Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

No. That's what you're perspective (and desires) does to you. It's not a dynastic system, it's a chaotic system. But any system will work with balance and counterbalance to try and survive. Think of it as a top if you'd rather then use the dog analogy. Too much weight on the bottom, the top stops spinning. Too much weight on the top the top stops spinning. Societies constantly struggle to maintain that balance. No evil overlords or anything complicated (indeed evil overlords tend shift stuff to the bottom to such an extent that the system stops working).

There are no shadowmasters (though I'm sure there are people trying to be so). Just people mostly with good intentions trying to maintain that balance.

The majority of the people at the top like their comforts and don't want to lose them. Social disorder will cause that to happen, so there are efforts to ensure that the social order is maintained. Social programs are one of the tools deployed to help maintain that order, and is no different then the police in the effort to ensure that the system continues to survive.

Do you think you could be doing better? I kinda think you do.

You phrased it differently and said the exact same thing. How is the weight on the top a dog analogy? Are you saying that citizens attempt to maintain the balance themselves to avoid a utopia or to avoid destroying their economies? It honestly sounds like your describing an inherent human trait that intentionally prevents social progress for no other reason than to prevent us from having free time. This all sounds great as a paragraph but it makes very little sense if you try and take it as anything but sophistry.

Do you think you could be doing better? I kinda think you do.

Doing better than what? Nothing in these statements is qualified. It's all adjectives and no nouns.

Hmm,

HTF did we get onto spinning top and dog analogies discussing nutjob liberals.......err I mean Conservatives?

I'll let the liberals have their little victory. Obama is a one term President so his reign will be over in 2 years.

Fateweaver wrote:Hmm,

HTF did we get onto spinning top and dog analogies discussing nutjob liberals.......err I mean Conservatives?

I'll let the liberals have their little victory. Obama is a one term President so his reign will be over in 2 years.

This has even less to do with the thread or any conversation in it than the top heavy dog thing.

ShumaGorath wrote:

You phrased it differently and said the exact same thing. How is the weight on the top a dog analogy? Are you saying that citizens attempt to maintain the balance themselves to avoid a utopia or to avoid destroying their economies? It honestly sounds like your describing an inherent human trait that intentionally prevents social progress for no other reason than to prevent us from having free time. This all sounds great as a paragraph but it makes very little sense if you try and take it as anything but sophistry.
.

It doesn't prevent progress Shuma unless you consider anarchy a form of positive progress. Human societies do historically try (and generally fail) to avoid collapse. It is an inherent human social trait to try to ensure the survival of the community. That's why you thought I was being Glen Beck crazy, but I really don't feel I am. Conservatism is not an inherently bad trait in a measured amount. Neither is liberalism. Too much of either is ultimately destructive, and that is what societies of all sizes attempt to avoid.

It's about trying to maintain balance (which is where my poorly worded top analogy came from ).

efarrer wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

You phrased it differently and said the exact same thing. How is the weight on the top a dog analogy? Are you saying that citizens attempt to maintain the balance themselves to avoid a utopia or to avoid destroying their economies? It honestly sounds like your describing an inherent human trait that intentionally prevents social progress for no other reason than to prevent us from having free time. This all sounds great as a paragraph but it makes very little sense if you try and take it as anything but sophistry.
.

It doesn't prevent progress Shuma unless you consider anarchy a form of positive progress. Human societies do historically try (and generally fail) to avoid collapse. It is an inherent human social trait to try to ensure the survival of the community. That's why you thought I was being Glen Beck crazy, but I really don't feel I am. Conservatism is not an inherently bad trait in a measured amount. Neither is liberalism. Too much of either is ultimately destructive, and that is what societies of all sizes attempt to avoid.

It's about trying to maintain balance (which is where my poorly worded top analogy came from ).

I think I thought you were crazy because of all the poorly worded analogies, not because of the implications those analogies make. You still haven't elucidated a very clear point.

hmm... I just thought you were crazy because you are crazy =P ... (that was crazy-guy-drool...)

now enough of the silliness: 'anarchy' and 'utopia' are not foreign to each other, just scary in how similar they are. They could match fine. The idea being that human intentions are towards both ends. Complete freedom = completely benevolent society; which in turn makes possible complete freedom. So anarchy and utopia are very related as far as I see it.

ShumaGorath wrote:

efarrer wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

You phrased it differently and said the exact same thing. How is the weight on the top a dog analogy? Are you saying that citizens attempt to maintain the balance themselves to avoid a utopia or to avoid destroying their economies? It honestly sounds like your describing an inherent human trait that intentionally prevents social progress for no other reason than to prevent us from having free time. This all sounds great as a paragraph but it makes very little sense if you try and take it as anything but sophistry.
.

It doesn't prevent progress Shuma unless you consider anarchy a form of positive progress. Human societies do historically try (and generally fail) to avoid collapse. It is an inherent human social trait to try to ensure the survival of the community. That's why you thought I was being Glen Beck crazy, but I really don't feel I am. Conservatism is not an inherently bad trait in a measured amount. Neither is liberalism. Too much of either is ultimately destructive, and that is what societies of all sizes attempt to avoid.

It's about trying to maintain balance (which is where my poorly worded top analogy came from ).

I think I thought you were crazy because of all the poorly worded analogies, not because of the implications those analogies make. You still haven't elucidated a very clear point.

1. Society is unstable.
2. Social controls are imposed to try and stabilize society. These include both Social programs and enforcement programs, as well as non-governmental institutions including religion, and the media.
3. The people who impose the social controls do so out of a combination of both personal interest and desire to reach their utopia (which may not be the same for next person or persons).
4. There are two major forces in any society- one conservative in nature which tries to prevent or reduce change, one which is change orientated in nature.
5. Those two major forces are complicated by secondary sets of factors. Poverty and wealth. The more poverty that there is the more people who might benefit from a change in social structure. Historically a change in social structures is rarely good for the wealthy so the wealthy have an inherent tendency towards wanting to reduce the risk of change. The wealthy historically (and to some extent today) do control the great majority of the social controls.

It's not about trying to prevent anyone from creating a utopia it's about trying to avoid a revolution which is rarely desirable.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:hmm... I just thought you were crazy because you are crazy =P ... (that was crazy-guy-drool...)

now enough of the silliness: 'anarchy' and 'utopia' are not foreign to each other, just scary in how similar they are. They could match fine. The idea being that human intentions are towards both ends. Complete freedom = completely benevolent society; which in turn makes possible complete freedom. So anarchy and utopia are very related as far as I see it.

Ask Somolia how that's working out for them.

Guitardian wrote:...just scary in how similar they are. They could match fine.

If thing A could align with thing B, then thing A cannot be similar to thing B. In order for two things to be considered similar they must hold in common at least some necessary properties. As anarchy is a political model, at least in the sense you're using it, and Utopia is an expression of an ideal type, there is not necessary overlap.

Anarchy could be considered to be a component of a sort of Utopia, because any sort of political model could be considered to be a component of a sort of Utopia. However, anarchy is not tacit to Utopia as there is no reason to presume that the absence of a commanding authority is a prerequisite for an ideal society.

I think it is a backwards applied implication. Anarchy is not necessary for a utopian society, just that it becomes a sort of natural state to a utopian society. If it is utopian, then, law is rendered obselete by mutual agreement of what is 'right'. Law would be unnecessary in a utopian society. Absence of law is anarchy. Anarchy doesn't create a utopia as of itself, but a utopian society would naturally not give a crap about laws since it would be obselete if everyone was just cool with each other and caring and loving... that is where you get the idea of utopian anarchy.

Guitardian wrote:If it is utopian, then, law is rendered obselete by mutual agreement of what is 'right'.

Not necessarily. There are no rules that govern what is required with respect to any sort of ideal type. Short of those restrictions which are contextually definitive.

Guitardian wrote:
Law would be unnecessary in a utopian society.

Yes, that's true. However, there is no reason that the law need not exist, either.

Guitardian wrote:
Absence of law is anarchy. Anarchy doesn't create a utopia as of itself, but a utopian society would naturally not give a crap about laws since it would be obselete if everyone was just cool with each other and caring and loving... that is where you get the idea of utopian anarchy.

Social conventions through acceptance can be considered a form of natural law, thereby negating your conclusion.

Guitardian wrote:No they're just underground racists who hate everything Obama does and bring guns to presidential speeches, is that it? I think it must go deeper than that culturally.

This is what bothers me. If someone is not a socialist and actively participates in the democratic process by campaining against such programs, somehow they are racists. This is like saying every liberal is a commie. When people make statements like this , it completely discredits their point, but effective slander campains are rarely credible. They rely upon an unquestioning knee-jerk reaction, which unfortunately, too many people are willing to oblige the muck-slingers with.

In this thread, I've seen just about every form of negative stereo-type about the south. The attempts to pass off these cultural myth's as hard fact by some whom have obviously never traveled and others readiness to accept such nonsense is deppressing. The statistics that have been bandied about just prove the old saying that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Seriously, I am astounded at the lack of thorough research and inability of some to recognize when they are using a double standard to bash another group.

Both sides have engaged in this behavior, which only proves that there really is not much of a difference between each side. Sadly, this similarity means that we as a people will continue to argue while our national ship does the ol' Titanic.

The point I'm getting to, is that across the US we are the same. We clique off into the same groups and do mostly the same things. We even engage in good natured geo-centric rivalry and teasing. It is when we start believing these jest and jokes that it becomes a problem. Here is something to think about when attempting to engage in the myth's of superior culture:
In 1970, Texas population was 9 million
In 1980, Texas population was 18 million, despite having an average of 2.2 kids per househols that was in line with the national average.
In 1990, Texas population reached 20-21 million
In 2000, Texas population was over 25 million.
The prinary reason for Texas's population growth was not the nearly stagnate birth rate but rather people migrating in from other areas. On the 1970's the largest percentage of population growth came from California, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, New york, Massachusettes,band Mexico(Not necessarily in that order) Currently, a very large portion of this states population is not native and the same goes for many other states.

Now, I expect someone to cone along and tear this post's grammar and spelling apart in order to lighten the mood and to discredit what I'm saying. To that I say, have fun. Later


P.S.- Guitardian, this was not intended as a slam against you. Your post just happened to be convenient.

Edit for stuck key

no slam intended. no slam taken. I don't think it has so much to do with a 'native northern' or 'native southern' perspective. But to put it in perspective, you don't see gun-toters at protests in NYC, only terrorist attacks. Somewhere out in the boonies however... (which is the point I was trying to make earlier about city versus country) you might just get that crazy militia movement with poorly informed members just wanting to be heard about islamic kenyan presidents who kill grandma or other such nonsense. You rarely see such behavior in more populated areas. Reason being? Oh yeah, they aren't wilfully ignorant.

Guitardian wrote:You rarely see such behavior in more populated areas. Reason being? Oh yeah, they aren't wilfully ignorant.

Uh, what? I take it you've never had a conversation with impoverished city dwellers regarding the classist/racist/corporatist conspiracy that actively works to insure the continuation of their impoverished status.

There are willfully ignorant people everywhere.

Oh yes indeed I have and I agree that they are willfully ignorant too (I live near Detroit, trust me I know) and all the nonsense about "the white man keeping us down" and so on... however, you can't get away with toting guns around in large groups in a densely populated area. That's why militias always seem to form out in the sticks, instead of at the corner of 183rd street. There are willfully ignorant people everywhere. Out in the country they can get away with becoming an armed mob much more easily.

The Green Git wrote:

Okay, you stick to Laura Bush while we stick to hot protest chicks.

Guitardian wrote:Oh yes indeed I have and I agree that they are willfully ignorant too (I live near Detroit, trust me I know) and all the nonsense about "the white man keeping us down" and so on... however, you can't get away with toting guns around in large groups in a densely populated area. That's why militias always seem to form out in the sticks, instead of at the corner of 183rd street. There are willfully ignorant people everywhere. Out in the country they can get away with becoming an armed mob much more easily.

Because protecting the Constitution is willfully ignorant?

You must live in a gakky city if you aren't allowed to form a mob of armed civilians in a peaceful protest. I did just say peaceful protest, as yes you do have to have permission from the city to protest. Where I'm at, so long as you aren't on Federal property when you protest every man, woman and child can have a gun.

God I love this country.

Fateweaver wrote:Under ideal socialist conditions that pot smoking liberals want to live under a CEO would make the same income as a garbage collector.

You should try reading. Even at its most extreme the USSR had significantly different wages for farm hands and doctors.

What you've said is utter gibberish, and until you start actually reading about what socialism means you'll do nothing but rail against a strawman and make youself look silly.

Capitalism is not perfect but it's far better than what socialism is.

It isn't an either/or situation, you can choose a hybrid system taking on elements of each. I would argue this is a popular option that needs to be considered, given that it's been accepted by every single developed nation on Earth.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:I've seen enough DNC rally videos to see that most, admittedly, pothead lefties think that capitalism should be axed and that socialism should be the NWO and that everyone should be equal as far as pay.

The presence of left wingers with hopelessly simplistic worldviews does not excuse you taking an equally simplistic opposing view.

Well, I'm all for the belief that our country was founded as a Democratic Republic, protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Socialism, no matter what parts of it you pick and choose, flies in the face of those 2 documents.

That's why the Tea Party and Conservatives are against most socialist ideals. It's not what this country was founded on or based on.

You can argue for it's merits all day long but you won't change the minds of people who are against it for all the reasons listed above.

Our government is too powerful. It's not just PresO pushing the boundries of what the Constitution grants the Fed. Government in power. Bush did it too (yes I did just say that), Clinton did it but Obamanation is trying to increase it's power and influence and that's what the Tea Party people are against.

They aren't gun-toting anti-government. They are gun-toting, federal government needs to keep itself in check because it's too intrusive, too powerful, protectors of the founding principals.

The 1st Amendment, no thanks to Liberals and their forcing political correctiveness down our throats, has more or less been eliminated. Before Obama is out of office in 2 years he'll try doing something as President to feth with the 2nd Amendment as well (he said so himself last year, it just wasn't on his agenda for his first year in office).

So hell, lets let the liberal left and especially actors in Hollywood change the rest of the Constitution to be more "with the times". That would make this country so great, wouldn't it? Make the Constitution politically correct. Awesome.

The very fact that a government was set up to protect certain rights and ideals, is socialist.

The very idea that guns should be in the hands of the people instead of a special government elite, is socialist.

efarrer wrote:In what way Shuma? It's what happened. All the major Western country's including the United States adopted some social programs in the years that followed the Russian Revolution, in the same way that democracy spread in the wake of both the American and French Revolutions. Social order is maintained by watching the trends and hijacking them when required to insure the continuity of social order. When you see a good example of a failure to act beside you you make the changes required to ensure survival.

Social programs in a substantial, uniform sense were first initiated in the 19th Century, such as the UK's New Poor Law, or Germany's Health Insurance Bill. I don't think there was any meaningful spike following the Russian Revolution, and if one was to exist I would think the wake of WWI would be a bigger contributor.

Meanwhile the argument of social policy as a means to keep control reminds me of the story of two committed communists walking down the street who come across a beggar, so the first goes to give him some change. 'No brother!' yells the second, 'you'll delay the revolution!'


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:Well, I'm all for the belief that our country was founded as a Democratic Republic, protected by the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

Socialism, no matter what parts of it you pick and choose, flies in the face of those 2 documents.

That's why the Tea Party and Conservatives are against most socialist ideals. It's not what this country was founded on or based on.

You're confusing Representative Democracry with economic structure. They're different.

You can argue for it's merits all day long but you won't change the minds of people who are against it for all the reasons listed above.

You're assuming that an argument's merit is defined by it's ability to convince some random person. An argument is based on facts and reason and stands on those grounds. Claiming it doesn't convince you and therefore isn't balanced is a fail.

Our government is too powerful. It's not just PresO pushing the boundries of what the Constitution grants the Fed. Government in power. Bush did it too (yes I did just say that), Clinton did it but Obamanation is trying to increase it's power and influence and that's what the Tea Party people are against.

I think that'd have a lot more validity if the Tea Partiers were out in force protesting the Patriot Act and the war in Iraq, but they weren't. In fact they voted the dude back into office.

And yes, the silence among the left wing when Obama extends Bush policies such as the Patriot Act and Guantanamo is just as bad.

What exactly is the fed doing to these angry people? Yeah I said it too... Bush went over their heads and behind their backs for 8 years with his "I am the decider" thing and none of them reared their heads up to strike then. "obamanation" has been doing executive things that don't involve bombing the middle east with all the gun totin god fearin power that Bush displayed, but trying to make it possible for poor people to have some level of health care. Ummmm... priorities? Yes, he abuses his executive presidential power, but to what end? I would rather get fatass macdonalds dude some diabetes treatment than send a bomb to a bunch of peasant goat herders just cuz it makes me feel badass.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
so why are all these anti-feds just stepping up now that Bush is gone? sounds like pussy talk to me. If they stepped up in the Bush administration, toting guns to political rallies... that would be a lot of work for the secret service and a lot of local jails crammed full of angry ignorant gun owners. They didn't step up then. Doesn't that say something about the Obama'nation that such behavior is even tolerated now (and made into a media circus)? Either they are too scared of the armed mob (doubtful), or they are just nodding and smiling and patting the kid on the head saying "sure that's fine, we just don't care because your gun doesn't really matter bud"

You overlook the fact that in ANY city in the US it is not illegal to have guns at protest rallies so long as you have the proper permits and are not on or in Federal property.

Bush admin wasn't trying to strip people of their 2nd Amendment rights. Gun toters are trying to prove to Obama and the DNC that those of us who love our Constitutional rights will do what we can, legally, to ensure the message gets across.

Nothing wrong with wanting people to have healthcare but health insurance is a privelage. You have the right to live but the right to live DOES NOT equal the right to health insurance.

Let's use the pro healthcare argument of "it ensures that someone can afford to pay their hospital bill if they get sick". Okay, that's all good. What happens though to the millions in this country who die every year for no apparent reason and never make it to the hospital? Like say a 23 yo track runner who one day collapses during a race because his heart exploded. He'll never see a hospital and unless he had a pre-existing condition (in which case he wouldn't even be allowed to run in track) never once used that healthcare that you and I are paying for. How then did healthcare benefit him? Or the 40yo out for a sunday drive gets t-boned by a tractor/trailer and is so mangled up that they can only identify that person through dental records. How again does forcing that person to buy health insurance benefit that person? They paid for something every month they never got a chance to use.

Bush never forced people to do anything. He didn't tell us we MUST install our own wiretaps in our phones, he didn't tell us we must all take up arms and go into Iraq with the military and fight over there. BushO never did anything to make the gun-toters angry because he didn't try ramming things down our throats.

The Tea Partiers have realized Obamanation HAS gone too far. Forcing us to do something that is a privilege first and foremost is stepping over the line. Living is a right. Social programs used to ensure the right to live are a privilege, not a right unto themselves. Driving is a privilege. Most peoples must have insurance but that is more to protect the other guy in case you get dumb behind the wheel. Health insurance is only there for YOU. If Jane Doe, your neighbor, falls and breaks her arm in her front yard it's not YOUR insurance paying for her medical care, it's on HER shoulders to pay the bill in that case.

So again. Tea Partiers are not Anti-government, gun-toting rednecks with little to no education. They KNOW what is in the Constitution, they know their Rights and they want them protected. Just because the leftists think the Constitution and the BoR are just pieces of paper written during a time when the US was different does not make them any less important in this day and age.

Kilkrazy wrote:The very fact that a government was set up to protect certain rights and ideals, is socialist.

The very idea that guns should be in the hands of the people instead of a special government elite, is socialist.

That's the most ignorant thing I've heard since I plonked Shuma.

Socialism is a political economic theory that seeks to redistribute wealth in some sort of "fairness" that is sought by the workers. The word "Socialist" means to advocate Socialism.

Per Webster:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

I think you'll find that protecting individual rights including that of owning arms is directly counter to definitions 1, 2a and 2b of the word "Socialism".

Thank God we live in a Constitutional Republic that protects the individual right to own property and seek to earn a living outside of State control.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Okay, you stick to Laura Bush while we stick to hot protest chicks.

Eh... showing your tits is easy. I'd prefer a woman that can string a few words together in an intelligent sentence.

Keep the airhead bimbos. It's just proving our point.

DUDE! just cuz you CAN have a gun doesn't mean you NEED one! A presidential speech is not a way to flout your pathetic exuse for manhood, sorry Bush, but we saw through it. Where were the tea partiers when the WMD stuff was going on in the nice whiet dumb Bush Honor Value America yoo hoo administration was going on... oh yeah... they were sitting at home saying "yuup". to each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
there I said it. tea party people have no frakkin clue what they are argueing about, they just hate paying taxes, and love brandishing guns to make themselves a valid force-to-be-reckoned-with. As a liberal minded fella I say go for it. Suits my purposes. Split the repubs down the line as to who has slowed religious and uneducated conservatism versus who has extremely well planned fiscal conservatism. Nader did it to Kerry, maybe the people from the sticks will finally get their plastic dashboard jesus prayers answered when they lose all their jobs to mexicans or something, and of course it will be Obama's fault... vote Huckabee (I hea he plays bass.. not well.. but hey its a start)

Tea party is splitting the conservative ideal into ("I hate abortion clinics and love mah shotgeen") versus ("I got my savings and stocks and real estate investments and don't want anyone messing with my gak")... how these two interact after a while, remains to be seen, but its the same kind of rift that the Nader hing did to Kerry in '04


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Fateweiner

So the HS basketball star has a heart attack, or track star, whatever. rethink sports man. I cannot fault skydivers for their risk taking lifestyle either. Just what they do. PLease don't attribute sports and politics, as I fear there may just be a connection, and finding that, I shall be sad.

Just because you CAN have the internet doesn't mean you NEED it.

Just because you CAN go to McDonalds as often as you want doesn't mean you NEED to.

The liberals see what they want to see. They see socialism as a good thing because they feel even the lazy should be "part of the circle". Socialism, as GG point out also means no private property. Guess what Guitardian? That means in a socialist society I could enter your house whenever I feel like it without fear of repercussion because it's not YOUR house, it's the governments house and if they don't care that I'm there in YOUR house you can't do gak about it.

Hmm, in a socialist society I'd get to take your car whenever I wanted because it's not YOUR car. It belongs to the collective and I'm part of the collective so YOUR car would be as much mine as it is yours, even if you bought it.

Poke fun at the uneducated but post like someone who, from all appearances via your posts, doesn't seem very educated him/herself.

Gold Star.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Guitardian wrote:DUDE! just cuz you CAN have a gun doesn't mean you NEED one! A presidential speech is not a way to flout your pathetic exuse for manhood, sorry Bush, but we saw through it. Where were the tea partiers when the WMD stuff was going on in the nice whiet dumb Bush Honor Value America yoo hoo administration was going on... oh yeah... they were sitting at home saying "yuup". to each other.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
there I said it. tea party people have no frakkin clue what they are argueing about, they just hate paying taxes, and love brandishing guns to make themselves a valid force-to-be-reckoned-with. As a liberal minded fella I say go for it. Suits my purposes. Split the repubs down the line as to who has slowed religious and uneducated conservatism versus who has extremely well planned fiscal conservatism. Nader did it to Kerry, maybe the people from the sticks will finally get their plastic dashboard jesus prayers answered when they lose all their jobs to mexicans or something, and of course it will be Obama's fault... vote Huckabee (I hea he plays bass.. not well.. but hey its a start)

Tea party is splitting the conservative ideal into ("I hate abortion clinics and love mah shotgeen") versus ("I got my savings and stocks and real estate investments and don't want anyone messing with my gak")... how these two interact after a while, remains to be seen, but its the same kind of rift that the Nader hing did to Kerry in '04


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Fateweiner

So the HS basketball star has a heart attack, or track star, whatever. rethink sports man. I cannot fault skydivers for their risk taking lifestyle either. Just what they do. PLease don't attribute sports and politics, as I fear there may just be a connection, and finding that, I shall be sad.

But under Obamacare by 2014 that 23yr old (who I'd hope isn't in HS so I'll just take that as a typo on your part) has to have health insurance even though he is probably in a hell of a lot better shape than most Americans his age. He MIGHT need it in the future but if he doesn't he is paying for something (even if it's say $50/month) that he won't ever use.

How the hell is that right? How the hell is that anything similar to supposed "illegal wiretaps" or starting a war because of WMD that did or did not exist? Oh right, it's not.

we all pay for tanks and missiles too. Im never gonna need one of them either.

But tanks and missiles ensure that you have the rights that you have; the rights that we bible-thumping, apparent nut-jobs have ensured that you get to keep these past 2 centuries plus change.

That's the most ignorant thing I've heard since I plonked Shuma.

What does plonk mean? When did you plonk me?

The liberals see what they want to see. They see socialism as a good thing because they feel even the lazy should be "part of the circle". Socialism, as GG point out also means no private property.

No, thats communism or collectivism. GG is either trolling or (more likely) just doesn't know what words mean.

Fateweaver wrote:But tanks and missiles ensure that you have the rights that you have; the rights that we bible-thumping, apparent nut-jobs have ensured that you get to keep these past 2 centuries plus change.

Technically we haven't had a defensive war in nearly 70 years and realistically no war after WW2 had anything to do with maintaining American internal security and you bible thumping apparent nutjobs (the south I guess, I have no idea what you two are talking about, your arguments have nothing to do with eachother or reality) were the ones fighting to retain slavery rights in the deadliest war this country has ever had.

But under Obamacare by 2014 that 23yr old (who I'd hope isn't in HS so I'll just take that as a typo on your part) has to have health insurance even though he is probably in a hell of a lot better shape than most Americans his age. He MIGHT need it in the future but if he doesn't he is paying for something (even if it's say $50/month) that he won't ever use.

18-24 year olds have the highest incidence of vehicular injury in america. Same with most sport related injuries. They are in great shape, but with that comes the increased prevalence of injuries inflicted while using that physicality. They are also fairly prone to having dental issues (braces, crowns, cavaties) and issues relating to corrective issues with eyesight. Certainly no where near the same level of issues seniors have, but then there is no age group that is immune to health issues.

So the answer would be to disband the military?

I'll gladly pay taxes to ensure our military stays one of the best, if not the best, in the world.

Buy health insurance so some lazy slob can get care for a bad heart from doing nothing all day? feth him/her. Let them die.

Fateweaver wrote:So the answer would be to disband the military?

I'll gladly pay taxes to ensure our military stays one of the best, if not the best, in the world.

Buy health insurance so some lazy slob can get care for a bad heart from doing nothing all day? feth him/her. Let them die.

I don't understand why it has to be black and white. The u.s. spends more on it's military per year than the rest of the world combined. A reduction in the somewhat extreme levels being spent wouldn't reasonably reduce our ability to defend ourselves or our interests and would allow us to start paying down a bit of the debt and likely improve our economic standing. Why's it gotta be all or nothing? If you're so against spending more on health care why aren't you against the year over year increase in military spending? It all comes from the same taxes and the people we bomb don't really help our economy out.