0
   

The Mass. Fallout

 
 
btflatt
 
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 10:40 am
What is the fall out from the Massachusetts special Senate election? We need straight politics and not political gamesmanship.
The Mass. Fallout | The 2012 Presidential Election
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,854 • Replies: 30
No top replies

 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Jan, 2010 06:59 pm
@btflatt,
In the polls, many Massachusetts voters believed that the health care bill did not go far enough. Ironically, many Democrats voted Republican because they believed the Democrats in power were moving into the middle too much... and then they vote for someone on the exact opposite side. Would someone against let's say World War II be part of Switzerland, a neutral country, or Nazi, the causers of the war? But even though it seems like stupid logic, you have to hand it to the Republicans: they employed their crap policies just like they said they would, even though they didn't work. Democrats didn't.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 12:19 am
@bisurge,
Any time you're discussing Democrats vs Republicans you're missing the forest for the trees.

There is no such thing as Democrats or Republicans.

Is Goldman Sachs democrat or republican ?

Is Monsanto democrat or republican ?

How about General Electric ?

In politics faces are only Illusions. Politicians are slaves just like the rest of us. We serve the same masters and the only difference is that our job is to pick cotton and their job is to whip us.
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 12:28 am
@btflatt,
Look, I know this country is run by capitalistic big-businessmen. Which is why a capitalistic government is a bad one. Unless you want to go into business yourself, we're all failures compared to the big businessmen of America.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 01:16 am
@bisurge,
bisurge;69698 wrote:
Look, I know this country is run by capitalistic big-businessmen. Which is why a capitalistic government is a bad one.


this is a faulty argument. you might as well have said that a socialist country is run by socialist party big-shots which is why socialist government is a bad one.

bisurge;69698 wrote:

Unless you want to go into business yourself, we're all failures compared to the big businessmen of America.


true. we are all failures compared to wall street bankers. when we see them drive ferraris we get jealous.

but just because nobody used to drive ferraris in Soviet Union - did the average person have more wealth because of that ? no they had LESS than an average person in america ( less by a factor of about 20X ).

so you need to ask yourself - are you trying to make sure that you have more - or are you trying to make sure that THEY have less ?

the one respect in which a man at the bottom of economic food chain is better off under Socialism is that it is easier to get women when you're a nobody in Socialism. in Capitalism women have a choice whom to spread legs for - in Socialism not so much - all men are mostly the same. But the total number of women is still the same under both systems so on average men are no better off.

if you want a system under which you get as much pussy as you want you should be fighting Christianity, not Capitalism. That's what is keeping them from putting out. And feminism.
0 Replies
 
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 01:22 am
@btflatt,
You're only picking and choosing examples of where socialism is bad. ANY implemented government is reality will be corrupt, have scandals, etc., while seeming flawless on paper. In the Soviet Union, the government controlled and HELD, not redistributed, most of the money. I'm trying to make sure they have more; however, because of corruption and scandals in government, that is not always possible. It's the same in America. A small percent of the people control most of the wealth. But America is richer than the Soviet Union and is not constantly in war.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 01:24 am
@bisurge,
bisurge;69703 wrote:
You're only picking and choosing examples of where socialism is bad. ANY implemented government is reality will be corrupt, have scandals, etc., while seeming flawless on paper. In the Soviet Union, the government controlled and HELD, not redistributed, most of the money. I'm trying to make sure they have more; however, because of corruption and scandals in government, that is not always possible. It's the same in America. A small percent of the people control most of the wealth. But America is richer than the Soviet Union and is not constantly in war.


Point is i can give you examples of Capitalist countries where life is good - like France, Switzerland, Norway etc.

Can you give me examples of socialist countries where life is good ?
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Thu 21 Jan, 2010 02:01 am
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69704 wrote:
Point is i can give you examples of Capitalist countries where life is good - like France, Switzerland, Norway etc.

Can you give me examples of socialist countries where life is good ?

Well, I'm here saying that socialism is good if everyone agrees with it and when corruption and scandals take over (i.e. healthcare). Socialism puts too much power into the hands of the government when they're supposed to be making things equal... basically, socialism is generally the more easily corruptible of the two. In practice, capitalism I agree has its benefits. But on paper and in specific situations in which corporations simply cannot handle their power, socialism and equality should take over. The reason I say that a capitalistic government is a bad one is because it's being controlled, managed, and overseen by the wrong people. Which is the fault of the voters, I suppose. I'm not some crazy socialist supporter, but I definitely do not agree with capitalism either. The only government I agree with is one where money and power are separated... but that will NEVER happen. I suppose you're right; might as well stick with capitalism even if it means people who could benefit from hints of socialism are denied it. After all, capitalism has some ups and more downs, rather than socialism, which has all ups on papers and all downs in practice. And we can thank human nature for that. Thanks a lot, God.
0 Replies
 
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 09:22 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69697 wrote:
In politics faces are only Illusions. Politicians are slaves just like the rest of us. We serve the same masters and the only difference is that our job is to pick cotton and their job is to whip us.


My sentiments exactly.
0 Replies
 
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 09:31 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69704 wrote:
Point is i can give you examples of Capitalist countries where life is good - like France, Switzerland, Norway etc.

Can you give me examples of socialist countries where life is good ?


I can list the same 3 countries. All 3 incorporate many Socialistic aspects, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but France is more Socialist than Capitalist. All 3 have better healthcare than the U.S.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 23 Jan, 2010 11:43 pm
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;69779 wrote:
I can list the same 3 countries. All 3 incorporate many Socialistic aspects, and, correct me if I'm wrong, but France is more Socialist than Capitalist. All 3 have better healthcare than the U.S.


It's not that America's health care is bad. It's that that Americans are sick.

No heath care system would be able to deal with the number of obese and diabetics that we have in US.

The only solution to America's health care problem is to detoxify America from Junk Food and other crap that is killing the people here.

The problem with a private health care system is that the sicker the people are the more money it makes. What we need is prevention - and we will not get it - because there is no money in that.

Insurance company will not pay you to take a month off of work and go to Fiji to improve your mental health. no they will pay you to take prozac. because the company that makes prozac doesn't sell trips to Fiji.

Etc.
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 01:12 am
@NEUROSPORT,
I can't disagree, but our health care still sucks. Health care suffers from the same problems as everything else here, greed.
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 12:55 pm
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;69796 wrote:
I can't disagree, but our health care still sucks. Health care suffers from the same problems as everything else here, greed.

:thumbup:
Capitalism rewards people who are lucky and greedy. Which means others are left in the dust.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 02:28 pm
@bisurge,
bisurge;69811 wrote:
Capitalism rewards people who are lucky


trust me. you don't want a system that rewards failure.
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 03:38 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69820 wrote:
trust me. you don't want a system that rewards failure.


Failure shouldn't be a capital crime, either. Hard work get you $7.25 an hour, a well positioned brother-in-law gets you a mansion.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 09:36 pm
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;69834 wrote:
Failure shouldn't be a capital crime, either. Hard work get you $7.25 an hour, a well positioned brother-in-law gets you a mansion.


for the work that those people do $7.25 is already way too much. just ask the Chinese. you have to watch this about minimum wages and trade unions:

YouTube - Milton Friedman on Minimum Wage
bisurge
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 09:48 pm
@btflatt,
The fact that that guy said it was to defeat competition for trade unions, so that privileged members can get higher pays than the others? The fact that the guy did not correctly use trade unions destroys his credibility. Furthermore, for him to say that it's simply an excuse to higher a skilled worker over an unskilled worker... isn't that going to be the same with or without minimum wage? Won't the skilled worker always have the advantage? And then the employer can charge even the skilled worker as low as he/she wants.
Furthermore, using the Chinese is a bad example, because China is communist and you're against communism (and socialism in general).
JackFlash
 
  1  
Reply Sun 24 Jan, 2010 10:47 pm
@NEUROSPORT,
NEUROSPORT;69854 wrote:
for the work that those people do $7.25 is already way too much.


I just figured it out, you're a social bigot.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 12:06 am
@bisurge,
bisurge;69856 wrote:
The fact that the guy did not correctly use trade unions destroys his credibility.


that guy is a Nobel Prize winning economist. the most influential economist of the 20th century after Keynes. i think you are attacking his argument from the wrong angle :ban:

bisurge;69856 wrote:
for him to say that it's simply an excuse to higher a skilled worker over an unskilled worker... isn't that going to be the same with or without minimum wage? Won't the skilled worker always have the advantage?


yes. but his point was that it is better to be paid little than nothing at all.


bisurge;69856 wrote:
And then the employer can charge even the skilled worker as low as he/she wants.


no he can't. why do you think people who work for companies like Google or Apple make on average something like $150,000 ? There is no law that says they need to be paid more than $7 per hour. It is the free market competition with Microsoft which forces them to compete for the limited number of highly skilled computer scientists that causes them to give people such salaries.

bisurge;69856 wrote:
Furthermore, using the Chinese is a bad example, because China is communist and you're against communism (and socialism in general).


Fine. Take Mexico then.
NEUROSPORT
 
  1  
Reply Mon 25 Jan, 2010 12:12 am
@JackFlash,
JackFlash;69872 wrote:
I just figured it out, you're a social bigot.


bigot is simply a WORD. do not confuse words for meaning.

liberals use the word bigot to describe anybody who doesn't agree with their principles. does this prove that their principles are right ?

no. it is simply a rhetorical trick combined with circular reasoning. it is not valid argumentation.

emotionally charged words in argumentation are in all cases used to circumvent actual logical reasoning. if you were making any actual argument you would be discrediting it right now. fortunately for you - your post was 100% devoid of meaning so it had not much to lose :beat:
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The Mass. Fallout
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/18/2021 at 12:08:56