complex Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 If the U.S. did turn to a socialistic country. Would you really be all that mad. Enthusiastic? How would your personal life change? Can't say mine would be much different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the radiologist Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Something as little as changing into a socialistic country? Nahhhhhh, of course it wouldn't bother me one bit. Why would it?????? :nope: :nope: :nope: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
complex Posted August 4, 2009 Author Share Posted August 4, 2009 haha i didn't mean to make light of it in that manor, it would of course be an epic change, maybe im slightly in favor and would rather see it happen 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the radiologist Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 I'm not trying to put it out like that either. I want you to hear why you would be in favor of that. And what country through history, that was or still is ran by socialism, would you enjoy to live in? And in those factors, which ones are specifically related to socialism. I just never heard anybody say they think socialism is a good idea. I know I haven't been around a wide array of people, but damn...just never heard it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted August 4, 2009 Share Posted August 4, 2009 Living in a western country that has socialist leadership doesn't change much at all, here in the UK we are living under a labour government which has always been a socialist style party and there is no difference to the way it is to live in this country. Money is what drives most govenments these days and business has such a tight hold over finances etc that policy is very hard to change. I think it wouldn' be so much of a difference in the US maybe everyone will be lucky enough to be able to see a doctor or get treatment at a hospital if it does take on elements of social healthcare, then everyone can get taxed for it and everyone has the benefi f healthcare Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
complex Posted August 4, 2009 Author Share Posted August 4, 2009 in retrospect i should have done more research to use better terminology. so people know exactly what i mean. instead of going through every aspect of gov. and dissecting how i feel about it if it were socialistic, im just going to compare it to france. If the U.S. was ran the same as france. How would that be to people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the radiologist Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 ^^^^^Then there would be alot more smelly people and hookers in America.:D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 7, 2009 Share Posted August 7, 2009 Guns. Lots of guns. All firing in a volley. "The blood of patriots and tyrants" as Jefferson so aptly put it. Such a change would be very bad for us as a nation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UPS! Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 Id GTFO or stand next to Casek fixing my bayonet so to speak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 I don't know, Sweden is about as close to socialism a market economy can get and they seem to be doing just fine. Australia is also under a labor government, has a state healthcare system, state school system, state medical benefits system, sliding tax scale, etc. and we're doing pretty good too. France aint exactly a third world country either. So, what's the problem? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 I don't know, Sweden is about as close to socialism a market economy can get and they seem to be doing just fine. Australia is also under a labor government, has a state healthcare system, state school system, state medical benefits system, sliding tax scale, etc. and we're doing pretty good too. France aint exactly a third world country either. So, what's the problem? I take it that means it's ok for me to come to your house and tell you that because my walls are gray and my carper is blue, yours needs to be like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 that is a very narrow minded view of socialism casek, what your talking about there is a dictatorship and living under a socialist government is nothing like that. In none of these countries such as Sweden, Australia, France or the UK do the government tell you how to have you house decorated. As far as my day to day life goes the government doesn't interfere with my life in the way i dress, the things I say, the things I want to buy or sell. I am happy to pay taxes so that all people have access to healthcare and children get a decent education. I don't see the problem to living under a socialist government. It just seems to me that Americans don't want it because it comes down to their fear of having the guns taken away from them, and I know you will disagree but I don't believe anyone should just have easy access to guns they do more damage than good. OK there are guns in the UK but gun crime is much lower here than in america. Can i ask you, Do you think it is wrong that taxes go to providing healthcare to all people? why should people suffer because they cannot afford health insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 that is a very narrow minded view of socialism casek, what your talking about there is a dictatorship and living under a socialist government is nothing like that. In none of these countries such as Sweden, Australia, France or the UK do the government tell you how to have you house decorated. You don't understand. I'm saying that since christo says it's ok for one (or more) countriy (ies) that it's not ok for us. Our country is the most unique in the world. We don't need socialism and we definitely don't want it. I merely used an analogy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 I know what you were getting at I just wanted to question furthre Casek, you know I love these discussions lol I think there are good elements and bad elements of any type of leadership of a country and while you don't want or need socialism, some aspects of it could benefit America and it's poorest occupants also I don't agree with your analogy because that isn't what socialism is, your analogy was of a dictatorship, socialism doesn't dictate what the people that live in the country can do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 I know what you were getting at I just wanted to question furthre Casek, you know I love these discussions lol I think there are good elements and bad elements of any type of leadership of a country and while you don't want or need socialism, some aspects of it could benefit America and it's poorest occupants also I don't agree with your analogy because that isn't what socialism is, your analogy was of a dictatorship, socialism doesn't dictate what the people that live in the country can do I wasn't being analogous of socialism, more of what christo was saying. To sum it up, "it works for these countries, so what's your problem with it?". Know what would benefit us more? Limited terms for politicians (no lifers), policy to keep drug companies from overcharging us for drugs (rest of the world gets a nice break from them...how nice), absolutely no lobbyists (no exceptions), pulling military out of other countries (they're older now, they can fight for themselves), getting back to a gold standard, no illegals allowed. do it like the rest of the honest people who are waiting for approval. Just a few of those suggestions would take us a long way on the road to getting better and getting our global respect back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 I would agree completely with you on every point you made, it would benefit you greatly to pull military out of other countries, it is something I wish the UK would also do Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 I would agree completely with you on every point you made, it would benefit you greatly to pull military out of other countries, it is something I wish the UK would also do The problem with the U.S. and UK getting out is that it doesn't make the war machine money. It loves money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 It does love the money and the governments love the fear of constantly telling us of all the bad guys that are out to take away our freedom and way of life, if we weren't fighting these countries how would they instill the fear? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 It does love the money and the governments love the fear of constantly telling us of all the bad guys that are out to take away our freedom and way of life, if we weren't fighting these countries how would they instill the fear? Ever read a book titled "The Grand Chessboard"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 no I haven't who is the author, I will order it in and give it a read if you receommend it, actually I should not be so lazy and just google it lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy And Its Geostrategic Imperatives by Zbigniew Brzezinski It's paperback and pretty cheap. Give it a read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted August 8, 2009 Share Posted August 8, 2009 I wasn't being analogous of socialism, more of what christo was saying. To sum it up, "it works for these countries, so what's your problem with it?". I don't understand how your analogy works. You also didn't answer my question. I'm not saying that America should be socialist, that's for the US people to decide. I'm just asking why you wouldn't want it for the US, that's all. I used Sweden, Australia, etc. just as examples of countries that have elements of socialism to show that it doesn't mean dictatorship, a lack of freedom, authoritarianism or a failed economy. So, why do you think stuff like what Sweden has is not suitable for the US? Know what would benefit us more? Limited terms for politicians (no lifers) Why do you think that? I don't disagree, I just want to know why you think this is important, policy to keep drug companies from overcharging us for drugs agreed, absolutely no lobbyists I know a lot of the cons and they are huge, but I'd still like to hear some of the pros for having lobbyists, if there are any, before I had an opinion on that matter., pulling military out of other countries (they're older now, they can fight for themselves) discussed below, getting back to a gold standard, no illegals allowed. do it like the rest of the honest people who are waiting for approval. Just a few of those suggestions would take us a long way on the road to getting better and getting our global respect back. As for removing the military, the standard of life for those in the US would change drastically and the US would lose a massive amount of its security if the US pulled out of all the countries it's in right now. Plus a fairly decent amount of the world would lose stability and the global economy would suffer as well. The US provides safety and security for the worlds shipping lanes. If Indonesia/China/whoever tried to blockade the Malacca Straits, the US would see to it that it was opened again. IF Iran blocked the Straits of Hormuz, only the US could reopen it again. I've never read the Great Chessboard, but I've read a lot of other stuff by Zbignew. I'd also assume that he mentions off-shore balancing in the book, that's what the US does to stop the rise of another competitor. They destabilise regions like the Middle East, South America and so on. If they didn't you would either have a lot of internal war in the Middle East between countries like KSA and Iran would more than likely triumph and become a regional power. Under Iran's current political culture, I don't think that would be such a great idea. IF the US wasn't in Japan and ROK there would be a massive arms build up by Japan and ROK in reaction to the presence of DPRK. Since 53 there has been relative stability in the region that more than likely would not have been without the US and there would be a destabilising arms race that would result in a victor becoming powerful that could then go on to threaten the US in the future (you can bet Nukes would also be involved in the arms race). I'm not making any moral judgments here, just trying to flesh out how the strategic situation would change if the US went isolationist. I also do not support a number of things that the US does but when I think about some of the alternatives (such as Russia being a global power, Iran controlling the Middle East and its energy reserves, China controlling the Malacca Straits, etc.) I'd much rather the way it is now. The US isn't perfect but it could be a fucking lot worse than it is with the US military deployed around the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted August 10, 2009 Share Posted August 10, 2009 Anarchism is where it's at. Essentially what anarchy comes down to is living really rough and people shooting at each other for reasons good, bad and entirely nonexistent. They want your stuff? You better have a bigger gun and more bullets and good aim because they aren't going to sit down and politely ask you to share your stuff with them. If you want to see anarchy in practice, take a look at Somalia. They're living the life of Riley over there! So, prove to me that YOU and you alone could live off the land and entirely off the grid (no computer, no cell phone, basically any tech relying on a backbone/infrastructure), and are ready to kill or be killed and then I'll believe you. Until then, unless you're 15 give it a rest until you do some serious reading. As far as the socialism in the US it's already here. It's just not called "socialism". It's called "bank bailouts" and "saving the auto industry". Did anyone besides legislators get to vote on this shit or was it pushed through for the "common good?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 Let me state the obvious, that we already have many socialist policies in the U.S. To get more would not be a drastic change, but a natural progression. We are still capitalist though, so don't worry about it. BTW, socialism and capitalism don't exist, never have, and are outdated concepts. We live in a pragmatic society, and we always have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainframe Posted August 11, 2009 Share Posted August 11, 2009 I take it that means it's ok for me to come to your house and tell you that because my walls are gray and my carper is blue, yours needs to be like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Let me state the obvious, that we already have many socialist policies in the U.S. To get more would not be a drastic change, but a natural progression. We are still capitalist though, so don't worry about it. BTW, socialism and capitalism don't exist, never have, and are outdated concepts. We live in a pragmatic society, and we always have. I don't think socialist policies are a form of "progression". That's just me though, and to say neither socialism or capitalism haven't ever existed, could you explain further? I would agree though, that they are out dated. I'm also not a fan of a pragmatic society. I mean look at our boy Obama (Not the first just providing an example.). He clearly follows this and what do we get. Scientists, bankers and all of these other "experts" who put their interests and the interests of their friends over the whole populace. Yeah, real pragmatic. However on another note. I am seeing more and more stories about how the American public is really fuming over Obamacare. This makes me really happy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mainframe Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 Scientists put their interests and the interests of their friends over the whole populace. No. If you're just referring to Obama cabinet scientists...still no. From my experience scientists tend to be very pragmatic people, and Obama's science advisers are well qualified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 If I can answer for Russell Jones, I'd guess that he means pure capitalism; that were the market dictates all and the government only goes as far as regulating property law, has never actually existed. And socialism where everything is equally distributed and and commonly owned (etc. etc.) has never really happened either. Russell is saying that we always tend to have a mix of the two in modern life (we've never really had pure communism either, in the strict sense of the term). The US has many socialist principals because it is more pragmatic to run a nation that way. That, I believe is what Russell was referring to. Did I get that right, Rus? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russell jones Posted August 12, 2009 Share Posted August 12, 2009 If I can answer for Russell Jones, I'd guess that he means pure capitalism; that were the market dictates all and the government only goes as far as regulating property law, has never actually existed. And socialism where everything is equally distributed and and commonly owned (etc. etc.) has never really happened either. Russell is saying that we always tend to have a mix of the two in modern life (we've never really had pure communism either, in the strict sense of the term). The US has many socialist principals because it is more pragmatic to run a nation that way. That, I believe is what Russell was referring to. Did I get that right, Rus? Exactly, and thanks for explaining it, because I didn't feel like it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ILOTSMYBRAIN Posted August 14, 2009 Share Posted August 14, 2009 I wasn't trying to offend anyone by my post. I was just trying to clarify what you meant. Sorry for making it a chore. No. If you're just referring to Obama cabinet scientists...still no. From my experience scientists tend to be very pragmatic people, and Obama's science advisers are well qualified. I won't disagree that on paper they do have the qualifications. However I don't agree with the results that are coming out from these "pragmatic" people. And to say that a scientist or financial expert, or any expert from transportation to health care couldn't be biased and come up with only pragmatic fixes to complicated problems is fine, you can think that way. I don't. I hear different opinions from plenty of qualified people on a whole array of issues. I'm sure some of their bias's through their life experiences played a part in that. I mean fucking doctors are supposed to be pragmatic. A lot of them act more like drug pushers. Doesn't seem like the right way to behave to me. All I'm trying to say in theory just like a whole bunch of other political ideologies this system looks like it would work pretty well. Certainly not flawlessly. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. A lot of these people in office have merky backgrounds and have come out and have said some pretty harsh and ridiculous things in their pasts, and now they are in an actual position to act on some of their believes. Something to be wary of. Of course on the flip side, people do mature, receive more education, and do change their opinions on all different issues all of the time. Sorry, after the past 10 years of my own life and what I know of world history, I can only trust a handful of these guys. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.