On September 06 2012 06:45 NonCorporeal wrote: Japan, Singapore, and to a lesser extent, China, have all been adopting capitalism. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government, but it has gotten far out of hand, surely even you can realize that?
They all have never been anything but capitalist. Just state controlled capitalism, even like the USSR was.
I found this hilarious. Democrats just pwned their own delegates. They have been criticized for removing language referring to "God" from the platform and for removing the plank stating that Jerusalem should be considered the capital of Israel. I think they saw that this would hurt them politically and they tried to fix it and this ensued:
Democrat delegates just got pwned by party leadership on that one I'd say.
EDIT: That combined with the move of Obama's speech to a smaller indoor stadium and I would say this has been a bit of a bumpy convention for dems. I expect that this video is gonna make some news in the next 2 days.
EDIT 2: There is no way that was 2/3 vote. That was maybe 50/50 at best.
On September 06 2012 06:45 NonCorporeal wrote: Japan, Singapore, and to a lesser extent, China, have all been adopting capitalism. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government, but it has gotten far out of hand, surely even you can realize that?
...Japan has been a capitalist society since for 70 years. Singapore has been capitalist for so long that many wealthy capitalists go there once they become "big", as it's much more comfortable for businesses there since the government takes care of the businesses that work from there due to socialized spending.
And not really. I don't particularly recall conservatives getting out in the street and marching to the tune of "We hate the PATRIOT Act", despite that being ever more worthy of "big government" criticism. Or the NDAA, for that matter.
On September 06 2012 06:45 NonCorporeal wrote: Japan, Singapore, and to a lesser extent, China, have all been adopting capitalism. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government, but it has gotten far out of hand, surely even you can realize that?
They all have never been anything but capitalist. Just state controlled capitalism, even like the USSR was.
Wow. I suppose if you strip words of their meanings you can make them do anything.
On September 06 2012 06:45 NonCorporeal wrote: Japan, Singapore, and to a lesser extent, China, have all been adopting capitalism. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government, but it has gotten far out of hand, surely even you can realize that?
They all have never been anything but capitalist. Just state controlled capitalism, even like the USSR was.
Wow. I suppose if you strip words of their meanings you can make them do anything.
Capitalism-An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
Socialism-any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
Note the word ANY.
I suggest you read the article "The Rise of State Capitalism" in the Economist, it's pretty good.
On September 06 2012 06:45 NonCorporeal wrote: Japan, Singapore, and to a lesser extent, China, have all been adopting capitalism. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government, but it has gotten far out of hand, surely even you can realize that?
They all have never been anything but capitalist. Just state controlled capitalism, even like the USSR was.
Wow. I suppose if you strip words of their meanings you can make them do anything.
Hey, just quoting Lenin himself. Research his NEP (New Economic Policy).
Direct quote:
The state capitalism, which is one of the principal aspects of the New Economic Policy, is, under Soviet power, a form of capitalism that is deliberately permitted and restricted by the working class. Our state capitalism differs essentially from the state capitalism in countries that have bourgeois governments in that the state with us is represented not by the bourgeoisie, but by the proletariat, who has succeeded in winning the full confidence of the peasantry. Unfortunately, the introduction of state capitalism with us is not proceeding as quickly as we would like it. For example, so far we have not had a single important concession, and without foreign capital to help develop our economy, the latter’s quick rehabilitation is inconceivable.
On September 06 2012 06:51 Savio wrote: I found this hilarious. Democrats just pwned their own delegates. They have been criticized for removing language referring to "God" from the platform and for removing the plank stating that Jerusalem should be considered the capital of Israel. I think they saw that this would hurt them politically and they tried to fix it and this ensued: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg Democrat delegates just got pwned by party leadership on that one I'd say.
He should have just gone ahead after the first vote if that was his plan all along, not ask them to repeat it so much. Also, I don't get why the party really wants to make Jerusalem Israel's capital, I was hoping that they wouldn't get involved in religion at all. I'm all for compromising, but pissing off your party's base probably isn't the right way to do it, coming out and just saying it is.
All this talk about gun control is retarded. Let me give a very realistic view. The people ILLEGALLY takin' lives with ILLEGAL guns will continue to use ILLEGAL guns to kill people even if the regular people are unable to use guns because they are ILLEGAL. The left side (generally speakin') views a perfect, Marxist society that cannot exist. "If we ban guns then there will be no gun murders." That is GREAT thinkin' except that the people that commit murder, gun or otherwise, already disregard society and the same morale values you do. You won't be stoppin' anythin'. If anythin' you are empowerin' them to be less afraid, they will have no opposition other than authority figures, which they already despise and go against. Fifth grade logic should make this obvious.
Should insurance companies be allowed to deny people coverage? Yes, they are a BUSINESS not a RIGHT. If a company covers you, they are providin' you with money. Insurance is a low risk high profit business, they don't want to go into high risk because then profit decreases. Insurance isn't out to save lives and protect the world, they are doin' what EVERY BUSINESS should do and that means increasin' profits.
How the hell do we even pay for government health care? Where does the money come from? We are already in massive amounts of national debt. Either we borrow money from somewhere, how do we pay it back; or we increase taxes to cover the costs, or pay back the borrowed money.
I'm probably goin' to be called an immoral bastard or somethin' along those lines because obviously I don't care about the well bein' of someone less fortunate. The truth? I really don't give two shits about someone who was denied insurance and don't expect my government to be a white knight about it. Do I agree with Romney completely? Never. Do I agree with Obama ever. Never. Do I occasionally agree with Romney, yes. The past four years this country has suffered are by far the worst in our history. Obama will replace Carter as the worst president ever. I can't believe people actually still ride the Obama train when even Bush has proven to be far superior to anythin' Obama has done.
And by the way, note on the "war" in the Middle East. Bush never declared war and nor has Congress. Congress approved the troops bein' sent overseas in an overwhelmin' vote by BOTH parties. This wasn't a Bush thing, this was the entire government. Bush's only mistakes were "No Student Left Behind" and "The Patriot Act", otherwise he did a decent job durin' his presidency.
On September 06 2012 06:45 NonCorporeal wrote: Japan, Singapore, and to a lesser extent, China, have all been adopting capitalism. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government, but it has gotten far out of hand, surely even you can realize that?
...Japan has been a capitalist society since for 70 years. Singapore has been capitalist for so long that many wealthy capitalists go there once they become "big", as it's much more comfortable for businesses there since the government takes care of the businesses that work from there due to socialized spending.
And not really. I don't particularly recall conservatives getting out in the street and marching to the tune of "We hate the PATRIOT Act", despite that being ever more worthy of "big government" criticism. Or the NDAA, for that matter.
Japan has been a capitalist society but their government was highly, highly involved in business and trade, obstructing free-market trade for the better part of those 70 years. It's less regulated now (as they were pressured by the U.S. into relaxing government regulation) but the reason for their economic miracle was because the government had such a large role shaping the economy/business.
On September 06 2012 06:51 Savio wrote: I found this hilarious. Democrats just pwned their own delegates. They have been criticized for removing language referring to "God" from the platform and for removing the plank stating that Jerusalem should be considered the capital of Israel. I think they saw that this would hurt them politically and they tried to fix it and this ensued: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg Democrat delegates just got pwned by party leadership on that one I'd say.
Haha. Looks like some genius in the leadership figured out that the morons making the party platform had given Florida away to Romney. I can't say that I am surprised at all by these changes.
On September 06 2012 06:05 NonCorporeal wrote: @dvorakftw
It's hilarious when Democrats say they are "pro-choice," yet they insist on banning guns, banning "unhealthy" food, forcing everyone to join trade unions, etc.
It's hilarious when Republicans say they are "pro-life", yet they insist on relaxed gun laws and unregulated gun sales, repealing health care regulations so that insurers can deny or limit everyone's coverage, and force everyone to pay for a brutal 11-year war in Iraq without just cause.
See what I did there? Eh? Eh?
All of the evidence shows that gun control increases crime, especially murder rates; both in the United States and Europe. Every time the socialists try to implement gun control, it results in higher murder rates, if anything, supporting gun control means you're pro-death.
As for healthcare, how does asking that people stand on their own two feet instead of begging for handouts make you pro-death? I could just as easily argue the same about socialist healthcare, since socialist healthcare is of such an attrocious quality that people die from lack of quality care. Also, socialist countries don't allow for people with "expensive" treatments to live, there's a reason America is the only country with "million dollar babies."
I'm against the Iraq War, but you can't compare a soldier killing the enemy in a war to being pro-death. By that logic, left-wing politicians are pro-death too; Obama supported Libya, LBJ supported Vietnam, FDR supported WW2, Woodrow Wilson supported WW1, Jefferson Davis supported the Civil War, etc.
I'm simply pointing out how your original characteristic was simplistic, and based on caricature and generalities -- and responded in kind.
As a 'Democrat' or moderately Liberal person, allow me to address some of you arguments.
Not "all evidence" shows that gun control increases crime. Actually, the instances of gun related death and injury in Canada is much lower than in the States. At the same time, I believe Canada's gun laws have been in place and consistent since the 1970's, and that the US has a much different problem that can't simply be solved by 'banning guns', due to the amount of guns already in circulation (as a side note, most illegal guns in Canada and Mexico originate from the States, so thanks motherfuckers).
I do think there is a distinct difference between gun control and the right to bear arms. I actually think that any law-abiding citizen should be able to own a gun. But I also feel the 'barrier for entry' to purchase a gun is too low -- it's way to easy for any idiot to get a gun -- and the laws that are in place are poorly enforced. The lack of consistency state to state is hugely problem-matic. For example, in some municipalities you can buy an assault rifle from a store -- but folding and bowie knives are outlawed entirely.
I'm sure that there are plenty of responsible gun owners in the states that deplore idiots as I do, and to me the poor legislation and enforcement of gun control in the states is a disservice to them. So I'm neither Anti-or-Pro gun, I'm anti-Stupid-People.
In Canada, we have socialized medicine, and as a result we have a longer life expectancy, lower infant mortality rate, and lower abortion rate than the states. Trust me, just because you have socialized medicine does not mean you live in a communist hell hole where people are dying on the streets. If anything, people go to the doctor more regularly in Canada, because it's free and available.
And I can't think of a single 'expensive treatment' that has been denied to me or any of my friends and family. I have on the other hand been recommended not to undergo frivolous diagnostic tests or take unnecessary prescription drugs. One of the reasons why healthcare insurance is so much more expensive in the states is because providers have incentives to 'sell' patients services they don't need.
For example, a diagnostic MRI on a sore knee, for a person that weighs 240 lbs -- the diagnosis is that you're fat, stupid, so your knee fucking hurts. But it's not that hard for healthcare providers to use your health as leverage, and gouge patients and insurers. Which leads to another problem with an unregulated, free health care market -- providers billing different insurers different amounts for the exact same services, to maximize profitability.
Yeah, these 36(?) countries ahead of you have settled all their other diffrences to come together and created a great conspiracy to make the american health care system look bad.
On September 06 2012 06:45 NonCorporeal wrote: Japan, Singapore, and to a lesser extent, China, have all been adopting capitalism. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government, but it has gotten far out of hand, surely even you can realize that?
...Japan has been a capitalist society since for 70 years. Singapore has been capitalist for so long that many wealthy capitalists go there once they become "big", as it's much more comfortable for businesses there since the government takes care of the businesses that work from there due to socialized spending.
And not really. I don't particularly recall conservatives getting out in the street and marching to the tune of "We hate the PATRIOT Act", despite that being ever more worthy of "big government" criticism. Or the NDAA, for that matter.
Japan has been a capitalist society but their government was highly, highly involved in business and trade, obstructing free-market trade for the better part of those 70 years. It's less regulated now (as they were pressured by the U.S. into relaxing government regulation) but the reason for their economic miracle was because the government had such a large role shaping the economy/business.
In spite of, not because. But hey, if Obama gets re-elected maybe America can get our own Lost Decade.
On September 06 2012 06:45 NonCorporeal wrote: Japan, Singapore, and to a lesser extent, China, have all been adopting capitalism. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some government, but it has gotten far out of hand, surely even you can realize that?
...Japan has been a capitalist society since for 70 years. Singapore has been capitalist for so long that many wealthy capitalists go there once they become "big", as it's much more comfortable for businesses there since the government takes care of the businesses that work from there due to socialized spending.
And not really. I don't particularly recall conservatives getting out in the street and marching to the tune of "We hate the PATRIOT Act", despite that being ever more worthy of "big government" criticism. Or the NDAA, for that matter.
Japan has been a capitalist society but their government was highly, highly involved in business and trade, obstructing free-market trade for the better part of those 70 years. It's less regulated now (as they were pressured by the U.S. into relaxing government regulation) but the reason for their economic miracle was because the government had such a large role shaping the economy/business.
In spite of, not because. But hey, if Obama gets re-elected maybe America can get our own Lost Decade.
On September 06 2012 06:51 Savio wrote: I found this hilarious. Democrats just pwned their own delegates. They have been criticized for removing language referring to "God" from the platform and for removing the plank stating that Jerusalem should be considered the capital of Israel. I think they saw that this would hurt them politically and they tried to fix it and this ensued: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cncbOEoQbOg Democrat delegates just got pwned by party leadership on that one I'd say.
Haha. Looks like some genius in the leadership figured out that the morons making the party platform had given Florida away to Romney. I can't say that I am surprised at all by these changes.
I'm not entirely sure why they changed the language of the platform in the first place.
To be honest I think both parties platforms are riddled with goofy-wording. Politicians need to learn how to fucking write.
On September 06 2012 07:01 Troxle wrote: All this talk about gun control is retarded. Let me give a very realistic view. The people ILLEGALLY takin' lives with ILLEGAL guns will continue to use ILLEGAL guns to kill people even if the regular people are unable to use guns because they are ILLEGAL. The left side (generally speakin') views a perfect, Marxist society that cannot exist. "If we ban guns then there will be no gun murders." That is GREAT thinkin' except that the people that commit murder, gun or otherwise, already disregard society and the same morale values you do. You won't be stoppin' anythin'. If anythin' you are empowerin' them to be less afraid, they will have no opposition other than authority figures, which they already despise and go against. Fifth grade logic should make this obvious.
Should insurance companies be allowed to deny people coverage? Yes, they are a BUSINESS not a RIGHT. If a company covers you, they are providin' you with money. Insurance is a low risk high profit business, they don't want to go into high risk because then profit decreases. Insurance isn't out to save lives and protect the world, they are doin' what EVERY BUSINESS should do and that means increasin' profits.
How the hell do we even pay for government health care? Where does the money come from? We are already in massive amounts of national debt. Either we borrow money from somewhere, how do we pay it back; or we increase taxes to cover the costs, or pay back the borrowed money.
I'm probably goin' to be called an immoral bastard or somethin' along those lines because obviously I don't care about the well bein' of someone less fortunate. The truth? I really don't give two shits about someone who was denied insurance and don't expect my government to be a white knight about it. Do I agree with Romney completely? Never. Do I agree with Obama ever. Never. Do I occasionally agree with Romney, yes. The past four years this country has suffered are by far the worst in our history. Obama will replace Carter as the worst president ever. I can't believe people actually still ride the Obama train when even Bush has proven to be far superior to anythin' Obama has done.
And by the way, note on the "war" in the Middle East. Bush never declared war and nor has Congress. Congress approved the troops bein' sent overseas in an overwhelmin' vote by BOTH parties. This wasn't a Bush thing, this was the entire government. Bush's only mistakes were "No Student Left Behind" and "The Patriot Act", otherwise he did a decent job durin' his presidency.
you aren't a immoral bastard, just so biased to the point that you can actually say bush did a decent job and obama came by and screwed it over.
Should insurance companies be allowed to deny people coverage? Yes, they are a BUSINESS not a RIGHT. If a company covers you, they are providin' you with money. Insurance is a low risk high profit business, they don't want to go into high risk because then profit decreases. Insurance isn't out to save lives and protect the world, they are doin' what EVERY BUSINESS should do and that means increasin' profits.
Do you feel that the Government should continue to force health care providers, by law, to provide emergency care to the uninsured. If so, than how are you paying for it? Why should someone with a bursting appendix get a free ride?
Forcing people to buy insurance and increasing the risk pool is actually GREAT for the insurance business and their profitability, allows them to provide better coverage, and lowers the cost of health care for everyone overall.
Without the individual mandate, the risk and liability of insuring people increases, forcing insurers them to put limits on coverage and deny certain consumers. And the cost will always stay high, because the market that insurers needs to capture the most to offset their risks -- young, healthy people that seem to think they are immortal -- have less incentive to buy insurance.
The individual mandate is actually a very conservative solution to America's broken healthcare system.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hbUSg.png)
