Originally posted by SioBabble

Originally posted by Muirin

If you feel that the greatest charity in all of the worlds is the US government then go ahead write a check to the IRS.  But i would rather give my money to a charity i trust.  Go with something you believe in, but dont force other people to do it with you.

 

"Liberty, once lost, is lost forever."

-John Adams 1775

Words of warning from the past. 

 

 

Not a charity.  You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how civilization works.

I can't cure fantasy-supported ignorance on the scale you share with us.

"Cure"  You make it sound like i have a disease.  If your not going to even try to have a debate with me dont respond to my posts please.

Originally posted by sniperg

Historically speaking all societies had 3 social classes. Upper, middle and lower. Each time when the middle class disappeared, there was never a good ending..

It is already happening. The middle class is evaporating, and now very serious trouble is brewing. That is why people are flocking to Obama like they are, and they will accept anything he gives them that makes their lives bearable right now. They'll get it too, because the democratic party has a strangle-hold on every single branch of government.

But I hold that the alternative is still worse. Palin is not acceptable, and I don't even know what to say about McCain that doesn't boil down to bad leadership and governing ability.

All in all, this is very bad. Very, very bad. Obama is just the lesser of the two evils.

For socialism:

I don't like full blown socialism because it encourages mediocrity and stagnation. Tell me of one very socialistic society that has not, or is not, falling apart.

Originally posted by sniperg

America sure has became a strange place. From the land of the free it seems it has reverted to "each man for himself".

..

I can't see why US is so afraind of socialism and also I can't understand why they are so proud of capitalism.

Its not thinking of being anarchists, but rather to have the Federal Government kept to a certain amount of power.  Having a weak central government risks anarchy, but a strong central government could risk oppression.  So some kind of in between is the goal.

We value individual freedom.  Some people prefer to sacrifice their freedom if it means to having a better economic or secured life, while others would prefer to keep those freedoms, even if it means to have a not so good economic or secured life.

Originally posted by Dracus

Originally posted by sniperg

America sure has became a strange place. From the land of the free it seems it has reverted to "each man for himself".

..

I can't see why US is so afraind of socialism and also I can't understand why they are so proud of capitalism.

Its not thinking of being anarchists, but rather to have the Federal Government kept to a certain amount of power.  Having a weak central government risks anarchy, but a strong central government could risk oppression.  So some kind of in between is the goal.

We value individual freedom.  Some people prefer to sacrifice their freedom if it means to having a better economic or secured life, while others would prefer to keep those freedoms, even if it means to have a not so good economic or secured life.

One imporatant reason the Federal Government has grown over the past century is that corporations need a counterbalance.

Think about this carefully...who has the most impact on your daily life:  your boss, or the government?

The essence of US governance is checks and balances.  The issue is who is going to serve as a check and balance to corporations that merge and move more toward oligopoly and monopoly over time?

The bigness is a function of an expanding population.  More people means more complexity.  The challenge is to find a balance between the freedom of individuals (and groups of individuals) that have a tendency to come into conflict.  Government is how we resolve those conflicts.  One man's property rights can directly damage the property rights of others.  This isn't necessarily a zero sum game, you know.

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by sniperg

Historically speaking all societies had 3 social classes. Upper, middle and lower. Each time when the middle class disappeared, there was never a good ending..

It is already happening. The middle class is evaporating, and now very serious trouble is brewing. That is why people are flocking to Obama like they are, and they will accept anything he gives them that makes their lives bearable right now. They'll get it too, because the democratic party has a strangle-hold on every single branch of government.

But I hold that the alternative is still worse. Palin is not acceptable, and I don't even know what to say about McCain that doesn't boil down to bad leadership and governing ability.

All in all, this is very bad. Very, very bad. Obama is just the lesser of the two evils.

For socialism:

I don't like full blown socialism because it encourages mediocrity and stagnation. Tell me of one very socialistic society that has not, or is not, falling apart.

Well imo at least, capitalism and socialism both have merits and actually in pure theory they are good. The problem lies in the fact that capitalism tend to be corrupted in a consumerism corporate ideal, while socialism, gets corrupted into a fund soaking leech.

Both of them though absolutely need a healthy middle class to be functional, and I doubt any of these 2 candidates will stop that effect from escalating (the middle class becoming lower). Also what I noticed is that US is very heavily beaurocratic. Which explains imo where all these funds go>.>

Originally posted by Dracus

Originally posted by sniperg

America sure has became a strange place. From the land of the free it seems it has reverted to "each man for himself".

..

I can't see why US is so afraind of socialism and also I can't understand why they are so proud of capitalism.

Its not thinking of being anarchists, but rather to have the Federal Government kept to a certain amount of power.  Having a weak central government risks anarchy, but a strong central government could risk oppression.  So some kind of in between is the goal.

We value individual freedom.  Some people prefer to sacrifice their freedom if it means to having a better economic or secured life, while others would prefer to keep those freedoms, even if it means to have a not so good economic or secured life.

Yeah but balance is in general very hard to maintain. To maintain an updated balance of power it means that the country and thus the citizens, they have to be in a perpetual change, or at least to change things fast. And at least from the times I have visited US so far, either for holidays or for work, I have noticed a general "apathy" so to speak. As one of my friends said "I don't care which candidate will get elected, as long as I get cheap food and gas." So if that's what the average citizen thinks and acts like then some things make sense.

From what I see both McCain and Obama seem like roman emperors, they promise "bread and spectacles", and either of them will make sure they will take away the last vestiges of freedom to keep the economy somewhat running, not to fix though but just to maintain the status quo.

Originally posted by SioBabble

Originally posted by Gorair

ive chosen nothing except to be succesful  i work long hoursd , went ot school , lost my 1st wife getting to where i am , got to go to school on a GI bill after being wounded twice , i judge noone , you are the one saying the ONLY way to be successful is be a criminal not me.  you called me criminal because i want you to take responsibility for your actions and future , im sorry i asked you to have self confidence and some self esteem.

Im wondering what part of my life was criminal , according to you ,deciding i wanted more than the govt could offer me as a hand out was my only offence and as punishment i shoudl support you for making that choice.

I will gladly suport those who cant , i refuse to suport those who wont.  If you try and fail , then you get help , ill help , so next time you wont fail , or maybe the time after that. I refuse to say sit on your ass ill pay your bills.

 

 

 

 

You don't seem to understand that your general theory doesn't discriminate between honest gain and dishonest gain.  It just says that "success" no matter how it's obtained is sacrosanct.  Pablo Escobar's billions are the same as your fortune.  Despite how that fortune came into his hands.

Futhermore, you're not recognizing that your success isn't entirely your own.  The GI Bill didn't just spring into existence out of nothingness, you know.  You've got a lot of invisible infrastructure supporting your success that must be maintained and paid for.  That's what taxes are all about.  The more success you achieve, the more you're indebted to the system that supports that success.  That's why progressive taxation works...your income is a good metric for determining how much you're making use of the infrastructure that is held in common, and thus your fair share for maintaining it.

You need not worry...even very high taxes will leave a lot left over for you to indulge in your materialism.  So you can only afford a new car every other year?  You're still living the good life.

I'd also submit that if you're going to maintain honest faith with your philosophy, you'd be in favor of the abolition of any inheritance, so that all may benefit from their own work ethic as opposed to living off the efforts of others.

Inheritance is the recognition of the right of an individual to determine what is done with the money he earned. Taking that away violates the rights of the GIVER. If I own myself; I own what I earn, therefore it is up to me to decide who I give it to.

It has nothing to do with the rights of the receiver.

It's not about giving, sharing, or helping, it's about force vs voluntary actions. It is about benefit through voluntary cooperation vs cooperation at gunpoint.

Capitalism is the only system that allows, and even encourages people to love their neighbors. Socialism forces people. Where there is force there is no love, only legalized theft.

 obama going down in the polls.

this convo is moot.

cheers.

Originally posted by bluberryhaze

 obama going down in the polls.

this convo is moot.

cheers.

and yur up to 5 stars and mic can is up to.

Originally posted by sniperg

Yeah but balance is in general very hard to maintain. To maintain an updated balance of power it means that the country and thus the citizens, they have to be in a perpetual change, or at least to change things fast. And at least from the times I have visited US so far, either for holidays or for work, I have noticed a general "apathy" so to speak. As one of my friends said "I don't care which candidate will get elected, as long as I get cheap food and gas." So if that's what the average citizen thinks and acts like then some things make sense.

From what I see both McCain and Obama seem like roman emperors, they promise "bread and spectacles", and either of them will make sure they will take away the last vestiges of freedom to keep the economy somewhat running, not to fix though but just to maintain the status quo.

Balance is indeed difficult.  And I can agree with you're experience with people in the US.  Heck most people in the US don't vote and that is a shame.

Americans don't vote because they feel whoever gets elected will only serve interests of big corporations and special interests.  Ordinary citizens have little leverage in the process.  Some don't like big government.  But they also fail to realize democracy only has use in government.  There is no democracy in the private sector; for example you can't just go to your boss and demand a pay raise because everyone in the office wants more pay.  But your boss can get himself a bonus and employees can do nothing about it.

So while big government is bad, letting those corporations grow so powerful without check & balance is even worse, because economic part of society is not democratic and ordinary citizens have no say in it.   That's how this financial fiasco started when CEO's get to keep huge bonuses by capitalizing on short-term risky deals without being held accountable for long-term effect.  It's like electing someone who uses his time in office to make himself as rich as possible before leaving the post, and people can do nothing to punish him afterward.  So while we have a legal system that balances the legislative & executive branches, there is no such check/balance system exists in private sector.  So be careful for what you wish for, big government or big private sector.  If the latter overwhelms the former, democracy will be threatened as well.   

Originally posted by deviliscious

If we do not learn from history it will repeat itself.

Queen of England and Hitler:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." ~ Adolf Hitler

 

did you watch the new family guy tonight on fox? stewart was dressed as a nazi with a mccain palin pin lol

fear mongers

I bet you all hate colin powell now as well.

Originally posted by Hellmarauder

Americans don't vote because they feel whoever gets elected will only serve interests of big corporations and special interests.  Ordinary citizens have little leverage in the process.  Some don't like big government.  But they also fail to realize democracy only has use in government.  There is no democracy in the private sector; for example you can't just go to your boss and demand a pay raise because everyone in the office wants more pay.  But your boss can get himself a bonus and employees can do nothing about it.

 

So while big government is bad, letting those corporations grow so powerful without check & balance is even worse, because economic part of society is not democratic and ordinary citizens have no say in it.   That's how this financial fiasco started when CEO's get to keep huge bonuses by capitalizing on short-term risky deals without being held accountable for long-term effect.  It's like electing someone who uses his time in office to make himself as rich as possible before leaving the post, and people can do nothing to punish him afterward.  So while we have a legal system that balances the legislative & executive branches, there is no such check/balance system exists in private sector.  So be careful for what you wish for, big government or big private sector.  If the latter overwhelms the former, democracy will be threatened as well.   

mccain probably would be the biggest lobbyist stooge if he got elected.

mclobbyist.com/

obama's win percentage is 93.1%, I can live with that. tomorrow obama will be back up

www.fivethirtyeight.com/   www.electoral-vote.com/  www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/calculator/index.html

start using polls that count the electoral map

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Faxxer

It's a joke that you libs think Bush is fascism.  If the dems have a super majority like they're hoping for...you'll see true facsism.  Too bad your own head is stuck in sand pretending it's not so.  You are conflicted but for some reason won't admit to your own conclusions about the truth. 

"I feel the conflict within you, let go of your hate."  - Luke

Let's see

1) I am called a "lib"

2) Assumes I solely blame Bush of fascism.

3) Denial that Bush is involved in any act of fascism.

4) Undermining of #3 by implying Bush has committed acts of fascism, but not as large as another party will.

5) Implies that I do not believe the democrats will commit fascism

6) Implies that since the next party will be worse, I should be happy with what we got.


And you too can join my block list faxxer. I'm tired of being called names, having words put in my mouth, and all other manner of BS from you because you have something to prove and an agenda to push. Enough.

 

She got six points from 4 sentences?  dang I AM a good communicator! 

The truth is...and sadly she won't see this... She IS a liberal. her views prove it, and she can't compete in the arena of ideas, she has to cover her ears (or eyes in this case) and not hear anything that calls her views into question.  That's not very open-minded.

 

edit:

You people on here trying to say Socialism is a good thing need to go back and read history.  You are headed down a path blind and there is a cliff coming!!!!

www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

bush is a fascist

In no small measure, it at least has the appearance of a financial dictatorship:

1. You need cash, only banks can create money through a web of loans;
2. If the banks go under, YOU pay for their losses; and
3. If the banks make a profit, they are individualized.

In my view, and I am not on this "evil Federal Reserve" bandwagon.  I only know what I see from my background in business and finance.

I see horrific, scary central planning that will blow-up in our faces. 

Call it socialism.  Call it fascism.  Just understanding what is happening:  nationalized banks, the same bankers working, temporarily, in Treasury, Federally Chartered Banks, and the largest Commercial Banks, creating and implementing central planning economic policies.

When they do well, they make tons of money.

When they are irresponsible, take foolish risks, the public bails them out.

This is real. This is serious.  This is not a conspiracy. 

The banks have never been nationalized before. 

I am concerned.

(Basically, most of the public is in serious debt --one in six are in foreclosure-- but the banks debt is cleared out by these same individualizes borrowing from the bank, in debt, and in foreclosure.  The public, John and Joan Q citizen, get no bail outs.  And they owe, individually, the U.S. national debt, and the U.S. national debt is growing to bail-out banks.  This is red-level.)

Banking becoming more centralized, now all backed by the U.S. government (aka U.S. citizen) is going to create a worldwide depression... within two years.

Merger of government + banking = worldwide depression.*

*assuming the world does not correct itself and get out of U.S. dollars, but I do not expect that.

Edit:  The 5 trillion dollar bail-out cost is now "conservative."  This is the banks becoming the government, not the government becoming the banks.

What?
The government is dumping money, YOUR money, into banks with NO VOTING SHARES. No power.

Socialism?
I say robbery.

Originally posted by Thrakk

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Faxxer

It's a joke that you libs think Bush is fascism.  If the dems have a super majority like they're hoping for...you'll see true facsism.  Too bad your own head is stuck in sand pretending it's not so.  You are conflicted but for some reason won't admit to your own conclusions about the truth. 

"I feel the conflict within you, let go of your hate."  - Luke

Let's see

1) I am called a "lib"

2) Assumes I solely blame Bush of fascism.

3) Denial that Bush is involved in any act of fascism.

4) Undermining of #3 by implying Bush has committed acts of fascism, but not as large as another party will.

5) Implies that I do not believe the democrats will commit fascism

6) Implies that since the next party will be worse, I should be happy with what we got.


And you too can join my block list faxxer. I'm tired of being called names, having words put in my mouth, and all other manner of BS from you because you have something to prove and an agenda to push. Enough.

 

She got six points from 4 sentences?  dang I AM a good communicator! 

The truth is...and sadly she won't see this... She IS a liberal. her views prove it, and she can't compete in the arena of ideas, she has to cover her ears (or eyes in this case) and not hear anything that calls her views into question.  That's not very open-minded.

 

edit:

You people on here trying to say Socialism is a good thing need to go back and read history.  You are headed down a path blind and there is a cliff coming!!!!

 

www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm

bush is a fascist

Obama is MORE of a fascist -- at least by his own reckoning. Government bank regulation is fascism, and Obama claims he is for more of that. He claims that Bush was a big deregulator -- that's anti-fascism. Fascism is adamantly anti capitalism and free markets. That's Obama much more than Bush.

Protectionism is fascist, and he claims he is for that. Bush and McCain are more in favor of free trade -- that's anti-fascist.

His "spreading the wealth around" is socialist, but he is mostly fascist. For the most part, he wants to maintain the notion of private property, yet control it through regulation and tax policies. That's fascism.

By the way, I do believe Bush is also a fascist, as is McCain, as is almost everyone nowadays. Europe, China, Russia, and every nation on earth is a mix of fascism, Marxist socialism, syndicalism,  and all those mixtures are parasitic growths on the free market, which supports them all.

Many are democratic republican  fascists and socialists (China is not, it is marxist totalitarian neo-fascism; nor is Russia, which is rapidly degenerating authoritarian fascism), but certainly America, France, and England are.

In terms of this election, however, Obama is BY FAR the biggest fascist running.

I honestly want people who feel truly robbed and also think that Obama is anti-american to widen their perspective of humanity in terms of charity - he isn't going to f*ck up health care and education.. he's mostly going to help people, there may be a few relatively minor mistakes but nothing to worry about.

his health care is convenient - I dont have to donate money to 100 different charities to think I'm saving lives.

a little regulation here and there doesnt hurt anyone.. it keeps people in line and can benefit those who need real help.. what some people see as red tape is really bandages for others.

Originally posted by Thrakk

I honestly want people who feel truly robbed and also think that Obama is anti-american to widen their perspective of humanity in terms of charity - he isn't going to f*ck up health care and education.. he's mostly going to help people, there may be a few relatively minor mistakes but nothing to worry about.

his health care is convenient - I dont have to donate money to 100 different charities to think I'm saving lives.

a little regulation here and there doesnt hurt anyone.. it keeps people in line.

He will help very few and hurt more than he helps. Remember Carter -- that's Obama in a nutshell. He advocates policies we already know fail.

You statement about health care was very odd -- it's not about YOU donating, or anyone donating, but YOU putting a gun  to your neighbor's head and forcing HIM to give to the cause YOU believe in. That has nothing to do with convenience -- that's just force.

In terms of a "little regulation doesn't hurt everyone" that depends on the regulation. Most regulation hurts someone, some regulation hurts a great deal. All regulation hurts the guy being regulated.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Thrakk

I honestly want people who feel truly robbed and also think that Obama is anti-american to widen their perspective of humanity in terms of charity - he isn't going to f*ck up health care and education.. he's mostly going to help people, there may be a few relatively minor mistakes but nothing to worry about.

his health care is convenient - I dont have to donate money to 100 different charities to think I'm saving lives.

a little regulation here and there doesnt hurt anyone.. it keeps people in line.

He will help very few and hurt more than he helps. Remember Carter -- that's Obama in a nutshell. He advocates policies we already know fail.

You statement about health care was very odd -- it's not about YOU donating, or anyone donating, but YOU putting a gun  to your neighbor's head and forcing HIM to give to the cause YOU believe in. That has nothing to do with convenience -- that's just force.

In terms of a "little regulation doesn't hurt everyone" that depends on the regulation. Most regulation hurts someone, some regulation hurts a great deal. All regulation hurts the guy being regulated.

I'm not forcing anyone by pointing a gun - we have a democracy - where our votes count.if you don't like the way our democracy is handled, once again MOVE OUT OF AMERICA.

No one pointed a gun to my head and forced me to pay for the Iraq war. taxes happen lol. get over it

Obama is going to help millions (the truth), stop fear mongering or worrying so much. You know health care, education and energy independence is going to be very helpful and disputing the helpfulness is like saying "health care, education, and energy independence are not helpful".

and would you consider safety laws or the 10 commandments as regulation?

Originally posted by Thrakk

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Thrakk

I honestly want people who feel truly robbed and also think that Obama is anti-american to widen their perspective of humanity in terms of charity - he isn't going to f*ck up health care and education.. he's mostly going to help people, there may be a few relatively minor mistakes but nothing to worry about.

his health care is convenient - I dont have to donate money to 100 different charities to think I'm saving lives.

a little regulation here and there doesnt hurt anyone.. it keeps people in line.

He will help very few and hurt more than he helps. Remember Carter -- that's Obama in a nutshell. He advocates policies we already know fail.

You statement about health care was very odd -- it's not about YOU donating, or anyone donating, but YOU putting a gun  to your neighbor's head and forcing HIM to give to the cause YOU believe in. That has nothing to do with convenience -- that's just force.

In terms of a "little regulation doesn't hurt everyone" that depends on the regulation. Most regulation hurts someone, some regulation hurts a great deal. All regulation hurts the guy being regulated.

I'm not forcing anyone by pointing a gun - we have a democracy - where our votes count.if you don't like the way our democracy is handled, once again MOVE OUT OF AMERICA.

No one pointed a gun to my head and forced me to pay for the Iraq war. taxes happen lol. get over it

Obama is going to help millions (the truth), stop fear mongering or worrying so much. You know health care, education and energy independence is going to be very helpful and disputing the helpfulness is like saying "health care, education, and energy independence are not helpful".

and would you consider safety laws or the 10 commandments as regulation?

Ah, the old "if you don't like it, leave" silliness. One of last refuges of someone who knows they have lost a political argument.

America is not a democracy, it is a republic. If you want to live in a fascist dictatorship -- then YOU move.

Getting 51 % of people to agree with your gang of force does not change it from being force. Democracy is tyranny, and we are not a democracy. We are a republic. Do you know what that is?

Obama will help no one without taking money by pointing a gun at people's heads, stealing it, and giving it to others. he will hurt everyone. ESPECIALLY the people he gives money to. His ideas failed in the seventies, they'll fail now.

I'm not worrying, I'm not fear mongering, I just disagree with you and your dreams of forcing others.

I am "over it," in fact, I don't know what you are talking about. You believe in pointing guns to people's heads and forcing them to bow the knee to you, I don't. I am over it, and completely understand it. I just disagree that it is the proper way for people to organize themselves.

I want to change my country into something more free, you want to change this country into something less free. So far, you are winning. I understand that, the destroyers of freedom have been winning in many ways for a long time. I do feel however that my view is far more consistent with our constitution, which defines our country. Therefore, if one of us should leave, it's you.

Originally posted by Thrakk

I honestly want people who feel truly robbed and also think that Obama is anti-american to widen their perspective of humanity in terms of charity - he isn't going to f*ck up health care and education.. he's mostly going to help people, there may be a few relatively minor mistakes but nothing to worry about.

his health care is convenient - I dont have to donate money to 100 different charities to think I'm saving lives.

a little regulation here and there doesnt hurt anyone.. it keeps people in line and can benefit those who need real help.. what some people see as red tape is really bandages for others.

The government has been trying to help people for years with very little to show.  Its done nothing but bread a generation of people who  rely on the government for support.  People need to take more control of their own lifes and rely more on themselfs.

Little by little your freedoms will be eroded.  Nothing is done in huge steps but its a slow steady creep.  The government's job is not to keep people in line, never has been or never should be.

My uncle has been on government support all of his adult life.  Its not becuase of someone else, its becuase hes lazy and screwed up his own life.  Now socity gets the burden of supporting him.

Originally posted by Fishermage

He will help very few and hurt more than he helps. Remember Carter -- that's Obama in a nutshell. He advocates policies we already know fail.

You statement about health care was very odd -- it's not about YOU donating, or anyone donating, but YOU putting a gun  to your neighbor's head and forcing HIM to give to the cause YOU believe in. That has nothing to do with convenience -- that's just force.

In terms of a "little regulation doesn't hurt everyone" that depends on the regulation. Most regulation hurts someone, some regulation hurts a great deal. All regulation hurts the guy being regulated.

Yeah, it's better if you're the one holding the gun saying that no changes should be made because you don't believe or agree with it.

Really, that's why we have democracy. we can't go around and please every single individual because that's just plain impossible. If Obama wins, you'll just have to accept the changes that will be made, just as anyone else will have too. Or vice versa if McCain wins.

Personally, I think Free healthcare and an improved welfare is positive because it will lead to more people getting jobs.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Thrakk

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Thrakk

I honestly want people who feel truly robbed and also think that Obama is anti-american to widen their perspective of humanity in terms of charity - he isn't going to f*ck up health care and education.. he's mostly going to help people, there may be a few relatively minor mistakes but nothing to worry about.

his health care is convenient - I dont have to donate money to 100 different charities to think I'm saving lives.

a little regulation here and there doesnt hurt anyone.. it keeps people in line.

He will help very few and hurt more than he helps. Remember Carter -- that's Obama in a nutshell. He advocates policies we already know fail.

You statement about health care was very odd -- it's not about YOU donating, or anyone donating, but YOU putting a gun  to your neighbor's head and forcing HIM to give to the cause YOU believe in. That has nothing to do with convenience -- that's just force.

In terms of a "little regulation doesn't hurt everyone" that depends on the regulation. Most regulation hurts someone, some regulation hurts a great deal. All regulation hurts the guy being regulated.

I'm not forcing anyone by pointing a gun - we have a democracy - where our votes count.if you don't like the way our democracy is handled, once again MOVE OUT OF AMERICA.

No one pointed a gun to my head and forced me to pay for the Iraq war. taxes happen lol. get over it

Obama is going to help millions (the truth), stop fear mongering or worrying so much. You know health care, education and energy independence is going to be very helpful and disputing the helpfulness is like saying "health care, education, and energy independence are not helpful".

and would you consider safety laws or the 10 commandments as regulation?

Ah, the old "if you don't like it, leave" silliness. One of last refuges of someone who knows they have lost a political argument.

America is not a democracy, it is a republic. If you want to live in a fascist dictatorship -- then YOU move.

Getting 51 % of people to agree with your gang of force does not change it from being force. Democracy is tyranny, and we are not a democracy. We are a republic. Do you know what that is?

Obama will help no one without taking money by pointing a gun at people's heads, stealing it, and giving it to others. he will hurt everyone. ESPECIALLY the people he gives money to. His ideas failed in the seventies, they'll fail now.

I'm not worrying, I'm not fear mongering, I just disagree with you and your dreams of forcing others.

I am "over it," in fact, I don't know what you are talking about. You believe in pointing guns to people's heads and forcing them to bow the knee to you, I don't. I am over it, and completely understand it. I just disagree that it is the proper way for people to organize themselves.

I want to change my country into something more free, you want to change this country into something less free. So far, you are winning. I understand that, the destroyers of freedom have been winning in many ways for a long time. I do feel however that my view is far more consistent with our constitution, which defines our country. Therefore, if one of us should leave, it's you.

A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch,[1][2] but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have impact on its government.[4][5] The word originates from the Latin term res publica, which literally translates as "public thing" or "public matter".

Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατ?α ([dimokratia] (help·info)), "popular government"[1] which was coined from δ?μος (d?mos), "people" and κρ?τος (kratos), "rule, strength"

From wikipedia. Republic and Democracy, same shit different name. In fact according to your definition, a republic is much more fascist, since not all people can join in the process, no?

Yes sir, the old if you don't like it leave applies everywhere. If americans or people of any country don't like something YOUR representatives decided, go down on the streets and protest. Gather many people and vote against it. If you mind only YOUR bussiness, nobody will care about yours. That's how it works.

Secondly, I am tired reading all the time about "fascism". If you accept the abstract concept of a state and a nation, realize that your freedoms are only those that the states permits. You have only as much freedom as the ruling body will give you, no more and no less.

Accept simply that there is no freedom in America and nobody cared about it or they just accepted it that that's the case. Hell I only remember Europeans protesting about the unfair treatment of America towards its citizens. Accept that the people in most countries traded their freedom long ago for security. That's the way things work in nations.

Like it or not from what I study about both candidates, Obama has a very concrete view about many things. Of course things could be better. Of course things shouldn't have escalated this far and the whole world suffering like this. But don't demand freedom, because you allready have as much as you earned.

Lastly if you don't like the majority vote, and you believe it's the decision of a "mob", (Ancient greeks defined that the corruption of democracy, is when the mobs rule), then educate people and show them the different options that exist.

Originally posted by Efrath

Originally posted by Fishermage

He will help very few and hurt more than he helps. Remember Carter -- that's Obama in a nutshell. He advocates policies we already know fail.

You statement about health care was very odd -- it's not about YOU donating, or anyone donating, but YOU putting a gun  to your neighbor's head and forcing HIM to give to the cause YOU believe in. That has nothing to do with convenience -- that's just force.

In terms of a "little regulation doesn't hurt everyone" that depends on the regulation. Most regulation hurts someone, some regulation hurts a great deal. All regulation hurts the guy being regulated.

 

Yeah, it's better if you're the one holding the gun saying that no changes should be made because you don't believe or agree with it.

Really, that's why we have democracy. we can't go around and please every single individual because that's just plain impossible. If Obama wins, you'll just have to accept the changes that will be made, just as anyone else will have too. Or vice versa if McCain wins.

Personally, I think Free healthcare and an improved welfare is positive because it will lead to more people getting jobs.

Understood. You feel it is okay to point a gun to people's heads, take their property, and redistribute it. I don't.

Originally posted by sniperg

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Thrakk

Originally posted by Fishermage

Originally posted by Thrakk

I honestly want people who feel truly robbed and also think that Obama is anti-american to widen their perspective of humanity in terms of charity - he isn't going to f*ck up health care and education.. he's mostly going to help people, there may be a few relatively minor mistakes but nothing to worry about.

his health care is convenient - I dont have to donate money to 100 different charities to think I'm saving lives.

a little regulation here and there doesnt hurt anyone.. it keeps people in line.

He will help very few and hurt more than he helps. Remember Carter -- that's Obama in a nutshell. He advocates policies we already know fail.

You statement about health care was very odd -- it's not about YOU donating, or anyone donating, but YOU putting a gun  to your neighbor's head and forcing HIM to give to the cause YOU believe in. That has nothing to do with convenience -- that's just force.

In terms of a "little regulation doesn't hurt everyone" that depends on the regulation. Most regulation hurts someone, some regulation hurts a great deal. All regulation hurts the guy being regulated.

I'm not forcing anyone by pointing a gun - we have a democracy - where our votes count.if you don't like the way our democracy is handled, once again MOVE OUT OF AMERICA.

No one pointed a gun to my head and forced me to pay for the Iraq war. taxes happen lol. get over it

Obama is going to help millions (the truth), stop fear mongering or worrying so much. You know health care, education and energy independence is going to be very helpful and disputing the helpfulness is like saying "health care, education, and energy independence are not helpful".

and would you consider safety laws or the 10 commandments as regulation?

Ah, the old "if you don't like it, leave" silliness. One of last refuges of someone who knows they have lost a political argument.

America is not a democracy, it is a republic. If you want to live in a fascist dictatorship -- then YOU move.

Getting 51 % of people to agree with your gang of force does not change it from being force. Democracy is tyranny, and we are not a democracy. We are a republic. Do you know what that is?

Obama will help no one without taking money by pointing a gun at people's heads, stealing it, and giving it to others. he will hurt everyone. ESPECIALLY the people he gives money to. His ideas failed in the seventies, they'll fail now.

I'm not worrying, I'm not fear mongering, I just disagree with you and your dreams of forcing others.

I am "over it," in fact, I don't know what you are talking about. You believe in pointing guns to people's heads and forcing them to bow the knee to you, I don't. I am over it, and completely understand it. I just disagree that it is the proper way for people to organize themselves.

I want to change my country into something more free, you want to change this country into something less free. So far, you are winning. I understand that, the destroyers of freedom have been winning in many ways for a long time. I do feel however that my view is far more consistent with our constitution, which defines our country. Therefore, if one of us should leave, it's you.

 

A republic is a state or country that is not led by a hereditary monarch,[1][2] but in which the people (or at least a part of its people)[3] have impact on its government.[4][5] The word originates from the Latin term res publica, which literally translates as "public thing" or "public matter".

Democracy is a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system. It is derived from the Greek δημοκρατ?α ([dimokratia] (help·info)), "popular government"[1] which was coined from δ?μος (d?mos), "people" and κρ?τος (kratos), "rule, strength"

From wikipedia. Republic and Democracy, same shit different name. In fact according to your definition, a republic is much more fascist, since not all people can join in the process, no?

Yes sir, the old if you don't like it leave applies everywhere. If americans or people of any country don't like something YOUR representatives decided, go down on the streets and protest. Gather many people and vote against it. If you mind only YOUR bussiness, nobody will care about yours. That's how it works.

Secondly, I am tired reading all the time about "fascism". If you accept the abstract concept of a state and a nation, realize that your freedoms are only those that the states permits. You have only as much freedom as the ruling body will give you, no more and no less.

Accept simply that there is no freedom in America and nobody cared about it or they just accepted it that that's the case. Hell I only remember Europeans protesting about the unfair treatment of America towards its citizens. Accept that the people in most countries traded their freedom long ago for security. That's the way things work in nations.

Like it or not from what I study about both candidates, Obama has a very concrete view about many things. Of course things could be better. Of course things shouldn't have escalated this far and the whole world suffering like this. But don't demand freedom, because you allready have as much as you earned.

Lastly if you don't like the majority vote, and you believe it's the decision of a "mob", (Ancient greeks defined that the corruption of democracy, is when the mobs rule), then educate people and show them the different options that exist.

This is why one ought not use wikipedia to define one's terms. Wikipedia is a fine place to START, but it must be regardled as incomplete. They are often inexact, and sometimes flat out wrong. I am using the word "republc" the way our founders used it.

When discussing things with someone, it is much better to look at how a person is using a word, rather than look up in wikipedia what that word MIGHT mean, then decide that the person you are talking to means something else, then confuse the issue with semantics.

A Republic, by MOST people's definition, is constitutionally LIMITED government. It has nothing to do with how leaders are chosen, but how much power those leaders have. The point is to limit government authority so that that no matter who people vote for, the government can only go so far. That has been slipping away throughout all our lifetimes, and I am against that. Others are for that, and that's what this debate is about. The OP wants fewer human rights and liberties, I want more.

I'm not sure what you are talking about with "what you have earned," you seem to be sliding into a different definition of freedom than political liberty, which is what we are discussing here. I am aguing for more political freedom, and the OP is arguing for less.

I AM educating people here, and elsewhere.