Your opinion: Obvious or not obvious?

[Praetorian_Brow]

I dare to suggest that, to no ones surprise, the political discussion has devolved into the predictable but always fearsome bickering. I motion to close this post.

Although, I will say that I think most people, don't have a grasp on what socialism really is. Its as if all the Cold War propoganda has been swallowed and accepted as dogma. McCarthy syndrome is still very much alive.

[Vort]

Now, this is kind've like the Hitler reference. Out of all the comparisons you could have made, like 'If you ask a nun what she wants...' or 'If you ask a banker what she wants...', you choose a whore. Not that whores don't have wants or needs, of course. But why did you choose that as your example?

Because whores do evil things in a foolish effort to achieve what might otherwise be considered noble ends. Kind of like socialism.

[talisyn]

I found this to be a very good read on the subject Socialism - New World Encyclopedia

[MorningStar]

I actually think the whole unpleasant exchange is Adam's fault.

[Finrock]

Good morning MarginOfError! :)

What isn't clear to me, however, is how exactly we are to determine when they are speaking in their capacity as apostles and when they are not?

I suppose I don't know how to give you advice. I've never struggled with this issue before. As far back as I can remember, determining the difference has always been clear to me.

Regards,

Finrock

[Praetorian_Brow]

Use your brain, or you could pray about everything you have heard. Either way just because they are leaders, doesn't mean they are infallible or prophesying all the time.

[Just_A_Guy]

The ones who fought and died had little say in the form of government we have. They were dead.

I think they knew what they were fighting for. Britain countered that the colonists had "virtual representation" - a notion properly seen as bunk on both sides of the Atlantic.

I am looking around and see no one with guns telling me what I have to do or not do.

If you wanted to do so, could form a lemonade stand and post a message on this thread inviting us to join your business and contribute to operating expenses? No, you'd be violating securities law.

Can you write a book telling me how to start and build a lemonade stand? Technically, in many states, you're selling a "business opportunity" and can be prosecuted.

Can you send a polite letter to the IRS telling them that this year, you'll be sending your tax check to the American Red Cross? Good luck with that.

Can you import and sell traditional, incandescent light bulbs?

Violate any of these, and keep violating them once the Feds have told you to stop - and sooner or later, you'll have your own miniature Waco play out on your own front door.

We have the form of government we have due to compromise, which is not a dirty word.

Please name one long-term compromise the Democratic Party has made to the right on any issue. I'm not talking about short-term concessions it makes to pass a particular piece of legislation while confident that it will re-gain the concession a year or two down the road. I'm talking about a wholesale, permanent abandonment of an integral part of its platform.

That's what you've been demanding of us for decades. It's gotten us sixteen trillion in debt, a mass of Americans who think that their personal needs should be met by somewhere between three and five working-class families, and a slough of politicians who eschew

in favor of demagoguery.

"Compromise" is just newspeak for "Conservatives sit down and shut up". And we're tired of it.

Some day we will put the perfect form of government into effect. Till then we have to work together perfecting what we have now.

Sure, but let's be clear - the perfect form of government does not come into effect by the perfection of the American system. It comes into effect because God Himself personally comes, institutes it, and removes from the system anyone who won't subject themselves to it.

Digging in our heels for any form, but the one with God at its head, is pointless and defeats our own selves.

The American Revolution and Civil War were not "pointless", even though they did not bring about the millennium. A government may not be perfect, but it can be a heckuva lot better than an alternative under consideration and on that score may be worth killing and dying for in its own right.

Working together to improve our government is an ongoing process and one we are very mistaken to shut down.

Darn near half of us don't believe your utopian fantasies constitute a real-world "improvement".

[Vort]

I found this to be a very good read on the subject Socialism - New World Encyclopedia

You realize that in the very first paragraph, your (Wikipedia-copying) source states:

n general practice, [socialism] refers to the use of state force to redistribute wealth.

[volgadon]

Because whores do evil things in a foolish effort to achieve what might otherwise be considered noble ends. Kind of like socialism.

Awesome, Bob. Your superior debate skills have carried the day yet again.

[bythelake]

So where does Bob's duty to use audience-accessible speech leave off and Cathy's duty to understand what is intended pick up?

I think we benefit by seeking both to understand and to present things in an "audience-accessible" way. We are accountable for our approach to both.

But no matter how we present things, someone may take offense or not understand. How "understood" we are will also depend on those hearing/reading. As long as we do our best, we aren't responsible for their lack of understanding.

If we are seeking the truth, and seeking to understand, we have more control over our own ability to understand than we do over whether others understand our viewpoint.

Also, I guess it's important to be prayerful, because it can increase both our ability to understandable and to understand.

[Vort]

Awesome, Bob. Your superior debate skills have carried the day yet again.

Well, at least someone recognizes it.

[Guest Thinker]

I think our duty is to understand first...

Yes, understanding comes before correctly judging something to be healthy or unhealthy, productive or destructive.

Adam was generalizing without complete understanding of the consequences.

As mentioned, Bob was trying to help him realize that the world ending or not is not a logical basis from which to responsibly judge what is best.

[carlimac]

Maybe we need to go back to what Adam said to start this conversation. What was his intent and what did he say that motivated Bob to use an inflammatory example such as Hitler?

This is how I interpret Adam's comment. " I told you so! Nya Nya!" Followed by an entirely unneccesary condescending jab of "The world didn't end." I see Adam as not being completely sure of himself but trying to justify his political choice with an outrageously impossible scenario. I see his comment as a cheap shot- a put down and I think he got what he deserved. Bob responded in kind and Cathy butted her unfortunate nose in. Bob should have just said, "Skeeeuuse me Cathy? Was I talkin' to YOU?"

[Guest]

Please name one long-term compromise the Democratic Party has made to the right on any issue. I'm not talking about short-term concessions it makes to pass a particular piece of legislation while confident that it will re-gain the concession a year or two down the road. I'm talking about a wholesale, permanent abandonment of an integral part of its platform.

I can name 2.

1.) Clinton signing off on the Gingrich Budget.

2.) The Dems signing off on Iraq.

Interestingly, if you listen to the liberal pundits, they say the exact same thing - Dems are always caving in to the Reps while Reps stands firm on "My way or the highway".

[Vort]

I can name 2.

1.) Clinton signing off on the Gingrich Budget.

2.) The Dems signing off on Iraq.

Interestingly, if you listen to the liberal pundits, they say the exact same thing - Dems are always caving in to the Reps while Reps stands firm on "My way or the highway".

At this point, both examples are ancient history. Do you have substantive examples from the past four years?

[Just_A_Guy]

I can name 2.

1.) Clinton signing off on the Gingrich Budget.

2.) The Dems signing off on Iraq.

Interestingly, if you listen to the liberal pundits, they say the exact same thing - Dems are always caving in to the Reps while Reps stands firm on "My way or the highway".

1) Ah, but the Dems got all that spending - and much more - back, in the end. Q.E.D.

2) They didn't "sign off" on it as a group. Lots of them fought it tooth and nail. The Dems voted against the Iraq Use of Force bill by two to one in the House, and just barely broke in favor of the war in the Senate (29-21).

Edited November 11, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

At this point, both examples are ancient history. Do you have substantive examples from the past four years?

The extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010.

Name something the Reps compromised on from the past four years.

[Just_A_Guy]

The extension of the Bush Tax Cuts in 2010.

Name something the Reps compromised on from the past four years.

The Bush tax cuts had sunset provisions specifically built into them because the Dems were planning to renege on the deal in the long term. That's not a compromise; it's just a delay. Tactics like that are why I was careful to phrase my question the way I did.

No Child Left Behind, Medicare-D, and the Department of Homeland Security were compromise positions for conservatives - and each and every one of them has turned out to be a fiscal or individual-liberties train wreck.

[talisyn]

You realize that in the very first paragraph, your (Wikipedia-copying) source states:

n general practice, [socialism] refers to the use of state force to redistribute wealth.

I know, I read that very same sentence.

In case you didn't get that far, here is the last paragraph:

"Humanizing the economy is an ongoing quest, and various forms of religious morality and socialist ideals will continue to promote reform of unjust economic practices. However, economic justice will not be found in a simplistic zero-sum model of dividing the economic pie like communists tried. Rather, it will more likely be based on a positive-sum economic system involving checks and balances on large concentrations of wealth, regulation of corporate behavior, and laws against the collusion of politics and money. The efficiency of the market, the personal fulfillment that can be derived from ownership and entrepreneurship, and the possibilities resident in the mass production of goods and services, can all be integrated into an economic engine for human betterment."

[talisyn]

After reading this post I realized it was merely a vehicle to political arguments, so it's deleted

Edited November 12, 2012 by talisyn

[Vort]

I know, I read that very same sentence.

In case you didn't get that far, here is the last paragraph:

"Humanizing the economy is an ongoing quest, and various forms of religious morality and socialist ideals will continue to promote reform of unjust economic practices. However, economic justice will not be found in a simplistic zero-sum model of dividing the economic pie like communists tried. Rather, it will more likely be based on a positive-sum economic system involving checks and balances on large concentrations of wealth, regulation of corporate behavior, and laws against the collusion of politics and money. The efficiency of the market, the personal fulfillment that can be derived from ownership and entrepreneurship, and the possibilities resident in the mass production of goods and services, can all be integrated into an economic engine for human betterment."

But that paragraph in no sense describes socialism.

[talisyn]

Have you actually asked a real live Socialist what they believe the purpose of Socialism is? \

4123

[Guest]

The Bush tax cuts had sunset provisions specifically built into them because the Dems were planning to renege on the deal in the long term. That's not a compromise; it's just a delay. Tactics like that are why I was careful to phrase my question the way I did.

No Child Left Behind, Medicare-D, and the Department of Homeland Security were compromise positions for conservatives - and each and every one of them has turned out to be a fiscal or individual-liberties train wreck.

JAG, if you want to be really fair about it, then there is no answer to your question - Dems or Reps.

Because - even Obamacare (D) can be considered a compromise position that is a train wreck. Remember, Obama's campaign promise in 2008 is to sign a single-payer Universal Healthcare Bill not this I-dont-even-have-a-name-for-it-train-wreck-of-a-so-called-healthcare-bill that is as far as several democrat lawmakers will go in fear of a Republican wooping at the 2010 elections.

[Guest]

Have you actually asked a real live Socialist what they believe the purpose of Socialism is? \

4123

Everybody knows what the purpose of Socialism is. That's not in question. The question is - Socialism is an idealistic state that expects the good out of every person. Once you put human frailty to govern it, it's deeesazzterrr...

Now, my question to you Talisyn... there is no need to have a government to be socialist. You can practice it in your own home. So... if you really believe in a Socialist ideal, then are you practicing it with your own family?

Because, if you can't make it work in your own family, it's not gonna work anywhere.

[Just_A_Guy]

JAG, if you want to be really fair about it, then there is no answer to your question - Dems or Reps.

Because - even Obamacare (D) can be considered a compromise position that is a train wreck. Remember, Obama's campaign promise in 2008 is to sign a single-payer Universal Healthcare Bill not this I-dont-even-have-a-name-for-it-train-wreck-of-a-so-called-healthcare-bill that is as far as several democrat lawmakers will go in fear of a Republican wooping at the 2010 elections.

Sure, but conservatives are being told they must accept the inevitability of some version of Obamacare in perpetuity even as the left widely views Obamacare as "progress" but continues to fantasize about how to transition that into a single-payer system.

In fact, some of us loons on the right believe that Obamacare is unsustainable by design - that when the whole system comes crashing down we'll be hearing "well, we gave the private sector a shot and it failed, so now - on to completely state-run health care!" (Sort of like they deliberately mischaracterized the 2009 US health care system as a "free market" when in fact the HMOs had turned it into an effectual cartel; and the Democratic administration could have deployed their justice department into trust-busting operations under existing antitrust law but opted not to.)