ANOTHER ROUGH WEEK FOR AMERICAN LIBERALISM/SOCIALISM

[lord_casek]

Weathermen never bombed a building with people in it. Fact. They attacked institutions, not people.

 

 

February 1970

[christo-f]

 

Yeah, sounds like a guy that is totally great. I mean, setting bombs, killing cops. Good that he's friends with Obama....

and great that he was the ghostwriter of Obamas autobiography....

 

/s

 

You could point at shit like this for most people in power.

 

Regan admin - Iran-Contra

Clinton - sanctions against Iraq (read Albright's comments concerning the kids that were affected)

Bush - invasion of Iraq, Gitmo

 

Seriously, if you're going to get upset about stuff like that it's time to pack up and go to sleep mate. That's how the whole world works and always has. You can have your wonderful loving flowery fantasy world where nobody does anything wrong and everything is by the rules/constitution and above board or you can have the real world which is nasty, grey, unaccountable and runs on power relationships.

 

After everything that you've pointed out and complained about you still haven't got it yet; THIS IS THE WOLD WE LIVE IN.

 

Seriously mate, time to either get over it as you're living in a dream world that has never existed and never will never come true.

[Soup]

really man, you're just gonna throw out a date and a year like it's substantial evidence supporting your case? Crossfire blows.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_Organization#Park_Place_Police_Station_bombing.2C_February_1970

 

"On February 16, 1970 a nail bomb placed on a window ledge of the Park Police substation in the Upper Haight neighborhood of San Francisco exploded at 10:45 p.m. The blast killed police Sergeant Brian McDonnell. Law enforcement suspected the Weather Underground but was unable to prove conclusively that the organization was involved.[53] A second officer, Robert Fogarty was partially blinded by the bomb’s shrapnel."

 

And christo-f, the weathermen never did any of that. If anyone died it was a cop in the midst of an anti-vietnam war protest, or a gung-ho security guard during a bank robbery. These are militarized uc berkeley graduate hippies, not thugs.

[Zig]

It's really frustrating to read the discussion going on here and see what it is degenerating into. On one end of the argument we have someone who has resorted to a smear campaign of our Founding Fathers, and on another end we have someone who is claiming that resistance is futile. I realize that in our establishment society it is quite popular to attack, put down, bad mouth, and make fun of the Founders so I can't really say I'm that surprised you went the direction you did with the whole slave thing. All I would really have to say towards that is the Constitution helped to abolish slavery and put forth the first steps towards equality among peoples for the first time in human history more than any other document, ever. The men behind the creation of that document were admirable, honorable, and of a much higher caliber then you are even remotely giving them credit for. To hear the things you're saying about Thomas Jefferson is really just downright disrespectful, but to each is own and you have the right to feel however you want to feel about these great men of history. No one is perfect, and they lived during imperfect times just as we do today and just as we will forever.

 

You said,

"You misunderstand the world if you ever thought the electorate's approval for war ever did matter."

 

No, I don't misunderstand the world I definitely have a good idea of how the world operates, I don't claim to understand it better than anyone else. I understand the world about just as well as I can for what I've experienced personally, and from what I can learn through history's lessons. That however is why these wars should have to be declared and approved by Congress, that is how this country is supposed to operate. Decisions aren't supposed to be made by the CIA, and MIC over the American people.

 

Whilst I agree that it would be good if the powers that be followed the rules they are meant to uphold, they don't, that is plainly obvious and has always been this way. Expecting, wanting arguing it to be is futile and you will always be on the losing end of that issue if you refuse to recognise it. I sympathise, I also marched against the Iraq war with my girl and my Mum. But, reality is reality and it will be a cold day in hell when strategic gain is foregone in order to follow the rules. Unfortunate but true.

 

With all due respect to that statement, as I think it is admirable that you advocated against the war since it is something I have never done and don't think I plan to ever do, I would have to disagree with you that resistance is futile. That is a form of cynicism, and even though you are probably right that a majority of the time nothing will change, I personally am a believer that anything is possible and nothing is futile. Our capabilities as free people are unlimited in their proportion, and it may be a struggle but resisting corruption is every person's duty. Unfortunately, I will admit I have never done my part except in conversations and discussions with friends about issues such as this. That is my only form of resistance, but I admire people who never give in to the powers that be regardless of how hopeless the situation may seem.

 

 

What I don't get here is that anyone is actually surprised. I mean the guy is a politician, not an angel or the messiah. And this also goes back to my original argument, right at the start of the thread. Obama could get up during the election period and promise all these wonderful things (and actually even mean them, which I doubt he did) but when he comes to office there is no way in hell he can pull most of them off.

 

He can try and close Gitmo but the reality is that there are definitely some dirty fuckbags in there that you don't want to be releasing. Sure, there are heaps in there that should not have been arrested/kidnapped in the first place and have been mistreated since. They are SLOWLY being released back (and that is not an easy task either as if you send them home they are likely to be tortured/executed by their home government) but what do you do with the shitbags that really do deserve to be there? Civilian trials are not suitable because you are dealing with high end intelligence matters that are still current, etc. etc. So whilst he may be trying to do it (or not) there are very real constraints that make his promises VERY difficult.

 

Just like dealing with the Iraq and Afghan wars. If you just up and out from these places now there will be some very real and dangerous results (I will address that later when I have time) and Obama is now finding that it is nowhere as easy to do these things as he made out, whether he actually meant it or not.

 

I get the feeling that he probably only believed a percentage of what he said during the election period..., just like most other politicians. I mean, it is politics after all!!

 

 

No, I'm not surprised at all I knew an Obama presidency would be like this. What I am more surprised about is that people actually fell for it, and what surprises me more is people who are still defending this man like he is something different.

 

Of course there are going to be consequences to pulling out of the war zones, but the consequences that we face as American's are greater if we continue to follow the paradigm of the War on Terror and support more wars in it's name. The consequences are greater the more we bomb and kill people in these regions, not only for American's but for the state of the world. It could erupt into another World War very easily, and it is close to occurring. We aren't and shouldn't be responsible for being the policemen of the world, and I am in 100% agreement with Ron Paul on this issue so I'm sure your familiar with him and I don't need to explain myself.

 

Sure, Obama definitely didn't believe or mean a good portion of what he said during his campaign, but I find it disappointing and detestable that we accept lies and corruption because we've come to expect it from all politicians. We shouldn't be simply accepting this sort of behavior because we are used to corruption, it is a reflection of our state as a society that we don't hold them accountable for their own words.

[lord_casek]

really man, you're just gonna throw out a date and a year like it's substantial evidence supporting your case? Crossfire blows.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_Underground_Organization#Park_Place_Police_Station_bombing.2C_February_1970

 

"On February 16, 1970 a nail bomb placed on a window ledge of the Park Police substation in the Upper Haight neighborhood of San Francisco exploded at 10:45 p.m. The blast killed police Sergeant Brian McDonnell. Law enforcement suspected the Weather Underground but was unable to prove conclusively that the organization was involved.[53] A second officer, Robert Fogarty was partially blinded by the bomb’s shrapnel."

 

And christo-f, the weathermen never did any of that. If anyone died it was a cop in the midst of an anti-vietnam war protest, or a gung-ho security guard during a bank robbery. These are militarized uc berkeley graduate hippies, not thugs.

 

 

Wikipedia.......

[Soup]

I never "bad mouthed" the founding fathers. I said Thomas Jefferson didnt abolish slavery and every chance he was given to at least abolish it for some he declined. Those are facts that i gave with supporting articles.

[Soup]

Wikipedia.......

looks like sfweekly to me.

[lord_casek]

supporting [/url]articles.

 

 

how about that monticello page i posted? many letters from jefferson expressing his dislike of slavery and his efforts to abolish it.

 

you're arguments are a weak whitewash of intellectualism.

[lord_casek]

looks like sfweekly to me.

 

 

looks like you edited your link to me.

[Zig]

I don't know what you want to call it then, you posted a bunch of detestable facts about Thomas Jefferson in an effort to what? what exactly were you pointing out then? that the Constitution is invalid because the men who wrote it had slaves and were bad people? come on...

[christo-f]

 

And christo-f, the weathermen never did any of that. If anyone died it was a cop in the midst of an anti-vietnam war protest, or a gung-ho security guard during a bank robbery. These are militarized uc berkeley graduate hippies, not thugs.

 

I'm not entering in to the weathermen discussion as I'm not interested in doing the research. I'm just saying that if one wants to dig up skeletons in one national leader's closet you may as well generalise it across the board geographically, ideologically and historically because that's the way power has worked since day dot.

[Soup]

how about that monticello page i posted? many letters from jefferson expressing his dislike of slavery and his efforts to abolish it.

 

you're arguments are a weak whitewash of intellectualism.

 

You used that analogy already. I read that article. I also read that wikipedia (gasp) page you posted on the definition of Emancipation.

 

I never denied Jefferson's (extreme is a bit strong) dislike of slavery, but also as a politician it's not what he says but what he does. His lover with whom he had multiple kids with was never freed from slavery by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson also promised his friend Kościuszko that if Kościuszko left him his entire will then jefferson would take that money and by as many slaves their freedom as possible. Soon as Kościuszko died Jefferson decided not to and told the press that he was too old and tired. Jefferson received criticism saying he was a sycophant to his slaveowning friends and refused because he didnt want to offend them.

 

 

To tie all this into the discussion at hand, the constitution may or may not have been written with the freedom and liberties of slaves in mind. As seen here even civil rights activists like Jefferson who publicly refused to support the abolitionist movement (John Ferling, Setting the World Ablaze, pg 290, Oxford University Press, 2000.) Jefferson wanted slaves to have "inalienable rights" like reading and writing. Not freedom.

 

looks like you edited your link to me.

Since I posted that six minutes before you wrote "wikipedia." You're wrong.

[lord_casek]

You used that analogy already. I read that article. I also read that wikipedia (gasp) page you posted on the definition of Emancipation.

 

I never denied Jefferson's (extreme is a bit strong) dislike of slavery, but also as a politician it's not what he says but what he does. His lover with whom he had multiple kids with was never freed from slavery by Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson also promised his friend Kościuszko that if Kościuszko left him his entire will then jefferson would take that money and by as many slaves their freedom as possible. Soon as Kościuszko died Jefferson decided not to and told the press that he was too old and tired. Jefferson received criticism saying he was a sycophant to his slaveowning friends and refused because he didnt want to offend them.

 

 

To tie all this into the discussion at hand, the constitution may or may not have been written with the freedom and liberties of slaves in mind. As seen here even civil rights activists like Jefferson publicly refused to support the abolitionist movement (John Ferling, Setting the World Ablaze, pg 290, Oxford University Press, 2000.)

 

 

Since I posted that six minutes before you wrote "wikipedia." You're wrong.

 

That was an oxford dictionary definition. I don't use wikipedia.

 

You only need to read his writings to see his views very

clearly. You are relying on one article from one paper.

 

Perhaps you need to quit now.

[Soup]

I don't know what you want to call it then, you posted a bunch of detestable facts about Thomas Jefferson in an effort to what? what exactly were you pointing out then? that the Constitution is invalid because the men who wrote it had slaves and were bad people? come on...

 

earlier [/url]about Charlotte Iserbyt.

 

As for the constitution:

 

Im not taking sides here. Im providing factual evidence that can be argued either way. The definitions of the ammendments can be understood numerous ways, and if you ever payed atttention to the supreme court, every single one of those judges has their own interpretation. An example of an interpretation is easily seen with "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" does not include slaves. The constitution therefor has perpetuated the issue of class in America and sees the poorest workers as a tradable commodity instead of human beings.

 

America is a hugely litigious society with an inherent understanding that if an argument wouldn't hold up in court, it's not worth arguing, therefor [due to the infinite translations of the constitution] Universal healthcare being unconstitutional would likely not hold up in court.

 

As for healthcare:

Like I said, I'm not taking sides. I think healthcare is a much more complex issue that spans far beyond it being just public or private. "Universal healthcare" around the world does not have a universal definition. Neither does private healthcare. It's important to look at the unique healthcare of each and every nation for exactly what itis and critique it accordingly. That is the only way to debate healthcare intelligently.

having to repeat myself is getting really boring.

[lord_casek]

soup: outside of here, I respect you. remember that. anything said here is for debates sake

and will not be carried over into some sort of beef with you.

 

you come off here like you're trying really hard to make your point with shit you don't really know about.

[Zig]

I read what you said, and I've heard it before especially in American Government class that the Founding Father's were rich white men who owned slaves and didn't write the Constitution for the equality of all people. Like I said it is a popular mainstream establishment view to attack the Founding Fathers because of these reasons, and I'm not surprised your brought that up.

 

I on the other hand hold the opinion that the Founding Father's intentions were to set the first steps towards a world with more equality for all men (all people included, men, women, children, slaves, etc.; at the time of these writings it was popular to make references to humanity as man / men and shows up in many of histories writings yet are interpreted today to mean everyone), and understood that things don't happen over night and this was part of the great experiment. Are you denying that the Constitution lead to the abolishment of slavery and more equality? Now don't get me wrong because I know you will probably say that we are still not living in an equal society, and that slavery still exists, because I am well aware of both of these and in agreement with you if you do bring it up but I also know that the Constitution has within it the elements required, more than any other document, to grant us true liberty, freedom, and equality. That is, if it is actually being followed and not trampled upon.

[Soup]

That was an oxford dictionary definition. I don't use wikipedia.

 

You only need to read his writings to see his views very

clearly. You are relying on one article from one paper.

 

Perhaps you need to quit now.

Sources:

1. John Ferling, Setting the World Ablaze, pg 290, Oxford University Press, 2000. "This ambivalence to slavery was reflected in Jefferson's letter to John Holmes, dated April 1820. In this letter, Jefferson refused to publicly support the abolitionist movement"

 

2. Peter S. Onuf, Jeffersonian legacies, Lucia Stanton, "Those who labor for my happiness", Thomas Jefferson and his slaves, pgs 154-156, 1993 "His ambivalence was also reflected in his treatment of those house slaves, (who worked most closely with him and his family) at Monticello and other homes. He invested in having them trained and schooled in skills.[/url] On the other hand, African elderly and children were not excluded from manual labor on Jefferson's Monticello Estate and nail factory."

 

3.http://frank.mtsu.edu/~lnelson/Jefferson-Slavery.html Jefferson in fact believed that the color of the skin was the primary difference between African Americans and Caucasians. He writes in Laws, "The first difference which strikes us is that of colour." Jefferson believed that skin color was the foundation of "greater or lesser" beauty between the two races. Skin color, body symmetry, and hair texture were primary categories for determining beauty between the two races, according to Jefferson.

 

4. http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Slaves_Who_Gained_Freedom Jefferson only freed two slaves his entire life. Robert Hemings and James Hemings. Both children of jefferson's slave Sally Hemmings who he had an affair with.

 

5. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/01/us/dna-test-finds-evidence-of-jefferson-child-by-slave.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print DNA evidence of Jefferson's extracurricular affairs with Sally Hemmings

 

6. http://www.monticello.org/plantation/lives/sallyhemings.html Although Sally Hemmings had Thomas Jefferson's child, she was never freed from slavery.

 

 

Should I continue?

[Zig]

Sources:

1. John Ferling, Setting the World Ablaze, pg 290, Oxford University Press, 2000. "This ambivalence to slavery was reflected in Jefferson's letter to John Holmes, dated April 1820. In this letter, Jefferson refused to publicly support the abolitionist movement"

 

2. Peter S. Onuf, Jeffersonian legacies, Lucia Stanton, "Those who labor for my happiness", Thomas Jefferson and his slaves, pgs 154-156, 1993 "His ambivalence was also reflected in his treatment of those house slaves, (who worked most closely with him and his family) at Monticello and other homes. He invested in having them trained and schooled in skills.[/url] On the other hand, African elderly and children were not excluded from manual labor on Jefferson's Monticello Estate and nail factory."

 

3.http://frank.mtsu.edu/~lnelson/Jefferson-Slavery.html Jefferson in fact believed that the color of the skin was the primary difference between African Americans and Caucasians. He writes in Laws, "The first difference which strikes us is that of colour." Jefferson believed that skin color was the foundation of "greater or lesser" beauty between the two races. Skin color, body symmetry, and hair texture were primary categories for determining beauty between the two races, according to Jefferson.

 

4. http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Slaves_Who_Gained_Freedom Jefferson only freed two slaves his entire life. Robert Hemings and James Hemings. Both children of jefferson's slave Sally Hemmings who he had an affair with.

 

5. http://www.nytimes.com/1998/11/01/us/dna-test-finds-evidence-of-jefferson-child-by-slave.html?sec=&spon=&pagewanted=print DNA evidence of Jefferson's extracurricular affairs with Sally Hemmings

 

6. http://www.monticello.org/plantation/lives/sallyhemings.html Although Sally Hemmings had Thomas Jefferson's child, she was never freed from slavery.

 

 

Should I continue?

 

No one is perfect. The fruits of his labor speak for his character. This is akin to attacking someone's personal life rather than debating the issues at hand, something I would expect from mainstream media. I really don't see what you are getting at here.

[Soup]

Zig Im not trying to derail this thread or change your view of the founding fathers of america. I dont even care.George Washington founded this country but he also owned slaves. That makes him a great man and an evil man at the same time. We got on this whole debate because AOW brought up the point that a government instated public health option is unconstitutional. All i said was "well the constitution also says all men are created equal but jefferson owned slaves." Which in the context of this debate meant "how the fuck are you going to argue what that constituion said about public health?"

 

And no im not denying that many civil rights laws have been passed with the final words from the judge saying "In order with the constitution.." However you can only really say something's unconstitutional in your opening or closing statement. You still need to thoroughly back it up how or why it's bad for America, and public health is not good or bad. If the bill is well-written it could heavily drop the cost of health insurance and help float the economy, but if it's poorly written then hospitals in poorer areas will suffer.

 

And as for Thomas Jefferson: Im not attacking his personal life. Attacking his personal life would be like saying "that honky's a nigger lover who couldnt keep his dick out of the brown sugar and erroded the sacred institution of marriage." What Im saying is he may have been preaching "all men are created equal" but in reality, as a politician, he deliberately did very little to support any abolitionist movement and only freed slaves he provided the seed for.

[christo-f]

 

 

No, I don't misunderstand the world I definitely have a good idea of how the world operates, I don't claim to understand it better than anyone else. I understand the world about just as well as I can for what I've experienced personally, and from what I can learn through history's lessons. That however is why these wars should have to be declared and approved by Congress, that is how this country is supposed to operate. Decisions aren't supposed to be made by the CIA, and MIC over the American people.

Fist off, I'm sorry if I sound condescending when I post, that is not my intention at all. However I know that when I go back over what I write it does read that way. If I do want to have a crack at some one I will just be straight abusive. Anything else is totally unintentional and I apologise if it comes across that way.

 

Now, as to what you have said above, the word you have used is "supposed". However I'm saying that I agree that it is supposed to work that way but it doesn't and won't. It sucks but it is the reality of the matter. And I am not saying do nothing about it and accept it because you live in a democracy, you have local members and representatives and a vote. You also have freedom of speech and congregation (well, that has boundaries that may or may not be legitimate) and you also have the option of insurrection. But I would also put it to you that even if you were to come to power yourself under the current constitution or one of your own making you too would find that it would be impossible to act in this world effectively and stick to the letter of your laws. I'm not prepared to go through it myself but you can look up Bounded Reality and the theories of rational decision making. These theories, which I believe logic supports as far as we can see, show why laws can be all well and good when you make them but being that you cannot tell the future you will more than likely find that events down the track make your laws an unrealistic constraint on what will be "rational" decision making in the future.

 

 

 

With all due respect to that statement, as I think it is admirable that you advocated against the war since it is something I have never done and don't think I plan to ever do, I would have to disagree with you that resistance is futile. That is a form of cynicism, and even though you are probably right that a majority of the time nothing will change, I personally am a believer that anything is possible and nothing is futile. Our capabilities as free people are unlimited in their proportion, and it may be a struggle but resisting corruption is every person's duty. Unfortunately, I will admit I have never done my part except in conversations and discussions with friends about issues such as this. That is my only form of resistance, but I admire people who never give in to the powers that be regardless of how hopeless the situation may seem.

 

I have no problem with that at all and respect the position. I'm not trying to say that resistance is futile, I guess more so that life will never be as black and white as rigid laws posit. Sometimes laws must be broken for the best results to come about. Remember, just because a law is made doesn't mean it is constructive under each and every circumstance.

 

 

 

 

No, I'm not surprised at all I knew an Obama presidency would be like this. What I am more surprised about is that people actually fell for it, and what surprises me more is people who are still defending this man like he is something different.

 

Kind of like how people still defend the constitution.

 

*Awaits the sound of exploding heads*

 

Of course there are going to be consequences to pulling out of the war zones, but the consequences that we face as American's are greater if we continue to follow the paradigm of the War on Terror and support more wars in it's name

.

I'm unsure, does Obama still use that term, war on terror? IS it still going on as the Bush admin had it? Now be aware that there ARE organisations of people out there that DO want to attack US interests and many of them couldn't give a shit about the inequities of US foreign policy. Of course there are many who do and that can and should be neutralised by adjusting foreign policy, which I believe is taking place in a mild form. But you cannot just leave places like Afghanistan, Yemen, Iran and so on to their own devices in a void. That's exactly what the US did after the collapse of the Soviet Union and it was a catastrophic policy failure. This time it must be done with greater nuance and planning..., not just upping and outing from areas that are being occupied now.

 

The consequences are greater the more we bomb and kill people in these regions, not only for American's but for the state of the world. It could erupt into another World War very easily, and it is close to occurring

.

Um you're going to have to back that up with something because it sounds very far from what I believe to be the truth. however I cannot have an opposing discussion if I do not know your own position.

 

We aren't and shouldn't be responsible for being the policemen of the world, and I am in 100% agreement with Ron Paul on this issue so I'm sure your familiar with him and I don't need to explain myself.

The title "policemen of the world" is misleading and total bullshit. That is not what the US is doing. Take Iran for example; the US is not stopping them from getting nukes because it's the wrong thing to do, it is taking this line because a nuclear Iran is HIGHLY detrimental to US interests. The Us receives large amounts of energy that it cannot as yet do without from Iran's naighbours. Were Iran to acquire nuclear weapons it would be in a position to coerce its neighbours in to actions that counter US interest. The US cannot let that happen, it's an inherent security risk..., a MASSIVE one. It's got nothing to do with right or wrong (it is framed that way for the electorate who mostly don't understand geopolitics and strategic issues. I only understand it because I chose to study it, was in the defense force and follow issues of such nature due to my career. I have no idea about domestic issues and economics though), it is everything to do with US strategic and security interests.

 

Sure, Obama definitely didn't believe or mean a good portion of what he said during his campaign, but I find it disappointing and detestable that we accept lies and corruption because we've come to expect it from all politicians. We shouldn't be simply accepting this sort of behavior because we are used to corruption, it is a reflection of our state as a society that we don't hold them accountable for their own words.

Couldn't agree more. When it comes to corruption for personal gain I'm all for fucking lynch mobs, mate, believe you me! I guess I just see matters of foreign policy a little differently because there are security issues involved.

 

However in saying that, I know that there is a lot of personal gain in foreign policy as well, Dick Chenney should be strung up by his fucking balls!!

[christo-f]

By the way guys, I'm going to remove the strategic content of this discussion to its own thread.

 

The discussion about constitutional law and history is much stronger and more on topic.

 

I will post a thread to discuss matters of foreign policy, national security and geopolitics/strategy where that discussion can be continued.

 

I fully expect to be the only person in that thread.....

[lord_casek]

Obamacare is supported by insurance companies and big pharma. It's obviously bad if those two entities support it. They will line their pockets with more of our money and totally wipe out

the middle class.

[Soup]

isnt the middle class already wiped out? I know i cant afford healthcare.

[lord_casek]

By the way guys, I'm going to remove the strategic content of this discussion to its own thread.

 

The discussion about constitutional law and history is much stronger and more on topic.

 

I will post a thread to discuss matters of foreign policy, national security and geopolitics/strategy where that discussion can be continued.

 

I fully expect to be the only person in that thread.....

 

 

I'll read it. Maybe participate. Can't pass up the chance to learn.

[shai]

By the way guys, I'm going to remove the strategic content of this discussion to its own thread.

 

The discussion about constitutional law and history is much stronger and more on topic.

 

I will post a thread to discuss matters of foreign policy, national security and geopolitics/strategy where that discussion can be continued.

 

I fully expect to be the only person in that thread.....

 

Maybe the only knowledgeable person...I'm sure you'll have plenty of people to endlessly argue with.

 

I wasn't surprised when Obama won, nor was I surprised when he couldn't deliver on some of the planks of his campaign and I'm definitely not surprised by the spreading conservative backlash. That's how things work here...nobody feels happy or secure besides the obscenely wealthy, and the gap between the haves and the have-nots is beginning to look like the Grand Canyon.

 

If people weren't so faked out/lulled into indifference by consumer culture/mass media and the feeling that "you can't win," we'd be perfectly primed for a second American revolution motivated by economic and class differences....the only hindrance being the tendency of Americans to get swoll about the principles the US was founded on yet lack the conviction to sacrifice any aspect of their lifestyle, much less actually go fight in the streets for them. Therefore, I view most of the talk about liberalism/socialism/conservatism and people using their version of history in Crossfire as being a sample of what most people are thinking right now...which is why I don't give 90% of what is said here too much credence. (Sorry guys, just being honest.)

 

It's a stacked deck anyway. The Man keeps moving the line back, to the point that what seemed totalitarian fifty years ago makes perfect sense now because the media tells you that it's reasonable to value security over freedom...the only way left to be free in this society is to be an outlaw, which has its strengths and weaknesses. That doesn't mean you have to fuck anyone over or be an asshole criminal, it just means opting out of playing a game where the rules are arbitrary...money and connections (and failing that, creativity and discretion) can get you out of almost any predicament imaginable.

 

And that's what it all comes down to, really...people lack imagination as far as what's possible, and they don't seem to miss it. They want to believe that they're in the driver's seat, but they aren't really paying attention to what's going on.

[christo-f]

Solution = become "the man".

 

It's a jungle out there, baby!

[Soup]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-275597845580120006&ei=wsleS7y1HaTyqAO-vvGuCA&q=Van+Jones&hl=en&client=firefox-a#

[Soup]

Solution = become "the man".

 

It's a jungle out there, baby!

 

Im sorry i had to do it. In comes the hate.

[angelofdeath]

Pretty sure the constitution was written by a slaveowner. You can scream about what's constitutional and what's not until you're blue in the face, but it doesn't mean you understand it. Arguing that point is stupido.

 

so you will discredit everything great about the constitution because it was written by A (one?) SLAVEROWNER? have you ever read the constitution debates, the federalist or the anti federalist papers? do you really think just one guy pulled a bunch of shit out of his hiney hole and it was passed unanimously?

if you want to disregard the rule of law in this country, the same rule of law that gives you the freedom of speech to spout insane and tyrannical ideologies and policies because people owned slaves when it was written, i guess that is on you.

 

last time i peeped over the constitution, i saw an amendment in there that abolished slavery. you heard it here first soup... the constitution outlawed slavery with a lawful amendment. they didnt try to pass some extra constitutional law like the methods you love to use and support. they passed it the constitutional way with a constitutional amendment forbidding the practice of slavery in the united states.

 

if you are so worried about the fact that the founding generation might of owned slaves, do you respect the US flag? the US flag condoned slavery for almost a century. the colonies under british rule condoned slavery for much longer than this. do you also discount the writings of john locke and his natural rights theory because the british government condoned slavery?

 

and to think that people who make constitutional arguments are some how discredited because ONE SLAVE OWNER wrote it? (your words not mine)

 

let me point out that i have a firm position on slavery. im against it. but you on the other hand talk about the evils of slavery centuries ago, yet you want to enslave the entire population in your schemes of welfarism, warfare, and all forms of socialism. if they do not participate in this system you would have them beaten, jailed or killed for resisting your rule. we are slaves to the state.

 

what made slavery bad? it wasnt the songs or the work. it was the whip. the fact that they couldnt leave. that they were forced to submit to unjust authority. and so it is with your statist positions.

i oppose all forms of slavery. not just the 'private' kind.

 

And your argument about some states should have public healthcare and some shouldn't:

 

America is the only industrialized nation in the world that doesnt have public healthcare, so the idea that america should just not have it would require an enormous deal of studies to prove the effectiveness of our purely private healthcare.

 

the only argument i've made about 'some states having healthcare and some not' is that i believe in the 10th amendment. the 10th amendment states that all powers not enumerated in the constitution are left to the states or to the people. numerous classical liberal thinkers called this the bed rock of the constitution. decentralized power.

 

the colonies seceded from great britain. they feared centralism as much as a standing army. yet, not more than a century later the seeds were beginning to be sown to build the leviathan we live under today.

 

i personally dont care about the practical argument of healthcare on the national scene. the most i can say is its inefficient and tyrannical to deny the health freedom to people. that is a basic human right. but the main point is that the constitution does not allow the federal government to set up a national healthcare system. if you want to, you have to amend the constitution. just like how slavery was ended.

 

the system of federalism allows each state to set up whatever system they want to. why cant you just allow each state the right to institute their own policy? what is so wrong with this? i know you will not answer. but that is ok, you dont have really any argument against anything im saying.

 

you say that we are the only industrialized nation to not have healthcare. i say... so? if every industrialized nation decided to throw its citizens in gulags for their 'own good' should we follow suit? if all 'industrialized nations' decided it was a good idea to blow themselves up, should we follow their lead? the fact that the US is the 'only industrialized nation to not have national healthcare' is a piss poor argument. last time i checked, canadians were still coming to the shitty and fascist US healthcare system to get work done because their socialist system was making them wait to long.

 

 

I personally am uninsurable in the state of california because while I was insured i was in a motorcycle crash and banged my knee. I also suffered a concussion and had what is called PCS (post concussion syndrome) which they gave me xanax for. Because I hurt my knee and because i now have a history with xanax, one of the most prescribed drugs in america, I am denied affordable healthcare. With this being a stupid reason not to insure a perfectly healthy 23 year old and 15% of the US uninsured with millions more "underinsured" clearly, there needs to be changes in policy.

 

do you realize the reason why health insurance is the way it is today is because of the government? everything the government has done has been a detriment to healthcare. if we had a free market in healthcare we would be paying for normal services in cash. we might have catastrophic insurance to pay for sewing your head back on after you crash on your motorcycle again.

 

look, we dont have 'food insurance' do we? no. because food is cheap. even a bum can afford a can of oatmeal and a bag of rice. ever notice how the richest countries like the US have the richest poor?

the case for food insurance is much better than health insurance in the universal/national/soviet style. if we dont eat, with a couple weeks we all die. if we dont have health insurance, for the most part the majority of the population will still be alive and kicking for years to come.

 

while i do not know the inner workings of contracts between consenting adults, i do know that most people try to get insured for conditions after they have the condition, then complain that it costs more. its basic economics. if you are more risky, you must pay more money. insurance is nothing more than prepaid services.

 

but if we had a free market in healthcare, prices would be so cheap that insurance prices would plummet because no one would buy it except for catastrophic insurance. and all the people who are 'uninsurable' (meaning they have to pay more) would be 'insured'

 

by the way there is no right to 'cheap' anything. do you really believe that someone who is 80 years old that has drank and smoked his entire life should pay the same amount of money as a healthy marathon runner that is 21?

i hope you are smart enough to understand atleast basic economics. although nothing would surprise me given your previous class warfare outbursts.

 

So here's the deal: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~wgreene/Statistics/WHO-COMP-Study-30.pdf

America is statistically TIED with Cuba in healthcare (incidentally with Slovenia too).

 

Here's the list of nations with healthcare plans from best to worst:

1. France (All compulsory, no private, but prohibitively expensive)

2. Italy (All compusory, no private, and no riots about the cost in recent years)

3. San Marino (All public through employers, but some treatments must be done outside of San marino. private is usually bought alongside public to top-up coverage)

4. Andorra (Public, but the country is so small they only have/need 13 hospitals.)

5. Malta (writing all this shit is taking too long)

6. Singapore (most like the plan Obama is working on, is a public private coexistance with plenty of hospitals and costs about 3% of their gdp, 66% of that 3% is private)

7. Spain

8. Oman

9. Austria

10. Japan

11. Norway (100% population insured with public health, but if waiting lists are long, waiting list for hipreplacement is 4 months, many will opt-out of public health, go private and travel to another country for healthcare. dental is private. Norway is so damn rich they can do whatever)

12. Portugal

13. Monaco

14. Greece (Private if you dont qualify for public, public Hospitals lack good hygiene, but it's the cheapest in the EU. Most people buy private anyway.)

15. Iceland

16. Luxembourg

17. Netherlands

18. United Kingdom (public, private, and alternative holistic treatments available, 15th best in Europe, costs 8.4% of your salary which is 1% lower than the EU average)

19. Ireland

20. Switzerland

21. Belgium

22. Columbia

23. Sweden

24. Cyprus

25. Germany

26. Saudi Arabia

27. United Arab Emirates

28. Israel

29. Morocco

30. Canada

31. Finland

32. Australia

33. Chile

34. Denmark

35. Dominica

36. Costa Rica

37. United States o' America (Entirely private with the exception of Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans health insurance, and Childrens's health insurance. Costs 16% of the gdp and is likely to still go up )

38. Slovenia

39. Cuba (All compulsory, no private, and their hospitals are straight out of the 1950's)

40. Brunei Darussalam

41. New Zealand(Private and Public: Patient pays for visits and checkups, but damage caused by "Accidents" is free. Also a longer life expectancy than italy.)

42. Bahrain

42. Croatia

43. Qatar

44. Kuait

... jeeze im tired...

61. Mexico

112. India

144. China

...And the winner....

191. Sierra Leone

 

 

any thing to describe the 'best' or 'worst' is entirely subjective. most text books say that FDR Was the greatest president of all time. most conservatives or libertarians or anarchists would disagree.

 

we could easily make a list of 20th century dictators and put the ones at the top as the ones that killed the most enemies of the revolution. your list means shit.

 

the US would have the 'best' healthcare system in the world if we had a free market healthcare system instead of the fascist one we have now.

 

and nothing in the world would be stopping soup, obama, reid, pelosi, michael moore and george clooney from all setting up their socialized healthcare system THEY want. just dont force non conformists into your system.

which is always the main issue. force.

telling people what to do. obama/reid wanting to fine people for not buying health insurance.

freedom=slavery.

[angelofdeath]

Im not taking sides here. Im providing factual evidence that can be argued either way. The definitions of the ammendments can be understood numerous ways, and if you ever payed atttention to the supreme court, every single one of those judges has their own interpretation. An example of an interpretation is easily seen with "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" does not include slaves. The constitution therefor has perpetuated the issue of class in America and sees the poorest workers as a tradable commodity instead of human beings.

 

do you also believe that the clause 'all men are created equal' is to be found in the constitution of the US?

 

America is a hugely litigious society with an inherent understanding that if an argument wouldn't hold up in court, it's not worth arguing, therefor [due to the infinite translations of the constitution] Universal healthcare being unconstitutional would likely not hold up in court.

 

without a doubt. without a doubt. it would not hold up in court at all. why? the court hasnt followed the constitution the entire 20th century. the warren court forward hasnt struck down one meaningful law. everything is constitutional now. there is no law to base anything off of. they just decide what they want as the divine right of the black robed deities appointed for life and virtually untouchable.

 

Like I said, I'm not taking sides. I think healthcare is a much more complex issue that spans far beyond it being just public or private. "Universal healthcare" around the world does not have a universal definition. Neither does private healthcare. It's important to look at the unique healthcare of each and every nation for exactly what itis and critique it accordingly. That is the only way to debate healthcare intelligently.

 

as i previously stated... im all in favor of allowing congress the right to stamp out hunger, poverty and lack of healthcare all they want in washington DC. once they figure that out, then, and only than we can move on to other parts of the country and after constitutional amendments are passed giving them jurisdiction in such matters.

 

deal?