Obama and the younger generation

Duke wrote: War can be justified in some instances. But socialism cannot be.

I don't understand- if the end result is the same- Saving American Lives- and we can save a whole lot more of them via national health care- isn't that a much better way to spend less money?

How, exactly, do you justify war? Assuming that you can't use a threat to American Lives.

Oh, and socialized power isn't a good thing, then? It's so regulated and you MUST have it, it's socialized.

Socialized roads are bad, too? We all pay for those.

I think it's more how you do socialism that's either good or bad. Nobody is saying that we socialize car production (although some would love to socialize oil production to make gas cheaper).

If, as a society, we place a high regard on American Lives, and we do based on our reaction being attacked, how is that actually different than any other death? Especially if it's just as preventable as Terrorism is?

Give the auto industry 10% of what's been spent on the War on Terrorism, I bet we could collecitvly save 1000 people a year with that money!

Duke wrote: War can be justified in some instances. But socialism cannot be.

Do you support the military? What sort of institution would you describe our military as, if not Socialist or Communist? Do you think it would be improved by privatizing it?

When an enemy is already a significant world player (Soviets, China, etc) they already have the necessary standing such that the mere act of talking directly to them itself doesn't convey a new or artificial level of importance to those regimes. They have already earned a seat at the table and discussions at this level are a matter of necessity.

However, when dealing with bit players and tin pot dictators, the mere act of direct talks suddenly "promotes" them (and lends credibility to their regime) while making the superpower look weak. Did you see Kennedy, etc, negotiating directly with Castro?

The correct way to deal with such enemies are indirect talks... and often refusing to talk at all to some of these regimes is in itself a viable negotiation tactic.

Bill

Why?

belteshazzar wrote: yeah. I don't like obama either.

Salanis wrote:

Duke wrote: War can be justified in some instances. But socialism cannot be.

Do you support the military? What sort of institution would you describe our military as, if not Socialist or Communist? Do you think it would be improved by privatizing it?

There are a (very) few valid functions of Government (as recognized by our Constitution) that clearly should not be provided by commercial companies and having a military is one of them.

I don't think you can accurately characterize such a function as socialist or communist without a hearty stretch of the term. It is a Government program, not a business. It would be like saying Congress itself is Socialist (currently an accurate label) because it's paid for by the Government... Bill

It is a service owned, operated, and provided for solely by the government.

It is an insular society of itself where people have their roles dictated to them and they fill them for the good of that society. In return, their society covers their basic needs.

There are forms of socialism that work, and a military is one of them. There is also religious socialism. The system only works when it is a voluntary system.

wcelliot wrote: When an enemy is already a significant world player (Soviets, China, etc) they already have the necessary standing such that the mere act of talking directly to them itself doesn't convey a new or artificial level of importance to those regimes. They have already earned a seat at the table and discussions at this level are a matter of necessity. However, when dealing with bit players and tin pot dictators, the mere act of direct talks suddenly "promotes" them (and lends credibility to their regime) while making the superpower look weak. Did you see Kennedy, etc, negotiating directly with Castro? The correct way to deal with such enemies are indirect talks... and often refusing to talk at all to some of these regimes is in itself a viable negotiation tactic. Bill

I will just completely disagree with that.

I think the opposite, that one can easily nip a problem in the bud when they are trying to become a weed, as opposed to having to selectively weeding an entire filed with deep roots. We are not talking that we are going to all of a sudden recognize Iran, but do more to prevent us from spending trillions of dollars to militarily deal with them at a later date.

It's going to be now or later- with words for little $$ or with guns and lots of $$$ (and lives).

Kennedy and Castro is a bad example, since Castro had the full backing of the Soviet Union behind him- Kennedy bypassed Castro directly to Krustiev (sp?), and Cuba has suffered since (econimically, at least).

E

The American military exists to protect the rights of American citizens when they are threatened. As such, they are part of the executive branch of the government, just like the police are on a local level.

A government protecting the rights of its citizens is not socialism. Citizens are taxed in order to pay for the costs of having their rights protected, both in terms of police and military protection. This is not socialism.

A government taking money from rich citizens in order to pay for things that poor citizens cannot afford (socialized or universal health care), or in order to give money directly to the poorer citizens (welfare) IS socialism.

Can you not see that?

And to the arguer that public healthcare offers more 'bang for the buck' in terms of saving American lives, you could not have missed the point more completely. The point is not to save American lives. The point is to protect the rights of American citizens.

Someone getting sick or accidentally injured is NOT having their rights violated. Therefore the government has no responsibility to protect them from the event - there is no right to not get sick.

But an innocent person who is having an airplane crashed into them or who is being blown up by a bomb IS having their rights violated... therefore it becomes the American government's responsibility to protect its citizens from that.

It's not directly related to saving the lives at all - that's a byproduct of protecting the citizens' rights. In this case, the lives are not interchangeable.

You absolutely have the right to disagree... history just proves your opinion incorrect.

Bill

Salanis wrote: It is a service owned, operated, and provided for solely by the government. It is an insular society of itself where people have their roles dictated to them and they fill them for the good of that society. In return, their society covers their basic needs. There are forms of socialism that work, and a military is one of them. There is also religious socialism. The system only works when it is a voluntary system.

A lot of leftists seem to see the military primarily as a jobs program... kind of skews their perspective of its actual nature and purpose.

Bill

GlennS wrote: Who is this George Soros and why is he the boogie man?

Socialist/Marxist multibillionaire who hates capitalism even though he used it to create his fortune. Hates America even more. Rose to fame by purchasing the Democrat party a few years ago. ;-)

Bill

Soros also is known for breaking the Bank of England. And Soros backs Little Mac. We lose/he wins either way.

Duke wrote: War can be justified in some instances. But socialism cannot be.

Ok, please don't drive on any roads any more, don't ever call 911, tell your kids that you are going to be home schooling them from now on. Tell the power company that you want to go off the grid and that you should be disconnected immediately. The same with phone, water, and sewer service. Tell your boss that he doesn't need to spend any money making sure your workplace is safe and healthy to work in, and he can pay yo whatever he wants to, even .01/hour.

Argh, I cant stand people who blatantly say all socialism is bad!

SupraWes wrote: A bunch of very incorrect generalities about what socialism is.

Wow. Kneejerk much?

Tell your boss that he doesn't need to spend any money making sure your workplace is safe and healthy to work in, and he can pay yo whatever he wants to, even .01/hour.

Why on earth would I tell him that? I have no reason to agree to those conditions as terms of my employment. And last I heard, I was the one who decided where and how I was willing to work, not the government, thank you very much.

It seems to me you have an equally, if not moreso, blatant misunderstanding about what socialism is as you propose I do.

Or in other words he is another boogie man created by the Republicans to make us afraid of effective government and so that we can be distracted while they pick all our pockets clean.

wcelliot wrote:

GlennS wrote: Who is this George Soros and why is he the boogie man?

Socialist/Marxist multibillionaire who hates capitalism even though he used it to create his fortune. Hates America even more. Rose to fame by purchasing the Democrat party a few years ago. ;-) Bill

Phone, water, sewer (septic), electricity: all private enterprise here. Roads: County infrastructure. 911, well, of limited use in many parts of the country as it is. School: entire other subject and in most cases, an example of the failures of socialism and I would gladly disconnect from that system if given the opportunity (that is, if there wasn't a gun pointed at me forcing me into it). A safe work environment is not socialism. My employer and I negotiate in a free market for my wages. If the government told my boss how much they could get away with paying me, that would be socialism.

Oh, don't worry, Wes, we're on the way to socialism/totalitarianism. I don't see much way to stop it. After that will come a dictatorship. We'll all be dead by then, so only the children will have to live through it. Smile and ask for more taxes.

"Shared infrastructure" is not automatically socialist.

Duke wrote: A government protecting the rights of its citizens is not socialism. Citizens are taxed in order to pay for the costs of having their rights protected, both in terms of police and military protection. This is not socialism.

Fair enough. I guess I was trying to say that the military society is a communistic one. I think I was reaching a bit too far anyway.

Religious socialism is a better example.

I think Socialism can work on small scales. On a large scale it either collapses under its own weight or devolves into totalitarianism. It is not the only route to totalitarianism though.

You guys are beautiful. I bring up Obama's age and you go through socialism, communism, Castro, Kennedy, roads, the military, 911, school, free markets, George Soros, abortion, phone, water and sewer services, the Bank of England, the military, gun control, healthcare, the War on Terrorism, Reagan, Eisenhower, The Evil Empire, CAFE standards, Haliburton , the Harsh Mistress Moon, car insurance, the breakup of AT&T, Cheney, air traffic control, and Fragile Earth...

... ...and a partridge in a pear tree...

All this in 24 hours.

All we need now is Anita Bryant, the Bible, oranges, and the 101st airborne division doing a flyover and we'd really have something to bring a tear to your eye.

All I was really trying to say was...E36 M3, I forgot.

Duke- yes I DO get it, and I do accept it. I don't care what the threat is, Saving American Lives is a priority to me, especially when you look at the cost spent to save a life.

WC- outside of chamberlin's pathetic negotiations, how was it bad? And when SHOULD we engage Iran? (and how is attacking them any less of a justification to them vs. talking to them?) No, talking now may not do anything, but for the cost, it sure is worth it.

SVreX- I think what you see is the people who think that Obama is the worst thing that can happen to country- as opposed to many of us who, for one reason or another, like the direction he appears to be taking us. And his retoric is consistent. McCain has already circled back on himself (2000- no off shore drilling, now good to go, 2000- no outside infuence, now- I need the money) McCain is the second coming of John Kerry.

But it's easier to throw mud.

Eric

I don't think Obama is the worst thing that can happen to us at all. For one thing, when he's elected, the stock market is immediately going to rise and stabilize, based entirely on the simple fact that Barack Obama is not George W. Bush.

I just don't think he's the Great White (errr, Whatever) Hope that his supporters (including the OP) make him out to be.

Duke- yes I DO get it

Well then, maybe you can explain it to me. The US is $9,389,160,361,045.06 in debt. My FEDERAL INCOME TAX ALONE is 30 freaking percent of my income, and apparently, that's not enough. So what's a fair tax rate? 50% of my income? Would that be enough to let the lazy, incompetent, and fiscally retarded to live to 100, while I work my ass off and die at 65? - at which point, by the way, if I'm fortunate enough to accumulate $1 million or more worth of assets (house, cars, retirement money, etc.,) Obama wants to take HALF of my E36 M3. I don't berkeleying think so.

So explain it to me. What's the maximum percentage anyone should pay in taxes?

Totaltiairianism can be had in both the left and right extremes.

I argee with Duke, I'm not so blind as to see Obama as some political Crist figure, But it is either him or 4 more years of how things are going now. Except we replace the blatant stupidity with anger managment problems.

I liked McKain back in 2000 when he was the Mavrick and such, but he has sold out compleatly since then.

As for those fear him as a decent into socialism, Look at FDR and the New Deal. Those were some, to put it nuetraly, left of center programs that "saved" our country. Ultimatly, the spirit of the New Deal lasted till the Regan Revolution. Most of the ingrained Socio/Economic issues are rooted in the R.R.

Many economists feel The New Deal prolonged the Great Depression. It took until Reagan to ease off of the damage it did to us and now the Communist Party of America is bringing it back.

You know what's wrong with BHO? He is either a terrible judge of character, friends, advisors, etc. or he is saying one thing and really thinks something totally opposite. You pick.

I'm just waiting for Anita Bryant to drop Bibles while doing a flyover with the 101st Airborne over an orange grove.

neon4891 wrote: I'm not so blind as to see Obama as some political Crist figure,

Charlie Christ?