Originally posted by xRand0mx

I love these arguments because it reminds me of what Zizek has been saying for years. People can imagine the end of the world (and many here have argued that Obama is bringing us to that end) but they can not imagine a world with even the slightest social change. Now I paraphrased it but that was pretty much what he said. For many people this is true, including many of you on this board. You'll have no problem with the idea of a meteor crashing into the earth and wiping out all life and yet you can not imagine a world with universal healthcare or any sort of sociali reform that may be considered socialist.

My problem with the current situation is that health care is a system built on profit. The healthcare system works much like any other in a capitalist country. Reduce costs, build profits, invest and expand. It makes sense to denine people coverage for whatever reason (reducing costs, more profits) as well as not investing into things that are not profitable in the first place. The entire medicial community is built around profit. Drugs that do not make money are not made. Deals with doctors and other companies make it so that healthcare providers pay less than the average person walking in with no healthcare. There are plenty of people who go bankrupt from medical procedures who simply could not afford healthcare.

It boils down to this: healthcare should not be about profit. I find it absoluetly disgusting that people advocate a system that is built primarily to line the pockets of those providing the healthcare. Will sacrafices have to be made? In some cases, yes. With only one provider there will be a good number of people who will take a "hit" in terms of healthcare coverage. However, I am in agreeance with Obama that that should be a long term goal. Several decades of changing the system will be required for people to accept a newer system. This will also allow us to see any problems such as how rationing would work and costs. The disadvantages would not outweight the advantages. Many more people will be covered and an industry will function without the problems profit causes. Society as a whole will be better off.

 

I'd like to add this quickly since it seems to crop up in all of these off topic threads. Obama is not a socialist. Bailing out private industry is not exactly the most socialist thing to do. Banks would have been nationalized not pumped full of money.

And also, please don't label me a liberal. They are too right wing for me.

 

 EDIT: forgot source material

Just one of many articles on healthcare:

www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

A break down of the above article:

www.anthonyworlando.com/2009/07/26/less-is-more-the-ugly-truth-about-american-health-care/

Rememeber Remember the 5th of November...

Good movie that V for Vendetta.

I seem to recall it having a message against tyranny or some such...

You speak of profit like it's a crime, but you purposefully ignore the crime against all freedom and indeed humanity coming out in favor of men who seek to destroy freedom from our very grasp by sucking up more power than has ever been used against the United States' people.  The patriot act has nothing on Obama and his thugs, and you liberals know it.

Shame on you.

Originally posted by Fishermage

Socialism is a big tent. Obama certainly is  a socialist.

This is complete bullshit.

Seriously you believe this? Really? REALLY? Because it is not true one bit. Go visit some actual socialist party websites and read what they have to say. That is real socialism. Even I don't consider myself a socialist because I believe in private property and ownership but kept in check by regulation and the nationalization of certain industries.

I also suggest you look up what being a socialist actually means. Marx was a socialist, Lenin was a socialist and Eduard Bernstein was a socialist. What did they all have in common? They wanted a world based on communal living with no (or close to no) government. They differed only on the ways to get there. That is there only difference, they all wanted that end goal of no capitalist industry or worker exploitation. Obama is certainly not taking us down a route towards a socialist utopia. In fact he is helping private companies, especially those that got us into the current economic mess in the first place, which is the complete opposite of what a real socialist would do. Like I said before, if he nationalized everything then yeah, you might have a case for those (even then I would be hesitant to call him a socialist).

Socialism is also not a dirty word and I don't understand why you people are so scared of it. There are many aspects of it that are quite good, especially on the Social Democracy side. That is something that I think all people would benefit from (Sweden used this heavily throughout the previous century). Communism is a completely different thing and I think it is what everyone thinks of when they hear socialism (SOCIALISM IS THE END GOAL ). Lenin created communism specifically for Russia because it had not gone through a capitalist revolution. He did not intend for it to become the predominate method of achieving socialism. However, it obviously caught on due to the Soviet Union and the power it achieved after World War II. What Lenin failed to see was that it would allow for a Stalin like figure to take hold of the country. From then on the Soviet Union was more of a dictatorship than a true socalist country. The end goal was still there, hence it being called socialist, but it ran very much like a dictatorship.

But if you still believe that I would really like to know how you came to this conclusion. Was it raising taxes? Because that's not really socialist. In fact expect taxes to be raised throughout the current century. I can not see us getting out of the our current problems without raising them dramatically. One source I read said that taxes would need to be doubled across the board to bring the debt back to zero within a decade or something like that (I'll have to look it up). This is not just an Obama problem, this has been started since the Reagan adminstration and only now has it come to light that maybe massive tax cuts were not the greatest idea when we are fighting multiple wars and the people still want social services (even the basic ones we have now are threatned).

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by xRand0mx

I love these arguments because it reminds me of what Zizek has been saying for years. People can imagine the end of the world (and many here have argued that Obama is bringing us to that end) but they can not imagine a world with even the slightest social change. Now I paraphrased it but that was pretty much what he said. For many people this is true, including many of you on this board. You'll have no problem with the idea of a meteor crashing into the earth and wiping out all life and yet you can not imagine a world with universal healthcare or any sort of sociali reform that may be considered socialist.

My problem with the current situation is that health care is a system built on profit. The healthcare system works much like any other in a capitalist country. Reduce costs, build profits, invest and expand. It makes sense to denine people coverage for whatever reason (reducing costs, more profits) as well as not investing into things that are not profitable in the first place. The entire medicial community is built around profit. Drugs that do not make money are not made. Deals with doctors and other companies make it so that healthcare providers pay less than the average person walking in with no healthcare. There are plenty of people who go bankrupt from medical procedures who simply could not afford healthcare.

It boils down to this: healthcare should not be about profit. I find it absoluetly disgusting that people advocate a system that is built primarily to line the pockets of those providing the healthcare. Will sacrafices have to be made? In some cases, yes. With only one provider there will be a good number of people who will take a "hit" in terms of healthcare coverage. However, I am in agreeance with Obama that that should be a long term goal. Several decades of changing the system will be required for people to accept a newer system. This will also allow us to see any problems such as how rationing would work and costs. The disadvantages would not outweight the advantages. Many more people will be covered and an industry will function without the problems profit causes. Society as a whole will be better off.

 

I'd like to add this quickly since it seems to crop up in all of these off topic threads. Obama is not a socialist. Bailing out private industry is not exactly the most socialist thing to do. Banks would have been nationalized not pumped full of money.

And also, please don't label me a liberal. They are too right wing for me.

 

 EDIT: forgot source material

Just one of many articles on healthcare:

www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

A break down of the above article:

www.anthonyworlando.com/2009/07/26/less-is-more-the-ugly-truth-about-american-health-care/

 

Rememeber Remember the 5th of November...

Good movie that V for Vendetta.

I seem to recall it having a message against tyranny or some such...

You speak of profit like it's a crime, but you purposefully ignore the crime against all freedom and indeed humanity coming out in favor of men who seek to destroy freedom from our very grasp by sucking up more power than has ever been used against the United States' people.  The patriot act has nothing on Obama and his thugs, and you liberals know it.

Shame on you.

He doesn't realize that anarchism is laissez faire capitalism to the extreme. He also hasn't learned that fascism is a child of left wing progressivism, and there is little "right" about it. Socialist education, ya know.

You guys are all missing the point..  The media in America is self-centered in a way.  You barely hear any coverage about things happening outside the U.S. Not even the so called "World News" covers world news.  Also, CNN is biased *readys for flame*. The media exists to create speculation. To answer the question "Why wont the media cover this?",  I have a feeling that CNN will report it when the time is right. *readys for second flame*

Now my opinion on the whole liberal and conservative discussion:  Now i'm not conservative nor liberal.  Although i will admit im more liberal than conservative.  Both liberal and conservative have their flaws so stop talking bullshit about them.

Now my opinion on Obama:  your too early to judge him.  So what if he lies.  As long as he does atleast something to help the nation i will be happy.  But if he pulls Bush i will be pissed off.  You might say that im an Obama Fanboi or something.  No im not.  I dont like McCain nor Obama, but i prefer Obama because i believe he would do the least harm to this nation.  Obama has to do well.  If he "pulls a Bush" he will tarnish his reputation and drag down the chances of having another black president.  I doubt Obama will mess this up.  But ive been wrong before. 

Please note this is only my theory:  I believe that the economic crisis occured when an equation, that was developed by 400 or so really-smart people, went south. To start off let me tell you a little background story about those 400 (thats what i will call them).  The 400 presumably created a special equation that ensured profit to the big corporations they worked for (AiG, Ford, Chrysler, citi bank, etc.)  It went very very well.  The U.S. was rich and powerful.  But then for some reason the equation took a turn for the worse and giant corporations started fileing for bankruptcy.  Now Obama and his administration are begging for them to fix it.  If McCain was president even he would be begging for them to fix it.  I thnk Obama just decided to skip step 1: fix economic crisis, and move on to step 2: Health care reform.  Or maybe this health care reform could just be a distraction.  Either way the only thing to do is go with the flow and hope for the best.  There's nothing we can really do.

Last note:  never trust politicians.  Most of them if not all of them are corrupt.  Remember, politicians are lawyers who made a pact with satan *you dont actually have to remember that. ignore it if you'd like*  and yes the last note was rather biased

Nevermind. I'm sorry if I offended, was just hoping to get my opinion out and correct some of what I would consider fallacies about socialism. Don't feel like arguing over and over again.

Originally posted by Narug

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

 I'm not sure whether your post was a joke or not, but this was about the only coherent portion, so this is all I will address.

The town hall meetings (shout downs) you'll see on YouTube or Fox News (saw it on GVS earlier) aren't citizens participating in the political process by engaging their representatives. No, not hardly. They are actually organized intimidation groups, not present to ask serious questions, voice concerns, or seek answers, but to ensure that no relative questions are asked or reasonable responses are entertained. Just as we saw with "operation chaos" during the primaries, we see more typical conservative brand interference, misinformation, and contrarian rhetoric.

thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/townhallactionmemo.pdf

Nice to see "free-thinkers" acting as they've been instructed.

 

I bet half these people would lose their health care within 10 years without a public option. Poor Harry and Louise, now they see the importance of health care reform. Fortunately for the contrarians in the shout hall meetings, we won't allow their progression to see the same demise.

 

Well since Fox News is once again on the table of being shut, hey we have to only listen to Leftist style outlets, out I'd thought this would be interesting.

Huh? My grandmother mentioned something about BillO being removed from TV the other day, but I was never able to find anything about it. Anyway, this isn't about left and right, it's about fact and fiction. It's not my fault that conservatives like to use fiction as a backstop when people turn on their policies. Hey, if you can't convince them with logic and reason, just start shouting lies.

"ThinkProgress was voted “Best Liberal Blog” in the 2006 Weblog Awards and chosen as an Official Honoree in the 2009 Webby awards. It was also named best blog of 2008 by The Sidney Hillman Foundation, receiving an award for journalism excellence.
Without your generous support, we cannot do the work that we do. Please consider donating. Thank you."

Okay...and? The link was only a .pdf, not commentary on the issue. In fact, that link doesn't contain a single word written by a think progress staff member. Quite the opposite, it was written by Bob MacGuffie, the engineer of the shout hall meeting strategy. This isn't a leftist hoax, that's a conservative's words, not liberal spin. See, that's the difference between you and me; you gobble up your view point from Fox News like a good little lemming, while I get factual documents from various sources and then search for the truth.

______________________________________________

Congressman’s Town Hall Meeting on Health Care Takes Angry Turn

Taxpayer Confronts Democrat Senator Ben Cardin on Barack Obama Health Care Plan [FOX News]

I guess a citizen like in the above videos are part of the grand conspiracy.

"Robert Broadus was a Republican candidate in the 2008 congressional elections for the 4th Congressional District (map) of Maryland. On February 12, 2008, he lost the Republican nomination to Peter James,"

Now he did try to run for Congress but I see no allegiance to "shout-down" groups as thinkprogress likes to use in stunting opposing thought. Unless that's "illegal in thought" now.

What grand conspiracy? We're not assuming there are organized groups on a "disrupt town hall meetings" tour. We know there are. The instruction manual, written by conservatives, has been found. It's no longer a debate. The worst thing is, there are many people, with valid concerns (perhaps the person linked above), that will be marginalized by these rabble-rousers. Of course not every single one of the people at town hall meetings are a member of an organized group (they aren't that popular). You can bet a camera will conveniently capture the shout hall meetings where these contrarian groups attend, though, and you can count on them being rewarded with a little air-time by Fox News.

(Like leftists have never organized)

Berkeley council tells Marines to leave

And here we have a group of protestors OUTSIDE the establishment. The difference is conservatives are going INTO town hall meetings to protest and disrupt the forum. Not to ask questions, not to allow a representative to answer, only to disrupt and capture on video, militia style. I have absolutely no problem with people protesting policy. I do have a problem when they turn a forum, designed for civil discourse and communication, into a shouting match where no communication is allowed.

Edit: bah hopefully edited out that stretching of the post that middle line caused.

Originally posted by Faxxer

You speak of profit like it's a crime, but you purposefully ignore the crime against all freedom and indeed humanity coming out in favor of men who seek to destroy freedom from our very grasp by sucking up more power than has ever been used against the United States' people. 

Alright, care to elaborate on this?

Originally posted by SabbathSMC

 

This health care bill will destroy the best health care system in the world. We already have medicade and medicare for the  old and the poor that works just fine. People flock to this country to get health care. Where do they flock from? The countries with single payer systems!!!!! Duh. Why do they come here? Because there system does not work!!! Duh!

Everything the obama admin has told the american public are lies and nearly everyday one more lie has been revealed,now they are saying they will have to tax middle class. While we still have 43% of the population that dont pay a damn dime in taxes.

At least now people are realising the lies and standing up against them. We are seeing it in town hall meetings even in dem states are taking huge beatings and being laughed at.

 

Don't take our Freedom we have worked for it for over 200 years. And personaly if you dont like us being the #1 country in the world,then get the hell out.

I am going to act as the devils advocate here. I am going to follow your first argument.
 

When you mention that foreigners flock here, I take the implication that they come here for immediate service. For that to be true it means that the queues in their places of origins are filled with people getting medical care and/or our queues are not filled with people getting the treatment that they need. The rationing argument suggests that we have a mighty chunk of our population that needs medical care, those places in queue.

So basically it is better overall for far fewer people and wealthy foreigners to get treatment and with money as the major determining factor than it is for queues to be filled with actual American citizens getting treatment based on need.

I am just flipping the common argument.
 

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by Narug

 Huh? My grandmother mentioned something about BillO being removed from TV the other day, but I was never able to find anything about it. Anyway, this isn't about left and right, it's about fact and fiction. It's not my fault that conservatives like to use fiction as a backstop when people turn on their policies. Hey, if you can't convince them with logic and reason, just start shouting lies.

Okay...and? The link was only a .pdf, not commentary on the issue. In fact, that link doesn't contain a single word written by a think progress staff member. Quite the opposite, it was written by Bob MacGuffie, the engineer of the shout hall meeting strategy. This isn't a leftist hoax, that's a conservative's words, not liberal spin. See, that's the difference between you and me; you gobble up your view point from Fox News like a good little lemming, while I get factual documents from various sources and then search for the truth.

What grand conspiracy? We're not assuming there are organized groups on a "disrupt town hall meetings" tour. We know there are. The instruction manual, written by conservatives, has been found. It's no longer a debate. The worst thing is, there are many people, with valid concerns (perhaps the person linked above), that will be marginalized by these rabble-rousers. Of course not every single one of the people at town hall meetings are a member of an organized group (they aren't that popular). You can bet a camera will conveniently capture the shout hall meetings where these contrarian groups attend, though, and you can count on them being rewarded with a little air-time by Fox News.

And here we have a group of protestors OUTSIDE the establishment. The difference is conservatives are going INTO town hall meetings to protest and disrupt the forum. Not to ask questions, not to allow a representative to answer, only to disrupt and capture on video, militia style. I have absolutely no problem with people protesting policy. I do have a problem when they turn a forum, designed for civil discourse and communication, into a shouting match where no communication is allowed.

 

 

More ad hominem with the "lemming" label.

Your version of the truth.

So you admit there are actually citizens there instead of all "shout downers" as you've first tried to paint. (nice try but I caught you there and you know it)

If they're not significant then they're no threat and if so the Left would bring their own.

(seemed to at California)

Did you even read what happened in that article about the leftist protest? People's businesses/real lives were effected long before effected long before seeking the object of their opposition.

(At the military too which is even worse for the Left but typical)

Even though the council items passed, not everyone is happy with the work of Code Pink. Some employees and owners of businesses near the Marines office have had enough of the group and its protests.

"My husband's business is right upstairs, and this (protesting) is bordering on harassment," Dori Schmidt told the council. "I hope this stops."

An employee of a nearby business who asked not to be identified said Wednesday the elderly Code Pink protesters are aggressive, take up parking spaces, block the sidewalk with their yoga moves, smoke in the doorways, and are noisy.

"There's a line between protesting and harassing, and that concerns me," Wozniak said. "It looks like we are showing favoritism. We have to respect the other side, and not abuse their rights. This is not good policy."

There wasn't such disruption outside the town halls and you know that. Come on!

Anyway What things like "read the bill" was shouted at some hall meetings. Well even a Democrat said they didn't read the bill. Nothing false about that. How many did actually read the bill I wonder though.

John Conyers on Reading the Healthcare Bill

President Obama Does Not Know What's in the Health Care Bill He is Pushing

SAUL ALINSKY

Saul Alinsky and DNC Corruption

Alinsky's teachings influenced Barack Obama in his early career as a community organizer on the far South Side of Chicago.

A PDF in comparison to this I'm linking above. Hah! But nah totally something else though will be said of the linked above...haha okay then.

A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:

Yet the PDF has it signed as RobMacGuffie of rightprinciples.com

Yep going to have to call "bull" on this one.

Originally posted by Narug

So you admit there are actually citizens there instead of all "shout downers" as you've first tried to paint. (nice try but I caught you there and you know it)

Of course there are non-organized citizens there to discuss policy with their representatives. I never said there weren't. Otherwise, I wouldn't give a shit. Hey, if it's nothing but a screaming mob and a congressman, have at it. I think most of congress could use a good tongue lashing, but inside a town hall meeting isn't the place for such action. The reason it's a problem is because these organized shouters disrupt the communication process between representatives and their constituents that are there with specific questions and concerns, instead of platform mantra.

If they're not significant then they're no threat and if so the Left would bring their own.

That's not what I'm advocating. The left doing it would be just as bad in my view, which is exactly what I'm fighting against. I don't want town hall meetings to be nothing but polarized groups shouting each other down. I want a forum for representatives to DISCUSS issues with their constituents. You know, what town halls are designed for, not a platform for lobbyist funded action groups (from either side).

(seemed to at California)

Did you even read what happened in that article about the leftist protest? People's businesses/real lives were effected long before effected long before seeking the object of their opposition.

(At the military too which is even worse for the Left but typical)

There wasn't such disruption outside the town halls and you know that. Come on!

No different than protests at abortion clinics. In fact, the most obvious thing they have in common is neither of them have anything to do with this topic.

Anyway What things like "read the bill" was shouted at some hall meetings. Well even a Democrat said they didn't read the bill. Nothing false about that. How many did actually read the bill I wonder though.

John Conyers' statement seems troubling. However, he has his own bill (a single payer system) in committee, so he's not interested in reading another 1000 page bill after drafting his own. I found the entire speech at NPC if you are interested in actual reference to his comments (around the 20 minute mark).

As far as Obama's concerned, he's not pushing a bill, he's pushing reform with a set of standards. It's congress' job to see that the bill meets those standards. If and when it does (several weeks and many adjustments from now), he will sign the bill.

A PDF in comparison to this I'm linking above. Hah! But nah totally something else though will be said of the linked above...haha okay then.

A leaked memo from Bob MacGuffie, a volunteer with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots, details how members should be infiltrating town halls and harassing Democratic members of Congress:

Yet the PDF has it signed as RobMacGuffie of rightprinciples.com

Yep going to have to call "bull" on this one.

Are you even able to parse information?

Bob MacGuffie, the originator of the pdf I posted, is a co-founder of Right Principles. He also volunteers with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots. So the man spreads himself around, nothing wrong with that. However, don't act as if he isn't linked with conservative lobbying firms and health care reform opponents.

So, we have Bob MacGuffie (author of the shout hall memo) networking with FreedomWorks (tea baggers) networking with CPR, to ensure these "grass roots" opponents of health care reform; know where the town halls are; know the best way to disrupt the free flow of information; are encouraged to post videos of the angry mobs.

The propoganda trifecta!

Coincidence?

Call "bull" if you want, it doesn't change the facts.

 

EDIT: clarified John Conyers statement.

Originally posted by xRand0mx

I love these arguments because it reminds me of what Zizek has been saying for years. People can imagine the end of the world (and many here have argued that Obama is bringing us to that end) but they can not imagine a world with even the slightest social change. Now I paraphrased it but that was pretty much what he said. For many people this is true, including many of you on this board. You'll have no problem with the idea of a meteor crashing into the earth and wiping out all life and yet you can not imagine a world with universal healthcare or any sort of sociali reform that may be considered socialist.

My problem with the current situation is that health care is a system built on profit. The healthcare system works much like any other in a capitalist country. Reduce costs, build profits, invest and expand. It makes sense to denine people coverage for whatever reason (reducing costs, more profits) as well as not investing into things that are not profitable in the first place. The entire medicial community is built around profit. Drugs that do not make money are not made. Deals with doctors and other companies make it so that healthcare providers pay less than the average person walking in with no healthcare. There are plenty of people who go bankrupt from medical procedures who simply could not afford healthcare.

It boils down to this: healthcare should not be about profit. I find it absoluetly disgusting that people advocate a system that is built primarily to line the pockets of those providing the healthcare. Will sacrafices have to be made? In some cases, yes. With only one provider there will be a good number of people who will take a "hit" in terms of healthcare coverage. However, I am in agreeance with Obama that that should be a long term goal. Several decades of changing the system will be required for people to accept a newer system. This will also allow us to see any problems such as how rationing would work and costs. The disadvantages would not outweight the advantages. Many more people will be covered and an industry will function without the problems profit causes. Society as a whole will be better off.

 

I'd like to add this quickly since it seems to crop up in all of these off topic threads. Obama is not a socialist. Bailing out private industry is not exactly the most socialist thing to do. Banks would have been nationalized not pumped full of money.

And also, please don't label me a liberal. They are too right wing for me.

 

 EDIT: forgot source material

Just one of many articles on healthcare:

www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande

A break down of the above article:

www.anthonyworlando.com/2009/07/26/less-is-more-the-ugly-truth-about-american-health-care/

I very nicely crafted post, I appreciate you taking the time to share your insight and opinions (which I think mirror my own beliefs and thinkings).  My hat off to you sir! 

Where are all the liberal communists on these forums? 

Left or right the people we have elected are not representing us. Both sides are only looking out for corporations and their profits, they are constantly given donations by these big corporations and have been bought out for a while now. We the People isn't true any more, its We the Corporations. How can we get these people to represent us again instead of them pretending like they are working for us but really have us at each others throats constantly?

Originally posted by xRand0mx

Originally posted by Fishermage

Socialism is a big tent. Obama certainly is  a socialist.

 

This is complete bullshit.

 

Seriously you believe this? Really? REALLY? Because it is not true one bit. Go visit some actual socialist party websites and read what they have to say. That is real socialism. Even I don't consider myself a socialist because I believe in private property and ownership but kept in check by regulation and the nationalization of certain industries.

 

I also suggest you look up what being a socialist actually means. Marx was a socialist, Lenin was a socialist and Eduard Bernstein was a socialist. What did they all have in common? They wanted a world based on communal living with no (or close to no) government. They differed only on the ways to get there. That is there only difference, they all wanted that end goal of no capitalist industry or worker exploitation. Obama is certainly not taking us down a route towards a socialist utopia. In fact he is helping private companies, especially those that got us into the current economic mess in the first place, which is the complete opposite of what a real socialist would do. Like I said before, if he nationalized everything then yeah, you might have a case for those (even then I would be hesitant to call him a socialist).

 

Socialism is also not a dirty word and I don't understand why you people are so scared of it. There are many aspects of it that are quite good, especially on the Social Democracy side. That is something that I think all people would benefit from (Sweden used this heavily throughout the previous century). Communism is a completely different thing and I think it is what everyone thinks of when they hear socialism (SOCIALISM IS THE END GOAL ). Lenin created communism specifically for Russia because it had not gone through a capitalist revolution. He did not intend for it to become the predominate method of achieving socialism. However, it obviously caught on due to the Soviet Union and the power it achieved after World War II. What Lenin failed to see was that it would allow for a Stalin like figure to take hold of the country. From then on the Soviet Union was more of a dictatorship than a true socalist country. The end goal was still there, hence it being called socialist, but it ran very much like a dictatorship.

 

But if you still believe that I would really like to know how you came to this conclusion. Was it raising taxes? Because that's not really socialist. In fact expect taxes to be raised throughout the current century. I can not see us getting out of the our current problems without raising them dramatically. One source I read said that taxes would need to be doubled across the board to bring the debt back to zero within a decade or something like that (I'll have to look it up). This is not just an Obama problem, this has been started since the Reagan adminstration and only now has it come to light that maybe massive tax cuts were not the greatest idea when we are fighting multiple wars and the people still want social services (even the basic ones we have now are threatned).

 

 

I've been studying socialism for over twenty years, studied under David H. DeGrood, a very well known philosopher in Marxist circles.

Obama may not be a PURE socialist (who is pure anything?), but he certainly is a socialist.

You can split hairs all you want; socialism is whenever anyone believes that the state should either own or run the means of production. To that extent one believes this, one is a socialist. Obama's a socialist.

EDIT: this debate reminds me of those Christians who claim that the Pope is not a Christian because he is not a "born-again" Christian, and neither are Presbeterians, Anglicans, Congregationalists, or any other mainstream Protestant denominations -- all because they are not the same kind of Christian that they are.

Dosn't really bother me. Its just a matter of which drain I want to pour my money down. Pour it down the private, greedy, self-centered Insurance company drain, or a public, wasteful, self-righteous public drain. It really makes no difference in the end. And besides, its not like people from the EU (COMMON people) come over to the US for treatment, LOL.

Originally posted by Gazenthia

Originally posted by Faxxer

You speak of profit like it's a crime, but you purposefully ignore the crime against all freedom and indeed humanity coming out in favor of men who seek to destroy freedom from our very grasp by sucking up more power than has ever been used against the United States' people. 

Alright, care to elaborate on this?

No.  Care to open you eyes to what's going on all around you?

Originally posted by Crusader13

Dosn't really bother me. Its just a matter of which drain I want to pour my money down. Pour it down the private, greedy, self-centered Insurance company drain, or a public, wasteful, self-righteous public drain. It really makes no difference in the end. And besides, its not like people from the EU (COMMON people) come over to the US for treatment, LOL.

That talking point is no good.

"private, greedy, self-centered insurance company" is a leftist talking point. 

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by Crusader13

Dosn't really bother me. Its just a matter of which drain I want to pour my money down. Pour it down the private, greedy, self-centered Insurance company drain, or a public, wasteful, self-righteous public drain. It really makes no difference in the end. And besides, its not like people from the EU (COMMON people) come over to the US for treatment, LOL.

 

That talking point is no good.

"private, greedy, self-centered insurance company" is a leftist talking point. 

And "public, wasteful, self-righteous public drain" is a conservative talking point... What is your point?

Darnit. Just accidentally deleted a wall of text. Here's the abridged sloppier version:

Fishermage. The way you use debating tactics to polarize and avoid compromises leads me to believe you're being intellectually dishonest. You lead people on to assume you're having a discussion when you're obviously debating. Your perogative is not to give an inch, even if it comes down to changing the definitions of words.

Doesn't matter if you studied with Marx and Lenin for all I care, the meaning of the word socialist is nowhere near Barack Obama. Barack Obama = Center-Right politician. Barack Obama =! Socialist politician(this is what you claim if you call him a socialist since he is a politician by his other defining title*). If there's no pre-existing word, don't use an old word with an old meaning to define something that doesn't comply with the old meaning. Make up a new word. Or better yet, specify the field so you can go: Regarding medical insurance Barack Obama is a socialist. Obama is an antiprivatisedmedicalinsuranceist. Add the freaking context since it sure as hell isn't self-explanatory to call anything other than a completely polarized and idealized model a socialist. By your definition I could call every single president of the United States of America a socialist. The only non-socialist people would be psychopaths that care exclusively for themselves.

Also the decision Obama made was less likely due to his "socialist ideals". He campaigned with health-care reform and, seeing as he hasn't pulled through with most of his campaign promises, had to pull something big out of his hat to please the people that voted for him. He's a freakin' roaring populist. That doesn't compute with socialism too well... Unless you're willing to compromise.

*Or you can call him president instead of politician if you like putting people up on pedestals.

Originally posted by Babbuun

Darnit. Just accidentally deleted a wall of text. Here's the abridged sloppier version:

Fishermage. The way you use debating tactics to polarize and avoid compromises leads me to believe you're being intellectually dishonest. You lead people on to assume you're having a discussion when you're obviously debating. Your perogative is not to give an inch, even if it comes down to changing the definitions of words.

Doesn't matter if you studied with Marx and Lenin for all I care, the meaning of the word socialist is nowhere near Barack Obama. Barack Obama = Center-Right politician. Barack Obama =! Socialist politician(this is what you claim if you call him a socialist since he is a politician by his other defining title*). If there's no pre-existing word, don't use an old word with an old meaning to define something that doesn't comply with the old meaning. Make up a new word. Or better yet, specify the field so you can go: Regarding medical insurance Barack Obama is a socialist. Obama is an antiprivatisedmedicalinsuranceist. Add the freaking context since it sure as hell isn't self-explanatory to call anything other than a completely polarized and idealized model a socialist. By your definition I could call every single president of the United States of America a socialist. The only non-socialist people would be psychopaths that care exclusively for themselves.

Also the decision Obama made was less likely due to his "socialist ideals". He campaigned with health-care reform and, seeing as he hasn't pulled through with most of his campaign promises, had to pull something big out of his hat to please the people that voted for him. He's a freakin' roaring populist. That doesn't compute with socialism too well... Unless you're willing to compromise.

*Or you can call him president instead of politician if you like putting people up on pedestals.

I almost wrote the same thing concerning Faxxer.  If you can't give an inch you won't win. Gotta give a little to get something in return..
 

Originally posted by LeKinK

Originally posted by Babbuun

Darnit. Just accidentally deleted a wall of text. Here's the abridged sloppier version:

Fishermage. The way you use debating tactics to polarize and avoid compromises leads me to believe you're being intellectually dishonest. You lead people on to assume you're having a discussion when you're obviously debating. Your perogative is not to give an inch, even if it comes down to changing the definitions of words.

Doesn't matter if you studied with Marx and Lenin for all I care, the meaning of the word socialist is nowhere near Barack Obama. Barack Obama = Center-Right politician. Barack Obama =! Socialist politician(this is what you claim if you call him a socialist since he is a politician by his other defining title*). If there's no pre-existing word, don't use an old word with an old meaning to define something that doesn't comply with the old meaning. Make up a new word. Or better yet, specify the field so you can go: Regarding medical insurance Barack Obama is a socialist. Obama is an antiprivatisedmedicalinsuranceist. Add the freaking context since it sure as hell isn't self-explanatory to call anything other than a completely polarized and idealized model a socialist. By your definition I could call every single president of the United States of America a socialist. The only non-socialist people would be psychopaths that care exclusively for themselves.

Also the decision Obama made was less likely due to his "socialist ideals". He campaigned with health-care reform and, seeing as he hasn't pulled through with most of his campaign promises, had to pull something big out of his hat to please the people that voted for him. He's a freakin' roaring populist. That doesn't compute with socialism too well... Unless you're willing to compromise.

*Or you can call him president instead of politician if you like putting people up on pedestals.

I almost wrote the same thing concerning Faxxer.  If you can't give an inch you won't win. Gotta give a little to get something in return..
 

The left is famous for changing the definitions of words so they can smear truth. 

I'm not giving a damn centimeter.  The truth stands STRONG without compromise.

9.8.5

Contact your Representatives and let them know how you feel about this healthcare plan. We, as a country, cannot afford another 1000 page bill to go through congress without being read. Lowpoints from the first 500 pages...another 500 pages to go:

• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!

• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!

• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process).

• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.

• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.

• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard

• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.

• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (read: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)

• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.

• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans).

• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens

• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.

• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.

• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.

• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.

• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.

* Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.

• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll.

• Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll.

• Page 167: Any individual who doesn't have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.

• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).

• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.

• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.

• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."

• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)

• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.

• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.

• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!

• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.

• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.

• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!

• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.

• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.

• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.

• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.

• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.

• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).

• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?

• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.

• Page 425: Government provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.

• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.

• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.

• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.

• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.

• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.

• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.

• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

Originally posted by DailyBuzz

Originally posted by Narug

Of course there are non-organized citizens there to discuss policy with their representatives. I never said there weren't. Otherwise, I wouldn't give a shit. Hey, if it's nothing but a screaming mob and a congressman, have at it. I think most of congress could use a good tongue lashing, but inside a town hall meeting isn't the place for such action. The reason it's a problem is because these organized shouters disrupt the communication process between representatives and their constituents that are there with specific questions and concerns, instead of platform mantra.

That's not what I'm advocating. The left doing it would be just as bad in my view, which is exactly what I'm fighting against. I don't want town hall meetings to be nothing but polarized groups shouting each other down. I want a forum for representatives to DISCUSS issues with their constituents. You know, what town halls are designed for, not a platform for lobbyist funded action groups (from either side).

No different than protests at abortion clinics. In fact, the most obvious thing they have in common is neither of them have anything to do with this topic.

John Conyers' statement seems troubling. However, he has his own bill (a single payer system) in committee, so he's not interested in reading another 1000 page bill after drafting his own. I found the entire speech at NPC if you are interested in actual reference to his comments (around the 20 minute mark).

As far as Obama's concerned, he's not pushing a bill, he's pushing reform with a set of standards. It's congress' job to see that the bill meets those standards. If and when it does (several weeks and many adjustments from now), he will sign the bill.

Are you even able to parse information?

Bob MacGuffie, the originator of the pdf I posted, is a co-founder of Right Principles. He also volunteers with the FreedomWorks website Tea Party Patriots. So the man spreads himself around, nothing wrong with that. However, don't act as if he isn't linked with conservative lobbying firms and health care reform opponents.

So, we have Bob MacGuffie (author of the shout hall memo) networking with FreedomWorks (tea baggers) networking with CPR, to ensure these "grass roots" opponents of health care reform; know where the town halls are; know the best way to disrupt the free flow of information; are encouraged to post videos of the angry mobs.

The propoganda trifecta!

Coincidence?

Call "bull" if you want, it doesn't change the facts.

 

EDIT: clarified John Conyers statement.

 

 

I'll just repeat again with the point people's actual lives were disrupted by the Left.  Like you said the politicians are adult enough to take this.  I'd expect the same with people attending.

The point with the "Left brining their own line" was to demonstrate a canceling out due to a check. We obviously have differing opinions and so that will remain.

(No need to comment Edit: on top part above End Edit if so)

Black Panthers at voting poll station

(blocking the actual voting process)

The President is part of the executive branch and was always blamed for every bill, plan, and etc. Bush was always targeted and Obama gets no excuses here. An executive should always know what is going on. (what's being signed)

The congressman gets no pass. No matter what bill it should always be read if you're in the legislative branch. (They make law)

'You're Lying to Me'

"I'm a registered Democrat", is said. I guess that's manufactured too.

If the Tea Party is manufactured just by one side then why are there democrats and republicans? Oh I guess you'll use the conservative is an ideology line and you'd be right. I think we both know what you meant here though, to doubt an independent movement.

I see you ignored the Alinsky playbook.

Also if a PDF playbook is really exposed then why not just come out and publish it on the site it originated? After all there's no need to hide it anymore. I'm sure you'll come up with an answer for that one but thought I'd inject common sense.

A question though. If people came to agree with the healthcare bill would you even be bringing this up? Come on you know the answer is no and that's what is happening here.

(Sorry not buying the against both sides angle just like you're not buying an independent movement)

Lastly the true point which I think has so much relevance here.

Your World w/ Neil Cavuto - Common Sense Segment

"They've just been listening to you. And now a Quinnipiac poll confirms what I've been telling you. Folks are concerned. Not clueless. Concerned. Not bought and paid for."

Video of Common Sense segment

(Yep I know lemming Fox News blah blah but bringing it up for the poll and point within)

Ah almost forgot.  The locations list only proves they're pointing out to people where to attend town hall meetings.  Nothing wrong with telling citizens where to go in talking with their legislators.

Originally posted by Faxxer

Originally posted by LeKinK

Originally posted by Babbuun

Darnit. Just accidentally deleted a wall of text. Here's the abridged sloppier version:

Fishermage. The way you use debating tactics to polarize and avoid compromises leads me to believe you're being intellectually dishonest. You lead people on to assume you're having a discussion when you're obviously debating. Your perogative is not to give an inch, even if it comes down to changing the definitions of words.

Doesn't matter if you studied with Marx and Lenin for all I care, the meaning of the word socialist is nowhere near Barack Obama. Barack Obama = Center-Right politician. Barack Obama =! Socialist politician(this is what you claim if you call him a socialist since he is a politician by his other defining title*). If there's no pre-existing word, don't use an old word with an old meaning to define something that doesn't comply with the old meaning. Make up a new word. Or better yet, specify the field so you can go: Regarding medical insurance Barack Obama is a socialist. Obama is an antiprivatisedmedicalinsuranceist. Add the freaking context since it sure as hell isn't self-explanatory to call anything other than a completely polarized and idealized model a socialist. By your definition I could call every single president of the United States of America a socialist. The only non-socialist people would be psychopaths that care exclusively for themselves.

Also the decision Obama made was less likely due to his "socialist ideals". He campaigned with health-care reform and, seeing as he hasn't pulled through with most of his campaign promises, had to pull something big out of his hat to please the people that voted for him. He's a freakin' roaring populist. That doesn't compute with socialism too well... Unless you're willing to compromise.

*Or you can call him president instead of politician if you like putting people up on pedestals.

I almost wrote the same thing concerning Faxxer.  If you can't give an inch you won't win. Gotta give a little to get something in return..
 

 

The left is famous for changing the definitions of words so they can smear truth. 

I'm not giving a damn centimeter.  The truth stands STRONG without compromise.

 

Good old faxxer always comes up with a good rousing slogan.

Anyone remember that giant robot in the end of fallout 3?

It was good at slogans too and was just as valid.

Originally posted by Faxxer

No.

You are the one making the accusation and the burden of evidence is on YOU to do anything, as a discussion the burden is on YOU to do something more than make random comments which is exactly what you have done. You have, once again, completely derailed a thread WITH NO EVIDENCE, SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT, ETC.

If you aren't here to actually hold a discussion, but to inflame and destroy, than you should probably think about leaving this board.

Originally posted by Babbuun

Darnit. Just accidentally deleted a wall of text. Here's the abridged sloppier version:

Fishermage. The way you use debating tactics to polarize and avoid compromises leads me to believe you're being intellectually dishonest. You lead people on to assume you're having a discussion when you're obviously debating. Your perogative is not to give an inch, even if it comes down to changing the definitions of words.

I think it's safe to say debate is going into a discussion with opposing viewpoints.
 

de⋅bate [di-beyt] noun, verb, -bat⋅ed, -bat⋅ing.

–noun

1. a discussion, as of a public question in an assembly, involving opposing viewpoints: a debate in the Senate on farm price supports.
2. a formal contest in which the affirmative and negative sides of a proposition are advocated by opposing speakers.
3. deliberation; consideration.
4. Archaic. strife; contention.

–verb (used without object)

5. to engage in argument or discussion, as in a legislative or public assembly: When we left, the men were still debating.
6. to participate in a formal debate.
7. to deliberate; consider: I debated with myself whether to tell them the truth or not.
8. Obsolete. to fight; quarrel.

–verb (used with object)

9. to argue or discuss (a question, issue, or the like), as in a legislative or public assembly: They debated the matter of free will.
10. to dispute or disagree about: The homeowners debated the value of a road on the island.
11. to engage in formal argumentation or disputation with (another person, group, etc.): Jones will debate Smith. Harvard will debate Princeton.
12. to deliberate upon; consider: He debated his decision in the matter.
13. Archaic. to contend for or over.