Sign in to follow this  
Pride

Barack Obama has been inaugurated as president of the U.S.!

Recommended Posts

Jesus christ (sorry for those who are religious), if there's on thing I thought the Americans learnt from the Great Depression was that "rugged individualism" will not work.

Besides, the more you get payed, you're going to have to pay higher taxes anyways, as it's done percentage wise.

I would do as far as to say the UK is socailist, I mean, we have the NHS for starters. Everyone pays their thing, and everyone gets free healthcare. It's health insurance, but a hell lot better.

You all give to charity for people who are need in foreign countries, so why not pay extra taxes which will go to help people who are in need in your country.

/rant.

Anyways....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...especially considering the connotations given to Communism by many.
And that's only due to bad leadership on Communist's part; perhaps if Stalin and the likes (you know who you are) stopped thinking like a fascist, it might have worked.

For a short space of time.

No! Must stop! We could debate the ups and downs of Communism for hours, this topic is not for that. (I'll still say what I need to in my defence, eventually. Actually, we do have an somewhere...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the bad thing about socialism, is that it kinda makes life pointless to live.if you aren't doing well, then you get a get out of jail free card like every time in socialism. whats the point if you can't learn from your mistakes (unless you are like unlucky or something, but that's beside the point). If you are in a democracy, and everything you have, you have earned (unless it is a gift or inherited, but again, beside the point). if you live in a socialistic country, half of your bloody potato you might not have earned, or maybe even all of it. you dont have that feeling of accomplishment in socialism. in a democracy, if you do bad, minus the unlucky people, then you know its most likely your fault for not working hard enough, not applying yourself well, or something else. likewise, if you succeed, then you have the satisfaction of knowing that you earned it. socialism takes that away.

if you want to everyone to have the same things, and you are a selfless rrich peron, then you can give to them, but it shouldn't be mandatory. its like if you have food at lunch at school, and your friend forgot his, you can give it to him and be a good person, but you shouldn't be required to give anything to him if you don't want to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for crying out at a reserved and respectful volume, you're talking like Obama is going to take every last penny you have and give it to every lazy schmuck who sits around throwing beer can tabs into empty beer bottles all day. We're not heading into "free-ride" territory, we're trying to provide for the basic needs of every one of our citizens.

Let me offer an example. My sister is a full time student who has a couple-hour-a-week side-job at her college tutoring ESL transfer students from Japan. She also has a few medical difficulties which recently resulted in a several thousand dollar medical bill. Now, she's a student and all that, so she should be covered by her parent's health insurance, right?

Yeah, well, my father suffered a back injury on the job a few years ago, underwent two back surgeries, and is currently unemployed because no one can fit his permanent disability into their openings. My mother has a modicum of health insurance through her job, but they covered pocket change of the total, leaving several hundred dollars a month up to my sister to front because she has no health insurance of her own.

I have no health insurance - though I don't get seriously ill often enough to really need it - because I'm a "self-employed" sub-contractor. I'm a student but also 24, which means I don't even fall under the pittance my mother's employer offers. Again, thank God I just get the occasional cold.

It's not my sister's fault that she has a few medical issues. My father didn't go looking for a patch of glare ice to skate on while carrying a 75-pound ladder. We're not sitting around on our collective thumbs expecting you to pay our living for us. We work (physical condition allowing, and my father is still interviewing after all these years trying to find something). We pay our taxes.

Obama doesn't plan to bleed the wealthy dry, he just plans to remove loopholes which were targeted toward them. Of course there are going to be people who abuse the system - there are people who abuse every compensation system everywhere: welfare, worker's comp, et cetera. But for the majority, it will be providing a necessary (or at least "highly desirable") service.

So please, the nation is already in shambles, let us not tear it further with petty bickering. We have a new President-elect, and he has plans. If you don't agree with those plans, write your Congressman and tell them why you think they should vote against whatever bill or measure with which you disagree - that's what they're there for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The big difference is ... Palin doesn't strike me as the kind of person who listens to people who are trying to help her.

So yeah, I'm right.

Not only did Palin refuse prep before her interview with Katie Couric, then complain when it went badly, she didn't realize Africa was a continent, among

.

Of course, all this was suppressed by the McCain camp while the election was still going on. One could only imagine the surprise of the American people if they were elected. On the upside, they could have released a spin-off game for XBLA, PSN, and WiiWare titled "Are You Smarter Than Your Vice President". >_>

No, I'm not attacking Republicans, just Palin. Don't get all offended up in hizzle. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody's saying that Obama's a communist and America's the next USSR. We're just saying that:

A. Some of Obama's policies have their roots in socialism.

B. Socialism is an inherently flawed system.

C. Huckabee should be president.

D. Chuck Norris needs to be commander in chief.

At any rate, I doubt Obama will accomplish much for at least a year or two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is getting quite snarky. Could we dial down the anger and return to a slightly more friendly discussion, please? :-) Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's the point? No matter who will win the elections every time a president is chosen, there will always be people who are not satisfied with the outcome and unfortunately, there's nothing we can do since we all bare the 'Freedom of Speech'. Let's just hope for the best and see how it goes. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
\

A. Some of Obama's policies have their roots in socialism.

B. Socialism is an inherently flawed system.

\

It's quite impossible to have a pure socialistic government in this day in age. Yes, some aspects of socialism are detrimental to an established society. But the fact that it stimulates equality is a great thing. The way the U.S. and other developed country's (Australia included) keep making ways to make the rich richer and the poor poorer will never work, as the current financial crisis shows.

Plus, i'm sick of people going on about the lazy freeloaders that get all the money and the hardworking American Farmers, Tradies, manual laborers etc... lose their money. It makes it sounds like its from some sort of fantasy age of empires type scenario. Do you really think the U.S. is that under developed that they wont put measures in place to cater for these problems? :roll::roll:

Regards

Your under age foreign correspondent

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will ask this: take a person who earns a low wage (<£15,000; ~$24,000) compared to a high-waged person (>£30,000; ~$48,000). Does the lower paid person not deserve the same rights as the higher paid person? Does this mean that the lower paid person is thought of less?

Your sentence structure is ambiguous, but both people deserve the same rights, yes. Our discussion is only on which rights those are. :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whoa, wait a minute. Look at all the "great and good" of the world today: look at where they got their riches from: manipulating the world's economies and sucking dry the world's resources - hardly "great and good", huh? Should they count for more than the poor, owing to their wilful misuse of the world's great natural resources and the world money markets? Look at the rich men at the top who have plunged the world into an economic crisis: should they have a greater access to healthcare and other necessities than your hard-working American Average Joe who might actually provide a necessary service? Besides, who would lose money in a socialistic system? Not many, that's who. You pay taxes for a medical system, you don't have to pay $30,000 for that course of expensive drugs. You pay taxes for a welfare system, you don't have to live on nothing but fresh air and whatever any family might have. It makes financial sense as well.

Oh, and Hyrule, everyone pays into a Socialistic system so that everyone can live, and there is no "get out of jail free" card: the system is in place to keep people able to stay out of "jail" by providing amply for everyone. Plus, despite what FOX has told you, a Socialistic government will not negate any accomplishments that you have made: it will merely enable you to get there that little bit healthier, and if you don't get "there", you aren't thrown to the wolves.

Yes, and could someone please tell me the difference between a Socialistic form of governance and a democracy: it seems to me that Socialism is a logical extension of democracy: everyone has an equal say in governance regardless of status or wealth --> everyone has equal access to what have been described as basic human rights. Where is the major difference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, and could someone please tell me the difference between a Socialistic form of governance and a democracy: it seems to me that Socialism is a logical extension of democracy: everyone has an equal say in governance regardless of status or wealth --> everyone has equal access to what have been described as basic human rights. Where is the major difference?

in a democracy without socialism, you get what you earn. and you have a say in everything, like all democracies should be like.

in socialism, you get whats handed to you, but if it is a good system, i guess you get to decide how much you get? I guess you ge your rights regardless of whoever you are, be it bad or good.

I'm all for everyone getting what should be theirs, like Thomas Jefferson said, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but i think you should make that pursuit by yourself, without the help of the government. that's my main thing against socialism. its to easy to do well. there is no challenge. it's like taking a math test, but even if you get every single question wrong, you still get an A or better, so that you don't fail your class.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I, too, vowed not to enter this debate, but here is why I disagree.

it's like taking a math test, but even if you get every single question wrong, you still get an A or better, so that you don't fail your class.

If we are comparing material success to a math test, then surely in this math test those born privileged would already have more marks than others?

its to easy to do well. there is no challenge.

Should living comfortably be a challenge?

I guess you ge your rights regardless of whoever you are, be it bad or good.

Just to clarify, by "rights" we are referring to handouts and health care, and by "bad" we mean "spongers."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's my main thing against socialism. its to easy to do well. there is no challenge.

I do agree, i love the challenge in having to scrounge the money from the christmas savings box, so i can pay for my sons braces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point is that socialism creates a nation with millions of mediocre citizens, and little else, while capitalism creates a nation with some citizens who excel, some who are mediocre, and, yes, some who are below average. Socialism promotes sameness. And it makes everyone into a poor copy of someone else.

The key argument of socialists is that people are generally good and hard-working; I beg to differ.

Read "Nineteen Eighty-Four," by George Orwell. It's socialism taken to its extreme, yes, but that extreme highlights its problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In discussing books such as 1984, We, they deal with totalitarianism. I guess communism and socialism get confusing to some, since China calls itself socialist or Imperialist, and is definitely Communist. They promote sameness, not to be confused with saneness, to those unfortunate to be out of a job or need medical attention. Reminds me of a book, that deals with this time of year (are there no workhouses, are there no prisons?) In dealing with those ill equipped to deal with the real world of capitalism. I love these challenges, and God help those who all of a sudden are out of a comfortable job, and have to provide for their family like most, paycheck to paycheck. I guess they needed a good challenge. :twisted:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read "Nineteen Eighty-Four," by George Orwell.

But, as far as I can remember, the book makes no mention of the core principle of socialism. That was the reason I mentioned Orwell's political views.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read "Nineteen Eighty-Four," by George Orwell.

But, as far as I can remember, the book makes no mention of the core principle of socialism. That was the reason I mentioned Orwell's political views.

"The Party" is run under a governmental and economic structure called "Ingsoc," which is Newspeak for "English Socialism."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"The Party" is run under a governmental and economic structure called "Ingsoc," which is Newspeak for "English Socialism."

He may have made a reference to The Party being socialist, but as far as I know the book only deals with totalitarism to a significant extent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

capitalism= work hard get rewarded, don't work hard, don't get rewarded

socialism= work hard, you get the same as guy who doesn't work hard.

whats the point? life is about earning what you work for. if everything is provided for you, then you don't really have any purpose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
socialism= work hard, you get the same as guy who doesn't work hard.

That depends on the degree of socialism - if you are only talking about socialism to a moderate level, then try telling that to the owners of large European businesses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

capitalism= work hard get rewarded, don't work hard, don't get rewarded PLUS blame everyone else for something, assume someone else will fix it, Destroy a country's economy and countless other economy's, nuke the environment for money. Thats my kind of political ideology :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this