The problem with Universal Healthcare as Hillary F**king Clinton wanted it is that it turns the whole country into one big HMO. The last two decades have proven that HMOs don't work. I would like to see us return to a system where there is no insurance coverage for minor ailments and only have coverage for major medical such as surgery or traumatic accidents and everything else you pay for out of your pocket. Does anyone have any idea how many Medicaid and HMO patients pour into Emergency Departments and clinics daily demanding treatment for minor crap. I mention Medicaid because in order to get government contracts HMOs are forced to accept a quota of Medicaid patients.
While we at it why do they keep reforming Medicare and cutting benefits while expanding benefits and coverage for Medicaid ?
Basically if you work your whole life and pay taxes and Medicare payments you get to retire and continue to pay Medicare premiums for insurance that hardly covers anything. Yet if you have never gotten off your lazy butt and never paid a penny of taxes you get awarded with a lifetime entitlement of Medicaid coverage which is a red carpet to anything you can dream up to demand from the health care system. All you have to do is march into the doctors office who was forced to accept you and make enough noise until he gives you what you want so you will go away. When Medicare patients don't get what they are allowed they have to go through months of appeals until they finally give up and just pay the bill themselves.
The insurance industry is the only entity that profits from the whole mess. Everybody else, the medical provider, the patient and the taxpayer suffers.

Albert Einstein was a great man and genius but was
also poor in spelling common english words. He almost flunked several subjects during his student days.
You guys get too personal in your retorts with people whose ideas you don't agree with ( see post
"Remember these immortal words"). Ideas and thoughts are just that, they are not the person or his actions. Often young people, especially students, are in the process of finding their true values simply by trying out different ways of thinking or seeing things as you might try on a suit.
Beliefs tend to change with time and experience and people tend to become more conservative as they age. I once went to a Halloween party as a "Young Republican", now thats scary. Why ? Because by nature young people aren't supposed to be Republican or conservative. They naturally are liberal and idealistic. I will be forever grateful that during the 60s and 70s young women had very liberal and idealistic beliefs especially regarding sex. Not every belief has to be supported by undisputed fact for it to be valid (see post"The Art of Peace")Any good trial lawyer can convince a jury from either side of the question depending on what suits his need. Point I'm making is if you want to win hearts and minds to your view, that old adage "grab them by the balls and their minds will follow" only works for the Green Berets and street fighting.
"The Wards is a very clever family indeed. I believe we are descended from the Puritans who nobly fled a land of despitism to a land of freedim, where they could not only enjoy their own religion, but prevent everybody else from enjoying his."
-Artemus Ward 1866, The London Punch Letters

I loved the debate! You guys make me proud to be an American! Thanks again for the great read.

NR

Good post. You did generalize quite a bit but your main point is one I do agree with. However, you can't say that people become conservative as they age because we have plenty of older liberals in our society. They hold the majority in the senate and even hold close to half in the house. We also had a liberal president for 8 years who was loved by the majority in this nation, even after his crime. We also had a vice president (liberal) who ran for president and won the popular votes. Tells you a little something about where the largest group of people stand. So its insulting to assume that being a liberal to like trying on a suit and assuming that it won't fit down the road.

Remember, we all see life from different angles and different experiences which makes us all unique. I guess its true what they say about photographers. Pictures are the only time when people can actually see the very same thing from the very same angle. And even then, two people will come out with two different interpretation of what they saw. However, the man who is opened to all sides is the man who will be able to formulate thought in the most purest of forms.

I'll be the first to admit that I have a lot to learn as do all of us do. But let me also point out that age and experience are not the sole prerequisites for attaining wisdom. Some of the oldest people with the most life experiences turn out to be the most ignorant people on God's green earth. What makes you truly wise is how you learn from those experiences and apply them. And curiosity is the first step to gaining wisdom.

So for the few who criticize my spelling and fail to miss the concept, I tell you to go back and at least explore a little deeper and truly think about where we are, where we're headed, and see if it is in tune with what is just for our people and our nation. I'm not saying that I am right or wrong, all I am saying is that we as a country have real problems covered up by the few who benefit from those problems. If you can at least see that, then your on the road to being the solution, not the problem.

Info,

When you say that our previous vice president won the popular vote, I wonder if you realize that our system of election was designed for this exact possibility. It is for similar reasons that each state has representatives based on their population and 2 senators from each. This provides the balance between various deomographics.

If you look at the election results you will find that more states, more counties, more districts, etc. voted for our current president. The vast majority of the US voted for Bush while the major cities voted for Gore. This effect is also seen in many of the legislative voting on bills in Congress. The idea being that the lesser populated states may be overrun in the House yet they have equal say in the Senate.

I won't even comment on our previous commander-in-heat. I find it dis-heartening that you would use a worthless example as him in your debate. The only reason he appeared to be "loved" was his never-ending promises to give everthing to everyone but provided nothing to noone.

I too enjoyed reading this debate, my thanx to Info and Marty!

It's not hard to understand why their are so many elected liberal democrats(not all democrats are liberal). The phrase is "Nobody ever shot Santa Claus." Why not elect people who tell you they'll give you everything. Higher minimum wage, more social security, universal health care, free universal child care, free drug prescriptions, free computers (remember Info-Stamps)...on and on. The best part is they'll tell you that you'll get all this and a tax cut because we're going to sock it to the wealthy. Dick Gephart actually said he believes the wealthy are "the winners of lifes lottery." Exactly Dick-no wealthy person ever EARNED their money so they don't deserve to have it!

All these gifts have two things in common. They continue our march down the road to socialism and they are all just a form of legalized theft.
If one of our founding fathers ran for election today he wouldn't stand a chance. I can only imagine the words the press would use to describe him.

Campaign slogan:

Give me liberty or give me "free healthcare, free retirement, free drugs, free food, free housing, free education, free legal, .....

Don't confuse socialism with communism.

Socialism isn't about free anything, it's about everyone in society working together to make sure the weakest links don't drag everyone else down and the strongest links don't trample on the civil rights that are all ready in place. It isn't about redistribution of wealth or the limiting of capitalism, it's about making sure everyone has a voice and that education and talent have as much value as family connections and wealth.

I don't get them socialism and communism confused although they are two sides of the same coin and neither work!

Socialism: a political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles

So let's see, since market principles are the foundation of capitilism I would say the two are completely uncompatible.

And indeed if we look further into it:. stage between capitalism and communism: in Marxist theory, the stage after the proletarian revolution when a society is changing from capitalism to communism, marked by pay distributed according to work done rather than need

<slowly shaking his head>

Marty,

While you give us outmoded and simplistic academic explanations that have never worked to explain the world in which we live, the rest of the world moves ahead, inexorably, on its inevitable trek towards a global cooperative.

It will be either a world governed by people who view each other as neighbors, or a world run by corporations with all of their goodwill and humanistic intentions. It's not your choice, but you can still choose which side you believe is right.

<<<Socialism: a political system of communal ownership: a political theory or system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the people and operated according to equity and fairness rather than market principles>>> --- Wrong generalization. What you are talking about in your definition is communism because your implying that in socialism "ALL" means of production and distribution is controlled by the people. In socialism, that is not the case at all.

But anyhow, you talk about the people on top earning their way there. So then, allow me to set up two scenarios for you and tell me if both are fair.

Imagine if you will a child produced from a wealthy family. This child grows up in a neighborhood with other fortunate people around him. He goes to a very expensive private school where the average class size is 15 students. He is watched over very thoroughly as he progresses through school and is helped every step of the way by the best teachers, the best counselors, and the brightest student peers. From this private school, he opts for and goes on to an equally good private high school just like the rest of his peers. He excels in math, science, and reading and then applies to and get accepted to colleges like NYU, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc etc. This child has the means to pay the high tuition because his family can and will dish out the money for it. So he graduates college and starts an entry level position in a prestigious business where he is on the road to being master of the universe.

In scenario two, you have a child who grows up in a low income household and goes to a public school where all the poor children attend. Class sized are anywhere from 40 to 50 students. The child feels lost in the crowd and fails to learn anything thoroughly. And teachers and counselors can't pick up on his poor performance because there are just too many kids to look after that this one particular child ends up lost in the crowd or "slips through the cracks" so to speak. He ends up graduating and going to a failing public high school because his family doesn't have the means to put him in a small private learning environment. He continues to do worse and drops out of high school because he's never properly advised as to the importance of a good education. Hopefully he realizes he needs to work so he applies and gets a job at Mcdonalds. But usually at this point, he's already learned from the streets and is probably a drug addict, dealer (only way to make a real buck), or even a father of kids that he cannot afford (another generation of the same process). And most likely he is Spanish speaking or black.

So in both those scenarios, you think the first child truly earned his way to the top??? Or was he given the tools for success at birth? Do you think if we placed child #2 in the life of child #1, the outcome would be different for him? I certainly do. Gives new meaning to earning your way to the top don't you think? Sound like both got a fair shot at life?

Something else you should also consider is that while communism or even socialism is the extreme on the left, pure capitolism is also another extreme but on the right. Howver, the answer does lie somewhere in the center; a free market society (so capitolism can flurish) but with basic understanding that in order to have fair competition, people need basic tools to even out the playing field so we all have a fair chance to succeed. That is still capitolism my friend.

Imagine if two people compete in a 3 mile race. 1 starts 1 mile ahead and because of that advantage, he is declared the winner. Does he deserve the honor?

One last point I want to make is that we are becoming a more liberal nation by the decade. If you compare where we are now to where we were in the 50s, you can see the clear change. So Marty and all who are conservative (who like to conserve our troubled history), if you don't agree with the way things are turning out, you might have to just get used to it because that is where things are moving. And for every 2 steps forward we take, even conservatives move 1 step.

Think of the military past and present to understand this example.

I get so tired of hearing about the poor, disadvantaged people not having a chance. This has to be the poorest example I have ever seen.

I am one of those kids. I was lost in the crowds and didn't complete HS. I then made a choice to enter the military instead of the other alternatives you mentioned. I chose a real challenge in becoming CCT. I also earned a bachelors degree so I would have a better ability to provide for my family. I work hard to give my children a better chance than I was given. This is true equal opportunity. A lesson I learned from CCT is the ability of "mind over matter".

Notice the amount of "I"s in the above sentences. This is what freedom is to me. The ability to have personal responsibility for my actions and accept responsibility for the consequences. This also includes the responsibility to respect the rights of others. This would not be possible under socialism or communism nor your fair play capitalism.

BTW, you should look at a map of the US and see how much of the country is truly liberal. Some major population centers on the east and west coast primarily while over 80% of the country is still conservative.

You forgot 3 & 4

In scenario three, you have a child who grows up in a low income household and goes to a public school where all the poor children attend. Class sized are anywhere from 40 to 50 students. The child feels lost in the crowd but wants to learn. And teachers and counselors can't pick up on his poor performance because there are just too many kids to look after that this one particular child ends up lost in the crowd or "slips through the cracks" so to speak. But, this child has parents who take responsibility, and realize that the child's education begins in the home. He ends up graduating and going to a failing public high school because his family doesn't have the means to put him in a small private learning environment, but they (the parents) continue to teach him at home. He continues to do far above his peers (which should be easy since the rest are so poor, right?) and chooses to go to the underused public library because his parents have instilled the importance of a good education. Hopefully he realizes he needs to work so he applies and gets a job at Mcdonalds, while attending college. At this point, he's already learned from the streets that he could be a drug addict (but chooses not to be), drug dealer (only way to make a real buck, especially if you have no respect for your fellow man), or even a father of kids that he cannot afford but will work extra hard to raise them while getting his college education.

Scenario 4:
Imagine if you will a child produced from a wealthy family. This child grows up in a neighborhood with other fortunate people around him. He goes to a very expensive private school where the average class size is 15 students. He is watched over very thoroughly as he progresses through school and is helped every step of the way by the best teachers, the best counselors, and the brightest student peers. From this private school, he opts for and goes on to an equally good private high school just like the rest of his peers. He excels in math, science, and reading and then applies to and get accepted to colleges like NYU, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, Stanford, MIT, etc etc. This child has the means to pay the high tuition because his family can and will dish out the money for it. So he graduates college and starts an entry level position in a prestigious business where he is on the road to being master of the universe. On this road, he becomes a heroin addict because he likes to party, can afford it, and work "stresses him out" (especially when he finds out that he works with and for a man who wasn't given everything). His employer is the kid in scenario #3 who worked his way through life, the one who appreciates the value and importance of family and hard work, and who doesn't expect life to be given to him on a silver platter.

Todd,

How would you define the people that caused the aircraft to hit the towers or the Pentagon?

I call them terrorists and use the dictionary to ensure I am using the correct definition of the word.

terrorist:
NOUN: One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
ADJECTIVE: Of or relating to terrorism.

terrorism:
NOUN: The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

Without definitions then neither written nor verbal communication is possible!

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Flame:
<strong>This is what freedom is to me. The ability to have personal responsibility for my actions and accept responsibility for the consequences. This also includes the responsibility to respect the rights of others. This would not be possible under socialism or communism nor your fair play capitalism.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Jym,

Socialism doesn't mean the forfeitfure of personal responsibility. On the contrary, it is linchpin on which Socialism revolves and it demands each person to carry their own weight. Personal and social responsibility are what defines Socialism. It allows for talent and motivation to be the significant factor in success.

Socialism does mean the capable have carry the lion's share of the work (just like in the U.S.), but it also means that no one has the right to drop out of society and be dead weight. Work isn't a priviledge in Socialism, it's an expectation that everyone is obligated to.

Personal responsibility is the linchpin upon which Socialism revolves. In a free-market (a term which is very quickly, if it hasn't already, becoming obsolete with the growth of global corporate welfare and cooperation) economy personal responsibility extends to the right of each person to do whatever the hell they want. Which is BS, of course. No one has the right to trample on my civil or political rights or to inject their selfishness into my life, which is what Socialism protects. The people within the the society as a whole are more important than any one individual.

(On a lighter note, Go Ducks!)

The only people whining about the inequality of the American system are the people whose ancestors came long ago. You don't hear immigrants ranting about it because they come from places where opportunity is a dream. My girlfriends father came to this country from India with nothing and now he has his own medical practice. He is a firm believer in capitalism and a fierce supporter of the republican party.

The only people that really appreciate this country seem to be the ones that came here a short time ago.

This country is not getting more liberal, Fox news is proof. The commies at CNN are dying for ratings. This country now has honor in leadership again and the people love it.

Oh, and by the way, Socialism didn't work. Get over it.

Imaging Todd as some former idealist student, WTO demonstrator who doesn't even know what he's demonstrating about, and slowly shaking his head;

Todd,

I just put down what the dictionary defines socialsm as, I didn't make those up off the top of my head.

Since you have so much respect for Socialism why not take a look to where it was actually practiced, namely in Central and Eastern Europe as recently as the 1980's.

The socialist ideology promised equality, fraternity, and prosperity. Did it keep its promise? Did it deliver equality? No! Many people in the West used to say, "Well, yes, of course they wait in lines in Poland or the Soviet Union, but they have a sense of solidarity; they are more equal; there is less income disparity." (Sound familiar Todd and Info?)That's nonsense. If you compare the standard of living of the average citizen of East Germany, the richest of the fraternal nations of the socialist camp, with that of the party members who lived in Wandlitz, the neighborhood of the party elite, you find incredible disparities of income. Similarly, if you look at the 22 palaces of the Ceaucescu family in Romania, or the sports complexes in Bulgaria that were only for members of the Zhivkov family, or the dachas of the Soviet party elite, you find more inequality than in the market societies of the West.

The second promise of socialism was fraternity: everyone would live together as one big, happy family. But in fact, the fight over a shrinking economic pie generates a lot more hostility than is found in a system with property rights and market exchange. Often after waiting in line for hours for a bar of soap, clothing, shoes, and so on, would-be consumers in Moscow get to the front of the line only to have the window closed on them and be told, "Go away; we have no more." Among the first things one sometimes hears is grumbling about the "damn Jews"-they are the ones who get all the goods-or the Armenians, or the Azerbaijanis, or whomever. Communism was supposed to subsume such malicious forms of nationalism, but it clearly failed.

And the third promise, prosperity? Socialism not only did not produce prosperity, it produced mass poverty.

Of course Todd's perfect form of socialism will work in his head because when he runs it there he doesn't have to deal with any of the real world problems it causes. Every system of government sounds great in theory but theories fail to take into account the failings of people.

Capitalism always loses when compared to the promises of communism and socialism. Why? Because you're comparing a system that exists on earth, warts and all, with a utopia, something that doesn't exist on earth. But compared to economic systems that actually exist on earth, capitalism wins hands down.

Todd, instead of looking at how great the living conditions would be if we were in a socialistic Eden, let's look at the dying conditions of the real world socialist/communist states.

The former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics is the world's premier murderer. Between 1917 and 1987, the USSR murdered 65 million people. Red China comes in second place with a murder count of 35 million. That number is being revised upward with more information coming out of China. If we include Cambodia, North Korea, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Romania, Yugoslavia and other socialist/communist countries, the murder toll exceeds 97 million people. These are not victims of war but murder, or what some researchers call democide and genocide. Yet we have no memorials to the people killed by these regimes. We focus instead on the evil Hitler and his Nazi party.

Between 1934 and 1987, an estimated 12,000 South African blacks lost their lives at the hands of the South African government. Everyone has roundly condemned South Africa which is one of the few Representative forms of government in the region. Between 1966 and 1979, Nigeria murdered over 400,000 of its own citizens; between 1975 and 1987, Mozambique murdered 200,000; between 1960 and 1987, Uganda murdered 579,000; between 1956 and 1987, the Sudan murdered over a million. Since 1960, over 2.2 million black Africans have been murdered by their own governments. But for people on the left it seems that only the 12,000 blacks murdered by South African whites that count.

Communism and socialism is seductive. It promises us that people will contribute according to ability and receive according to needs. Everybody is equal. Everybody has a right to decent housing, decent food and affordable medical care. History should have taught us that when we hear people talk this stuff -- watch out!

Look at the forms of socialism we have in our country. Welfare-forty plus years of throwing money that's taken from the workers and given to the (really quite well off) poor. Seems to me that poverty still exists. The root of poverty lies in the value system of the cronically poor (as opposed to those of us who have worked our way out of that state).

Social Security--if it's not privatized in the near future our grandchildren will face a tax rate of somewhere between 60-80%.

All of these social programs sound great but they don't work.

Here another line from Info--"Howver, the answer does lie somewhere in the center; a free market society (so capitolism can flurish) but with basic understanding that in order to have fair competition, people need basic tools to even out the playing field so we all have a fair chance to succeed."---Let me think for a minute, this reminds me of a country here on earth...oh yes-it's America.

Todd-We don't have a true free market economy, we have a highly government regulated bastardized version. Once again, the theory is much different than the actual practice.

Why do I get the feeling that debating with Todd will be just about as tough as it was with Info.

I am posting now because I can't help but respond to the tired "example" used by Info to illustrate the poor, helpless, downtrodden Americans that seem to be the focus of every entitlement program started since the '70s. The wealthy, privelaged child vs. the poor, marginalized one; it is a favorite example used by those in acedemia and (some) democrats who are, by and large, from the former category and with little or no experience of the latter.
Here is my problem with the above example, aswell as the way that Info seems to be arguing his points (so called "logic"): A number of assumptions are made, and instead of treating them as logical possibilities they are given the weight of solitary facts. These are then threaded together in the form of a logical, infalliable progression and pawned off as the only possible outcome. Specifically, I take issue with the assertion that:

-It is impossible to succeed in a large classroom
-Students in large classrooms who have trouble with material are without any options
-Children in large public schools, not learning, MUST "slip through the cracks."
-That parents have no role in the education of their children, it is only the role of the schools.
-That lacking money for private education at a major university precludes any education at all
-That a lack of formal education necessitates a minimum wage job for the rest of one's natural life,
-And most importantly, that this ALL must logically lead to a life of crime and poor decisions.

These are NOT logical tautologies, as much as some people would like you to believe, and people from humble beginnings who work hard, better themselves and suceed are NOT some freak exception to the rule.

Even worse than the above example is the way in which these types of arguments are framed. A discussion about welfare, health-care, etc. are unfortuately aways twisted around as attacks on one's level of compassion for other human beings. Do you belive in welfare? NO? Then you think that the wealthy should become fat while everyone else should starve in the streets! Hillary Clinton's Universal Health Care proposal? NO? You then think that poor, inner city children deserve to die of menengitus and TB while rich, white kids play soccer in suburbia! Affirmative action? YOU DON'T? Then you must think that minorities should be barred from higher education and high level jobs while privilaged Americans continue to widen the economic gap! Etcetera, etcetera. Pitting have's vs. have nots, wealthy vs. poor has been used as a political device for hundreds of years, and is extremely successfull. Currently, this strategy has turned our country into a country of "victims" who are handed everything to "level the playing field."
In addition, our culture is one of immediate gratification and comfort...two traits that are incompatible with overcoming adversity. These two traits were rarely present in poor Irish, German, and Eastern European immigrants who comprised the poverty classes at the turn of the century-- many families who have advanced slowly but steadily, even if it took 3 generations to do so. THERE'S PERSONAL RESPONSIBLITY.

Truth is, success is still possible amid the crappy conditions of innner cities and public schooling. And just because I assert that does not mean I am ignoring the difficulty if doing so, or the problems that need to be addressed in public schools. Just that there is a poit where you have to ask "how much more must be given to ensure success and appease the anger that disparity creates?"

YOU CAN LEAD A HORSE TO water, BUT YOU CANNOT MAKE HIM DRINK.

(BTW, socialism as it exists in Scandinavia is far from fair and equal. In Sweden, an unemployed alcoholic can expect the same retirement as an Engineer who had worked his whole life paying 70% taxes. This does prevent destitution and homlessness, but ask the Engineer how his feels. And communism, while it might have the whole "we are the world" ring to it, isn't exactly the most fair or equal lifesyle either. If the breadlines in Russia don't convince you because it wasn't "real" communism as Marx has intended, then talk to someone living on a Kibutz in Israel. Lazy bastards still exist in THAT system, except that they are rewarded just the same. This creates huge animosity, and most young people who aren't religously devoted to the kibbutz leave as soon as they are able)

Marty, equality means that everyone is equal. Equal "opportunity" is a different concept. You know, in my scenario, your always going to find people who break free from poverty, not to be rich, but to be normal middle class citizens, like Flame. But when we talk about these things, its always best to look at the large sociological scale. The fact is that many people don't make it and screw up their lives specifically because they didn't have the knowledge or the means to take the right steps. So yea, maybe a lot of it is about choices. But think about this logically. You think if we take all those people who had it easy and started their lives over in the poor mans shoes that they will succeed the same way? You think George Bush would be president if he didn't come from an oil rich family? Does that seem like earning your place on top? So these rich people make all the right choices and make it to the top and you think they worked just as hard and where just as committed as the poor person who makes it just as far????

Another note. We are a successful nation despite our huge flaws. But when we try to better ourselves, do we look to compare ourselves to the nations around us? Or do we have our own standard??? Frankly I'm tired of you guys saying that because everyone else wants to come here, that we are perfect. Maybe we are better than everyone else. So does that mean that because we are better, that we cannot go further??? Or are we still going to let the world decide on how good we really are?

Simplistic example: Two people build sand castles A/B. The one on the right, or A is better than the one on the left, or B. So, the builder of B is envious of A. However, builder A sees ways to dramatically improve his design. But because builder B is already not at builder A's level, he chooses not to improve. Thus, what your trying to say about America. They all like it better, so no reason to make it better.

Marty, you have a habit of failing to miss the point on many occasions. The fact that the Soviet Union and China murdered (China still does) many people daily, does not mean that that is what socialism is about. Everyone who has tried various forms of socialism added their own little twist that did not work. But the actual ideology behind it has NEVER been tried on its most purest form. No one should nor does socialism calls for everyone to be equal as you keep referring to. And if in its text book definition it does, then learn to think more about the idea being presented then text book definition.

EH, some will use the system and milk it for what its worth. And don't let that group be the model for what you see as the poor in this society. There are genuinely honest poor people in this world that really had an unfair shot at the prize.

As far as my logic goes... think of it this way... its not impossible to succeed in a large classroom... its not impossible to not slip through the cracks... etc etc, HOWEVER, it makes it much harder on this group, then it is for the first group I mentioned. And then if they fail, you judge these people in the on the same equal footing.

<<<Currently, this strategy has turned our country into a country of "victims" who are handed everything to "level the playing field.">>> So the rich are handed everything to be above the playing field. But that's ok? But for the poor to fight for that same rights and privilages , their whiny and spoiled victims.

Last note, all these systems have flaws. Communism has flaws in that the human animal is a selfish animal. Capitalism has flaws in that very few actually have a fair chance at the fruits of their labor. Again, it comes down to a varied form somewhere in the center? None of you guys can see that???

I feel that I need to clarify something here. Communism is an ECONOMIC system, not political. Socialism is a politico-economic system that uses principles from communism for its economy and a political system based on a democracy or some variation thereof.

The former Soviet & Easter Bloc countries were totalitarian communist states, they had a supreme leader (or in some cases, supreme party who were responsible for choosing the leader) that controlled politics.

A clear distinction between the two must be made. Communism is an economic system, it can impact political systems, but it is not in and of itself a political system. Socialism is a combined politcal & economic system, as described above.

Matt

Another classic Infoism--"Marty, you have a habit of failing to miss the point on many occasions. "

Well Info, you have a habit of living in some kind of dream world where all your little theories work out perfectly. Welcome to the real world. I just showed you what communism and socialism have done here IN THE REAL WORLD. Please show me an example of where it has worked out even reasonably well.

I don't recall anyone, EVER, in this legthy debate saying that America was PERFECT.

To paraphrase Churchill--Yes, our government is the worst ever, except for all the others.

Earlier you posted saying how ignorance is the worst part of our society, I debate you with facts, sources and proof. What do you do? You say I read to much (so I'm too well informed).

Info-You babble on and on about equality and fairness but where have you shown that our system is unfair? Not in these ridiculous hypothectical situations. Not with your anecdotal evidence.

I noticed you had absolutely no answer to my question about your pet project--Universal Health Care. Actually I think you only read about half of what I post anyway. Maybe you have attention deficit disorder. For all your writing you haven't supported a single idea with anything other than your misinformed opinion.

Your sandcastle example doesn't even make any sense (anyone else think it did?).

What I (and I think what all the others who are on my side in this debate) want you to REALIZE is that your little utopia is NEVER going to exist. The closest you are ever going to get to it is right here, in the greatest country on God's green earth, America. Imperfect, flawed, and yet somehow America has grown to be the greatest country in just a few hundred years. Everyone here has the opportunity to succeed, no they don't have an equal opportunity, but they still have one.

You have totally ignored many of the FACTS I have taken time to print here (on the state of poverty in America, on big business vs. big government, on socialized health care, and on how socialism works once you get people involved in it) and you are left with just your mindless idealogy.

Frankly, I just feel sorry for you.

<<<Well Info, you have a habit of living in some kind of dream world where all your little theories work out perfectly. Welcome to the real world. I just showed you what communism and socialism have done here IN THE REAL WORLD.>>> Name one place where true communism as Carl Marx's describes was even tried. Name me one place where true socialism has failed.

You talk about facts, sources, and proof. My friend, this is not a practical argument, its an abstract one. If it was as simple as a few facts and figures, we would have gotten it all right a long time ago. But even today, "EXPERTS" debate these very same issues on a much more technical basis than we are here. But you choose to critisize me personally because it makes you feel better inside to believe that I stand alone with my warped ideals.

food for thought: If freedom is so important economically, then why is it that the very group (conservatives) that seem to fight endlessly for this freedom, love to try to pass laws that take away other freedoms that only serve to legislate morality?

By the way, I can name a country of today where communism succeeded and still is. I recently saw a documentary on Vietnam and how it is today. Its a beautiful place that is only getting better and better with time. Greed and crime is almost non existent and the people are friendly, welcoming, and definitelly do not feel oppressed by their government.

China, although commits a great deal of human rights violations that have no relation to the concepts of true communism, is also rising to our level of superpower status. It is also the oldest form of government on earth and although engages in a system I don't generally agree with, it is a model for proving that capitalism is not the only way.

Hey, that&#8217;s not fair! - Hey, that&#8217;s not fair! - Hey, that&#8217;s not fair!

Yep, still way too weird. You know, no matter how many times I type that phrase it still seems out of place on a website intended for operators, ex-operators and wannabes.

This debate has slowly revealed a desire from a few members to make things fair for everyone. Now on most other website forums, this wouldn&#8217;t raise my eyebrow but I didn&#8217;t expect it here. You see, nobody that has been in any military &#8220;high speed&#8221; job remotely believes that the world owes him or anybody else a freaking thing. So I am going to presume that all this whining about fairness is from the wannabes.

Okay, let me be brutally frank and see if this sinks in. The world doesn&#8217;t care about you, it doesn&#8217;t care if you succeed or fail, live or die. If you continue on your chosen path, you are about to get a harsh lesson on just how unfair the world is. At Indoc, guys who &#8220;deserve&#8221; to make it won&#8217;t. They will get sick or injured. Others guys from the deep end of the gene pool will seemly cake walk the whole damn thing. Lucky bastards.

Get over it.

If (and that a huge &#8220;if&#8221;) you make the pipeline and earn your beret, the military machine has more injustices in store for you, trust me. Crappy assignments, promotions passed over, lackluster leadership, endless bureaucratic stupidity, the list goes on and on.

Deal with it.

Keeping that beret on your head can be a challenge at times too, maybe its an injury you got on duty or it could be a little surprise from the guy who ran a red and broadsides you.

Push harder.

Emotionally, you will be ripped to sheds. Buddies who you loved, (yes, loved) will die suddenly sometimes right in front of you. Your wife/girlfriend will never let you forget just how unfair everything is. Sometimes they can&#8217;t take it. They leave.

Suck it up.

I can think of a lot of jobs where you can pretend the world is or should be fair. College Professor, Environmental Scientist and Fine Artist come to mind. Air Force Combat Control, Pararescue and Combat Weather aren&#8217;t on that list. I could go on now with all the reasons why these jobs are worth it but that would take pages to do any real justice.

The guys in spec ops excel at dealing with whatever life throws at them. They handle it on their own terms and never feel sorry for themselves, ever. This is mostly because they have learned over and over that they can achieve goals and conquer adversity though shear determination.

You wannabes whining about all the poor victims out there not getting a fair chance might want to do a bit of souls searching before you get on that bus. Is a special operator the type of person you can become? Is it the kind of person you want to be?

INFO---"Name one place where true communism as Carl Marx's describes was even tried. Name me one place where true socialism has failed."---

Religion as it's described by GOD in the bible is pretty neat too, somehow we seem to have screwed it up! Thanks for making my point for me, any place that it has been tried in any form has failed. You can't even name ONE place where it has worked. Oh, except for the nice documentary you watched on Vietnam. I'll be doing a bit of research on this utopia. I'll post what I find later if any cares to read it.

INFO-"You talk about facts, sources, and proof. My friend, this is not a practical argument, its an abstract one."

Oh so when you criticize American it's just abstract criticism. Well I feel better now. This is a practical argument-that has obviously gone way over your head. I have little interest in thinking how great socialism would be in an abstract world since I happen to live in a real one!

INFO---"If it was as simple as a few facts and figures, we would have gotten it all right a long time ago. But even today, "EXPERTS" debate these very same issues on a much more technical basis than we are here.

No, INFO, we would not have gotten it right. You fail to see the problem is us! We're only human, we will always screw things up from your idealized utopia of equality and freedom and everybody loving everyone else. It's not in our nature.

INFO-- "But you choose to critisize me personally because it makes you feel better inside to believe that I stand alone with my warped ideals."

Actually I would feel a whole lot better if you did stand alone in your warped ideas! Unfortunantly you don't. There are quite a few people in Congress that agree with you. I'm not criticising you personally, just your ideas. I have no idea what kind of person you are but you are making your ideas known here and I am trying to show you where they are wrong.

INFO--"food for thought: If freedom is so important economically, then why is it that the very group (conservatives) that seem to fight endlessly for this freedom, love to try to pass laws that take away other freedoms that only serve to legislate morality?"

And again you give no instance or proof to back this up. Care to show me some and I'm sure I can explain them to you. Don't mistake Republican for Conservative, they are two seperate things.

Nice post Dave--ever heard of Max Ink Cafe (a Venice CA. VFX shop)

Dave, I guess your saying that a prerequisite for being an operator is being conservative in nature. I don't believe that is the case as political philosophy has no baring as to whether you can be an operator or not. In fact, just being in the military puts you in a semi communist system.

<<<No, INFO, we would not have gotten it right. You fail to see the problem is us! We're only human, we will always screw things up from your idealized utopia of equality and freedom and everybody loving everyone else. It's not in our nature.>>> --- I guess you should countinue to educate us then since only you hold the key as to whats right and wrong in the world huh?

INFO-You've definently moved into the idiotic now. I've never said I know all the answers (I leave that to William-- <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> --just kidding William. We've been debating, I have given you ideas and substance, and in some cases proof to back up my ideas. You've given nothing but your idealism. Well that's the beauty of being an idealist--the real world matters not. Plus, I'm still waiting for that answer on health care. My guess is you don't have one.

Info: You missed my point by a mile. It doesn&#8217;t matter if you consider yourself a conservative or liberal. (In a bizarre twist I consider myself to be somewhat liberal although I refuse to align myself with either of the 2 big political parties.) What I am trying to highlight here is a basic belief that individuals should attempt to rise to achievement despite whatever &#8220;unfair&#8221; adversities there are. Some will fail, that&#8217;s the way things work. Most people feel that the world owes them something and when they don&#8217;t get it they consider themselves victims. No one with that mindset will make it to hear &#8220;Gentlemen, blouse your blues and don your berets&#8221;.

Your assumption is wrong, DavidEllzey. I was a PJ. Were you?

David, you just made my point. There are unfair adversities and while life is unfair, that doesn't mean we as people cannot TRY to remedy that problem as best we can so the future can be a bit better for all. Believe me, I'm not going to cry about some unfair moment in my life, nor should anyone else. We have to climb over the hurtles even if someone else has less to climb. But while we're at it, we as people need to help keep the hurtles the same size for all, then we will be in a step forward, not backward. And the ones who get to the top will have rightly earned it. Its not communism, its not socialism, its what I like to call fair capitalism. And that is where the majority of the nation stands. Marty, if that sounds idiotic to you, then I guess the world is extremely idiotic because the MAJORITY feel the same way. I guess we all just missed something growing up that you didn't.

A note: Your profile says you like giving advice. Maybe you should take a little time to take advice first.

You people on the far right, you won't give an inch while I came to the center where the answers lie. You fight me like I'm a hard core liberal which I am not. That just lets you know how far off to the right you truly are.

Actually Todd, unless I missed something, your posts only referred to the definition of socialism and the inevitable future of global unison. You were not among the &#8220;it&#8217;s not fair&#8221; whiners I was referring to. Was I that obtuse while trying to make my point?

Info: No I didn&#8217;t make your point. Either you chose not to consider what I was saying or I failed to communicate it adequately.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by DavidEllzey:
<strong>You see, nobody that has been in any military;high speed; job remotely believes that the world owes him or anybody else a freaking thing. So I am going to presume that all this whining about fairness is from the wannabes.

At Indoc, guys who deserve to make it won't. They will get sick or injured. Others guys from the deep end of the gene pool will seemly cake walk the whole damn thing. Lucky bastards.

Get over it.

If (and that a huge if) you make the pipeline and earn your beret, the military machine has more injustices in store for you, trust me. Crappy assignments, promotions passed over, lackluster leadership, endless bureaucratic stupidity, the list goes on and on.

Deal with it.

Keeping that beret on your head can be a challenge at times too, maybe its an injury you got on duty or it could be a little surprise from the guy who ran a red and broadsides you.

Push harder.

Emotionally, you will be ripped to sheds. Buddies who you loved, (yes, loved) will die suddenly sometimes right in front of you. Your wife/girlfriend will never let you forget just how unfair everything is. Sometimes they can't take it. They leave.

Suck it up.

The guys in spec ops excel at dealing with whatever life throws at them. They handle it on their own terms and never feel sorry for themselves, ever. This is mostly because they have learned over and over that they can achieve goals and conquer adversity though shear determination.

You wannabes whining about all the poor victims out there not getting a fair chance might want to do a bit of souls searching before you get on that bus. Is a special operator the type of person you can become? Is it the kind of person you want to be?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">No, you definitely weren't too obtuse. A lot of what you said makes sense--for both sides of the political debate (and I just had a long "discussion" with my 11-year-old daughter about personal responsibility so I'm probably wound a little too tight).

No, you definitely weren't too obtuse. A lot of what you said makes sense--for both sides of the political debate.

I just had a long "discussion" with my 11-year-old daughter about personal responsibility so I'm probably wound a little too tight.

INFO--"And the ones who get to the top will have rightly earned it.
--Can you name for me some of these people who have gotten to the top and were undeserving?
I know you'll say George Bush. (Who if I'm not mistaken did actually run and win the governers seat in Texas twice, the second time by the largest margin ever. And if Al Gore had won the election would you complain about him as well. Or do you think he grew up in a poor family. His family was just as wealthy as the Bush family.) The thing about wealthy families is that at one time someone (or a few generations of someones) worked and invested and became wealthy. Since G.W.'s grandfather Prescot, did quite well for himself what shall we do about it? Should we raise the death tax from 55% to 100% so that no one can ever amass any wealth to leave to their families?

IINFO--"It'not communism, its not socialism, its what I like to call fair capitalism. And that is where the majority of the nation stands."
--And you got this from a poll you ran yourself? Again you miss the point. It doesn't exist, yes Info, you are right it SOUNDS good, just like socialism and communism sound good. And right here, right now in the US is as close as you're going to get to your "Fair capitialism". You know what sounds good to me when I read it. The Constitution of the United States of America. Perhaps you should gloss over it a bit like you do my posts.

INFO--"Marty if that sounds idiotic to you, then I guess the world is extremely idiotic because the MAJORITY feel the same way. I guess we all just missed something growing up that you didn't."
---Again where is this majority you speak of? Any proof or is it even worth asking? I doubt that you missed any of what I got growing up since I was the son of a USAF CCT'er who rose all the way to retire after 20 years with the lofty rank of Tech Sgt. (CCT guys are just inherently lazy! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> and my mom was a housewife. You can imagine the retirement pay of a Tsgt back in the 1970's, if you can't I'll clue you in, it wasn't much.

INFO-Still waiting for that answer on health care. Here's one topic where you can share your vast knowledge and passion for an issue. Yet you ignore me everytime I ask about it.

You seem like a bright enough guy, I just think you should adjust your thinking from the "America sucks because it's not the perfect utopia I have planned out in my head" idea. Yes, I know you never actually wrote "America sucks", you've just implied it on numerous occasions. You are certainly free to bitch and moan about our "huge flaws" but why not do some research and try to find ways to fix them. You can't FEEL your way to a solution you have to actually THINK about what may work and what won't.

INFO--"A note: Your profile says you like giving advice. Maybe you should take a little time to take advice first."
---If I liked taking advice I would have put that in my profile. What's your advice anyway? Stop sticking up for my country. Stop reading about political/social topics so that I don't show up other people on BBS's? Stop picking on 25 year olds? Open my mind up to psychobabble about how great socialism would be if we had it here? What??

lol, you fight me as if I'm a liberal on the far left. It puts you on the far right and you sit there and tell me that my views are idiotic? I disagree with both sides to some degree, however, the only reason I seem more like a democrat than republican is because more of the ideals that democrats hold represent more of what America is. The average American is not rich. And the democratic policies represent the largest scale of people which inadvertently makes more sense for all. Idiotic huh?

Gents -

Seems to me like an entrenched mentality is not a good thing, no matter which side of the fence you are on...

Being open-minded is often hard to do. Listening to someone else's viewpoint (especially one that is extremely different from our own) is equally difficult, if not more so.

You guys are doing great with expressing your viewpoints in a "friendly" forum. Keep up the dialogue - It's educational, as well as entertaining.

Thanks again to TE for providing the means to exercise our freedom of speech in this manner.

God Bless!

David - Excellent! It doesn't matter what your philisophical leanings are when you have to put mind over matter. Just suck it up!

Todd - If socialism is so great then what will you call the consequences for the people that don't accept personal responsibility? Seems to me that our system of capitalism works pretty good to ensure there are bad consequences for people that do not want to accept responsibility and good consequences for those who do accept personal responsibility.

On ADHD - Don't use this as an excuse for poor conduct or the inability to attain goals. There are very few people with ADHD that are truly disabled. Look through the history and you will find many famous, successful people that were/are ADHD.

Info--I'm typing words on a screen, not fighting. Further debate with you is meaningless because you don't even attempt to answer questions I ask. I've tried to respond to all your pertinent comments and questions. If you called yourself conservative and expressed the views you have I would still have made the same points. I truly couldn't care less which side of the aisle bad ideas come from I just care that they are bad ideas.

Marty - While you continuously wonder why I have not answered your question (I forgot the actual question by the way), you just keep passing the points I have been making in just about every post I have written.

Flame - Allow me to attempt to answer the question you posed to Todd.

I don't think the idea of socialism is meant to push through the screw ups, nor do I think it will if implemented properly. The idea behind socialism is to allow the "non screw ups/but unfortunates" to have a better life. In other words, lets say you work hard all your life and fail to move up the economic ladder, I think socialism just tries to help that person, or at least his family to be able to climb a bit easier.

Lets remember one thing here. In the grand scheme of things, money was meant to reward good labor. However, labor rewards today are very disproportionate in that harder working people or people with greater social responsibility get less reward for their work while the opposite get more. That is what a free society produces, popularity over importance. White collar reward, blue collar exploitation. Better to pay MJ millions of dollars a year while an EMT saving lives everyday makes a pathetic $10 an hour.

But complete freedom is designed to satisfy the non deserving. So again, what socialism says is that it understands the average hard working people's economic concerns. And it understands that the rich have none; in the attempts to, not make everyone equal, but to allow everyone equal chance to make it. Life is supposed to be about working hard, not only make money for yourself, but also to contribute to society, and then being able to live comfortably as you become an elderly and potentially wiser person (which is where respect comes in). But as it is, our elderly people sometimes have to start a new career just to make ends meet which is a much greater injustice than any socialistic views. Try telling the rich that. The rich will tell you that socialism supports the screw ups in an attempt to cover their own @$$. But basically, a screw up will always be just that, screw ups. But with a fairer system, the honest hard working "average" Americans end up having a realistic shot at happiness that they deserve.

The rich will fight that at all cost.

Also, let me point out one other thing. It can be interpreted through my ideas that all rich are bad and that is far from the case. There are plenty of decent and honest rich people in this country who do not represent the group I am referring to.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I believe I have answered (ad naseum in some cases) every major point Info has brought up.

If you forget my questions why not use your mouse and scroll down to refresh your memory? Fact is you just don't read what I write, which is fine.

Info,

1. You do yourself a disservice by not answering Marty's questions or ignoring them. He has discussed the issues with documentation. This makes it very hard for your side of the discussion to be taken seriously.

2. There is still no answer to my question. How do you ensure that the "scew-ups" receive either consequences for their inaction or are prevented from gaining from the fruits of my labor. Until this is in place then socialism is only a fantasy because it does not deal with reality.

3. How does your socialism deal with the military? This is a group of people with great social responsibility but far less reward. Also, I assume that the President and Congress should also be rewarded even more since they have greater social responsibility. AHHH, I see, this is the area where all attempts at socialism have stumbled.

4. I disagree with your assertion on complete freedom. Freedom is not designed for anything. It is a reality based concept. I make my own decisions and you can not force your decisions on me unless I allow this to occur (another choice on my part)! In America we value the concept of freedom and it is the basis of our country and government. We have a constitution that states quite clearly that the government serves the people not the people serving the government. Socialism is the opposite. The government determines who is allowed to do what, it reduces the drive and determination of talented people because there is no reward for their hard work. It rewards people that have not worked hard with the fruits of others labor.

4. Happiness is not based on the amount of money you make nor your position in life. Happiness is an emotion which is subjective. Only objective areas can be quantified.

5. I will fight your concept also and I am not rich! I prefer our system and it's freedoms as opposed to the slavery of socialism.

I would suggest you think real hard if you are considering CCT/PJ. You will be given a fair chance, same as everyone else but don't expect the instructors to give you different criteria so you can have a fair chance against others who might happen to be richer, stronger, intelligent, or other advantage that you don't have personally.

Flame--Thank you for verifying that I'm not daft! And I think Indoc is a good example of why socialism is doomed to fail whenever it is tried--if you want people to excel you have to allow them to succeed as individuals and success is defined differently for every individual!

Info--In nearly, if not every post, I both responded to your points and then asked you questions. That's a dialogue.

Marty,

Indoc is a great example of individualism and teamwork combined.

At indoc, I'm sure everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed or fail <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />