Change!! aaaaaaaaahahahaaha!!

I watched Bill Maher last night, and Alan Cumming and Gavin Newsom were on there saying the dumbest things. How in the hell is Gavin Newsome so stupid? Its sickening the way the liberal california audience at the show was applauding and cheering everythign they said. Newsome kept saying that Obamas speech was so great, and Obama is doing things nobody has ever done before by acting on all of the things he talked about during his campaign. How he is staying so true to this word. He says Republicans screwed it up so bad, and they have no ideas, and tehy are jealous because the Dems have all the ideas now. How does he not realize that what Bush did was not "republican politics"? What Bush did was nothing like what most Republicans wanted or expected from him. Why do liberals like Newsome "pretend" that republican politics got us in this mess? All Bush did was spend!

That guy is such a freaking moron

[corruptpirate]

"This is the last time I smoke. seriously. I'll stop smoking after this last cigarette."

what a joke.

[ONEBIGDADDY]

I watched Bill Maher last night, and Alan Cumming and Gavin Newsom were on there saying the dumbest things. How in the hell is Gavin Newsome so stupid? Its sickening the way the liberal california audience at the show was applauding and cheering everythign they said. Newsome kept saying that Obamas speech was so great, and Obama is doing things nobody has ever done before by acting on all of the things he talked about during his campaign. How he is staying so true to this word. He says Republicans screwed it up so bad, and they have no ideas, and tehy are jealous because the Dems have all the ideas now. How does he not realize that what Bush did was not "republican politics"? What Bush did was nothing like what most Republicans wanted or expected from him. Why do liberals like Newsome "pretend" that republican politics got us in this mess? All Bush did was spend!Best damn statement of the whole thread...OBD

That guy is such a freaking moron

[dr3z]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_spending

"President Barack Obama said Wednesday he will accept a $410 billion spending package that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. But he insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business."

Its like he's saying "Ok I'll go agaist what I promised, but just this one time........"

I'm looking to one of the MANY supporters on this board. Anyone? Anyone?

[ONEBIGDADDY]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_spending

"President Barack Obama said Wednesday he will accept a $410 billion spending package that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. But he insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business."

Its like he's saying "Ok I'll go agaist what I promised, but just this one time........"

I'm looking to one of the MANY supporters on this board. Anyone? Anyone?

since you like to pick at things read this... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ ...OBD

[dr3z]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_spending

"President Barack Obama said Wednesday he will accept a $410 billion spending package that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. But he insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business."

Its like he's saying "Ok I'll go agaist what I promised, but just this one time........"

I'm looking to one of the MANY supporters on this board. Anyone? Anyone?

since you like to pick at things read this... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ ...OBD

Will do, but you dont find it funny that instead of trying to back him you're now sending me to another website?
"NO EARMARKS! uhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok just this time, but NEXT time im for real!!"

[alldaway]

Now we are getting somewhere, I knew by your past posts you were better then such a simplistic answer.

I am not sure what you mean by a lopsided argument or the fact that I have admitted to doing so. If you mean lopsided in the fact that I will state my the opinion based upon what research I have done to reach what I feel is the proper result, yes, my arguments are indeed lopsided. I think a better term would be one-sided. Lopsided means more unbalanced and my one sided agument has already taken caring of the balancing of the results through my own reasearch of both sides of an issue. If I wanted to present a balanced argument that showed I indeed understood both sides, why would I need your input. I want the other side presented to me so that we can inturn possibly then come to an understanding. In other words, make your best case and maybe add something that may change my initial opinion. You can only change my opinion by a clear presentaion of your side.

I am not a sophist (like you are), so I am not interested in presenting only one perspective.  I understand where capitalist and socialists are coming from with their views on the world.

If you are referrring to my admitting to arguing from one side then I can only assume that you got that from a post in another thread because I do not see any evidence in my previous post admitting to this.

You have essentially implicitly admitted that you are sophist, and why I take anything you post with a grain of salt.  Sophists present one sided views as if it was the truth, and they try to sell that one sided truth.  I am not buying though (especially in this economic climate ).

Moving on to the meat of the issue, yes I understand exactly where the US stands as far as there level of socialism. I measure this abstract by the level of government spending in the economy to the overall spending of both private and public spending. For about  150 years this percentage was about 3% with slight fluctuations during certain periods. Today we are pushing close to 45-50% depending on when they stop spending. That 3% spending was that portion that the Constitution clearly defined and I am fine with, or in Rousseau's language, I have given my covenent for. These are the programs I believe to be just due to the fact that all citizens have a direct benefit from and should justly support. These items, the national defense, interstate commerce and functions for dealing with foreign nations are the compromises spelled out in that document between the states and the federal government.

Times have changed though, so we can't operate with past models and expect them to work in the present (and heading into the future).  How do you define national defense today, and into the future?  Is health care an integral piece of national defense?  Between large populations clusters compared to the last large outbreak in the U.S., bio terrorism, and resources needed to maintain reasonable sanitation levels in these large population clusters we are at a point where everything isn't black and white is it?  This isn't the 1950's where we have a clear view of the world no is it?  When you have a population that is living longer than half a century ago it is reasonable to assume there will be an increase in spending for social programs no?

It is the other 42% of this socialised spending that gives me pause, or as you would say, creates my insecurities to which I overtly become defensive. It is those programs that which directly benefit some while at the same time create a burden upon others. It is this spending that has been forced upon us without any given convenent from me. You are correct in the fact that I do see this as black and white, good and evil. Without my covenent it is the only way it can be, there is no grey area no matter how you try to justify it, nor should there be. It is an assult upon my natural will.

So a compromise is not possible with your own personal covenant?  It is clear the United States is moving towards that direction given it is a natural progression for a country that is a MDC in stage four of the demographic transition.  If you can see the benefits that social programs do bring where are the alternatives?  People argued churces/ religious organizations could fill those gaps, so we could eliminate these social programs.  And yet we have seen declining contributions from religious organizations (and even attendance), so at this point religious organizations are fighting for their own survival.  They do not have resources anymore to support themselves, and help the needy.

What I find ironic is that our society used to be about being able to do it on our own without needing our colonial over seers in England.  We have shifted away from being self sufficient, and we have only ourselves to blame.

But socialism does not lead to shifting away from self reliance as evidenced by the fact European communities use socialism as an aid.  But European communities still band together to help each other, and they are still a close knit because of culture.  The last time we as Americans rallied together to help neighbors, and family like that was during the Great Depression, but since then it has gone down hill in America.  Meanwhile socialist Europe still maintains strong communal/family ties as of TODAY.  European communities do not rely on the government for social programs, but it is there as an aid. 

The flaws inherent in both systems is very evident to be sure, however, the recourse from the flaws of capitalism can be achieved by individual actions. Work harder, work smarter, combine together in unions to satisfy injustices, seek justice through the court system and most of these flaws can be changed beginning with the individual, at the local level or the state level. Socialism though is a much broader expanse thats flaws cannot easily be changed, the old it takes an act of Congress to change. I choose then the capitalist side because it is more in line with those convenents to which I have given approval. We could both gone on forever about specific flaws to both, but space and time prohit this here, a bar is a much better stage for this I would think.

I prefer to look at it as a broader scale with a worst case scenario in mind to be honest.  Whether capitalism or socialism fails both eventually lead to anarchy no? Of course socialism is less fluid than capitalism because of the government.  But as we can clearly see the fluid nature of capitalism is very hard to gauge.  Especially when you have many countries entering the market which increases the variables, and only complicates how to measure the markets because change happens by the minute.  The advantage of the slow moving government is that it can be discussed on a reasonable time frame.  What is there to discuss if market forces are changing direction within minutes?

As for my problem that you speak of I see it this way, pretty much in black and white. The matter of people pointing out my problems I usually confine to those that have vested interest in me, those being my wife, kids and partners in that order. I would say to you that my problem isn't so much with me as it is a problem for you, my seeing things in black and white. I see this as no problem to me becasue I stated previusly I have already wrestled with the grey areas in coming up with my conclusions. The problem is that you must somehow overcome this in order to change my mind, a very good acid test in my opinion.

As for the other countries of the world I say screw them, except in terms of how we deal with them in the foreign relations and trade areas. I do not want my country becoming like other countries because for so many years this country has set the standard. 

We are moving towards a model the rest of the countries in the world are adopting because so far I do not see many countries moving towards our model unless you can provide an example.  The only countries in the world that I am aware of that use our model are LDC's anyways, and are interested in the model the rest of the MDC's in the world are using for long terms success. 

I am not interested in selling the truth or changing minds.  I simply lay out a balanced perspective, and let people decide for themselves what conclusions they want to come to.

[alldaway]

You know its sad when Cuba has a better health care system then a "free" country.

I think you need to check out JOhn Stossel's investigation into the Candian Health Care system and how great that is and how you can get better more efficient service health wise in Canada if you are a domesticated animal than a human

...haven't watched that yet, but, spoke with a Canadian a couple of days ago about their HC System and he said it's fine if a) you have time on your hands and b) if you don't have any acute and/or major problems.   

He said people die in their waiting rooms regularly, most clinics/hospitals don't have the most up-to-date equipment, and buildings and furniture are worn inside/out.

This isn't true at all from my experience with the Canadian health care system, and my relatives.  In fact the waiting times are similar to the ones found in the United States, and they have the equipment needed.  Sanitation isn't any different from U.S. hospitals.

In fact I never had staph infection in my entire life until I entered a U.S. hopsital.  The U.S. health care system is inefficient, slow, and a frustrating...and yet it isn't socialized.  How is it possible that one of my relatives was able to set up breast cancer surgery within a week of finding out in Canada where medicine is socialized? We do not have socialized medicine, spend more and yet we are less efficient?  As the only MDC in the world where we do not have socialized health care we better be the most efficient, but that is not the case.  The U.S. as an MDC has more in common with the LDC's of the world when it comes to health care than the rest of the MDC's of the world.

That is sad.

who said I havent traveled outside the US? In fact Ive done a lot of traveling for someone my age. I dont know what that even matters in this discussion

Socialism inherently robs you of freedom

For your age you seem to be using statements that were made in the 1950's which seems very peculiar from my perspective.  Especially if you actually believe in what you are posting and have traveled outside the U.S.  That is even more shocking from my view.

All bigger govt has ever done is set this country back. Maybe you need a history lesson. Maybe you should check out FDR and LBJ's presidency. Maybe you shoudl check out every other govt that has tried using socialism, and see why its failed everywhere else. Maybe you should read one of thsoe quotes I listed by men much smarter than myself

Socialism is a major part of the democratic MDC's of the world, so I am not sure where you are coming up with these ideas. 

[kevabuc]

Now we are getting somewhere, I knew by your past posts you were better then such a simplistic answer.

I am not sure what you mean by a lopsided argument or the fact that I have admitted to doing so. If you mean lopsided in the fact that I will state my the opinion based upon what research I have done to reach what I feel is the proper result, yes, my arguments are indeed lopsided. I think a better term would be one-sided. Lopsided means more unbalanced and my one sided agument has already taken caring of the balancing of the results through my own reasearch of both sides of an issue. If I wanted to present a balanced argument that showed I indeed understood both sides, why would I need your input. I want the other side presented to me so that we can inturn possibly then come to an understanding. In other words, make your best case and maybe add something that may change my initial opinion. You can only change my opinion by a clear presentaion of your side.

I am not a sophist (like you are), so I am not interested in presenting only one perspective.  I understand where capitalist and socialists are coming from with their views on the world.

If you are referrring to my admitting to arguing from one side then I can only assume that you got that from a post in another thread because I do not see any evidence in my previous post admitting to this.

You have essentially implicitly admitted that you are sophist, and why I take anything you post with a grain of salt.  Sophists present one sided views as if it was the truth, and they try to sell that one sided truth.  I am not buying though (especially in this economic climate ).

Moving on to the meat of the issue, yes I understand exactly where the US stands as far as there level of socialism. I measure this abstract by the level of government spending in the economy to the overall spending of both private and public spending. For about  150 years this percentage was about 3% with slight fluctuations during certain periods. Today we are pushing close to 45-50% depending on when they stop spending. That 3% spending was that portion that the Constitution clearly defined and I am fine with, or in Rousseau's language, I have given my covenent for. These are the programs I believe to be just due to the fact that all citizens have a direct benefit from and should justly support. These items, the national defense, interstate commerce and functions for dealing with foreign nations are the compromises spelled out in that document between the states and the federal government.

Times have changed though, so we can't operate with past models and expect them to work in the present (and heading into the future).  How do you define national defense today, and into the future?  Is health care an integral piece of national defense?  Between large populations clusters compared to the last large outbreak in the U.S., bio terrorism, and resources needed to maintain reasonable sanitation levels in these large population clusters we are at a point where everything isn't black and white is it?  This isn't the 1950's where we have a clear view of the world no is it?  When you have a population that is living longer than half a century ago it is reasonable to assume there will be an increase in spending for social programs no?

It is the other 42% of this socialised spending that gives me pause, or as you would say, creates my insecurities to which I overtly become defensive. It is those programs that which directly benefit some while at the same time create a burden upon others. It is this spending that has been forced upon us without any given convenent from me. You are correct in the fact that I do see this as black and white, good and evil. Without my covenent it is the only way it can be, there is no grey area no matter how you try to justify it, nor should there be. It is an assult upon my natural will.

So a compromise is not possible with your own personal covenant?  It is clear the United States is moving towards that direction given it is a natural progression for a country that is a MDC in stage four of the demographic transition.  If you can see the benefits that social programs do bring where are the alternatives?  People argued churces/ religious organizations could fill those gaps, so we could eliminate these social programs.  And yet we have seen declining contributions from religious organizations (and even attendance), so at this point religious organizations are fighting for their own survival.  They do not have resources anymore to support themselves, and help the needy.

What I find ironic is that our society used to be about being able to do it on our own without needing our colonial over seers in England.  We have shifted away from being self sufficient, and we have only ourselves to blame.

But socialism does not lead to shifting away from self reliance as evidenced by the fact European communities use socialism as an aid.  But European communities still band together to help each other, and they are still a close knit because of culture.  The last time we as Americans rallied together to help neighbors, and family like that was during the Great Depression, but since then it has gone down hill in America.  Meanwhile socialist Europe still maintains strong communal/family ties as of TODAY.  European communities do not rely on the government for social programs, but it is there as an aid.  

The flaws inherent in both systems is very evident to be sure, however, the recourse from the flaws of capitalism can be achieved by individual actions. Work harder, work smarter, combine together in unions to satisfy injustices, seek justice through the court system and most of these flaws can be changed beginning with the individual, at the local level or the state level. Socialism though is a much broader expanse thats flaws cannot easily be changed, the old it takes an act of Congress to change. I choose then the capitalist side because it is more in line with those convenents to which I have given approval. We could both gone on forever about specific flaws to both, but space and time prohit this here, a bar is a much better stage for this I would think.

I prefer to look at it as a broader scale with a worst case scenario in mind to be honest.  Whether capitalism or socialism fails both eventually lead to anarchy no? Of course socialism is less fluid than capitalism because of the government.  But as we can clearly see the fluid nature of capitalism is very hard to gauge.  Especially when you have many countries entering the market which increases the variables, and only complicates how to measure the markets because change happens by the minute. The advantage of the slow moving government is that it can be discussed on a reasonable time frame. What is there to discuss if market forces are changing direction within minutes?

As for my problem that you speak of I see it this way, pretty much in black and white. The matter of people pointing out my problems I usually confine to those that have vested interest in me, those being my wife, kids and partners in that order. I would say to you that my problem isn't so much with me as it is a problem for you, my seeing things in black and white. I see this as no problem to me becasue I stated previusly I have already wrestled with the grey areas in coming up with my conclusions. The problem is that you must somehow overcome this in order to change my mind, a very good acid test in my opinion.

As for the other countries of the world I say screw them, except in terms of how we deal with them in the foreign relations and trade areas. I do not want my country becoming like other countries because for so many years this country has set the standard.  

We are moving towards a model the rest of the countries in the world are adopting because so far I do not see many countries moving towards our model unless you can provide an example.  The only countries in the world that I am aware of that use our model are LDC's anyways, and are interested in the model the rest of the MDC's in the world are using for long terms success.  

I am not interested in selling the truth or changing minds.  I simply lay out a balanced perspective, and let people decide for themselves what conclusions they want to come to.

Sophist, let me see where this might come from. "Pick the target, freeze, personalioze it, polarize it" Sophist, this comes to mind also, "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon, ect, ect, ect."

Label me what you will, however, this one doesn't even fit. You may not see the soundness of my arguments and that is fine, we could leave it at that, but that doesn't seem good enough for you. Claim that I am opinionated, I'm fine with that, but to make a claim that my argument is fallacious or illogical in the attempt to decieve people because in your opinion it is wrong, well that's just diversion. My truths are derived by my research on as many aspects of an issue as I can find. They are just that, my truths.
As they say, if a man doesn't stand for something he will fall for anything. I stand behind my opinions because I have done my homework. Agree, disagree, I don't really care, I'll not lose any sleep over it.

Here is my idea of a true sophist, a man arguing that Rosie O'Donnell is everyman's dream girl.

Or this, why not change the Debate team to the Sophist team. They clearly have one-sided arguments.

You want a balanced argument. Here goes. Some people say that socialism is good and some people say that it is bad, there, both sides. I see this very clearly. Have I elevated myself to your standards? Will you now take back that horrible ridicule you tried so subtely to impose upon me.  

As for the rest of your points of issue, some we might have had a good time debating (or sophisting if you'd like),I don't care anymore because I will not be a party to your little games. I played them with members of the SDS and members of the Black Panthers growing up in the sixties and it is nothing more then an exercise in futility, and those guys were a whole lot better at it then you.

Just one man's opinion.  

[ONEBIGDADDY]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_spending

"President Barack Obama said Wednesday he will accept a $410 billion spending package that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. But he insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business."

Its like he's saying "Ok I'll go agaist what I promised, but just this one time........"

I'm looking to one of the MANY supporters on this board. Anyone? Anyone?

since you like to pick at things read this... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ ...OBD

Will do, but you dont find it funny that instead of trying to back him you're now sending me to another website?
"NO EARMARKS! uhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok just this time, but NEXT time im for real!!"

Ummm I wasn't neither backing him or lashing out against him I was directing you to a website to see what kind of dialogue you would produce or reproduce...Thanks for the Reproduction...OBD

[dr3z]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_spending

"President Barack Obama said Wednesday he will accept a $410 billion spending package that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. But he insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business."

Its like he's saying "Ok I'll go agaist what I promised, but just this one time........"

I'm looking to one of the MANY supporters on this board. Anyone? Anyone?

since you like to pick at things read this... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ ...OBD

Will do, but you dont find it funny that instead of trying to back him you're now sending me to another website?
"NO EARMARKS! uhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok just this time, but NEXT time im for real!!"

Ummm I wasn't neither backing him or lashing out against him I was directing you to a website to see what kind of dialogue you would produce or reproduce...Thanks for the Reproduction...OBD

Sooooooo im asking a question and you  direct me to a website that has nothing to do with the answer......
Thanks.

[ONEBIGDADDY]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_spending

"President Barack Obama said Wednesday he will accept a $410 billion spending package that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. But he insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business."

Its like he's saying "Ok I'll go agaist what I promised, but just this one time........"

I'm looking to one of the MANY supporters on this board. Anyone? Anyone?

since you like to pick at things read this... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ ...OBD

Will do, but you dont find it funny that instead of trying to back him you're now sending me to another website?
"NO EARMARKS! uhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok just this time, but NEXT time im for real!!"

Ummm I wasn't neither backing him or lashing out against him I was directing you to a website to see what kind of dialogue you would produce or reproduce...Thanks for the Reproduction...OBD

Sooooooo im asking a question and you direct me to a website that has nothing to do with the answer......
Thanks.

Because I had nothing to do with your question...Stay in context and try not to open a dialogue with me on another inflamatory subject...I am not one to argue with a person who asked a loaded question to argue his own opinions...OBD

[corruptpirate]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/us/politics/14gitmo.html

Sounds like the same old same old. Though I will agree that gitmo should stay open.

[dr3z]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090311/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_spending

"President Barack Obama said Wednesday he will accept a $410 billion spending package that includes billions in earmarks like those he promised to curb in last year's campaign. But he insisted the bill must signal an "end to the old way of doing business."

Its like he's saying "Ok I'll go agaist what I promised, but just this one time........"

I'm looking to one of the MANY supporters on this board. Anyone? Anyone?

since you like to pick at things read this... http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/ ...OBD

Will do, but you dont find it funny that instead of trying to back him you're now sending me to another website?
"NO EARMARKS! uhhhhhhhhhhhhh ok just this time, but NEXT time im for real!!"

Ummm I wasn't neither backing him or lashing out against him I was directing you to a website to see what kind of dialogue you would produce or reproduce...Thanks for the Reproduction...OBD

Sooooooo im asking a question and you direct me to a website that has nothing to do with the answer......
Thanks.

Because I had nothing to do with your question...Stay in context and try not to open a dialogue with me on another inflamatory subject...I am not one to argue with a person who asked a loaded question to argue his own opinions...OBD

Loaded questions!! lol! Its  called facts "he said there would be NO earmarks yet he passed a bill with them and says it will be the only time"
Hows that loaded? You're funny cause you can't answer it. So you add another questions and then on top of that tell me that kind of person you are
as if I care! comedy! thanks man I needed that.