No, you completely miss the point, and completely misunderstand our form of government. There is still a need to provide for the common defense, both abroad and at home. We still need laws, order, and infrastructure, roads, bridges, schools, etc. What we do not need is government taking our money and giving it to another group in society because they want to make things "fair". I think I am better equipped to determine where that money can be spent. Its the social spending that I disagree with. Not the common sense items that are inherently required in any form of government with respect to providing those services that only government should provide.
I agree that our society requires roads, bridges, and more, but to require EVERYONE to pay into it, whether or not they use it and want to pay into it... Doesn't that sound a little... socialist? I have no children, and don't want children, and believe that if YOU want children, that you should have to pay for them to learn, NOT ME... That means the government is not allowing me to make the choice of whether or not I should help pay for some kids education, AND they're taxing me to do it. I think your quote covered this nicely... I would like to DECIDE to not SPEND MY MONEY on some child's education. Common sense items? And why do you think money for education is a common sense item, but not money for universal health care?
No. Socialism is taking from one group to make everyone equal. Not building roads, and bridges, etc. Well then, I believe that my kids and myself included should not have to pay one red sent into the system to provide you with any benefit either. You are only being taxed for public education if you pay property taxes. Don't want to pay? Rent or live in a cave. Then don't own property. Its pretty much that simple. You have a clear choice. No one makes you pay for someone's educations. The Federal and State government do NOT tax you for this purpose. Only property tax at the local level does this. I've already explained to you why educating the population is a "common sense" item. You either missed it, or cannot comprehend it so I am not going to go over it again. Universal Health Care does not benefit society as a whole What it does is it seeks to make everyone "EQUAL". Doing that compromises service, and denigrates those that pay for these services by forcing them to pay for those that do not. Public education benefits tax payers by returning revenue to the federal and state governments by way of a work force. (gee, I guess I did repeat that one for you.)
So just because I don't like how my tax money is being spent, I shouldn't own property? Wow, at first you seemed all for letting us spend our money... It seems that as long as we spend the money in a way that helps Mia, it's okay, and as long as the choices that we are allowed to make are inline with what Mia thinks is "common sense," then it's okay. I'm looking forward to you complaining about Obama's future initiatives so I can say "if you don't like it, move somewhere else"... Oh wait... Don't like it? Move... America voted, and the majority decided this man is who they want to lead our country. Confused people, like yourself, that claim "small government is the way", then support bridges to nowhere, lost the election; best of luck in 2012.
You know what I find strange? In the same thread you were able to say: Followed by a series of posts defending government spending and government involvement in our decisions, as long as it's the kind of spending and decisions that benefit Mia, such as free education. Ever heard of situational ethics?
Ohhh, so what you meant was... Don't they do that now? Also, you're right, the word I was looking for wasn't "strange," but "sad." Sad that some people are closed-minded and self-serving. You probably don't want universal health care because the dying homeless people will mean longer lines for you. But you DO want free public education because you have a child. I'm glad it's not Mia-world that we live in. I guess we just have to agree to disagree; though I am glad that a majority of American voters also disagree with you
I find that picking on anyones god makes them angry. Seems we have a lot of people that think obama is God such as he stated he was going to be: Obama will be god.
Being a Catholic, I think I've been beat up more than anyone I know in terms of my religion (by birth, not by choice). No sweat off my back. I guess I don't take things like that personally. I do know however that anything outside of humping Obama's leg, or whacking off to pictures of Obama while listening to Bono is blasphemy. That said, I am woefully optimistic and hope he does well. I mean who in their right mind (aside from moonbat liberals) wish ill will on the success of a sitting president? I like many Americans want America to continue to be great. Continue to be a beacon. Continue to be that shinning city on a hill. If that happens, believe me I will be the first to praise Obama. What I will not do is blindly put my faith in ideals I do not agree with having seen their past result. And, I will be the last person to say I told you so if things are not going well. I guess the difference between myself and the average Bush hater is, I am not hell bent on failure. I'm ever the optimist and wish our President well. The other difference between me and the average Bush hater is, I respect the office, and the President. He did not get my vote, but he gets my optimism and support and respect. This is something liberals just don't get about us. They always mistake disagreement for contempt or hatred. Its not. Its called a differing opinion.
Of course it's socialist. The thing is no matter how much the word "socialist" is used as a scare tactic, most people actually like socialism (public schools etc) - they have just been taught to fear that word "socialism." I want to live in a society that offers equal opportunity for all children. I just think that's a basic thing in any advanced society. To me this hardcore libertarian biz (where you start talking about no public schools) is a huge step backwards. Yes social freedom is great and I'm a big supporter of that. But I also think there's room for social programs that work to everyone's benefit (such as public schools.)
Everyone needs to watch this south park episode. As usual, the south park team does an excellent job of exposing the retarded fanaticism that exists on multiple sides of the same issue. if ($user->belief->notEqual('bush', 'satan') && $user->belief->notEqual('obama', 'messiah')) { $reality->join($user); }
If the public school system were truly socialistic it would seek to insure that every student regardless of their intelligence never excelled beyond another. In other words, it would seek to maintain an egalitarian system where by everyone remained equal. Seems to me many here need to read up on Karl Marx, Socialism, Scientific Socialism, and Marxism to fully begin to grasp what true socialism really entails. Its not about equal access to things. Its about a collective or state ownership of everything, all while maintaining a 100% egalitarian distribution of wealth and opportunity.
You can call this or that "true socialism" but it's just semantics. To me socialism means an effort by the government to create an equality of opportunity. I agree very much with this philosophy. What you are talking about I consider to be communism. There are levels. Life is not black & white. There is a gray area and in most cases that gray area is where we should seek to be.
No its not semantics. There is a clear difference between egalitarianism and providing basic services for a society. Well this my friend is where you are wrong. By definition and in practice the intent is to create equality sharing that opportunity, equally. Not an equal opportunity to it. There is a monumental difference here. In a capitalist society everyone has an equal opportunity to seek out a job and get it. In socialism, everyone has or does the same job at the same level for the same pay. All the while contributing and consuming equally to the collective and as the government sees fit. Big difference. Not semantics. Well then, you my friend are anything but in support of socialism. There are no levels in socialism. There are however, differences in the implementations of socialistic based societies. Socialism seeks to keep everyone equal. Communism has different classes/levels of equal.
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism "an egalitarian society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals and a fair or egalitarian distribution of wealth." Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism "Pure communism" in the Marxian sense refers to a classless, stateless and oppression-free society where decisions on what to produce and what policies to pursue are made democratically, allowing every member of society to participate in the decision-making process in both the political and economic spheres of life."
Sounds like the direction they are taking our schools. "Oh poor johnny didn't fail... all of our seniors passed additional math this year." They have been working on dumbing down the whole system for a while so that their little drug riddled Johnny wouldn't feel bad about his drug caused mental retardation. It seems that so many Obama worshippers have re-defined "socialism" so that his plan won't scare people. Welcome to the USSA <--- too many kids here probably won't get that.
I still think you are talking about Bush here or the Bushyphile (yeah the y is just an add on). The 10 IQ guy