1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Obama's Health Care Fascism

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by BRUm, May 20, 2009.

  1. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #21
    You can be against socialism, that's fine. it's just a shame that you can only argue against it by comparing it to nazism and not by presenting sound arguments which stand on their own merit.
    SEMrush
     
    stOx, May 21, 2009 IP
    SEMrush
  2. BRUm

    BRUm Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,086
    Likes Received:
    61
    Best Answers:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    100
    #22
    Listen stOx, the comparison only arose because someone said that there's no link, and I think there is! That's all. If I wanted to "smear" it, would I wait until someone made a statement, then challenge it? No, I'd do it from the very start. I'm not the type of person to 'smear', for I know that it's not credible. You're right that I would argue against it with academically points which stand on their own merit, and I have many, many times on this forum, which goes to show I had no intention of "smearing".

    I found an article I found interesting, I posted it here to see what others thought of it, someone (amanamission) said:

    I saw the first line and my thought process was "Hmm.. I don't think there's that much of a distinction because Nazism incorporates Socialism". So I said:

    This doesn't seem like a smear campaign to me. It was a reply triggered by the afore mentioned poster's statement.

    God it's annoying I have to break down my cognitive processes. Jesus, next time I'll not bother posting articles, seeing as people get pissy instead of debating.
     
    BRUm, May 21, 2009 IP
  3. northpointaiki

    northpointaiki Guest

    Messages:
    6,876
    Likes Received:
    187
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #23
    Not sure who left this (green) rep, as it was anonymous - at any rate,

    This is just incorrect. What "fascism" and "socialism" share is a corporatist orientation, as opposed to a pluralist view. But this doesn't mean they're the same thing, for reasons I've shown. For example, the interwar organization of the nordic social democracies were corporatist, and socialist. Would these then be equated to nazism?

    No offense to whoever left the rep note, but to simply say "x is y, therefore National y is x" doesn't say anything - the very least problem is that you haven't shown any reason why x =y, much less why something called "National y" is the same thing as "y."

    As to Mussolini, that, too, is illogical, since Mussolini underwent a strong conversion from socialism to fascism, as any elementary knowledge of the man shows.

    What Mussolini was, was a radical, and he craved power - and I should think it would be obvious that some folks craving such can actually be known to become a radical for "x" as much as easily as they once were a radical for "y." (One of my favorite sayings, actually - "I'm a fanatic for ____ invites the saying, "give me 5 minutes, and I'll make you a fanatic for _____."

    From editor of the revolutionary left Avanti, which strongly opposed Italian entry into WWI, Mussolini turned strident nationalist, and was expelled from the socialist party. Like Hitler, Mussolini moved to the extreme right after WWI and murderously opposed both the socialist and communist parties vying for power after the war.

    Guess it's easiest just to use Il Duce's own words. He defined "fascism" in 1932. In part:

    And so on. It really doesn't get any plainer. As I said, "corporatist," yes, but having no more to do with one another than Norway, 1923, and Germany, 1933.

    To whoever thought I should be schooled in this way, by leaving a rep note (kind though it was to leave a positive rep note), I'd offer that this is an area I've been interested in most of my adult life; studied it for a long time, to include the electoral politics and social cleavages of the interwar social democracies and fascist regimes. As such, I'm always up for a good, substantive discussion on the notions here.

    But I'd have to say, I'd invite a good dialogue along what actually was, in these countries, and of the theoretical underpinnings to these regimes - as opposed to what one might be convinced must be, based on a priori conviction. I think we have an interesting enough conversation onboard going, without reliance on anonymous rep notes, yes?
     
    northpointaiki, May 21, 2009 IP
  4. Zibblu

    Zibblu Guest

    Messages:
    3,770
    Likes Received:
    98
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #24
    The only people who should be against the "public option" that Obama wants for health care are the insurance companies. It's a good thing for everyone else.

    The question comes to: What do you care more about? Health care or insurance company profits? That's the battle here. It's a battle between the health insurance companies and everyone else. Sadly the health insurance companies (and the politicians they have bought off) trick many people into being against their own self interest.
     
    Zibblu, May 21, 2009 IP
  5. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #25
    No Zibblu, the only people who should be against Obama's "public option" is any natural born or naturalized American. The ones that are from a country which is supposed to have "the american drea." You know, that thing where anyone and everyone can become prosperous on their own accord through hard work?

    Our country was established on the thought of small government. REad the preamble to the constitution. Read the amendmants and the rest of the constitution. It specifically spells out what the government should be doing.

    The thing is, it all starts small. It is, for an attempt to stay on track with this thread, what hitler did. He started small on his reforms becuase he knew the people wouldn't buy them hook, line and sinker right away.

    I'll use an analogy on a hot topic. Guns. The democrats (especially Obama) want guns gone. However, they know citizens in the US would revolt at that thought. So they have, for decades now, been slowly erroding the 2nd amendmant. Starting with small things. Convicted felons and mentally unstable. Now, to the common man that sounds reasonable right? Then it went to "assault weapons" which, by definition, is a weapon capable of firing fully automatic. But, in the ban, includes "scary looking weapons" as well. Then came magazine limits. Then came areas where you can carry. Its a process that slowly errodes the 2nd amendmant. One, which quite explicitly, states "shall not be infringed". Now, to any person with an 8th grade reading and comprehension level, knows that that phrase means will not have any limits imposed, will not be taken away, etc. But, its being done in small steps where people don't even notice and things that are "acceptable" to many. But, still go against the constitution.

    This is exactly what the dems are hoping to accomplish here, a completely state run health care program. But, the fact is, many Americans don't want the government being any bigger than they have to be. They just expect them to provide for the common defense, etc.

    The problem is the 30% radicals, brainwashing about 50% of the moderates, with words like change, and hope. Things that, until this day, still have not really taken a meaning with Obama. The only real change is the large amount of government. It's gotten bigger.
     
    hostlonestar, May 21, 2009 IP
  6. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #26
    When the bill of rights was written the term "bear arms" exclusively mean to serve in a military, as can be seen in the oxford English Dictionary definition "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight".

    This point is further evidenced by the fact that in an earlier draft submitted it included the phrase "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person". it's obviously in defence of your right to join a military, Not your right to personally carry and own guns.

    It also mentions at the beginning of the amendment the important of a "well regulated militia", Which is what the words following it are referring to.

    There can be no doubt that the 2nd amendment is defending your right to join an army and fight for the protection of your state, not your right to own and carry guns.

    Sure there are argument for the rights of some people to own weapons, I'm actually for it, But the bill of rights isn't one of them.
     
    stOx, May 22, 2009 IP
  7. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #27
    lol Stox, you have no idea what you are talking about. The US Supreme Court has upheld that the 2nd amendmant refers to the people.

    The 2nd amendmant says "well regulated militia" you are right. Now, considering the government/army has no militia, your theory is wrong. Good try, but, when you want to try to debate something, you should try to stick to something in your own country :rolleyes: not something some of us have studied extensively for the past 10+ years.
     
    hostlonestar, May 22, 2009 IP
  8. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #28
    The Supreme court can make any decision they want, they can't change the definitions of words though.

    If it wasn't referring to military service why did one draft include the phrase "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person"?

    If, as you say, it doesn't refer to military service in the protection of your state why did it at one point start with a phrase about a militia and end with a clause granting some people the right to not join the military?

    What you have done is what a lot of people do. Extract the phrase "right to bear arms" and come to your own conclusion regarding it's meaning. But if you look at the amendment in it's entirety, and the history of previous drafts, it obviously exists to prevent a federal government taking away a states right to have a well regulated militia for the purpose of protecting their state.
     
    stOx, May 22, 2009 IP
  9. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #29
    All you are doing is repeating the amendment, saying you are right and ignoring all i have said. That's not an argument. In fact, it'd indicative of your inability to present a case against what i am saying which in it's self shows the weakness of your position.

    If it wasn't referring to military service why did one draft include the phrase "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person"? Are you going to say that between drafts it entirely changed what it was referring to?
     
    stOx, May 22, 2009 IP
  10. Reseg

    Reseg Peon

    Messages:
    424
    Likes Received:
    21
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #30
    Sorry, I removed my thread before your post because I just feel it's a corny argument unrelated to the thread.

    It says what it says and unfortunately people will take different positions on what the ingredients of a candy bar mean. We can theorize they meant one thing by other drafts, or we can theorize they changed their minds entirely between drafts on the same topic, it's pointless.
     
    Reseg, May 22, 2009 IP
  11. prospects

    prospects Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    261
    Likes Received:
    5
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    125
    #31
    well you really know how to debate things in a balanced way. Posting some piece of cr*p that tries to link Obama to Hitler. Get a life!
     
    prospects, May 22, 2009 IP
  12. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #32
    Look at the things my country was founded on. The 2nd Amendmant was placed their to give individuals the right to bear arms.


    Here is an excerpt from the Declaration of Independance:

    The 2nd Amendmant was put in place to protect the rest of the Constitution. It was put in place to ensure the above quote is possible. It was put in place to ensure that, should the homeland come under attack, the people would be able to rise to the defense without being forced to join an army.

    When you look at the definition of militia "An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers" You can see, clearly, it is not a regular army, but, mere citizens. The 2nd Amendmant provides a means for that militia to be armed. So, a simple equation so you can understand:

    Regular citizens = militia. Militia + right to bear arms = citizens right to bear arms. Understand now? Oh, and, since you obviously don't understand, the Supreme Court is tasked with intereperating the Constitution and laws established by Congress.

    The way our government works is Congress passes something, the President either veto's it or signs it. If signed, and an allegation against the constitutionality of a law comes up, the supreme court will interperate all parts of the constitution as it applies to the laws. If it is deemed unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will overturn the law. It works the same when a state or town, or any other governing body with the ability to pass laws/ordinances passes a law.

    Now, since you are so thoroughly determined to say that the 2nd Amendmant doesn't protect an individuals right to bear arms, I referance The United States Supreme Court Decision in the case of Heller v. Washington D.C. No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008.

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

    Since, you are not a justice, your opinion means diddly. I expect you'll come up with some other way to try to say that it doesn't protect the individuals right to keep and bear arms, but, you are flat out wrong. But, I know how you are when you are proven wrong, you will usually either run away, or attack me personally. Now, like I said, stick with something that you actually know a thing or two about, like the invisible man in the sky. At least then you will be right :D (and you can at least argue based on more than just your personal beliefs)

    But, we all know what you will choose to do...
     
    hostlonestar, May 22, 2009 IP
  13. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #33
    You still haven't explained why the clause allowing people to not join the millitary on religious grounds was included in an earlier draft of the ammendment. You have simply posted that some other people agree with you.

    So again, If it wasn't referring to military service why did one draft include the phrase "but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person"?
     
    stOx, May 22, 2009 IP
  14. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #34
    Well, the thing is. The earlier drafts are not what matters. I can not explain the earlier drafts. I can only tell you, things that are part of the RATIFIED constitution, not things that were parts of drafts. I have't studied them, nor had any reason. They were not included in the constitution, they were not ratified by the states. So, that point is moot.

    And FYI, it's not jus tsome other people, its the supreme court. So, apparently, I'm right.
     
    hostlonestar, May 22, 2009 IP
  15. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #35
    The earlier drafts are what matter if we are to find the real meaning of what the amendment was saying. What the earlier drafts were saying was exactly the same as what the final amendment was designed to say, only worded differently. Unless you are going to claim that between drafts they entirely changed what the amendment was designed to say and what rights it was designed to protect you will have to concede that the amendment was specifically talking about the right to join and fight in an armed militia or army.
     
    stOx, May 22, 2009 IP
  16. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #36
    In order to have a militia (which is comprised of ordinary citizens) the citizens need weapons. Do you not understand that? Is it really that hard?

    And, it matters not what was drafted before, really, the only thing that matters was what was ratified. You can say that all you want, but, in the end, that is what matters. You loose. Move on.
     
    hostlonestar, May 22, 2009 IP
  17. AmpedHosts

    AmpedHosts Active Member

    Messages:
    887
    Likes Received:
    8
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    80
    #37
    If he takes away medicare, health care and social security, its gonna ruin the economy even more. Saving money shouldn't start with talking way from the needy, it should start with fixing the business and upping taxes, If everyone can spend just a little more towards taxes and fix our national debt problems them maybe in 10-15 years or less this mess will be over with. Its worth it in the long run.

    As far as Hitler and the Nazi plan towards genocide. I can't really see the relevancy towards the two, and I think it was uncalled for to even think about comparing the 2 way different plans... Obama isn't Hitler... end of story.
     
    AmpedHosts, May 22, 2009 IP
  18. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #38
    I don't agree that raisin taxes is the answer. Less government spending is the answer. Raising taxes only takes more money out of the working man. I know, not something that the welfare check cashers and the people over at hug a thug care about, but, people that actually work for their money don't want it to be taken away jujst because a bunch of grumpy old white men (and now a guy that appears black but was raised in a white household and went to school with the grumpy old white men) can't control their spending habits. People that are in a bunch of debt and can't show financial responsibility don't get security clearances...but, when you are part of the 'elite' it's a differant standard.
     
    hostlonestar, May 22, 2009 IP
  19. stOx

    stOx Notable Member

    Messages:
    6,426
    Likes Received:
    130
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    230
    #39
    It doesn't require them to personally own them any more than being in the army requires people to personally own weapons.

    It's not about owning weapons, it's about being free to join a military and defend your state. The right to "bear arms" is the right to be a part of an army.

    It does matter because, like i said, previous drafts were simply different wordings of the same thing. or are you saying that between drafts they entirely changed what they were referring to?
     
    stOx, May 22, 2009 IP
  20. hostlonestar

    hostlonestar Peon

    Messages:
    1,514
    Likes Received:
    50
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #40
    Since you are apparently to hard headed to understand what I have said. And you just bring up the same things, which I have already answered, cited by case law/interperatations of the constitution by people that are charged with interperating and ruling on it, I'm not going to repeat myself. I have already provided facts for my argument. Yours is nothing but ideology and the lack of ability to comprehend.

    And no, it does not matter one single bit what the previous drafts said. They were not ratified, they were drafts. DRAFTS. Just that nothing more.

    I'm done attempting to explain things, anyone that can read can see you have 0 clue what you are talking about.
     
    hostlonestar, May 23, 2009 IP