Mccain vs. Obama - Lets see it.

[LakeMountD]

i think this is a great discussion without any personal childish attacks but i am just north of houston tx and have been running on generator power and my lights just kicked on so gotta go for now fellas and check things out will post up later but again this great to read

Yeah I messaged Mullet because he is my boy and it is just that, a discussion. I really do value 1 person 1 vote and love these discussions. There is no childish attacks because this is AM not bb.com haha.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I agree with what you say here and you are more open minded than many liberals I have spoken to. The problem is that most liberals think in this Utopian mindset. Wealth redistribution actually isn't that crazy of a concept, neither is communism. The simple concepts behind them (if you look beyond Russia, China, and those who have abused it) are very elegant. However, Utopian societies have been attempted and even at the village level they just simply don't work, greed is part of human nature.

Well, not to nitpick, but early horticultural and primitive commodity societies (the first say, 195, 000 years of our existence) were in a sense fiscally utopian - that is, while manifest hierarchies existed - most often based on theistic determination - 'private property' in the sense that we know it now did not exist. 'Capital' was not a function, and thereby all socially necessary goods were produced for subsistence and were socially accessible to all equally. 'Utopian' societies cannot exist in a world economy predicated upon private property (with capital being a determination therein); but to say they never thrived is somewhat of a misstep.

Your above statement plays the statistics game. Yeah there might be some good people who get screwed, heck my mom is one of them, but then again you can't account for the other percentage that are pieces of crap and DO abuse the system. The ones who abuse the system end up taking most of the resources. The whole concept of "the poor waitress who is scraping by" is such a cliche and tells nothing about how she got there in the first place. As stated above America rewards those who work towards their goals. I am not saying the system is perfect, the system has its flaws, especially in the tax system but the idea of taxing the rich and giving it to the poor just flat out doesn't work under Obama's plans. The worst part about this is the Keynesian cycle is at the at its minimum right now and if you try to tax the rich during this time frame it is only going to hurt us. You can get away with it at a maximum because inflation is low enough anyways it doesn't matter.

I wouldn't necessarily say I am playing the statistics game, but rather the 'human nature' game - in other words, at this point our argument necessarily disjuncts for you and I have mutually opposing views on the nature of humanity. Sort of a Locke vs., Hobbes contemporary debate here.

On a side-note, I hate Keynesian Economics; though some of the Neo-Keynesian doctrines are fascinating.

It comes down in whether you believe that the majority of the poor are either lazy, uneducated (could be due to laziness), and/or leaches or whether you believe that the bulk of the poor are there due to constraints set on them. I still have yet to hear a liberal giving me the sob story about how poor people can't go to college because of money respond to the fact that all of my friends and I took out loans the entire time (and are still taking them out).

I would agree with some of what you have said, but I still believe you are necessarily glossing over my overarching point: The determinant role community and society dynamics play in the formation of the individual-self. It is not necessarily a financial issue which precipitates failure in these cases, but rather a socio-communal aspect, which predicates the culture of deviance, crime, and other unfavorable aspects in these communities. Asking the root causes of those phenomena are what a true discourse on the nature of 'poorness' entails; without asking such questions, you are merely skimming the surface.

This is not to presuppose blame on any segment of society - nor remove it from any other - but just to elucidate the larger interconnectivity between all societal mechanisms and institutions; how we all contribute to the creation and perpetuation of economic and power apparatuses; and how all actions are necessarily interlinked - though at times through the most complex of webs.

 

[suncloud]

i say we all just move to canada... or switzerland, some bada$$ bit*hes there.

they don't shave down there... trust me, i've lived there, and its cold. major turnoff.


giving money to the poor really varies from state to state. and i'll probably come off racist for saying this, which is not my intention, and distinctly not me. in NH, CT, KS there's no true poor people. sure there are people who don't have much, but not the squalor we see in detroit for example.

single mothers in inner cities, detriot specifically have a system where they force people on welfare to pay that money back by making them work out of the city earning minimum wage. their kids grow up with what? no dad, mom working 8 hours a day minimum, with a 2 hour commute, and we wonder why the younger generation has less values than ours did. its because there's no parent there at all. granted, some of the blame falls with the mother from conceiving in the first place, but its a travesty that we don't do more to build a community up, rather than throw money their way in hopes they will figure it out themselves.

social security does not work. giving people money that can't figure out what to do with it doesn't work any better. we need some form of outreach program that does work, and does build them up, and gives them the tools - through education, morals and sports - to do better for themselves so the cycle does not continue. maybe an after school program that is simply more school - anything to keep the kids in poverty from roaming the streets till their parent gets off work.

i have both ends of the spectrum in my family. actually, let me rephrase. my parents are on the top end, and i'm closer to the bottom. but no amount of throwing money my way will make me more productive - thats a choice i have to make for myself, and through school, i'm doing it.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

they don't shave down there... trust me, i've lived there, and its cold. major turnoff.

Haha, well it's up here; not down there!



(I'm Canadian)

 

[suncloud]

(I'm Canadian)

what part? vancouver/victoria area myself for about 7 years.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

what part? vancouver/victoria area myself for about 7 years.

Originally hailing from Alberta (2.5 hours SouthEast of Calgary), and now in St.Catharines/Niagara Falls.

 

[suncloud]

i'm thinking of moving back to vancouver. i'm so distraught at the state of affairs here.

i can understand social security to some degree, but the system here is so badly broken. let me give you an example.

my next door neighbor is on SS, and her two kids get survivor benefits (dad died). the kids come over to borrow oil for cooking, milk for cereal, ketchup (catsup for you canadians), all kinds of stuff, because apparently mom doesn't buy that stuff. when their mom got the economic stimulus package (yes, she's working while collecting SS), she bought a $280 pair of sunglasses. can't feed her kids, but she's got shades. i wish there was some way to lower SS benefits, or survivor benefits, and make it something like a $150 check per week only useable at grocery stores - like food stamps. giving people money is like hoping they'll do the right thing, when clearly many are not capable of doing so, and obviously not willing to put their children first.

some other girl in front of me at the grocery store bought her food in food stamps, and took all her groceries out to her escalade. give people handouts, and they take a mile. maybe we're screwed no matter what we do.

 

[LakeMountD]

So you are in the top 5% tax bracket? Wow, good for you.

:bruce3:

I am not in the 5th percentile? Hope to be one day but not as of yet, still working my butt off to get there. If you look at any strong left wing candidate from the past they all say they will tax the rich and not the middle class and that is usually the case in the beginning, but unfortunately it never stays the case, government programs end up costing too much and taxes always rise.

Mullet: Again it goes back to the fact that you believe people are a byproduct of their environment, so much so that if they are brought up poor it is too hard to get out of being poor. That could be the cost in a high percent of individuals, but it doesn't change the fact that working hard gets you where you want to be. I am very math oriented (haha I wrote meth accidentally at first and it made me laugh) and I believe statistics rules the universe. There needs to be poor in a macroeconomic setting and some people choose not to work hard and choose to be lazy and that is by chance. Others grow up in the worst of ghettos and aspire to be doctors, again by chance. It is that chance that allows for the people who "want" to be successful to become successful while maintaining that distribution from very very rich to very very poor. A lot of you will not accept that there HAS TO BE poor in a macroeconomic society but that is a fact.

I'll tell you what. Head into Harlem, Trenton, or Oakland (South Central) and go to the basketball courts or another social gathering and offer the first person you see a full ride scholarship to Duke to become a doctor and see if he accepts.

 

[Mrs. Gimpy!]

I find it odd you bring up 'Education', as an individualized choice; it is not. .

Everything in life is a choice. teen pregnancy, drug addiction, prostitution are all CHOICES in industrialized societies. Those choices just like the choice to persue an education are individualized choices, not societal pressures which force those choices and decisions.

Rather than continue on an affirmative line of thought, let me pose a question to you: As a seventeen year old male, born into destitute community, and being personally financially 'unequipped' yourself, how would you remove yourself from that environment to seek higher education? Your mother and father both work 12+ hours daily for minimum wage, do not possess the ability to fund private schooling, and since the inception of your academic career have not been able to foster you due to the constraints of subsistence. .

if that seventeen year old was living in such despair, than he or she would have the option to have a lot of government assistance. the government here in the U.S literally throws money at those who are living in destitute communities.
that child should apply for assistance (which they will recieve if they are that financially in need). if they for some reason do not get assistance, they should take a minimum wage job in order to build up enough credit to be able to take out a loan without a cosigner and go to school. i did it just like many out there have.

I on the other hand recieved NO financial help at all. no BOG wavers, no grants. just private loans in which i have to pay for by myself.


the parents that work 12+ hours a day CHOSE to live that way.

Further, I find it almost insulting you insinuate that the 'poor' do not work hard; such an assumption is beyond misinformed Lake, and I mean that with no disrespect.

As I stated above, abuses of the system invariably occur, but often those on the lowest gradients of economic stratification work harder than do you and I. .

The poor do NOT work as hard as those who have good jobs and went to school in my opinion.

as a waitress, i worked hard. HARDER than my work as a dental hygienist. I worked harder and got paid a lot less. BUT, going to school was a BILLION times harder. my program (not the prerequisite gen. ed. courses) was harder than being a waitress and a dental hygienist combined because i could NOT work due to 40+ hours a week in school and i had to pay to be there. many single moms were in my program and simply took out large loans to cover school and their lost earned incomes. .[/QUOTE]

doctors lawyers and ceos all have worked harder than most to get where they are. if everyone was given the option to step in their shoes, and go through everything all these "rich" people went through to get there, most would simply rather work at mcdonalds. i would not do it to make a larger income than i do. i personally could not and would not be able to sacrafice so much to get there. people do not give successful people enought credit for all of their hardships and like to throw pity parties for themselves.

On an anecdotal note, I would always cringe when my Venezuelan immigrant friends would tell me their Mother double-shifted daily as a housekeeper, to make less money in a month than my Mother made in a few days; now, such is not my 'Mother's' fault, nor anybody in her gradient, but merely illustrating your assumption that 'poorness'-as-a-choice is somewhat incorrect. .

no cringing on my part. my waitress friends partied and had time to be with their familys , while i whirled into temporary debt and had NO time for my sanity while in the dental hygiene program. now i make more than 2 times as much as they do now. its quite fair.

my dad is from a third world country. parents do not hold a high school education. worked very hard to barely eat. my dad's parents were so poor, they had to make all of their own clothes. Now my dad is a successful dentist and did it all by himself. no excuses people. choices are choices, not lack of options.

Firstly, 'poor' and 'rich' are subjectively relative terms, used to denote two positions on opposing ends of the spectrum of a closed economic system; in that respect, Microeconomics Now, this stratification is what must exist, to drive an economy predicated upon consumption; without the equilibrium of labor power being purchased for less than the socially necessary goods it produces, you have market failure. This, and not 'richness' and 'poorness', is what Microeconomics rightfully presupposes. However, with that being said, if you would examine the current levels of Global Stratification and tell me you feel this type of wealth centralization is 'necessary', I may call you crazy.

honestly, do you think that society can function if everyone, including the cashier people make +$30 an hour? is it fair to the people who have demonstrated varying levels of motivation? hard work?

 

[Mrs. Gimpy!]

A lot of you will not accept that there HAS TO BE poor in a macroeconomic society but that is a fact.

I'll tell you what. Head into Harlem, Trenton, or Oakland (South Central) and go to the basketball courts or another social gathering and offer the first person you see a full ride scholarship to Duke to become a doctor and see if he accepts.

:goodpost:

 

[Mrs. Gimpy!]

So you are in the top 5% tax bracket? Wow, good for you.

:bruce3:

oh please

 

[Mulletsoldier]

....

Can you point out:

a) Where I directly stated the beliefs you attribute to me?

b) Where I even implied any of them?

c) Where I stated that the educated and wealthy are not hard-working?

d) Where I stated wealth should be redistributed?

e) That all the poor are hard-working, or as a function of their poorness deserve better conditions?

I did not do any of those above things, and as a result I forewent quoting your response; not out of disrespect - as I read the entire thing - but unfortunately I feel you did not understand any of mine.

Unfortunately, you glossed over the fundamental message of all of my posts: How the myth of the individual has undergone reification, and the reality of the community has dissipated - that is, the formation of self is not individual, as it were.

As well, you contradicted yourself in several places (not being rude, but truthful). For example: You stated that "the poor" (you know all of them?) are not hard working, and in the very next sentence stated that you worked MUCH HARDER FOR LESS MONEY (i.e., the "Working Poor") as a waitress. Seems like some discontinuity, no?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I am not in the 5th percentile? Hope to be one day but not as of yet, still working my butt off to get there. If you look at any strong left wing candidate from the past they all say they will tax the rich and not the middle class and that is usually the case in the beginning, but unfortunately it never stays the case, government programs end up costing too much and taxes always rise.

Mullet: Again it goes back to the fact that you believe people are a byproduct of their environment, so much so that if they are brought up poor it is too hard to get out of being poor. That could be the cost in a high percent of individuals, but it doesn't change the fact that working hard gets you where you want to be. I am very math oriented (haha I wrote meth accidentally at first and it made me laugh) and I believe statistics rules the universe. There needs to be poor in a macroeconomic setting and some people choose not to work hard and choose to be lazy and that is by chance. Others grow up in the worst of ghettos and aspire to be doctors, again by chance. It is that chance that allows for the people who "want" to be successful to become successful while maintaining that distribution from very very rich to very very poor. A lot of you will not accept that there HAS TO BE poor in a macroeconomic society but that is a fact.

I'll tell you what. Head into Harlem, Trenton, or Oakland (South Central) and go to the basketball courts or another social gathering and offer the first person you see a full ride scholarship to Duke to become a doctor and see if he accepts.

Haha, rather than quote verbatim Lake, I will simply present this analogy:

Picture to circles, with perforated edges; each as permeable as the next. One smaller, one larger. Where they combine, they necessarily alter the dynamic of the other - at times permanently, at times temporarily, but a reflexive relationship is had.

One is the self, one is the society: They interact, but do not dictate. That is all I am trying to say. Maybe it is my language use, but this point does not seem to be conveyed. I realize this is in part a function of the collective American Psyche, but it is imperative to gripping the nature of social existence, IMO.

 

[Mrs. Gimpy!]

Can you point out:

a) Where I directly stated the beliefs you attribute to me?

b) Where I even implied any of them?

c) Where I stated that the educated and wealthy are not hard-working?

d) Where I stated wealth should be redistributed?

e) That all the poor are hard-working, or as a function of their poorness deserve better conditions?

I did not do any of those above things, and as a result I forewent quoting your response; not out of disrespect - as I read the entire thing - but unfortunately I feel you did not understand any of mine.

Unfortunately, you glossed over the fundamental message of all of my posts: How the myth of the individual has undergone reification, and the reality of the community has dissipated - that is, the formation of self is not individual, as it were.

As well, you contradicted yourself in several places (not being rude, but truthful). For example: You stated that "the poor" (you know all of them?) are not hard working, and in the very next sentence stated that you worked MUCH HARDER FOR LESS MONEY (i.e., the "Working Poor") as a waitress. Seems like some discontinuity, no?

i agree that we have different opinions and that you will never understand what i am really telling you and vice versa. we are two entirely different people and that is what makes life fun.

also, you did not read or accidently skimmed over this part:

as a waitress, i worked hard. HARDER than my work as a dental hygienist. I worked harder and got paid a lot less. BUT, going to school was a BILLION times harder. my program (not the prerequisite gen. ed. courses) was harder than being a waitress and a dental hygienist combined because i could NOT work due to 40+ hours a week in school and i had to pay to be there.

 

[j4ever]

Pretend for a moment you are a drug counsellor, taking on a new case: The patient is described as lazy, unmotivated, selfish and otherwise unfavorable - in other words, the typical symptoms of a drug user. However, as with all other drug counsellors, the very first component of this individual's life you examine is the family. Why? Because, for example, laziness and lack of motivation may very well be individual traits, but they also may be very symptomatic of a deeply troubling family dynamic; that is, conditional traits of his/her environment. You see, it is important to investigate beyond the individual, into his/her environment, in order to determine the root cause; not for the purposes of blame, or to remove the onus from the individual, but to identify the perpetuating causes of his disease.

Now, in the above scenario, I am sure you have no problems with that approach. So why in fiscal matters is the responsibility solely on the shoulders of the individual agent? I often find Conservatives lack the ability to ask the investigative questions; to go beyond "It's his/her fault" to identify communal problematics. One must realize that 'laziness' is individual - and no doubt pieces of **** exist - but the same disparity compounded, and compounded, and compounded is indicative of external factors.

That being said, I do not believe in universal redistribution of the wealth, or assisting those who abuse the system. I simply feel we are operating on a playing field which is fundamentally inequitable. You should ask yourself, "What is it that makes my friends content to be where they are? Is this symptomatic of a larger community problem?

Yes i agree with you about external factors and this comes from someone not only from a broken home but a violent home as well but at the end of the day it comes down to individual responsibility and the choices one makes again i agree that family life,community,where one falls within the income brackets so to speak all these have an influence on a person and some people have more compounding externals than others.

 

[LakeMountD]

Yes i agree with you about external factors and this comes from someone not only from a broken home but a violent home as well but at the end of the day it comes down to individual responsibility and the choices one makes again i agree that family life,community,where one falls within the income brackets so to speak all these have an influence on a person and some people have more compounding externals than others.

Well said, this is pretty much what I was trying to get at. It isn't that I disagree with the notion that society can create monsters but it comes down to the fact that it doesn't change the fact that they make their own decisions. If someone kills someone and says well it wasn't my fault, I was raised around killing does that mean they should be spared? You don't get special treatment because of negative externalities.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Well said, this is pretty much what I was trying to get at. It isn't that I disagree with the notion that society can create monsters but it comes down to the fact that it doesn't change the fact that they make their own decisions. If someone kills someone and says well it wasn't my fault, I was raised around killing does that mean they should be spared? You don't get special treatment because of negative externalities.

No, haha; that is not what I said either! I don't how to better explain the Notion, but I wish I could.

Here is my last attempt:

As a function of my education, I will always be drawn to ask the fundamental question:

"If 'X' occurs, how were 'Y, and Z' involved?". That is it. What I am trying to display here, is that 'Society' and 'Self' are reflexive - each as equally influential on the other. Their interaction does not pardon or excuse actions, but rather properly contextualizes them; in that respect, your example is not 'spared', but rather his actions explained for the purpose of prevention and so forth. Each individual still must execute any final decision, but he/she executes that through psychological, emotional, and intellectual mechanisms he/she did not alone choose - is that fair? In that respect, we must ALWAYS consider the socio-historical context of any one decision.

Here is a quote which exemplifies that:

“Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both.”

C. Wright Mills quotes

The fundamental imperative here is merely gaining that understanding. In this context, the "poorness" of an individual simply cannot - and never will be - separated from the larger economy he/she is poor in: It simply cannot be!

 

[TrainTilUDrop]

No, haha; that is not what I said either! I don't how to better explain the Notion, but I wish I could.

Here is my last attempt:

As a function of my education, I will always be drawn to ask the fundamental question:

"If 'X' occurs, how were 'Y, and Z' involved?". That is it. What I am trying to display here, is that 'Society' and 'Self' are reflexive - each as equally influential on the other. Their interaction does not pardon or excuse actions, but rather properly contextualizes them; in that respect, your example is not 'spared', but rather his actions explained for the purpose of prevention and so forth. Each individual still must execute any final decision, but he/she executes that through psychological, emotional, and intellectual mechanisms he/she did not alone choose - is that fair? In that respect, we must ALWAYS consider the socio-historical context of any one decision.

Here is a quote which exemplifies that:

“Neither the life of an individual nor the history of a society can be understood without understanding both.”

C. Wright Mills quotes

The fundamental imperative here is merely gaining that understanding. In this context, the "poorness" of an individual simply cannot - and never will be - separated from the larger economy he/she is poor in: It simply cannot be!

I completely understand what you said above. But with everything you said, why does that mean that I should distribute some of what I make to these people because of the negative externalities around them? More specifically, why should I give them more than they already get? Most are already abusing the welfare system, the poor still have the highest birth rate because they of the previous (as well as the highest congenital defect and mortality rate), and most are physically able to work more than they do. There are already plenty of government programs to help these people. That is what it should be, help, not a program to make people middle class, but a program help people stay on their feet.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I completely understand what you said above. But with everything you said, why does that mean that I should distribute some of what I make to these people because of the negative externalities around them? More specifically, why should I give them more than they already get? Most are already abusing the welfare system, the poor still have the highest birth rate because they of the previous (as well as the highest congenital defect and mortality rate), and most are physically able to work more than they do. There are already plenty of government programs to help these people. That is what it should be, help, not a program to make people middle class, but a program help people stay on their feet.

Well, I never said it should, actually. I actually disagree with Wealth Redistribution several times.

 

[RobInKuwait]

Well, I never said it should, actually. I actually disagree with Wealth Redistribution several times.

Whatever Marxy Marx. :hammer:

 

[Orangepeel]

Hell yeah, i still wanna vote for Ron Paul.

Otherwise, I just really don't care, I don't see either doing anything too great.

 

[rolandajoint]

im more anti-palin than i am pro-obama.

 

[Rick28]

Hell yeah, i still wanna vote for Ron Paul.

Otherwise, I just really don't care, I don't see either doing anything too great.

The closest you'll get to Ron Paul Is Chuck Baldwin in the Constitutional Party. That's who I'm voting for.

 

[RobInKuwait]

The closest you'll get to Ron Paul Is Chuck Baldwin in the Constitutional Party. That's who I'm voting for.

Ron Paul favors a strict constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court. Obama doesn't, he basically wants 9 unelected officials to decide what they think is right based using the constitution as a loose guide. McCain sees eye to eye with Paul on this issue and will institute justices that respect the constitution.

A vote for Baldwin may as well be a vote for Obama. McCain has a lot more in common with Paul than Obama does.

 

[LakeMountD]

The closest you'll get to Ron Paul Is Chuck Baldwin in the Constitutional Party. That's who I'm voting for.

Barr didn't seem so bad either. It is unfortunate that some of the independents and libertarians don't have more funding. Unfortunately they rarely ever get enough votes because people vote for someone so that the other doesn't win. Obama supporters who may agree with the LIB party will vote for Obama so McCain doesn't win and vice versa for McCain supporters. It is unfortunate

 

[Rick28]

Ron Paul favors a strict constitutional interpretation by the Supreme Court. Obama doesn't, he basically wants 9 unelected officials to decide what they think is right based using the constitution as a loose guide. McCain sees eye to eye with Paul on this issue and will institute justices that respect the constitution.

A vote for Baldwin may as well be a vote for Obama. McCain has a lot more in common with Paul than Obama does.

There's a good chance Ron Paul wouldn't vote for McCain either. Especially not Obama.

 

[RobInKuwait]

There's a good chance Ron Paul wouldn't vote for McCain either. Especially not Obama.

Agreed. He probably wouldn't. But you have to decide who is more a fan of free market economics. McCain has being going the wrong direction lately, but Obama may as well be Marx.

IMHO, every other issue is silly when compared to the fight to maintain free market capitalism in this socialist leaning world.

 

[strategicmove]

...McCain has being going the wrong direction lately, but Obama may as well be Marx....

:think:

 

[RobInKuwait]

:think:

I think I was referring to the 700B bailout and mortgage bailout.

 

[strategicmove]

I think I was referring to the 700B bailout and mortgage bailout.

So, why should Obama as well be Marx as a consequence of the $700 billion bail-out? Was that his proposal? Didn't McCain and Obama equally support the bail-out?

 

[RobInKuwait]

So, why should Obama as well be Marx as a consequence of the $700 billion bail-out? Was that his proposal? Didn't McCain and Obama equally support the bail-out?

They both supported the bailout, you are correct. However, you're misinterpreting my post. I didn't say that was why Obama is a Marxist. I say that based upon the ideas he presents:

- redistribution of wealth
- socialization of health care
- increase of government size
- increase in government control over the lives of the populace
- rhetoric with historically socialist/collectivist verbage
- ties to numerous admitted communists and socialists

 

[papapumpsd]

I wanted to vote for Arnie! When is that mofoer gonna run for Pres?! Piss on these two dorks running for Pres. I have zero interest in them or that winking Alaskan thing.

I might actually vote if the candidates didn't act so freaking childish....slamming each other, name calling, slandering, etc. etc. It is such a turn off I never vote. What's the point? You're simply choosing the best liar.

Politics is such a wonderful topic!

 

[RobInKuwait]

I wanted to vote for Arnie! When is that mofoer gonna run for Pres?!

Never.

He was born in Austria.

 

[papapumpsd]

Never.

He was born in Austria.

I hear ya man! So let's hope a new law is passed that allows movie stars who have won Mr. Olympias and have made a video called "Pumping Iron" to be President! :woohoo::hammer::hammer:

 

[RobInKuwait]

I hear ya man! So let's hope a new law is passed that allows movie stars who have won Mr. Olympias and have made a video called "Pumping Iron" to be President! :woohoo::hammer::hammer:

Doubt that constitutional amendment will ever be passed under a democratic congress. The last republican actor who ran for president was in there for 8 years.

 

[strategicmove]

They both supported the bailout, you are correct. However, you're misinterpreting my post. I didn't say that was why Obama is a Marxist. I say that based upon the ideas he presents:

- redistribution of wealth
- socialization of health care
- increase of government size
- increase in government control over the lives of the populace
- rhetoric with historically socialist/collectivist verbage
- ties to numerous admitted communists and socialists

Let's not delve into the argument about the classical definition of Marxism and Socialism. You have numerous elements and manifestations of the points you listed in many advanced modern-day capitalist economies, and no serious individual would classify those economies as Marxist or Socialist as a consequence! And the last point "ties to numerous admitted communists and socialists" is simply laughable!

 

[RenegadeRows]

I expected McCain to be ahead here. But not by much; that is surprising.

 

[Australian made]

Does old man river really have a chance of becomming President? He seems to be falling behind by the day.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSTRE49J0LF20081023

 

[RobInKuwait]

Let's not delve into the argument about the classical definition of Marxism and Socialism.

Lets not. I didn't say anything that should even spark this debate. You can agree that the term Socialization of health care refers healthcare's nationalization.

You have numerous elements and manifestations of the points you listed in many advanced modern-day capitalist economies, and no serious individual would classify those economies as Marxist or Socialist as a consequence!

Actually many "serious individuals" have. Do a search on "Obama, Socialism." Did you mean to say, no individuals you choose to acknowledge classify those economies as Marxist or Socialist? There are so many definitions and deviations on Socialism that one could evade their way out of any argument that a system is socialist.

And the last point "ties to numerous admitted communists and socialists" is simply laughable!

Laughable based upon what?

 

[strategicmove]

...You can agree that the term Socialization of health care refers healthcare's nationalization...

No, I cannot! I do not know what it means to say the socialization of healthcare refers to healthcare's nationalization!

Actually many "serious individuals" have. Do a search on "Obama, Socialism." ...

Why should I? What would such a search yield? You can do a search on almost any subject these days. Finding content on such subjects does not necessarily give them legitimacy. It depends on the author's motivation.

Did you mean to say, no individuals you choose to acknowledge classify those economies as Marxist or Socialist? ...

Fine! Japan is socialist! So is Germany! So is Great Britain! And so on!

There are so many definitions and deviations on Socialism that one could evade their way out of any argument that a system is socialist.

And by the token of your logic, one could also find some elements of socialism in the US, if one tries hard enough!

Laughable based upon what?

On the audacity and exaggerated generalization of your comment!

 

[RobInKuwait]

No, I cannot! I do not know what it means to say the socialization of healthcare refers to healthcare's nationalization!




Why should I? What would such a search yield? You can do a search on almost any subject these days. Finding content on such subjects does not necessarily give them legitimacy. It depends on the author's motivation.


Fine! Japan is socialist! So is Germany! So is Great Britain! And so on!



And by the token of your logic, one could also find some elements of socialism in the US, if one tries hard enough!


On the audacity and exaggerated generalization of your comment!

I commend you on your ability to evade discussing ideas and concepts by focusing on semantics and debating definitions. It leads to truly meaningful discussions.

So just to clear things up. When is acceptable to use the term Socialism in your eyes? What is an acceptable definition of Socialism? Are there any nations that fit in with that definition?

 

[strategicmove]

I commend you on your ability to evade discussing ideas and concepts by focusing on semantics and debating definitions. It leads to truly meaningful discussions...

You do not have to commend me on anything. Not warranted. I think you are the one that has been throwing around big words and concepts that lack any well-defined and generally accepted meanings. Semantics (in a neutral sense) and definitions are important for any meaningful discourse! If we do not agree on definitions, we can only pretend to be communicating!

So just to clear things up. When is acceptable to use the term Socialism in your eyes? What is an acceptable definition of Socialism? Are there any nations that fit in with that definition?

Based on your generous usage of those concepts to reach your preferred conclusions, you should share your implied definitions and understanding with us!

 

[RobInKuwait]

You do not have to commend me on anything. Not warranted. I think you are the one that has been throwing around big words and concepts that lack any well-defined and generally accepted meanings. Semantics (in a neutral sense) and definitions are important for any meaningful discourse! If we do not agree on definitions, we can only pretend to be communicating!

fine, I take it back

Based on your generous usage of those concepts to reach your preferred conclusions, you should share your implied definitions and understanding with us!

Here's the wiki definition:

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.

Throughout human history, Socialism on a national scale has only occurred when initiated by the state, so I would change it to:

Socialism- refers to economic theories that advocate state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.

By contrast, the diametrically opposed viewpoint in my eyes is Capitalism.

Here's the wiki definition:

Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production are distributed to openly competing profit-seeking private persons and where investments, distribution, income, production and pricing of goods and services are predominantly determined through the operation of a free market where anyone can participate in supply and demand and form contracts with each other, rather than by central economic planning.

I see no reason to modify that definition.

Since its onset, the United States has sought to be a proponent of the free market and therefore capitalism. There have been numerous incidents that have steered the US away from the philosophy, but it has basically gone in that general direction.

Therefore, whenever I feel the US is taking a step toward Socialism, by advocating state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society, I say so.

 

[LakeMountD]

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/10460/Biden__Obama_will_be_tested_in_the_first_6_months/

This sort of says it all.

 

[manifesto]

Kind of off topic, but could you guys imagine if Bush had connections with a former terrorist like Bill Ayers....Man would that be something.

Ohhhh the double standards.

 

[LakeMountD]

Kind of off topic, but could you guys imagine if Bush had connections with a former terrorist like Bill Ayers....Man would that be something.

Ohhhh the double standards.

That is exactly it. It is the 21st century politically correct mentality. Sort of like when Obama said, "She is a typical white woman.", speaking of his grandmother. What if McCain said, "She is a typical black woman." lol.

 

[suncloud]

this poll is fascinating. so far, mccain is in the lead, with the poll almost exactly opposite of the polls i see in the newspapers. what is it about bodybuilders that makes mccain a better choice? besides the biden ban.

 

[LakeMountD]

this poll is fascinating. so far, mccain is in the lead, with the poll almost exactly opposite of the polls i see in the newspapers. what is it about bodybuilders that makes mccain a better choice? besides the biden ban.

Because McCain IS the better choice lol. If you could give me a reason why Obama is better I wouldn't mind hearing it though. As for the polls many of them are completely biased. Polls never tell the story. If you want to go with polls though why not use one of the best, the AP poll, which states it's 44% to 43% McCain. It was 49% to 42% 2 weeks ago .

Not to mention: Democrat: Obama's grandma confirms Kenyan birth

 

[suncloud]

brotha, i'm out of politics. i was just curious as to why his numbers were higher in this poll than they are in my newspaper.

 

[LakeMountD]

brotha, i'm out of politics. i was just curious as to why his numbers were higher in this poll than they are in my newspaper.

It is just biased polling. More so biased opinions, people don't tell the truth in polls, it is strange but it has been that way for a while. That link above is amazing though. Even if it were for McCain it would be crazy, I am not just saying that because I am a McCain supporter. Really would be the biggest scandal in American politics.