Argument with a friend over socialism

1. Why would you jump on someone that comes on the site thinking one way and asks a question. And is willing to actually listen to both the sides of the debate and formulate his own opinion, even (especially) when it was the opposite side of the argument he was making? Especially for something that was not even part of the original discussion really, just a small remark? We need more people willing to try to educate themselves, even if they come to a blog site that will almost always give a seriously biased and uneducated opinion!

Well hmm.....

2.

A sound piece of advice. In fact, I teach awareness of audience and alienation in my rhetoric class every spring semester. For students, it's important to speak naturally. But I get to talk like this all day long. It's fun to use words as weapons, but it's not why I do it. Perhaps it is a reflection of my ego, I don't know...

Click to expand...

Sounds like a fun class. And I was about to give you crap for douching on doctorates! I would have received the proverbial bitch-slap for that.

The USA Government is in no way special aside from being one of the most religiously influenced , badly run and corrupted government to stand thoroughly for long in the western world.

The USA now faces billion dollar debts from China and Europe , a healthcare system and public education that rivals 3rd world countries and a steady decline in their interest.

Although i believe in capitalistic welfare or evolving liberal socialism - i think the USA will have to do something much more drastic than a president change...

I await the day when 20% of the nations population ,- Atheist gets to influence your constitution.

hanimmal said:

1. Why would you jump on someone that comes on the site thinking one way and asks a question. And is willing to actually listen to both the sides of the debate and formulate his own opinion, even (especially) when it was the opposite side of the argument he was making? Especially for something that was not even part of the original discussion really, just a small remark? We need more people willing to try to educate themselves, even if they come to a blog site that will almost always give a seriously biased and uneducated opinion!

Well hmm.....

2.

Sounds like a fun class. And I was about to give you crap for douching on doctorates! I would have received the proverbial bitch-slap for that.

Click to expand...

What, you didn't see the after my statement? I've got nothing but love for the Ph.D's. I hear they are the best kind of people around.

jrh72582 said:

Before the recession, England was thriving. Iceland was thriving. Denmark was thriving. France was thriving. Italy was thriving. Switzerland was thriving. They're all socialist.

Click to expand...

Well if you say so but acording to the socialist party you are wrong and youd think THEY would know....lol

Taken from www.socialistparty.org.uk:

Are there any socialist countries in Europe?

Sometimes countries have governments that call themselves 'Socialist,' but they do not carry out genuine socialist policies.
For instance, in the past the Labour Party in Britain was often labeled "socialist". When the Labour Party was in government, people sometimes used to say "We have a socialist government," and even that Britain was socialist.
But this was not true. Labour governments did not go beyond the boundaries of capitalism. The country remained capitalist.
In Spain and in France, and elsewhere around the world there are parties that go by the name of 'Socialist' and they have been elected into government.
When the French Socialist Party was in government, it was called a 'Socialist government', and we were told France had 'gone socialist.' This was not true.
When the Spanish Socialist Party was returned to power in 2004, (because of its opposition to the invasion of Iraq,) it did not and will not bring about a socialist society.
In Germany and other countries, parties going by the name 'Social Democratic' were sometimes referred to as socialist.
But this was not true either.
These countries remained capitalist through and through.

Anonymiss1969 said:

So I started talking to my friend and I said that Obamas healthcare plan is stupid. She disagreed saying, "Id rather pay to help other people than get good healthcare myself and other people get none at all," which then led me to say that history shows that socialism fails in the end. She said she wouldn't mind a socialist america.

The next point I made was that, although America has its flaws, it is the longest lasting government in the history of the world.

Does anyone have any other sides of this that may enlighten me so I better understand both sides of this argument?

Click to expand...

LOL, by your definition of “socialism” you are already living in a socialist country. We have a “socialist” military, education system, highway system, fire departments, etc. We “spread the wealth” every time a road is built, a fire is put out, or an airliner takes off. It’s these “socialistic” programs that made America the first country where the majority of its citizens live in relative comfort.

Right-wingers cry “socialism” in a mindless effort to denounce any progression because it’s so easy to do. Anybody who calls Obama’s health plan “socialism” either doesn’t know what “socialism” is or is banking on their listener’s ignorance.

If you listen to too much Limbaugh or watch too much Fox you would think we are moving towards a single-payer system where the government provides free heath care and everyone’s on the same plan. Sounds good to me, but unfortunately that’s not what we’re talking about.

Basically, Obama’s plan is designed to make sure MORE people can buy PRIVATE insurance by limiting what PRIVATE insurance companies can dump you for. There is also the possibility that we will be able to buy PUBLICALLY-owned insurance, which of course the Republicans don’t like. Essentially, the Republicans are trying to rob us of a choice in our health care plans. Ask yourself this: is having more choices in your health care bad, and if so for whom? Who are the Republicans protecting, you or their campaign contributors?

As far as "Id rather pay to help other people than get good healthcare myself and other people get none at all," this is a misleading statement as well, and I would have to question your motives for including it. Unless you’re wealthy, are you REALLY happy that your level of healthcare is dependent on how much you make? Do you REALLY think that we won’t pay trillions of dollars for healthcare under the current system over your lifetime? Do you REALLY think that people without insurance are going to die instead of going to the emergency room? Are you REALLY happy that you can afford good healthcare and the poor, pampered good-for-nothings can’t?

The Constitution says “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” It’s this “general welfare” clause that allows the government to provide for the basic needs of its citizens: health, security, education, etc. It’s the social programs developed under this clause: social security, welfare, etc., that allowed the United States to reduce the number of citizens living in poverty from over 30% in 1950 to 10% today, and build the largest middle-class in the world. And I, for one, am OK with that. If anything brings down this country, it will be class warfare.

i think the USA will have to do something much more drastic than a president change...

Click to expand...

That is actually what scares me today.

People are getting whipped up by big businesses (control the media/internet) to hate this guy or that guy and don't really have to use any facts other than blogs that they themselves had setup.

What happens when you get a horde of people that are disfranchised (look no further than the conspiracy threads on this board) is that they elect a loon that says everything that they want to hear.

And it is funny because at this point they are thinking that is what happened with Obama, but it is the people that come next. The people that come from the nut factory that scare me. Obama is nothing more than a left leaning moderate. Alex Jones in office could really make a mess.

Dystopia said:

LOL, by your definition of “socialism” you are already living in a socialist country. We have a “socialist” military, education system, highway system, fire departments, etc. We “spread the wealth” every time a road is built, a fire is put out, or an airliner takes off. It’s these “socialistic” programs that made America the first country where the majority of its citizens live in relative comfort.

Right-wingers cry “socialism” in a mindless effort to denounce any progression because it’s so easy to do. Anybody who calls Obama’s health plan “socialism” either doesn’t know what “socialism” is or is banking on their listener’s ignorance.

If you listen to too much Limbaugh or watch too much Fox you would think we are moving towards a single-payer system where the government provides free heath care and everyone’s on the same plan. Sounds good to me, but unfortunately that’s not what we’re talking about.

Basically, Obama’s plan is designed to make sure MORE people can buy PRIVATE insurance by limiting what PRIVATE insurance companies can dump you for. There is also the possibility that we will be able to buy PUBLICALLY-owned insurance, which of course the Republicans don’t like. Essentially, the Republicans are trying to rob us of a choice in our health care plans. Ask yourself this: is having more choices in your health care bad, and if so for whom? Who are the Republicans protecting, you or their campaign contributors?

As far as "Id rather pay to help other people than get good healthcare myself and other people get none at all," this is a misleading statement as well, and I would have to question your motives for including it. Unless you’re wealthy, are you REALLY happy that your level of healthcare is dependent on how much you make? Do you REALLY think that we won’t pay trillions of dollars for healthcare under the current system over your lifetime? Do you REALLY think that people without insurance are going to die instead of going to the emergency room? Are you REALLY happy that you can afford good healthcare and the poor, pampered good-for-nothings can’t?

The Constitution says “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” It’s this “general welfare” clause that allows the government to provide for the basic needs of its citizens: health, security, education, etc. It’s the social programs developed under this clause: social security, welfare, etc., that allowed the United States to reduce the number of citizens living in poverty from over 30% in 1950 to 10% today, and build the largest middle-class in the world. And I, for one, am OK with that. If anything brings down this country, it will be class warfare.

Click to expand...

I don't believe a country is either socialism or not, and I may have seemed to be making that point because I was in somewhat of a heated debate with a close friend of mine. I understand that every government can have aspects of socialism and aspects of capitalism at the same time.

I have absolutely no health care, and Ive spent $400 on doctor bills in the past 3 weeks (strep, mono, broncitis, and a sinus infection :/) so its not about me being able to afford healthcare and thinking I'm better than others.

I had been reading a lot about this healthcare bill and watching videos, appearantly posted by biased people, that said the healthcare bill, if passed, will force all citizens to be on the government healthcare plan.

The "Id rather help other people..." was just to show how the discussion went. Thanks for your input. I grew up extremely poor and had no intention of sounding like I was better than anyone who cant afford healthcare, so if I did, I apologize.

Anonymiss1969 said:

I don't believe a country is either socialism or not, and I may have seemed to be making that point because I was in somewhat of a heated debate with a close friend of mine. I understand that every government can have aspects of socialism and aspects of capitalism at the same time.

I have absolutely no health care, and Ive spent $400 on doctor bills in the past 3 weeks (strep, mono, broncitis, and a sinus infection :/) so its not about me being able to afford healthcare and thinking I'm better than others.

I had been reading a lot about this healthcare bill and watching videos, appearantly posted by biased people, that said the healthcare bill, if passed, will force all citizens to be on the government healthcare plan.

The "Id rather help other people..." was just to show how the discussion went. Thanks for your input. I grew up extremely poor and had no intention of sounding like I was better than anyone who cant afford healthcare, so if I did, I apologize.

Click to expand...

Sorry, I was attacking the right-wing misrepresentations (lies) in general, not you. Well, maybe I was attacking you a little bit

As far as Socialist countries failing, well, there haven't really been any. And every democracy has eventually failed as well.

Press on, + rep for listening to my rants so cordially, and have a great day/night!

hanimmal said:

That is actually what scares me today.

People are getting whipped up by big businesses (control the media/internet) to hate this guy or that guy and don't really have to use any facts other than blogs that they themselves had setup.

What happens when you get a horde of people that are disfranchised (look no further than the conspiracy threads on this board) is that they elect a loon that says everything that they want to hear.

And it is funny because at this point they are thinking that is what happened with Obama, but it is the people that come next. The people that come from the nut factory that scare me. Obama is nothing more than a left leaning moderate. Alex Jones in office could really make a mess.

Click to expand...

Alex Jones would NOT be a good president. He's good at opening eyes and making people question things, but that's about it. He get's too extreme and fanatical now days.

We need someone in office who knows the constitution 110%. Someone who understands all forms of government and why they fail. Someone who is cool, calm, collected, and very wise. Ron Paul is a good choice, but there are other people in this country like him. This Obama character... lol. Where the hell did this guy come from? Does he even know what the consitution says? He has a great smile, and he's a great speaker with telepromters but that's it. When I see him speak it seems that he has no idea what he's talking about.

Opposition against the government is a good when they are comitting high treason. It becomes bad when people get extreme, which is what some are trying to push right now. We need to stay civilized, and make our voices heard. The current administration is trying to push incrediblely unconsitutional legislation on us, congress isn't reading it, and they make great haste as if the world will end if they don't quickly sign it into law. People need to realize this and start bitching at the lawmakers. They are the ones who choose the fate of this country. They NEED to take the time to read the bills. And they definitely need to know that WE THE PEOPLE are watching them.

Anonymiss1969 said:

Rome was around for 800 years, but I don't believe they had the same government the entire duration of its existence. I may be mistaken, but this was told to me by someone with their doctorate, so I believed it.

Click to expand...

wow! this is the problem with america , people being fed bull then go out and spread the crap like its butter.....

what about just taking the parts that work, making them work in our system better. we are americans, if anyone can extract the good parts and improve them it would be us! we can do anything we set our minds to right? overcome great odds because we are americans! dont let the fear mongers use fear as a tool.

Dystopia said:

Sorry, I was attacking the right-wing misrepresentations (lies) in general, not you. Well, maybe I was attacking you a little bit

As far as Socialist countries failing, well, there haven't really been any. And every democracy has eventually failed as well.

Press on, + rep for listening to my rants so cordially, and have a great day/night!

Click to expand...

Dude, its no problem if you were attacking me. I kinda jumped into a debate uneducated. It pisses me off when people do that so Idk why I did.

figtree said:

wow! this is the problem with america , people being fed bull then go out and spread the crap like its butter.....

what about just taking the parts that work, making them work in our system better. we are americans, if anyone can extract the good parts and improve them it would be us! we can do anything we set our minds to right? overcome great odds because we are americans! dont let the fear mongers use fear as a tool.

Click to expand...

I wasn't trying to spread bullshit in an ignorant manner. I was told by my psychiatrist, who has a PhD and tons of history books in his office, so I assumed he would know.

Anon, don't sweat it, to anyone that has actually read this you are smelling like a rose. You seem to keep a good head on your shoulders and try to hear both sides of the debate before you jump in. We all sometimes take things for granted, or heck even mishear or misremember and even misspeak.

We need someone in office who knows the constitution 110%. Someone who understands all forms of government and why they fail. Someone who is cool, calm, collected, and very wise. Ron Paul is a good choice, but there are other people in this country like him. This Obama character... lol. Where the hell did this guy come from? Does he even know what the consitution says? He has a great smile, and he's a great speaker with telepromters but that's it. When I see him speak it seems that he has no idea what he's talking about.

Opposition against the government is a good when they are comitting high treason. It becomes bad when people get extreme, which is what some are trying to push right now. We need to stay civilized, and make our voices heard. The current administration is trying to push incrediblely unconsitutional legislation on us, congress isn't reading it, and they make great haste as if the world will end if they don't quickly sign it into law. People need to realize this and start bitching at the lawmakers. They are the ones who choose the fate of this country. They NEED to take the time to read the bills. And they definitely need to know that WE THE PEOPLE are watching them.

Click to expand...

Obama has a juris doctor from Harvard and taught constitutional law so I think that he has a good grasp of it spending the better part of 6 years studying it.

He is not overreacting to the birth cert people or overreact with North Korea's missle launch. So he seems to be pretty calm and collected to me. Very wise, well I wouldn't go that far without actually talking with him. But he does have great people that are wise around him.

When he is doing his speaches now I actually don't think they are that great, but I do like the Q&A. He definantly knows his stuff and kind of geeks out on some topics which I can appreciate because it shows how much he does actually care for it.


As far as congress not reading the bills, I think that is BS, they all know exactly what is in it because they have dozens of people reading it to them and then they debate it for days before any changes are put in. Then the ones opposed to it can grandstand and pretend that they don't know what is in it only to later pull out the most miunte detail (that totally ignores every other line in that passage that fully explains it being nothing like what they make it out to be) that sounds scary when taken out of context in order to get on the news.

But how would they know that it was in there if they didn't read it? These people all know how they are going to vote before the bill even gets written. There may be a few "moderates" like Olympia Snow that care enough to be willing to adjust their stance and read the bills to pick and chose the things to change. And funny enough they are the ones that actually work hard for us. The people that are lockstep (boehner, pelosi) are going to vote one way or another no matter what.

And the people that think that this is unconstitutional, what does that mean anymore really? The bill is for 3 health insurance plans.

jrh72582 said:

See how easy it is being nice? And I assure you my vocabulary is natural and my sentences formulated on the spot. I could use a more inflated diction if you like. Perhaps some etymological plays on words...pedagogical juxtapositioning...maybe even some dichotomous word play. Trust me, I have quite an arsenal. You engaged an ethos contest with the wrong person.

And BTW, those damn doctorates are never to be trusted.

Click to expand...

I, personally, think that you use the words ethos and pathos too much.

figtree said:

what about just taking the parts that work, making them work in our system better. we are americans, if anyone can extract the good parts and improve them it would be us! we can do anything we set our minds to right? overcome great odds because we are americans! dont let the fear mongers use fear as a tool.

Click to expand...

Egg-fucking-zactly! I think a political system should progress based on science (not some imaginary being), learn from history, and be modified based on what has been shown to work.

Programs should benefit the entire population, not just the elite. I will admit that I don't like the current Obama health plan too much; it's been too hacked up/doesn't go far enough. But I'm arguing the principle, not the program.

And a politican/party should offer a positive vision for the country, not hatred for another philosophy.

The divide between the have's and have not's in this country has been steadily increasing since the Reagan years. It's probably not wise if the poor don't have a stake in the system (e.g. healthcare), especially when they're well-armed. Call Obama's plan socialism if you will; I call it insurance against revolution.

hom36rown said:

I, personally, think that you use the words ethos and pathos too much.

Click to expand...

Shall I finish off the Holy trinity by mentioning logos more or shall I simply dump the terms altogether? You decide.

Dystopia said:

Egg-fucking-zactly! I think a political system should progress based on science (not some imaginary being), learn from history, and be modified based on what has been shown to work.

Programs should benefit the entire population, not just the elite. I will admit that I don't like the current Obama health plan too much; it's been too hacked up/doesn't go far enough. But I'm arguing the principle, not the program.

And a politican/party should offer a positive vision for the country, not hatred for another philosophy.

The divide between the have's and have not's in this country has been steadily increasing since the Reagan years. It's probably not wise if the poor don't have a stake in the system (e.g. healthcare), especially when they're well-armed. Call Obama's plan socialism if you will; I call it insurance against revolution.

Click to expand...

I'm fairly poor (making only 350-500 a week) and I've been attempting to save up so I can get a good grow goin so I can make more money, but I recently got sick and completely wiped out most my savings being sick and off work for 2 weeks, still having to pay bills, and having to pay $400 out of pocket for doctors and prescriptions.

I'd love to get cheap healthcare, it just seems like this plan devised by Obama isn't going to serve the people as well as he's intending it to (or at least thats what people are saying), which is why I started this thread. I am not completely informed so I don't know for sure but this is just what Ive seen.

Anonymiss1969 said:

I am not completely informed so I don't know for sure but this is just what Ive seen.

Click to expand...

I suggest reading this thread.
https://www.rollitup.org/politics/218818-why-everyone-so-afraid-word.html

Very informative.

hanimmal said:

And the people that think that this is unconstitutional, what does that mean anymore really? The bill is for 3 health insurance plans.

Click to expand...

I guess what I'm trying to say is that these bills are leaving broad definitions and loopholes to allow too much control over the people, within the proper circumstances. These bills always turn out to be a double edged sword and it would be nice for the lawmakers to thoroughly read them. It's important to know exactly what the bill says, because if something goes terribly wrong in the country, the law all of a sudden has new meanings that we did NOT agree with. Then they say "Oh, well, it says in this law here, that we are allowed to do this."

I know the congressmen read the bills, but not thoroughly. There's just no way they could gather up all the information about it within 1-2 days. Every word must be understood.

jrh72582 said:

I understand this. Still, America has only had one form of government for 200 or so years and it has changed and amalgamated quite a bit throughout that period. There are hundreds of societies with a single form of government which lasted longer than 200 years. The Roman Empire and the Greek polis are the two most popular, but there were many in the east and hundreds more throughout time. Hell, the aboriginals governed Australia for thousands of years under a type of government (depending on definitions).

And sorry for the mistaken 'n'. Your assumption that my mistake is indicative of low level of education is wholly wrong. If only you knew you presumptuous reactionary dogmatist.
Sorry for the hyperbolic reaction, but your statement reeks of ignorance. Plus, your blind dislike of communism and the statement that it's never worked throughout history are completely wrong. Do you know how many socialist countries have thrived over the years? Communism is merely a form of socialism, as an umbrella term. And I understand you were taught to hate socialism in your schools, churches, and homes, but reality is otherwise. Think for yourself a bit.

Click to expand...

He's right. There are forms of indigenous governance that have lasted quite a long time. Aboriginal justice and indigenous forms of decision making are very interesting if you are into anthropology or history. Search away!

Also, we need to realize that there are words like communism and socialism which have many many sub-factions. Even Marxism has a diverse and multitude of different tendencies which range from the totalitarian (Stalinism) to the democratic and free spirited such as Libertarian Marxism which itself has many tendencies within it.

You say that "pure socialism" always fails. Define what you mean by that! Can I add too that Russia was only a socialist country for about 2-4 years (could be 2, could be 4, can't remember) according to council communists (who are among the libertarian Marxists)?

Every contemporary so-called socialist country has been ruled by authoritarian bureucrats who governed a system known as State-Capitalism. Chavistas at least seem to be making an honest effort but reformism highlights the limited ability of politicians to create and focus change. The power has always been in the people and their self-determination and initiative.

We should all watch a movie called Libertarias about anarchist Spain during the Spanish Civil War. I'll warn you now though there is a rape scene that is quite graphic and disturbing. :/