more than we can put the needs of all others above our own.[/quote]

Another way to put it is how you define freedom. Depending on how a society defines it entirely different political thought generally follows.

Take for instance a child vs. an adult. Which is more free?

The child has no responsibility, doesn’t have to work to get food is, FREE from worry, free from the consequences of bad decisions. And can essentially wonder around aimlessly with no direction and be just fine in life.

This is the far left definition of freedom.

The adult is free to come and go as they please, do what they want, and has self determination. HOWEVER, the nature of life forces them to work to maintain life, suffer consequences of decisions (good and bad)… est.

This is the right’s definition of freedom.

You see, to a communist, socialism is the freest economic system in the world. (free from worry, or positive rights)

To a conservative capitalism is the freest system in the world. (free to decide, or negative rights)

So, who do you think is more free, a child or adult?

110

[quote]polo77j wrote:
Isn’t it fair to say that you get what you work for? And in doing so, the most beneficial advances to mankind have come with self interest in mind. With the freedom to work for your own volition, through innovation, dedication and perseverance look how far computer technology has come in a short amount of time. Men who invented the technology for artificial hearts did so from their own volition that benefited themselves, but more importantly, benefited an untold amount of strangers.

If you’re really interested in understand exactly what liberty is I suggest you read The Constitution of Liberty by Fredrich Hayek[/quote]

I think you should refer back to the previous post I made about the concept of liberty and fairness and the real world situation. Yes I do feel that one should get the benefit of their hard work. However, there are many instances in history where Liberty is violated by the very same individuals that make the show of fighting for it. The world is full of criminal syndicates and morally abhorrent corporate entities as well as honest, hardworking individuals and it’s impossible to separate the bad from the good. The world should be many things it’s not, and people should act in ways that many don’t.
I’m simply saying that to cling to the dogmatic ideal that Liberty addresses all of society’s ailments, in the face of the real-world inequalities and injustices, doesn’t do anything to improve the condition for many good, honest, hardworking citizens that also deserve a much better life than they’ve been given. Do I know the best way to do this? No. But I’m also not going to completely abandon feasible options by standing firm on an imperfect and unrealistic political ideology.

111

[quote]Big_Boss wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Big_Boss wrote:
Well…I’d be a fool if I said that I have a full understanding of the illegal immigrant issue with the health care bill…but from the surface it does look FUBAR’d. And just let it be known…I haven’t been a big supporter of this bill…too much mangled shit for information to understand what it consists of. But I also don’t buy all the rhetoric and rumors surrounding it either. We need reform…but it needs to be done right. But we will never agree on what is “right” for it to happen anytime soon.

I’d still like to know why one person has to involuntarily pay for the health care of another. Wasn’t slavery abolished long ago?

When I pay my tax dollars over, to fund someone else’s needs, should I now say: “Yazzuh, Mister Boss-man…yazzuh!!!”

You sure that you are responding to the right post? [/quote]

Well, first off, its you. I like discussing things with you. All my neighbors are rich, stuck-up white people. Having a discussion with a highly intelligent and literate black man with a different perspective is great!

The answer to your question is ‘yes’. The need for change ASSUMES that its the govt’s perogative to make the changes. That assumption led me to the diatribe above.

112

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Another way to put it is how you define freedom. Depending on how a society defines it entirely different political thought generally follows.

Take for instance a child vs. an adult. Which is more free?

The child has no responsibility, doesn’t have to work to get food is, FREE from worry, free from the consequences of bad decisions. And can essentially wonder around aimlessly with no direction and be just fine in life.

This is the far left definition of freedom.

The adult is free to come and go as they please, do what they want, and has self determination. HOWEVER, the nature of life forces them to work to maintain life, suffer consequences of decisions (good and bad)… est.

This is the right’s definition of freedom.

You see, to a communist, socialism is the freest economic system in the world. (free from worry, or positive rights)

To a conservative capitalism is the freest system in the world. (free to decide, or negative rights)

So, who do you think is more free, a child or adult?
[/quote]

Good post. I understand your argument completely. However, I think that there is still a confusion around the difference between socialism and communism. In a socialist nation - my home country, for example - there are many incentives to work hard for your livelihood and consequences if you do not. If I work harder than my neighbor, I can buy a better house, a boat, a porshe or mercedes. My standard of living is better because I’ve strived for better. If I don’t work then my standard of living is much worse. Living without any luxuries or perks. However, Canadians as a people are not willing to simply watch our countrymen die from starvation or disease. There are many reasons why people have become poor. Bad choices. Lack of opportunity. Physical/mental/emotional disabilities. That is why we relinquish some of our freedom to ensure the betterment of our people. That doesn’t mean that the Canadian system is perfect or it’s citizens without flaws. We do see some people manipulate the system to mooch off the goodwill of the hardworking. But the cost-benefit works for us.
I don’t mean to sound like Canada is a utopia and everyone is perfect. I also don’t mean to imply that the US is flawed in anyway. I’m just presenting an argument for socialism as a viable political ideology that can have a positive impact for a society.

113

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
Another way to put it is how you define freedom. Depending on how a society defines it entirely different political thought generally follows.

Take for instance a child vs. an adult. Which is more free?

The child has no responsibility, doesn’t have to work to get food is, FREE from worry, free from the consequences of bad decisions. And can essentially wonder around aimlessly with no direction and be just fine in life.

This is the far left definition of freedom.

The adult is free to come and go as they please, do what they want, and has self determination. HOWEVER, the nature of life forces them to work to maintain life, suffer consequences of decisions (good and bad)… est.

This is the right’s definition of freedom.

You see, to a communist, socialism is the freest economic system in the world. (free from worry, or positive rights)

To a conservative capitalism is the freest system in the world. (free to decide, or negative rights)

So, who do you think is more free, a child or adult?

Good post. I understand your argument completely. However, I think that there is still a confusion around the difference between socialism and communism. In a socialist nation - my home country, for example - there are many incentives to work hard for your livelihood and consequences if you do not. If I work harder than my neighbor, I can buy a better house, a boat, a porshe or mercedes. My standard of living is better because I’ve strived for better. If I don’t work then my standard of living is much worse. Living without any luxuries or perks. However, Canadians as a people are not willing to simply watch our countrymen die from starvation or disease. There are many reasons why people have become poor. Bad choices. Lack of opportunity. Physical/mental/emotional disabilities. That is why we relinquish some of our freedom to ensure the betterment of our people. That doesn’t mean that the Canadian system is perfect or it’s citizens without flaws. We do see some people manipulate the system to mooch off the goodwill of the hardworking. But the cost-benefit works for us.
I don’t mean to sound like Canada is a utopia and everyone is perfect. I also don’t mean to imply that the US is flawed in anyway. I’m just presenting an argument for socialism as a viable political ideology that can have a positive impact for a society.[/quote]

I was unaware Canada was a socialist nation. The closer to socialism, the less hard work matters. Pure socialism you no longer can own property (or essentially your life).

Up to this point I haven’t you generally find is that capitalism leads to greater wealth generation and everyone better off. Like I said before in a free capitalist society, there are no rules against money going to help out the less fortunate. Private charities always do more with less than the government. I often wonder how much good my tax dollars would do if given to some place like the red cross.

You can argue that handouts increase the standard of living for the poor, but it also undeniably increases their number. Wealfare and “social programs,” I believe, are one of the main reasons black culture has the poverty and crime rates it does.

Essentially socialism isn’t a leg up for the poor, it inevitably holds them down.

114

Obama said in his speech …“Those that can afford insurance will be required to purchase it.”

  1. Who decides what you or I can and cannot afford, and what is affordable or not? The IRS.

  2. The Government wants to impose a tax on me to protect myself. Taxing me simply for existing. If I choose not to buy car insurance, then I choose not to drive or chose to drive and break the law. In this case there is no choice to not purchase this forced service.

  3. Isn’t this ObamaScare bill a clear violation of every Americans liberty?

115

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I was unaware Canada was a socialist nation. The closer to socialism, the less hard work matters. Pure socialism you no longer can own property (or essentially your life).

Up to this point I haven’t you generally find is that capitalism leads to greater wealth generation and everyone better off. Like I said before in a free capitalist society, there are no rules against money going to help out the less fortunate. Private charities always do more with less than the government. I often wonder how much good my tax dollars would do if given to some place like the red cross.

You can argue that handouts increase the standard of living for the poor, but it also undeniably increases their number. Wealfare and “social programs,” I believe, are one of the main reasons black culture has the poverty and crime rates it does.

Essentially socialism isn’t a leg up for the poor, it inevitably holds them down.
[/quote]

Just to clarify, Canada isn’t a Socialist nation per se, but we definitely have more Socialist elements than the US. I wanted to show a link that I thought was interesting, although it doesn’t directly address the “moral” question of socialism.

I just find it interesting that New Zealand is rated above the US and Canada, yet the country is more Socialist than either.
Also, I’d like you to clarify what you mean by “everyone better off”. By what standard do you gauge this? Life expectancy? Standard of Living? General health of the population? Education? A little research and you might be suprised to see that there a many countries that are better off than the US in some regard or another.

116

Why don’t all the socialists use their liberty to set up private taxation networks to fund private social programs?

117

[quote]NinjaTreeFrog wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
I was unaware Canada was a socialist nation. The closer to socialism, the less hard work matters. Pure socialism you no longer can own property (or essentially your life).

Up to this point I haven’t you generally find is that capitalism leads to greater wealth generation and everyone better off. Like I said before in a free capitalist society, there are no rules against money going to help out the less fortunate. Private charities always do more with less than the government. I often wonder how much good my tax dollars would do if given to some place like the red cross.

You can argue that handouts increase the standard of living for the poor, but it also undeniably increases their number. Wealfare and “social programs,” I believe, are one of the main reasons black culture has the poverty and crime rates it does.

Essentially socialism isn’t a leg up for the poor, it inevitably holds them down.

Just to clarify, Canada isn’t a Socialist nation per se, but we definitely have more Socialist elements than the US. I wanted to show a link that I thought was interesting, although it doesn’t directly address the “moral” question of socialism.

I just find it interesting that New Zealand is rated above the US and Canada, yet the country is more Socialist than either.
Also, I’d like you to clarify what you mean by “everyone better off”. By what standard do you gauge this? Life expectancy? Standard of Living? General health of the population? Education? A little research and you might be suprised to see that there a many countries that are better off than the US in some regard or another.[/quote]

And there are a lot of things more socialist about the US that some countries (drug control, censorship,est.).

Fascism did wonderful things is Germany and Italy. Schools, roads, est. Like I said, I’d rather be poor and free (not that they are mutually exclusive).

By the way “better off” is a relative term. Prisoners in penitentiaries are “better off” than homeless guys living under the bridge. I guess we should start rounding them up and sending them to prison for their own good. They’d at least have food and shelter.

118

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
MaximusB wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:

That’s one of the main freaking goals of the bill: to do to the rest of the nation what they (big business republicans and the libs) did to California. They want to replace the current population with a new peasant one from Mexico and central America through free OB/GYN care to illegal immigrant Mexicans/Central Americans who pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them.

They never ask you if you’re a citizen right now when you go into the ER anyway.

TRUTH.

These are FACTS! The current healthcare bills being proposed are, in reality, a secret plot by those in power to replace the current white, rich population with a brown, peasant one from Mexico and Central America. The easiest way to do this is OBVIOUSLY through the OBGYN, obviously. It is also, obviously, a FACT that illegals “pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them.”

I just have one quick question for you PRdude. Do you think all brown people “pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them” or do you think it’s just the ones here illegally? Maximus, I want to personally thank you for supporting these statements. We wouldn’t want people to think it was only PR with these genius thoughts. [/quote]

In all honesty, G_L, I’m starting to get tired of addressing what is obviously your own Little Man complex manifesting itself in your PWI postings. It’s not the fault of conservatives on this board you didn’t grow taller. Deal. There are plenty of men with diminutive statures who don’t have the same issues you do.

119

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Why don’t all the socialists use their liberty to set up private taxation networks to fund private social programs?[/quote]

I’ve been advocating this to ninja frog over and over. Liberty doesn’t prevent social programs, just social programs at gunpoint. Put your money where your mouth is, don’t tell me to put MY money where YOUR mouth is.

120

[quote]PB-Crawl wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I am curious as to how citizenship will be verified. I’ve read that amendments dealing with just that were toredoed. So, what is the plan? And please, please, tell me the “anchor baby” thing is false. What a horrible incentive.

This is a primary point of contention - the bills don’t require verification of citizenship. As such, what is the policing mechanism to stop illegal immigrants from availing themselves of the coverage?

In addition, see the Congressional Research Service (non-partisan) report raising some questions about this issue:

http://media.sfexaminer.com/documents/noncitizens.pdf

That’s one of the main freaking goals of the bill: to do to the rest of the nation what they (big business republicans and the libs) did to California. They want to replace the current population with a new peasant one from Mexico and central America through free OB/GYN care to illegal immigrant Mexicans/Central Americans who pop out babies without thought or care of how they’ll pay for them.

They never ask you if you’re a citizen right now when you go into the ER anyway.

Yes they still do, but because they accept Medicare funds, and if they do that, they cant turn people away at ERs. Hospitals recieve funds for treating illegals, so they make sure to document that info. Starting in October though those funds are gone, the health care corp i work at isn’t changing its practice of at least seeing anyone who comes in.[/quote]

So in this case, Medicare funds are money stolen from the tax paying portion of the population and given to illegals who pay no income taxes.

Nevertheless, 12 ERs have closed their doors in Los Angeles county, which is the area with the highest concentration of illegals. Clearly, the Medicare reimbursement is insufficient.

We’ll see how long you guys stay in business, I guess.