Listen for yourself..Obama's Socialized medicine in his words

monkey

Guest
Shortround, I'm not "For" Socialism by itself.

I AM for National Socialism.

I am certainly against Communism, which is NOT Socialism.

I am for the strong Nation State. Something that America used to be.

Anyway though, you seem to be a very patriotic person. I also think that perhaps your message may have been misunderstood here.

But also I think that you might be misunderstanding some of the other messages here.

What you call "Socialism", has actually been a part of the American system for quite a while.

Roosevelt indeed brought a LOT of Socialist policies to the American system. But Roosevelt is honored as one of the greatest Presidents.

Go figure.

What bothers me about some of the people who hold opinions similar to yours is that they miss the whole point of what it means to be "Conservative", and "Republican".

The George W. Bush Administration was perhaps THE most RADICAL Administration in the History of America.

George W. Bush was neither Republican, nor Conservative. In fact, he was quite the opposite of both.

His Foreign Policy was dictated by a Foreign Nation. His Domestic Policies were ...........insane. HUGE spending!!

to quote Dick Cheney: "Deficits don't matter".

Please do the research.

Rampant Capitalism is NOT good for America.......OBVIOUSLY.......ask anyone in Detroit.

For the Government to apply restrictions, Tariffs, Taxes, etc....for the good of the American people..is.........well.......maybe GOOD for the American People.

Ya think maybe???

I don't know, maybe it's a Tribal thing.

But I don't want to gang up on you.

Obviously you are patriotic and motivated. I only wish you would channel this in the RIGHT direction.
 

tnswman

New member
monkey said:
Shortround, I'm not "For" Socialism by itself.

I AM for National Socialism.

I am certainly against Communism, which is NOT Socialism.

I am for the strong Nation State. Something that America used to be.

Anyway though, you seem to be a very patriotic person. I also think that perhaps your message may have been misunderstood here.

But also I think that you might be misunderstanding some of the other messages here.

What you call "Socialism", has actually been a part of the American system for quite a while.

Roosevelt indeed brought a LOT of Socialist policies to the American system. But Roosevelt is honored as one of the greatest Presidents.

Go figure.

What bothers me about some of the people who hold opinions similar to yours is that they miss the whole point of what it means to be "Conservative", and "Republican".

The George W. Bush Administration was perhaps THE most RADICAL Administration in the History of America.

George W. Bush was neither Republican, nor Conservative. In fact, he was quite the opposite of both.

His Foreign Policy was dictated by a Foreign Nation. His Domestic Policies were ...........insane. HUGE spending!!

to quote Dick Cheney: "Deficits don't matter".

Please do the research.

Rampant Capitalism is NOT good for America.......OBVIOUSLY.......ask anyone in Detroit.

For the Government to apply restrictions, Tariffs, Taxes, etc....for the good of the American people..is.........well.......maybe GOOD for the American People.

Ya think maybe???

I don't know, maybe it's a Tribal thing.

But I don't want to gang up on you.

Obviously you are patriotic and motivated. I only wish you would channel this in the RIGHT direction.

You know, I guess your honesty about your Socialist thoughts is what seperates you from understanding the problem.

Here is the problem...TAXATION and UNLIMITED POWER!

This billnot only PROMISES middle class tax increases, it gives the Government and their agents TOTAL CONTROL over YOUR health.

You keep blaming Bush..However, the American people have historically been against any type of socialized Medicine. We do NOT want to mirror other countries who has VERY large and scary problems with their Healthcare system.

I live in a State where Government run Healthcare almost destroyed us. The Fraud and use by Illegals was the major factors. Under this new system, we will now have to pay for Illegal's care. It will honestly BREAK this country like nothing else has ever done before.

How can you NOT be PI$$ED about the Goverment being involved in banks, private business, and health care? A TRUE American President would let companies like GM fail. Let Banks close and tackle Health Care by first attackin Illegals ( by closing the borders on ALL SIDES ) and by stopping fraud.

After that, you can fine tune the system to better use the mix of Private Insurance and Medicare / Medicaid.

I'm not too worried now, the People are speaking as they should. Americans are PI$$ED off and the Democrats are starting to see that their terms are limited. If this is Pushed through, it will be the death nail for the Government as we know it.

Either way, Obama has lost. He has lost the people. We don't want this type of change. The change he wants to force upon us is nothing more than Tyrany.....Tyrants are NOT American...So, He will be stopped politically and he will learn his role quickly. He is NOT Emperor...He is not a King. His job is to do things the American way and to show the rest of the world why America is it's own country and why Freedom should be desired.

This is something that is spreading throught the country....It amazes me that the Community Organizer himself "Chairman Malbama" is upset that the Greatest Community in the world is organizing....AGAINST Socialized medicine.
 

Short Round

New member
monkey said:
Shortround, I'm not "For" Socialism by itself.

I AM for National Socialism.

I am certainly against Communism, which is NOT Socialism.

I am for the strong Nation State. Something that America used to be.

Anyway though, you seem to be a very patriotic person. I also think that perhaps your message may have been misunderstood here.

But also I think that you might be misunderstanding some of the other messages here.

What you call "Socialism", has actually been a part of the American system for quite a while.

Roosevelt indeed brought a LOT of Socialist policies to the American system. But Roosevelt is honored as one of the greatest Presidents.

Go figure.

What bothers me about some of the people who hold opinions similar to yours is that they miss the whole point of what it means to be "Conservative", and "Republican".

The George W. Bush Administration was perhaps THE most RADICAL Administration in the History of America.

George W. Bush was neither Republican, nor Conservative. In fact, he was quite the opposite of both.

His Foreign Policy was dictated by a Foreign Nation. His Domestic Policies were ...........insane. HUGE spending!!

to quote Dick Cheney: "Deficits don't matter".

Please do the research.

Rampant Capitalism is NOT good for America.......OBVIOUSLY.......ask anyone in Detroit.

For the Government to apply restrictions, Tariffs, Taxes, etc....for the good of the American people..is.........well.......maybe GOOD for the American People.

Ya think maybe???

I don't know, maybe it's a Tribal thing.

But I don't want to gang up on you.

Obviously you are patriotic and motivated. I only wish you would channel this in the RIGHT direction.

Well, Roosevelt brought socialist policies in his time, but they didn't last and aren't still around today. And actually those policies failed to stimulate the economy. WWII got us out of the depression.

I know that Bush wasn't a huge conservative. He spent tons of money and created governmental programs. The thing I praise Bush for is protecting us, not for his economic policies.

Restrictions must be applied, but to a certain extent. Obama is going WAY too far. Socialized medicine will RUIN our economy.

I am going in the right direction. I love America and I strongly believe in the principles it was founded upon. You don't seem to like these principles though. The FOunding Fathers wanted small government and capitalism. Once again, they absolutely hated socialism.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Short Round said:
The FOunding Fathers wanted small government and capitalism. Once again, they absolutely hated socialism.
How can a man hate something that doesn't exist?

You ramble on and on and on about the ideas of America's Founding Fathers but it appears that the context of history is completely lost to you.

I think it was promptly pointed out in this thread once already that the ideas of workers' equality and society that takes care of them are nearly a century younger than the US Declaration of Independence. So unless these respectable men had the ability to see the future, there is no way their theses could be understood as statements against socialism.

No, what they are are statements against monarchy or other similiar societies where a single ruler decides the fates of a whole nation. In the 18th century practically every nation in the old country fell under this definition, and this is what the people crafting the concept of the United States wished to break away from. In the days of Jefferson and Franklin, term "big government" didn't mean the actual head count of the ruling class (in fact, majority of the "small governments" these days are significantly larger than what constituted a big one back in the day), but a government that rules over its people instead of for it.



“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.” - Thomas Jefferson


“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government…” - Thomas Jefferson


These are great quotes, but again, we need to place them in the correct historical context. During the days of Jefferson, there were no large corporations. Apart from government-run militaries no man had the need for hardly more then a dozen employees. In fact, most private enterprise was run by single craftsmen who had no more than one or two employees and usually the profession moved along in the family - again very unlike than in the world of today.

Also, what was the United States of America back then? Definitely not the nation of 300 million people spread across fifty states on a large continent. Nope, it was a group of thirteen small colonies on the East Coast and a huge batch of untamed wilderness towards the west. "The Land of Opportunity" back then meant that any man with a bit of frontier spirit and healthy determination could get out there, make a claim on a previously unowned land and start building his destiny from a scratch. Good luck trying to claim a homestead in the 21st century, at least without a significant sum of modern currency to begin with.

It would also be sufficient to mention another idea of Jefferson - the one that was built on the concept of Enlightment. The Founding Fathers were in fact not for a social system that remains unchanged in a world that rapidly changes around it. Thomas Jefferson himself stated that every nation should rework its social and legal system after every two decades, to best suit the views of the current generation. In that light, it's hard to imagine him being pleased by someone who clings onto ideas that are over two hundred years old especially in a world that has changed extremely drastically over those centuries.

No nation, no government is born perfect. For example, it took almost hundred years from the Founding Fathers to abolish slavery. Or are we to say that because that didn't come up on the agenda list since way after the beginning, it could still be okay in the modern times?


Note that this whole wall of text however doesn't have much to do with being for or against concerning the particular issues of Obama's plans for unified healthcare. It's for the men wiser than me to see what would be the optimal route, but to oppose it simply because "it's something they didn't see fit back then" is, frankly, a little naive.
 

Short Round

New member
Finn said:
How can a man hate something that doesn't exist?

You ramble on and on and on about the ideas of America's Founding Fathers but it appears that the context of history is completely lost to you.

I think it was promptly pointed out in this thread once already that the ideas of workers' equality and society that takes care of them are nearly a century younger than the US Declaration of Independence. So unless these respectable men had the ability to see the future, there is no way their theses could be understood as statements against socialism.

No, what they are are statements against monarchy or other similiar societies where a single ruler decides the fates of a whole nation. In the 18th century practically every nation in the old country fell under this definition, and this is what the people crafting the concept of the United States wished to break away from. In the days of Jefferson and Franklin, term "big government" didn't mean the actual head count of the ruling class (in fact, majority of the "small governments" these days are significantly larger than what constituted a big one back in the day), but a government that rules over its people instead of for it.



?To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.? - Thomas Jefferson


?A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government?? - Thomas Jefferson


These are great quotes, but again, we need to place them in the correct historical context. During the days of Jefferson, there were no large corporations. Apart from government-run militaries no man had the need for hardly more then a dozen employees. In fact, most private enterprise was run by single craftsmen who had no more than one or two employees and usually the profession moved along in the family - again very unlike than in the world of today.

Also, what was the United States of America back then? Definitely not the nation of 300 million people spread across fifty states on a large continent. Nope, it was a group of thirteen small colonies on the East Coast and a huge batch of untamed wilderness towards the west. "The Land of Opportunity" back then meant that any man with a bit of frontier spirit and healthy determination could get out there, make a claim on a previously unowned land and start building his destiny from a scratch. Good luck trying to claim a homestead in the 21st century, at least without a significant sum of modern currency to begin with.

It would also be sufficient to mention another idea of Jefferson - the one that was built on the concept of Enlightment. The Founding Fathers were in fact not for a social system that remains unchanged in a world that rapidly changes around it. Thomas Jefferson himself stated that every nation should rework its social and legal system after every two decades, to best suit the views of the current generation. In that light, it's hard to imagine him being pleased by someone who clings onto ideas that are over two hundred years old especially in a world that has changed extremely drastically over those centuries.

No nation, no government is born perfect. For example, it took almost hundred years from the Founding Fathers to abolish slavery. Or are we to say that because that didn't come up on the agenda list since way after the beginning, it could still be okay in the modern times?


Note that this whole wall of text however doesn't have much to do with being for or against concerning the particular issues of Obama's plans for unified healthcare. It's for the men wiser than me to see what would be the optimal route, but to oppose it simply because "it's something they didn't see fit back then" is, frankly, a little naive.

Socialism may not have existed in NAME, but it's ideas have been around since the beginning.

How can their quotes not be against socialism??? They clearly say it's WRONG to take from the people who earn money to give to the ones who don't.

What he meant by big government was the amount of POWER it held. The Founding Fathers believed the government's powers should be limited.

So, you think Jefferson would change his views and be for big government just because the U.S became larger? It doesn't matter if America has become bigger, it doesn't change the philosophy behind their words. They clearly said big government was bad. They hated the thought of it limiting the freedoms of the people. They wanted the system of the free market and didn't want the government to get involved and begin taking money from it's citizens just to give it to people who haven't earned it.

Well, Jefferson may have stated that, but he expressed his dislike for socialism, even though it wasn't called that yet, and for big government. He didn't want THAT kind of change. He stated that MANY times.

So, I am not naive, I just follow the principles my country was founded upon because it's how it was supposed to be and has worked for almost 250 years. It's actually quite naive to believe that the founding fathers would have changed their STRONG opinions against big government and socialism.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Oh well, I already knew it hardly would make you consider anything, but had to get it out of the system nevertheless...

Short Round said:
Socialism may not have existed in NAME, but it's ideas have been around since the beginning.
And that's where you're wrong. The whole idea of socialism wasn't conceived until after the "technological revolution" in the mid 1800s that truly created a so-called "working class". Yes, there had been peons and other people of lower social status before that, but the workers were farmers and craftsmen, who mostly labored alone or in small communities. And were pretty self-sustained.

Socialism stands for dividing the goods among large group of people connected at best by a loose common nominator. So no, the ideas of socialism really didn't come around before there really was need to gather a lot of people together to achieve a goal. And apart from militaries, those circumstances didn't really exist before the era of mass factory labor.

So yeah, it didn't much exist either in name nor idea.

Short Round said:
What he meant by big government was the amount of POWER it held. The Founding Fathers believed the government's powers should be limited.

So, you think Jefferson would change his views and be for big government just because the U.S became larger? It doesn't matter if America has become bigger, it doesn't change the philosophy behind their words. They clearly said big government was bad. They hated the thought of it limiting the freedoms of the people. They wanted the system of the free market and didn't want the government to get involved and begin taking money from it's citizens just to give it to people who haven't earned.
I never exclipicitly stated that it's correct to assume he would change his views had he the chance to see the drastically changed world since his own day. But it's not quite right either to claim as a brazen fact that he wouldn't.

Short Round said:
So, I am not naive, I just follow the principles my country was founded upon because it's how it was supposed to be and has worked for almost 250 years. It's actually quite naive to believe that the founding fathers would have changed their STRONG opinions against big government and socialism.
Some empires have stood for a thousand years, but in the end, they all have fell. You may not like it, but the world has never been a socially stable place. Besides, the whole concept of enlightment stands for creating an ideal society for the present environment. Your Founding Fathers created theirs for one where neither socialism nor big corporations didn't exist, and where people truly had a chance to get out there and make something out of nothing. The fact that the system still stands after two hundred and fifty years is a great testament to their ingenuinity, no one's denying that.

But what makes a person "UnAmerican" if he desires a little regulation and government control to proctect the interests of his own and those around him? Free Trade, Free Market are nice concepts, yeah, but what about the freedom of thought? If you are seriously telling people that they have no choice but to accept what you personally view as right and if they disagree they should get the hell out or cope, I'd like you to meet two buddies of mine. Here're Adolf and Joseph...
 

Short Round

New member
Finn said:
Oh well, I already knew it hardly would make you consider anything, but had to get it out of the system nevertheless...

And that's where you're wrong. The whole idea of socialism wasn't conceived until after the "technological revolution" in the mid 1800s that truly created a so-called "working class". Yes, there had been peons and other people of lower social status before that, but the workers were farmers and craftsmen, who mostly labored alone or in small communities. And were pretty self-sustained.

Socialism stands for dividing the goods among large group of people connected at best by a loose common nominator. So no, the ideas of socialism really didn't come around before there really was need to gather a lot of people together to achieve a goal. And apart from militaries, those circumstances didn't really exist before the era of mass factory labor.

So yeah, it didn't much exist either in name nor idea.

I never exclipicitly stated that it's correct to assume he would change his views had he the chance to see the drastically changed world since his own day. But it's not quite right either to claim as a brazen fact that he wouldn't.

Some empires have stood for a thousand years, but in the end, they all have fell. You may not like it, but the world has never been a socially stable place. Besides, the whole concept of enlightment stands for creating an ideal society for the present environment. Your Founding Fathers created theirs for one where neither socialism nor big corporations didn't exist, and where people truly had a chance to get out there and make something out of nothing. The fact that the system still stands after two hundred and fifty years is a great testament to their ingenuinity, no one's denying that.

But what makes a person "UnAmerican" if he desires a little regulation and government control to proctect the interests of his own and those around him? Free Trade, Free Market are nice concepts, yeah, but what about the freedom of thought? If you are seriously telling people that they have no choice but to accept what you personally view as right and if they disagree they should get the hell out or cope, I'd like you to meet two buddies of mine. Here're Adolf and Joseph...

The basic ideas of socialism have always been around. "Dividing the goods" has always been around. Jefferson and other founders spoke out against this, as shown by those quotes.
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those
who are willing to work and give to those who would not."-Jefferson

Yeah but the reason WHY it has stood so long and so strongly is because of our system. And now people want to change that. We were founded on certain principles and have, for the most part, stuck by them. Because of this, we have had success. And again, the founding fathers spoke out against the basic idea of socialism. Big corporations may not have existed but that is completely irrelevant. Do you honestly believe Jefferson would have said "You know what, these corporations are too big, they need to be limited and controlled"? Or would he have said "Good, people worked hard to start these corporations and are now becoming wealthy because of it". By reading the words he wrote, you have to see he would say something along the lines of the latter.

"A little regulation"? I wish that were so, it's a lot more than a little. What makes a person UnAmerican is if he supports socialism, a system contrary to the views of the founders of this country. Now you have made a great mistake saying the government protects the interests of the people though this system. It is the exact opposite. The best the government can do for an individual is to let him be. Let him pursue happiness.

I'm not limiting anyone's freedom to think. I'm just arguing that one who believes in these ideas does not love America and what it stands for. But I would never try to limit one's freedom. That's actually what the people who believe in big government/socialism are trying to do.
"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."-Jefferson
 

Kevin

Member
Moedred said:
They do now...

We are so fu©ked.

Short Round said:
Do you honestly believe Jefferson would have said...

While I suppose we are all free to speculate on what TJ or any of the founding fathers would have said or thought about current issues, I must ask: Does it really matter? The founding fathers' most important legacy was not their thoughts on individual issues, but rather the system of government they put in place, a system that places paramount importance on what we think.

It was never their intention to shackle us to their rules and world views. I am reminded of Lincoln's words about a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The living people. I'm sure the founding fathers would have been horrified at the idea of outlawing alcohol in this country, yet the 18th amendment did just that. A few years later it was repealed. A good many founding fathers probaby would have been upset at the idea of black people being free, owning property, and marrying whites. This is the great thing about our system of govenrment, it allows us, meaning the living breathing American people, to decide what is best. We may not get to vote individually on every issue, but our elected representatives are beholden to what we want, not what Thomas Jefferson or anyone else dead for 200 years wanted.

Thus, if we wake up tomorrow and 99% of the American people want national socialism, then by God that's what we'll have. If the majority of the American people want socialized heath care, then we'll have that too, and no amount of kicking and screaming about what the founding fathers wanted will change that. However, I think that a good number of Americans (myself included) find Obama's plan to be ill-conceived. Just look at the ruckus everyone is raising at the town hall meetings across the country. Any member of Congress who votes for this plan will have to answer when the bill comes due.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Short Round said:
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."-Jefferson

SR - Stop needlessly quoting entire posts in your responses; it's annoying. Either find what you're directly responding to, or you need to drastically cut down the amount of quoted text.

Your quote, however, is misleading. It implies that the boys on the docks, and the men at work don't really want to; instead, they want a hand out. That's patently false. Labour has seen its wages depressed for decades in favour of increased corporate profits. CEOs operate in a culture of fear, a fear of being fired by their board and shareholders if profits drop. In order to promote profits, they slash operating costs. The first to go is always labour.

You do not have the right to work in these United States.

Short Round said:
And again, the founding fathers spoke out against the basic idea of socialism. Big corporations may not have existed but that is completely irrelevant. Do you honestly believe Jefferson would have said "You know what, these corporations are too big, they need to be limited and controlled"?

You need to read The Jungle, and it won't even cost you a penny. You can find it online through the University of California.


Short Round said:
The best the government can do for an individual is to let him be. Let him pursue happiness.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; this is part of the reasoning behind why the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists. On the domestic front then, how does an individual pursue his happiness when those select few (that 1-percent that controls 90-percent of the wealth) have stacked the system in their favour?

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."-Jefferson[/QUOTE]

The course of history today shows that the more government capitulates to corporate and monetary interests, liberty decreases.

"I have seen enough of the way in which the terrible consciousness of serfdom destroys and poisons the existence of house-serfs, the way in which it oppresses and stupefies their souls. Peasants, especially those who pay a fixed sum in lieu of labour, have less feeling of their personal bondage; they somehow succeed in not believing in their complete slavery. But for the house-serf, sitting on a dirty locker in the hall from morning till night, or standing with a plate at table, there is no room for doubt." - Alexander Herzen
 
Last edited:

Short Round

New member
Le Saboteur said:
SR - Stop needlessly quoting entire posts in your responses; it's annoying. Either find what you're directly responding to, or you need to drastically cut down the amount of quoted text.

Your quote, however, is misleading. It implies that the boys on the docks, and the men at work don't really want to; instead, they want a hand out. That's patently false. Labour has seen its wages depressed for decades in favour of increased corporate profits. CEOs operate in a culture of fear, a fear of being fired by their board and shareholders if profits drop. In order to promote profits, they slash operating costs. The first to go is always labour.

You do not have the right to work in these United States.



You need to read The Jungle, and it won't even cost you a penny. You can find it online through the University of California.




The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few; this is part of the reasoning behind why the United States doesn't negotiate with terrorists. On the domestic front then, how does an individual pursue his happiness when those select few (that 1-percent that controls 90-percent of the wealth) have stacked the system in their favour?

"Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have ... The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases."-Jefferson




Uh, let me respond to your demand. NO. I'll quote if I want to. Besides, my posts don't even have that many quotes. Maybe you should actually read them, you'll learn something.

I never said those people don't work. They make money for their work. Just because others are wealthier does't mean they should be forced to give it away.

You can talk about "needs" all you want, but the most important thing is freedom. First off, you blame big corporations. Let me ask you something: Are they doing anything illegal? If they are, they should be shut down. If they are NOT, whatever they are doing is alright. Thats how this country works. We have freedoms. We can choose our own lifestyles. Of course everyone hopes people will do the right thing, but if they don't and it is legal, then the government should not interfere AT ALL.

Wrong, history does not show that. History shows that the free market makes nations thrive. Competition is good. Working for your OWN living is good.
 

bennihana123

New member
I do see the concern for the quality of healthcare, and I think President Obama should slow down a bit and focus on the economy before he starts to think about something this huge.

Your government healthcare office will be using the top of the line computers available in 1997, and in 6 to 8 weeks you'll know what kind of care to receive....
 

WillKill4Food

New member
My opinion on universal health care is not set in stone at all, but I do wonder about this article that I read, which is a few years old, but the numbers of the article probably haven't changed all that much.

Lawrence R. Huntoon said:
Collectively, the uninsured pay about $17.1 billion in extra taxes each year because they do not receive the same tax break as insured people with similar income. If state and local taxes are included, the extra taxes paid by the uninsured exceed $19 billion per year.

Where, we must ask, is the compassion for these overtaxed, hard-working people? This is clearly a government-created problem. What we don't need is more government (nationalized health care) to "fix it." What we need is to get government out of our wallets so people can have their own money needed to purchase and own their own health insurance.

Does this not seem more sensible, simpler, and more in line with the constitutional purpose of government?
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
Moedred said:
They do now...


pshaw....they can just flat tax the unemployme...er TARP benefits we'll all soon be getting.

sgs-emp.gif
 

RedeemedChild

New member
monkey said:
Shortround, I'm not "For" Socialism by itself.

I AM for National Socialism.

I am certainly against Communism, which is NOT Socialism.

I am for the strong Nation State. Something that America used to be.

Anyway though, you seem to be a very patriotic person. I also think that perhaps your message may have been misunderstood here.

But also I think that you might be misunderstanding some of the other messages here.

What you call "Socialism", has actually been a part of the American system for quite a while.

Roosevelt indeed brought a LOT of Socialist policies to the American system. But Roosevelt is honored as one of the greatest Presidents.

Go figure.

What bothers me about some of the people who hold opinions similar to yours is that they miss the whole point of what it means to be "Conservative", and "Republican".

The George W. Bush Administration was perhaps THE most RADICAL Administration in the History of America.

George W. Bush was neither Republican, nor Conservative. In fact, he was quite the opposite of both.

His Foreign Policy was dictated by a Foreign Nation. His Domestic Policies were ...........insane. HUGE spending!!

to quote Dick Cheney: "Deficits don't matter".

Please do the research.

Rampant Capitalism is NOT good for America.......OBVIOUSLY.......ask anyone in Detroit.

For the Government to apply restrictions, Tariffs, Taxes, etc....for the good of the American people..is.........well.......maybe GOOD for the American People.

Ya think maybe???

I don't know, maybe it's a Tribal thing.

But I don't want to gang up on you.

Obviously you are patriotic and motivated. I only wish you would channel this in the RIGHT direction.

Kudo's to what you've said!

You have expressed the same sentiments that I've been trying to share with with Short Round and the others who share his views. I also tried to point out a time before that Roosevelt along with a few other American political/entertainment figures including even our present day Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Steven Spielberg, Helen Cheowitz and even at times Arnold Schwarzenegger and here recently Hillary Clinton has also been speaking some Socialistic ideas recently.

In fact I've heard some people and even the History Channel say that LBJ and Richard Nixon also held some Socialistic views and that the Democratic Party has been moving in the direction of Socialism for a very long time.

In fact Socialism is in no way a threat to Freedom and Religious Liberty and the American way of life as some of these Conservatives try make it out to be. Sadly people get Socialism confused with Communism and again sadly do not look into the difference between the two.
 

Short Round

New member
RedeemedChild said:
Kudo's to what you've said!

You have expressed the same sentiments that I've been trying to share with with Short Round and the others who share his views. I also tried to point out a time before that Roosevelt along with a few other American political/entertainment figures including even our present day Geithner, Ben Bernanke, Steven Spielberg, Helen Cheowitz and even at times Arnold Schwarzenegger and here recently Hillary Clinton has also been speaking some Socialistic ideas recently.

In fact I've heard some people and even the History Channel say that LBJ and Richard Nixon also held some Socialistic views and that the Democratic Party has been moving in the direction of Socialism for a very long time.

In fact Socialism is in no way a threat to Freedom and Religious Liberty and the American way of life as some of these Conservatives try make it out to be. Sadly people get Socialism confused with Communism and again sadly do not look into the difference between the two.

Do you have ANY idea what you are talking about???

Spielberg??? What the hell does he have to do with anything? Geithner??? Duh! He's PART of the Obama administration. He's also known to be an idiot. Same with Clinton. You are just listing some random people. Why does it matter if these people are socialists? Are they the founders of America???

Oh! You've heard! Why don't you actually do some research instead of repeating something you think you've heard somewhere.
And uh, no. Nixon didn't hold socialist views.
So what if the democratic party has been moving towards socialism?????? What does that prove???? Your argument makes NO sense!

Oh, well thanks for telling us socialism isn't that bad. You explained why very well. By the way, you might want to try and back up your argument, even though you don't really have one.

Seriously, your post lacked an argument. Maybe you should learn more about the history of our country and what principles it was founded upon.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
WillKill4Food said:
Nixon was a Republican.
It doesn't, of course, make it wholly impossible for him to endorse a socialist idea or two...

Seriously though, no message in this thread over the last few pages has held much substance. What you people really should be discussing is how this thing is good or bad (take your pick) to the modern-day America, but all we have are people who seem either still star-struck by the current leader or live in 1775.

In fact, I'm getting pretty fed up with this thread. It's soon heading towards the same scrap heap as every other topical predecessor unless it somehow starts to developed some actual, preferably civilized discussion about the subject soon. Kudos to those who have at least attempted that. And the next time I heard the verb "found" and the sorry individual who typed it in is not talking about his or her lost kitten, I'm seriously starting to consider rigging the vacation lottery, if you get what I mean.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
WillKill4Food said:
Nixon was a Republican.

You need to supplement those psych classes you're interested in with a few courses in American Government; they'll be invaluable to you as life progresses.

It's not surprising though, that the ideological Right would trumpet Jefferson's words; many of whom I seriously doubt have ever owned his collected writings, or a biography or three. American Sphinx and The Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson are both good places to start.

But this is besides the point. The continued idea that nationalized health care is "socialism" is bunk; provisions were already written into the US Constitution. Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, also known as the Necessary and Proper Clause provides that

The Congress shall have Power - To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Article I, Section 8, Clause I, also known as the General Welfare Clause grants Congress the power

To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States:

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3, is the so-called Commerce Claus that allows Congress

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states,and with the Indian tribes
. This is generally amplified by the Necessary and Proper clause, but would grant Congress to set and regulate rates across all fifty states.

For those of you interested in reading the entire thing, Emory University has a great on-line version here. Article I deals with the enumerated powers of Congress, a lot of which are touched on in the Preamble.
 
Last edited:
Top