PDA

View Full Version : Do You Still Believe In Change?



jack grebe
05-01-2009, 06:44 AM
Or do you believe they are trying to change what you believe?

LeeG
05-01-2009, 06:45 AM
but now that I know they are trying to change what I believe I can remain firm and unchanged in my change

jbelow
05-01-2009, 06:52 AM
Or do you believe they are trying to change what you believe?

BO is pissing in Americans ear for a brain washing.

BrianW
05-01-2009, 07:13 AM
Well I get it everywhere these days. Usually in stores, unless I use a debit card, which is my favorite way of buying stuff. When I do get it, it usually goes in the truck ashtray for those times in the drive-thru, when I pay cash. If it makes it home, I try to pawn it off on the daughter. It seems she prefers the folding variety, but takes it anyhow.

Keith Wilson
05-01-2009, 08:22 AM
The best Onion headline ever. (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change)

Change is inevitable (unless you always use a debit card ;)). The question is what kind.

Phillip Allen
05-01-2009, 08:27 AM
The best Onion headline ever. (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change)

Change is inevitable (unless you always use a debit card ;)). The question is what kind.


ya know, the left has demanded for years and years that the world should be color blind and now they seem to have reversed themselves...who would have thunk it? :)

Osborne Russell
05-01-2009, 08:27 AM
Or do you believe they are trying to change what you believe?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

Tom Galyen
05-01-2009, 08:42 AM
As Keith humorously pointed out change is inevitable, therefore when Obama asked if I believe in change I thought yes I do. I just don't believe in your type of change, and I still don't.

Do I believe that that "they" are trying to change what I believe? You betcha! "They" have forever tried to change what we believe in. The Democrats since the Clinton administration have been doing the best job of it by their constant program of half truths, innuendos, outright insults, and lies. At their very base core their platform is not that bad, the problem is that at the top of the platform is a group of extreme leftists whose idea of change is so radical that it is totally insulting to me, and just leaves me with a gag reflex and a terrible concern for where this country is going.

My view of the Democratic Party right now is of a leftist Mafia totally driven to have absolute control of everything. I have been called a conservative on this forum, but I would rather identify myself as a "middle of the road moderate independent". Therefore, extreme right or left are equally disturbing to me.

Tom G. (Seaweed)

rbgarr
05-01-2009, 08:46 AM
Well I get it everywhere these days. Usually in stores, unless I use a debit card, which is my favorite way of buying stuff. When I do get it, it usually goes in the truck ashtray for those times in the drive-thru, when I pay cash. If it makes it home, I try to pawn it off on the daughter. It seems she prefers the folding variety, but takes it anyhow.

My younger brother used to put his pocket change in whatever was handy around the house when he got home at the end of the day. He did that for years. He's a very good golfer and has trophies everywhere. Eventually they were all overflowing with coin, so he told his eight year old niece that if she would sort and roll it all she could keep ten per cent. There was something like $900 total! She bought a bike iirc.

Paul Pless
05-01-2009, 08:46 AM
The best Onion headline ever. (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change)

Change is inevitable (unless you always use a debit card ;)). The question is what kind.Not even close...

http://www.timemachinego.com/linkmachinego/images/onion_attack_on_america.jpg

Osborne Russell
05-01-2009, 08:48 AM
the problem is that at the top of the platform is a group of extreme leftists whose idea of change is so radical that it is totally insulting to me, and just leaves me with a gag reflex and a terrible concern for where this country is going.


Bush spent it on military adventures, Obama spends it domestically. What's your beef?

Paul Pless
05-01-2009, 08:48 AM
The best Onion headline ever. (http://www.theonion.com/content/news/black_guy_asks_nation_for_change)

Change is inevitable (unless you always use a debit card ;)). The question is what kind.Not even close...

http://www.timemachinego.com/linkmachinego/images/onion_attack_on_america.jpg

the Onion's post 9/11 issue.

James McMullen
05-01-2009, 08:59 AM
. . .a leftist Mafia totally driven to have absolute control of everything

You want a side of fries to go with that absurdly overblown hyperbole? You're gonna need some calories to augment your nutrient and reality-free rhetoric.

Get a grip! Or some fiber in your diet. Jeepers!

Keith Wilson
05-01-2009, 09:04 AM
. . at the top of the platform is a group of extreme leftists . . . With all respect, you wouldn't recognize an "extreme leftist" if one came up and bit you on the leg. Mainstream US politics (meaning 99% of all those who have actually gotten elected in the past 20 years) consists of about the middle half of the ideological spectrum with a bit of a bias toward the right, if one insists on arranging it on a linear scale. There are a few outliers, mostly on the libertarian end (Ron Paul is one), but there are no socialists in the US in positions of power, much less anyone farther left.

You certainly can disagree strongly with what Obama or the Democrats are trying to do, but trying to make them out as some kind of extremists is simply silly. Mao is dead.

Paul Pless
05-01-2009, 09:10 AM
but there are no socialists in the US in positions of power, much less anyone farther left.I disagree. Just because the population as a whole has shifted to the left, and now overlaps politicians whose positions are socialist, doesn't mean that those politicians aren't socialist. For example, there's no way to deny that Obama's attempts, and Hillary's attempts before him, at universal health care coverage, are extremely socialist programs especially given the history of politics and economics in the United States.

Please note, I'm not condemning them for this, I agree that we need health care reform and universal coverage.

Keith Wilson
05-01-2009, 09:15 AM
Oh for the love of God. :rolleyes:

PLEASE, PLEASE go look up what Socialism really is, some of the history of the idea, and how it's been implemented in various times and places. With all respect, you don't know what you are talking about. Start with Eugene Debs, Bob LaFollette, Norman Thomas, and the history of the Socialist Party in the US. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_Party_of_America)

Paul Pless
05-01-2009, 09:16 AM
Let me riddle you this Norm? Would you agree that universal health care has the potential to be the largest direct redistribution of wealth that has taken place in the United States, excepting Social Security?

Paul Pless
05-01-2009, 09:19 AM
Oh for the love of God. :rolleyes:

PLEASE, PLEASE go look up what Socialism really is, some of the history of the idea, and how it's been implemented in various times and places. With all respect, you don't know what you are talking about.Please... I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Economics and a minor in History, I think I well understand the various concepts between left and right political institutions. :rolleyes:

TimH
05-01-2009, 09:22 AM
Change has already happened. Most feel like the country is on the right track. For almost 8 years were were far from the right track.

Keith Wilson
05-01-2009, 09:24 AM
Tax-funded heath care, with the actual work done by private business, is Socialism? One could make an argument that Britain's National Health Service is, but no one has seriously proposed anything like that for the US.

Right-wingers in the US have redefined "socialism" for propaganda purposes as "anything other than laissez-faire capitalism." You seem to be using the word that way. If you do indeed understand the differences between the various economic models, then I can only assume you're doing it deliberately for rhetorical effect.

Paul Pless
05-01-2009, 09:31 AM
Keith would you care to answer this question?
Would you agree that universal health care has the potential to be the largest direct redistribution of wealth that has taken place in the United States, excepting Social Security?Again... I'm not against universal health care... I voted for it. I'm just saying, taking the long view of th ehistory of health care in the United States, lets call it what it is...

Paul Pless
05-01-2009, 09:32 AM
damn... I can't believe I got sucked into real political discussion in the bilge.:o;)

Paul Pless
05-01-2009, 09:43 AM
You'd have to more clearly define what 'redistribution of wealth' means.LOL... <smacks head> refers self back to post #24.

Keith Wilson
05-01-2009, 09:56 AM
Would you agree that universal health care has the potential to be the largest direct redistribution of wealth that has taken place in the United States, excepting Social Security?Potential? Sure, it has that potential. Will it? I don't know; it depends on the details. It' s hardly a radical idea, every other civilized county does it.

Paul Pless
05-01-2009, 09:58 AM
Oh, come ON, Paul... the water isn't too cold. If I took the time to compose a reasonably detailed response to your 'riddle', the LEAST you could do is agree, disagree, or comment... with more than one sentance! :)Well you didn't answer the question... your response shifted the discussion into an implied indictment of both the wealthy and the right. (Very ljb5ish of you.;)) That's not the arguement I signed on for so to speak. Has there ever been an easier time to bash the rich in the United States? Has there ever been an easier time to bash conservatives in the United States? I find it cheap to do so...

My initial argument was that two of the top three officials in the Obama administration are very left of the center of the overall political spectrum. Even dismissing the various financial and manufacturing bailouts from the broader scenario in the hopes that they are temporary, this administration is socialist - maybe not complete Karl Marx socialism which he advocated as a stepping stone towards his complete view of communism, but its socialism nonetheless.
Obama is NOT proposing fully tax supported universal health care, by any means (although he's routinely being accused of that... incorrectly). Instead, he's arguing for a more 'middle of the road' plan, one that lets private insurers participate, but will demand that they become a lot more efficient than they presently are.Yeah, so who is gonna pay for it?
It' s hardly a radical idea, every other civilized county does it.So just because every one else is doing it somehow makes it less socialist in nature.

Keith Wilson
05-01-2009, 10:01 AM
Has there ever been an easier time to bash the rich in the United States?Sure. 1932. 1905. 1893.

We need a definition of socialism. Here's one: (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism)
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.


So just because every one else is doing it somehow makes it less socialist in nature. No, it makes it less radical.

Kaa
05-01-2009, 10:02 AM
Before all y'all get hot and bothered, don't you want to define first what does the word "socialism" mean?

Different people use it to mean an amazing variety of things :-)

Kaa

Paul Pless
05-01-2009, 10:05 AM
Before all y'all get hot and bothered, don't you want to define first what does the word "socialism" mean?I wouldn't mind. However Keith wants to disavow any use of the word to describe Obama, ostensibly because he thinks most people view 'socialism' as an insult with regards to politics in the U.S. Probably akin to how I feel about being being lumped with Neocons.

Paul Pless
05-01-2009, 10:09 AM
No, it makes it less radical. You were the one who talked about "radical leftists". Huh... where?

John Smith
05-01-2009, 10:09 AM
Potential? Sure, it has that potential. Will it? I don't know; it depends on the details. It' s hardly a radical idea, every other civilized county does it.
The "change" we need is to stop the "buzzwords" that tend to scare people. We need our representatives to be OUR representatives, rather than representing the big donor lobbyists.

Everyone reading this, I'm sure, realizes that healthcare costs are a major factor in the worsening conditions of our auto makers and other manufacturers/corporations. That medical coverage is a big part of our car insurance premiums.

When Hillary was working on changing healthcare, Rush Limbaugh and his colleagues, put real fear of her plan into the American people. First, Rush would dramatically misrepresent what she was proposing, then spend three unrebutted hours a day explaining why what he said she was proposing wouldn't work.

Then there were the "Harry and Louise" ads. The insurance industry spent many millions of dollars lobbying the public, and it worked.

To answer the thread question, yes I believe we need to change our healthcare system, our energy policy, and our education system, but I don't believe Obama is going to overcome the lobbyists and the buzzwords, so I don't believe we will get that change.

Anyone here given any serious thought to things we socialize now that work pretty well. Can you imagine a privately run fire department where one must pay for the service. The empty house next to you catches on fire, and no one comes.

Keith Wilson
05-01-2009, 10:21 AM
Probably akin to how I feel about being being lumped with Neocons. Right. "Neo-conservatives" is a very specific term which some people use as a general insult. I think "militarists" or "interventionists" would be more accurate. You're not one of them. I'm not a socialist.

It was Tom Gaylen who mentioned "extreme leftists", not you Paul. I took it out, but you were too quick.

IMHO Socialism and liberalism have less in common than liberalism and conservatism.

As far as health care goes, here are the obvious facts once again. We pay roughly 18% of GDP for heath care. The average among countries that have tax-funded systems is about 10% Our average outcomes are generally worse. We have roughly 50 million without insurance; they have zero. We pay more, we get less. Why in the world are we talking about "redistribution of wealth"?