US is ran By "Marxists" apparently

[Eddyking]

Glenn Beck tells NRA Members: Fight the 'Marxists' at the polls.

Glenn Beck at an NRA meeting stirring up a hornet's nest. Again. But one particular part of the article really had me bothered:

""These are not Democrats" he said. "They are revolutionary Marxists""

That, goes way beyond the usual "Obama is a Socialist" spook talk. I suppose we should take comfort he's not demanding an outright insurrection- yes- but we're at the shallow end of the Glenn Beck swimming pool. Frankly genuine Marxists ought to be offended as well.

[Fender-Bender]

While Obama cannot be called a full on marxist, you can't deny that many of his ideals are Socialist.

[JeremieCompNerd]

It's really irritating that Marxism has become so negative, considering the original Marxist views are frankly worth reading about. If we could ensure that the people going into office weren't greedy SOB's like most people are, Marxism might actually work. Either way, on to Glenn Beck.
Glenn Beck is about as credible as Newt and Rush are, which is to say these people will say or do anything to make people look at them, even if they know people are only looking to figure out just what on earth they stepped just stepped on. On to gun rights.
The average citizen DOES NOT NEED A FIREARM. I repeat, for the benefit of those with no hearing whatsoever, you do not need a firearm to survive in our modernized country unless you support yourself by hunting wild game. If you can afford to buy your meat at the market, then you don't need that gun to survive. If you live somewhere where stores are harder to get to, I agree there should be provisions allowing certain forms of firearms for hunting. I'd nominate tranquilizer round firing rifles, actually, as that firearm. That way, it's harder to 'accidentally' shoot your buddy in the woods and kill him. As for game, once it goes down you can kill it up close. If you've got the stomach to skin it and cook it, you should be able to kill it while it's out cold just fine. Anybody who isn't living off food they killed themselves, doesn't even need that.

[Light]

At 5/16/10 06:40 PM, Fender-Bender wrote: While Obama cannot be called a full on marxist, you can't deny that many of his ideals are Socialist.

Most of his ideas are socialist in nature. But to the OP, don't worry about Glenn Beck calling Obama a Marxist. Although I am a right-winger I'm not afraid to point out that the far right does this often. they call those on the far left marxists, when they may only be socialist really. This can be observed by listening to Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Mark Levin, etc. The far left does this to the far right as well.

[IAmTheDarkWizard]

At 5/16/10 06:40 PM, Fender-Bender wrote: While Obama cannot be called a full on marxist, you can't deny that many of his ideals are Socialist.

What? Do you have any concept of what socialism actually is?
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

In a socialist economic system, there is no such thing as private enterprise. All companies are run by the government and/or the community. Is Obama calling for complete government take over of all corporations? No? Then he's NOT a socialist.

Obama is center-left. He's not even particularly liberal. It's hilarious/somewhat frightening to see how far the political spectrum has been skewed in the eyes of the public to see a moderate like Obama as far left.
If you mean he has socialist policies as in expanding social welfare programs, government role in the economy ect. then you have to call Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity socialists also, because they support public roads, public water supply, public libraries, Medicare, the military, ect. - all government programs. A completely capitalists system would basically be an anarchy.

[Eddyking]

At 5/16/10 08:07 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote:

A completely capitalists system would basically be an anarchy.

I think you're getting wrong on this. A complete Capitalist system just wants a completely free MARKET with no government control (Called Laissez-faire). Like Marxist Communism, a completely Laissez-faire country has never been established. Capitalism is a completely economic ideology, anarchy is capitalism plus libertarianism.

[IAmTheDarkWizard]

At 5/16/10 08:57 PM, Eddyking wrote: I think you're getting wrong on this. A complete Capitalist system just wants a completely free MARKET with no government control (Called Laissez-faire). Like Marxist Communism, a completely Laissez-faire country has never been established. Capitalism is a completely economic ideology, anarchy is capitalism plus libertarianism.

I understand what you're saying. I know that capitalism is a economic system, not a system of government. What I was trying to get at was that if a 100% free market capitalist system were ever actually established, the government (from low amounts of taxation, strong limits on interference in the economy) would be so weak/limited that it would be something close to an anarchy.

[MultiCanimefan]

The people on Beck's side of the fence I assume have no idea what a Marxist, Socialist, or Communist is; to them they're all the same.

Glenn Beck and other pundits from all sides often don't say much of anything at all. Allow me to create a DIY manual to Pundit Politics:

1. Use buzzwords to rile up a crowd. The word should be easily associated with whatever the crowd hates or thinks will destroy the moral fiber of the nation. Words like "Islam," "Fascist," "Liberal," "Conservative," and "Marxist" do just fine. But be creative! For instance, from the Michael Savage handbook: "Underground secret Socialist Marxist far-left Islamo-fascist Kenyan-born Communist," says more to people than any real substance ever will.

2. Once the polarized partisans are raising up arms to destroy whatever false threat you've concocted for them to perceive, you are now able to say ANYTHING and get support regardless of whether or not you use the terms and words in a contradictory or stupid manner. People WILL follow you.

3. After they've sworn allegiance to a cause, tell them that the other side is the enemy, even if the other side is entirely NOT what they want to destroy.

4. After the smoke clears, write a book detailing on what's wrong with the country, half of which is probably shit you started.

5. Repeat steps 1-3 as needed until you become a national bestseller or top radio host.

6. Claim you care about the people with a multi-million dollar deal in your back pocket.

7. Leave the country.

8. Conquer Europe.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 5/16/10 06:51 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Marxism might actually work.

Nope, marxism will never work, because among other things (you know, like inherent human nature etc), you will never be able to overcome the problem of economic calculation in the absence of a price system.

The average citizen DOES NOT NEED A FIREARM.

I agree!

I mean, why would you want to be able to defend yourself? Like if someone broke into your home, you don't need to protect yourself, you just wait half an hour for the police to show up, and in the meantime ask the criminal that he doesn't hurt you until they arrive!

[adrshepard]

At 5/16/10 08:07 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote: Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

You mean like "spreading the wealth around?"
Or taxes on one group to pay for another group's mortgage payments or health insurance?

Is Obama calling for complete government take over of all corporations? No? Then he's NOT a socialist.

So there's no inbetween at all? Really? The fact that he demonizes everyone and every business that isn't "middle class" or "small" doesn't strike you as socialist in any way? Or how the government has involved itself in the key affairs of the health, auto, and now financial industries, telling companies what kinds of cars they should make, policies should be crafted, and balance sheets approved?

Obama is center-left. He's not even particularly liberal. It's hilarious/somewhat frightening to see how far the political spectrum has been skewed in the eyes of the public to see a moderate like Obama as far left.

No, he's liberal all right. Proclaiming that health insurance is a "human right" and bowing to foreign leaders is pretty liberal. Don't confuse practical politics with ideology. This guy is a community organizer, a euphemism for an agitator or rabble-rouser, and that makes him socialist-leaning (unless it's a big act) almost by definition.

If you mean he has socialist policies as in expanding social welfare programs, government role in the economy ect. then you have to call Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity socialists also, because they support public roads, public water supply, public libraries, Medicare, the military, ect. - all government programs.

Goddamn it already. Why do so many people think infrastructure=socialism? Those programs (with the exception of Medicare, which most conservatives have issues with anyway because it IS pure socialism) are government sponsored investments. Public libraries and roads are not "moral" or "just." They have an important function that advances society as a whole. You can't say the same thing for health insurance mandates, which basically takes money from one group and gives it to another in the form of healthcare (we're way, way past the point where additional public health improvements have more than a neglible effect on stabilizing the labor supply or increasing productivity). You can't say the same thing for amnesty, which legalizes millions of poor, uneducated aliens, not because they would help our society prosper, but because it's the "moral thing to do." These are programs Obama openly supports, and it's part of what makes him and so many of his supporters socialists.

[Stoicish]

At 5/16/10 11:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:
I mean, why would you want to be able to defend yourself? Like if someone broke into your home, you don't need to protect yourself, you just wait half an hour for the police to show up, and in the meantime ask the criminal that he doesn't hurt you until they arrive!

I have no problem with an average citizen owning a firearm if they go through the right process to get it. However, your view point is slightly skewed on the idea that everyone should own a firearm, "just in case". Are you the fucking paranoid that someone is going to break into your home that you need to have a firearm at all times? A large majority of break-in's happen when the people aren't even home and there pretty much isn't shit you can do about it BUT call the police and wait for them to arrive.

Also, that whole idea that it takes the police 30 minutes to arrive is a myth. I know a couple of police officers in my city and if there is a 911 call then they fucking book it especially if its a break in. Yet, if you still want to own a gun just in case then I'm fine with that because that is your right as protected by the second amendment. We have it, so suck it up.

What gets me is that most pro-gun people, other than the fact that they are overtly paranoid that the government is going to take away their guns, don't know simple fucking steps to have gun safety. I never handled a rifle that much or any gun before I joined the Marine Corps. They hammered it in our heads to have complete muzzle awareness so you aren't blazing it around and off someone on the off chance there is a round in chamber. I, at one point, decide to go hunting with this one person because I haven't done it in a very very long time and I felt like an animal needed to be the vent of my frustration. This guy supposedly had been hunting ever since he was a kid and while I was walking ahead of him he had a loaded fucking rifle pointed just over my head. I was so fucking pissed. I turned around and grabbed the barrel and told him, "WATCH THE FUCKING MUZZLE OR I SWEAR TO GOD I WILL KILL YOU IF YOUR GUN DOESN'T KILL ME!"

We give people the ability to have weapons, but these things kill. Guns kill people. Simple fact. I won't back down on this issue there NEEDS to be a system set up in this country where people have to learn to take weapons very seriously. In fact our gun laws Federally are more laxed than anyone would think. There NEEDS to be a federal law that says if you are going to buy a weapon you need a license that says you took a class and you know how to use it. Thing is they have been less restrictive since the Clinton era and there is no indication that Obama is seeking to reverse or put in strict legislation. Anyone who says that is flat out lying. Period. I don't give a shit if you use a speech or try to quote him when he was a Senator. If he hadn't made a mention of it while he's in office then he's not doing it. Until then you are just flat out lying and basing all of your facts off of speculation.

Just like the gun owners who flipped shit because the automatically assumed Obama was going to put a ammo tax in which, by the way, is absurd. Gun shop owner told me it was the best business he ever got in a long while. In fact the Gun and Ammo market have the best business under a Democrat President making Democrats, ironically, mostly pro-second amendment.

I am in favor of absolute liberty, but not at the expense of another persons life. Take it or leave it as you will, but you can't gamble on something that can kill and do it quite well.

[Musician]

At 5/16/10 11:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Nope, marxism will never work, because among other things (you know, like inherent human nature etc), you will never be able to overcome the problem of economic calculation in the absence of a price system.

I think you're confusing Marxism with Soviet Communism. There are many schools of Marxism, not all of them are against market pricing.

[Musician]

At 5/16/10 11:28 PM, adrshepard wrote: You mean like "spreading the wealth around?"
Or taxes on one group to pay for another group's mortgage payments or health insurance?

It's when society as a collective owns the means of production, at least in theory. Imagine a factory full of workers, producing widgets. The total output of the factory is $300,000 a year among 15 workers. Marxism basically states, that since the workers are the ones who actually produced the wealth, they're the ones who have a legitimate claim to the wealth. Thus the wealth should be distributed by labour contributed. So the wealth is distributed fairly equally among the workers, $20,000 each.

In a capitalist society it's different. Private ownership of the means of production insures that the owner of the factory gets final say in the way the wealth is distributed. So despite the fact that the owner produce relatively less than the workers did, he still (given the right conditions) claims the lions share of the profit.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 5/17/10 02:28 AM, Musician wrote: It's when society as a collective owns the means of production, at least in theory.

1. Why do we need to change the whole system for this? There is nothing preventing workers pooling their own resources and starting their own firm. Why shouldn't hierarchical and non-hierarchical be allowed to coexist?
2. If you believe that profit should we shared equally among workers, d you also believe losses should be shared equally?
If someone owns a firm that makes a profit, then the owner, according to you, should get the same share of it as the workers, but if the firm loses money, he's the one who has cop this. Do you not think that the fact that the capitalist has to undertake such a risk is the reason why he deserves the profits?

[SadisticMonkey]

At 5/16/10 11:53 PM, Stoicish wrote: However, your view point is slightly skewed on the idea that everyone should own a firearm, "just in case".

I never said everyone should own one, I'm saying everyone should be ABLE to own one.

Are you the fucking paranoid that someone is going to break into your home that you need to have a firearm at all times? A large majority of break-in's happen when the people aren't even home and there pretty much isn't shit you can do about it BUT call the police and wait for them to arrive.

There are more instances than just break-ins, but I believe people should not have to rely on the police to defend themselves from aggressors. There are so many examples of people who have been able to protect themselves and their property because they had a gun, and so many examples I have read of where having a gun could have saved lvies/saved people from being robbed/raped.

Also, that whole idea that it takes the police 30 minutes to arrive is a myth. I know a couple of police officers in my city and if there is a 911 call then they fucking book it especially if its a break in. Yet, if you still want to own a gun just in case then I'm fine with that because that is your right as protected by the second amendment. We have it, so suck it up.

Firstly, the OP is the one you should be telling to 'suck it up".
Secondly, they obviously don't ALWAYS take that long, but I mean, by dad is a cop, and he says that so many people would be better having a firearm than having to wait for police to turn up.
Seriously though if someone is breaking in, unless the cops can get there within a minute or two, they're not going to stop you from being robbed/assaulted.

We give people the ability to have weapons, but these things kill.

Oh-kay this is all kind of crazy here. All I will say is that swimming pools are responsible for more accidental deaths than guns.
If you're talking about purposeful killings, then outlawing guns means only outlaws have guns, and so innocent people can't defend against them.

[therealsylvos]

At 5/16/10 08:07 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote:
What? Do you have any concept of what socialism actually is?
Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

And yet, you understand that Democrats talking about "redistribution of income" and raising progressive tax rates, and appropriations based on income, IS based on "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."?

[Drakim]

At 5/16/10 06:40 PM, Fender-Bender wrote: While Obama cannot be called a full on marxist, you can't deny that many of his ideals are Socialist.

Yes you can. If Obama was in any socialist country he would be called a Capitalist dog.

[AapoJoki]

At 5/16/10 08:07 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote: Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

In a socialist economic system, there is no such thing as private enterprise. All companies are run by the government and/or the community. Is Obama calling for complete government take over of all corporations? No? Then he's NOT a socialist.

In Europe at least, there are plenty of people who call themselves socialists that don't seek to abolish the private sector. Usually not even those on the left from social democrats.

[Jon-86]

At 5/16/10 10:29 PM, MultiCanimefan wrote: 1. Use buzzwords to rile up a crowd. The word shou].............[ For instance, from the Michael Savage handbook: "Underground secret Socialist Marxist far-left Islamo-fascist Kenyan-born Communist," says more to people than any real substance ever will.

Seriously that had me in stitches, a canny believe people like that exist. And I look forward to the day a visit this great nation to meet them! Should be entertaining.

[JeremieCompNerd]

At 5/16/10 11:18 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 5/16/10 06:51 PM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: The average citizen DOES NOT NEED A FIREARM.

I agree!

I mean, why would you want to be able to defend yourself? Like if someone broke into your home, you don't need to protect yourself, you just wait half an hour for the police to show up, and in the meantime ask the criminal that he doesn't hurt you until they arrive!

Or like me you could use a knife, which is better for close quarters urban environments where if you miss the robber you could shoot up your neighbor's house. It's illegal to fire a gun in most city limits anyways, for the very reason of stray shots. If we take away guns, it means that the robber is less likely to have access to one, and so is the paranoid fuck who buys one for self defense and doesn't know how to use it to defend themselves. You come in my house with a gun, I have a machete by my bedside and we'll see if I actually need a gun to protect myself. Besides, I did mention tranquilizers right? If you're/they're that pissy over having a range advantage in their house, you/they can at least get something that'll leave a living body for the police to pick up and arrest later. There's just other ways to do it besides leaving a firearm next to your bedside, filled with explosives designed to project shrapnel towards a target. These things aren't designed to be used for anything other than killing, and I don't believe that power belongs in the hands of anyone who isn't bright enough to see that they don't need it.

[Musician]

At 5/17/10 04:08 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: 1. Why do we need to change the whole system for this? There is nothing preventing workers pooling their own resources and starting their own firm. Why shouldn't hierarchical and non-hierarchical be allowed to coexist?

It depends on what school of Marxism you're directing this question towards. I personally don't believe that the entire system needs to be rebuilt from the ground up in order to achieve a more equitable (smaller) wealth disparity within this country. Other schools would disagree, arguing that the existance of private ownership in and of itself inherently leads to exploitation, and thus that private property should be completely abolished.

The way I see it, we don't need to abolish private property to minimize the exploitation of labour. We just need intervention in key areas of the market. Equal oppurtunity for education needs to be provided to everyone regardless of their social class. Macroeconomic policy needs to be focused on providing the ability to invest in capital, to everyone regardless of social class. Low interest loans from the government to any group of individuals looking to start a cooperative woul
d be a good first step.

2. If you believe that profit should we shared equally among workers, d you also believe losses should be shared equally?

Yes. If the factory makes $300,000 a year, and that's divided among 15 workers according to labour contributed (which is decided democratically), then each worker is going to recieve somewhere around $20,000 each. If the factory only makes $150,000 next year, each worker only recieves roughly $10,000 each. Every member of the collective has a vested interest in increasing their overall productivity, because every member shares the risks and rewards of their company.

[Jizzlebang]

At 5/17/10 07:19 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 5/16/10 06:40 PM, Fender-Bender wrote: While Obama cannot be called a full on marxist, you can't deny that many of his ideals are Socialist.

Yes you can. If Obama was in any socialist country he would be called a Capitalist dog.

Drakim is right, Obama is hardly a socialist. The buzz that he is one in an interesting look in how far right american politics is.

[IAmTheDarkWizard]

At 5/16/10 11:28 PM, adrshepard wrote: You mean like "spreading the wealth around?"
Or taxes on one group to pay for another group's mortgage payments or health insurance?

A government, at it's essence, is a wealth-redistributing body. My taxes could be going to an interstate highway halfway across the country that I will never use. Or to pay for public schools, even though I don't have any children. Or to help people that have been struck by a natural disaster, such as Hurricane Katrina. This is all "spreading the wealth around."

So there's no inbetween at all? Really? The fact that he demonizes everyone and every business that isn't "middle class" or "small" doesn't strike you as socialist in any way?

He demonizes businesses? Like how he shamelessly panders to the oil companies to allow more offshore drilling (and we all know how well that's turning out)? Or how he handed out trillions in bailout money to corrupt corporations? Yes, that's definitely "demonizing business".

No, he's liberal all right. Proclaiming that health insurance is a "human right" and bowing to foreign leaders is pretty liberal. Don't confuse practical politics with ideology. This guy is a community organizer, a euphemism for an agitator or rabble-rouser, and that makes him socialist-leaning (unless it's a big act) almost by definition.

What? I'm trying to comprehend your astounding jumps in logic. A community organizer is anyone involved at a local level. What Obama did as a community organizer was mostly setting up job training and tutoring programs. So helping out the community = political dissident = automatically socialist, even if they're a right wing "rabble-rouser".

Goddamn it already. Why do so many people think infrastructure=socialism? Those programs (with the exception of Medicare, which most conservatives have issues with anyway because it IS pure socialism) are government sponsored investments. Public libraries and roads are not "moral" or "just." They have an important function that advances society as a whole.

Wait, so healthcare doesn't have "an important function that advances society as a whole?" If you truly believe that, never go to a hospital or a doctor again. There is no difference between what you call "infastructure" and what you call "socialism." At the end of the day, public roads, libraries, and water supplies are taking my money and redistributing it for the benefit of society - exactly what national healthcare would do.

Obama is a socialist and I'm the tsar of Scotland.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 5/17/10 11:16 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Or like me you could use a knife, which is better for close quarters urban environments

Yeah I have knives, but most strong men could overpower women with knives

where if you miss the robber you could shoot up your neighbor's house. It's illegal to fire a gun in most city limits anyways, for the very reason of stray shots.

1. Well being inside, the chances of you hitting "your neighbour" are incredibly small. I mean we're talking shotguns or handguns here, not some .50 cal rifles.
2. More defensive situations won't actually involve a shooting. Just the fact that you're pointing a gun at an thief will more than likely be enough to make him leave or stay put while you call the police.

If we take away guns, it means that the robber is less likely to have access to one,

Gun control doesn't work and if you didn't already know this you're incredibly ignorant and really shouldn't be talking on the issue.

and so is the paranoid fuck who buys one for self defense and doesn't know how to use it to defend themselves. You come in my house with a gun, I have a machete by my bedside and we'll see if I actually need a gun to protect myself.

Okay, say there's no guns, but machetes are easily accesible.
If you break into a woman's house with a machete, and she has a machete, chances are you could kick her ass unless she's some sort of fighting expert.

However, if you both have guns, you're more than likely not going to risk getting shot by taking her on.
Guns make it a level playing field.

Besides, I did mention tranquilizers right?

Completely impractical.

There's just other ways to do it besides leaving a firearm next to your bedside, filled with explosives designed to project shrapnel towards a target. These things aren't designed to be used for anything other than killing, and I don't believe that power belongs in the hands of anyone who isn't bright enough to see that they don't need it.

If you break into someone's house you full well deserve to be subjected to the risk of being shot.
A thief being shot is far better than an innocent home owner even getting mildly injured by the thief.

[adrshepard]

At 5/17/10 07:22 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote:

A government, at it's essence, is a wealth-redistributing body. My taxes could be going to an interstate highway halfway across the country that I will never use. Or to pay for public schools, even though I don't have any children. Or to help people that have been struck by a natural disaster, such as Hurricane Katrina. This is all "spreading the wealth around."

100% wrong. It's not wealth-redistribution. It's public investment that enables people to prosper economically. The entire concept of public assistance is founded on the idea that a person, with a little help, can potentially benefit society or the economy for more than the cost of assistance (i.e. an investment). The same goes for building or rebuilding infrastructure damaged after Katrina.

So there's no inbetween at all? Really? The fact that he demonizes everyone and every business that isn't "middle class" or "small" doesn't strike you as socialist in any way?

He demonizes businesses? Like how he shamelessly panders to the oil companies to allow more offshore drilling (and we all know how well that's turning out)? Or how he handed out trillions in bailout money to corrupt corporations? Yes, that's definitely "demonizing business".

He didn't hand it out; it was Bush that signed TARP into law. In so doing, he gave the government substantial influence over these companies, and Obama is using that as well as public anti-business sentiment he helped foster to try to extend that control further into determining what kind and how much of certain financial assets banks can be allowed to issue.
As for oil drilling, you would prefer that we send more of our money to Saudi Arabia as opposed to Texas (Houston is the BP America HQ).

What? I'm trying to comprehend your astounding jumps in logic. A community organizer is anyone involved at a local level. What Obama did as a community organizer was mostly setting up job training and tutoring programs. So helping out the community = political dissident = automatically socialist, even if they're a right wing "rabble-rouser".

Yeah, pretty much (though I can't imagine a conservative community organizer; believing that poor people for the most part have only themselves to blame doesn't help charity work much). How do you think he made it in Chicago if not by demagoguery honed during his time "inspiring the community?" Maybe he did it by befriending (or at least by associating with them publicly) anti-American radicals like Jeremy Wright? Or by cultivating friends in Acorn?

Goddamn it already. Why do so many people think infrastructure=socialism? Those programs (with the exception of Medicare, which most conservatives have issues with anyway because it IS pure socialism) are government sponsored investments. Public libraries and roads are not "moral" or "just." They have an important function that advances society as a whole.

Wait, so healthcare doesn't have "an important function that advances society as a whole?" If you truly believe that, never go to a hospital or a doctor again.

Read what I said again. Did I say "healthcare?" No, I said "Medicare," and before that, "health insurance mandates." Healthcare in general is a worthy investment, but with US health being as good as it is (health as defined by environmental, sanitation-related diseases and epidemics, as opposed to individual health problems like heart-disease and cancer, usually caused by behavior), spending more money isn't going to do much except possibly increase life expectancy. Not a great idea unless retirement ages rise as well.

At the end of the day, public roads, libraries, and water supplies are taking my money and redistributing it for the benefit of society - exactly what national healthcare would do.

I suggest you read up on who exactly benefits from healthcare reform. It isn't college-educated middle class people, but the dirt-poor and working poor. I can tell you from personal experience that there are very few hard-luck cases among the working poor. The outstanding majority of them have made stupid decisions that have cost them, and many keep making them even now (smoking habit, poor work ethic, having children despite low income). So it's not like they deserve it out of sympathy, unless it's the sympathy you would have for an abused or wounded animal.

That and the pool of uneducated workers is already large enough with all the illegals, so the chance of price increases stemming from a illness-reduced labor force is extremely low.

The society-wide benefits of police, water, and education are too obvious to delve into. You should see the difference between those types of programs and additional health services.

[Camarohusky]

At 5/16/10 08:07 PM, IAmTheDarkWizard wrote: Socialism: a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

Yes

In a socialist economic system, there is no such thing as private enterprise. All companies are run by the government and/or the community. Is Obama calling for complete government take over of all corporations? No? Then he's NOT a socialist.

Socialism is not an economic system. The system you're thinking of is a completely different system known as Communism. Socialism is a type of government where the government provides a great deal of services to the people. Communism is where the government owns all business. They are not in any way similar. Actually, you can have a socialist capitalism, and a domecratic communism. The latter has yet to occur, but that doesn't mean it's impossible.

[JeremieCompNerd]

At 5/17/10 09:44 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 5/17/10 11:16 AM, JeremieCompNerd wrote: Or like me you could use a knife, which is better for close quarters urban environments

Yeah I have knives, but most strong men could overpower women with knives

I wouldn't risk it, that's for sure. I've watched martial arts masters fighting little girls with markers, they invariably get at least one long black mark somewhere. Knives are effective and efficient fighting weapons, regardless of your size.

where if you miss the robber you could shoot up your neighbor's house. It's illegal to fire a gun in most city limits anyways, for the very reason of stray shots.

1. Well being inside, the chances of you hitting "your neighbour" are incredibly small. I mean we're talking shotguns or handguns here, not some .50 cal rifles.
2. More defensive situations won't actually involve a shooting. Just the fact that you're pointing a gun at an thief will more than likely be enough to make him leave or stay put while you call the police.

1. True, but regardless of the odds it has and can happen. Apartments have a significantly worse chance of it, with a single wall between the room with the gunfire and a potentially occupied room next door.
2. Again, true, but a tranquilizer or stungun would in fact work just as well for keeping the robber down.

If we take away guns, it means that the robber is less likely to have access to one,

Gun control doesn't work and if you didn't already know this you're incredibly ignorant and really shouldn't be talking on the issue.

Did you even look at that chart on there? America is still at least twice the homicide rate as the nearest competitor on the 'low gun ownership' side, and about 6 times that of France. Clearly we're not a peaceful country because of gun ownership after all, no? Something is obviously wrong with that, and anything done is better than nothing. Nowhere that I read there indicated that taking guns INCREASED violence, only that it didn't appear to lower it. I'd rather try something that won't work and feel better for trying, than to let it slide and never know if it could have saved someone's life. By the way, I'll talk about whatever subject I damned well please.

and so is the paranoid fuck who buys one for self defense and doesn't know how to use it to defend themselves. You come in my house with a gun, I have a machete by my bedside and we'll see if I actually need a gun to protect myself.

Okay, say there's no guns, but machetes are easily accesible.
If you break into a woman's house with a machete, and she has a machete, chances are you could kick her ass unless she's some sort of fighting expert.

Again, see 'Untrained youth with knife V. Trained martial artist twice their size'. It's almost impossible to get a knife away from someone who's trying to defend themselves without getting hurt in the process. Also, still ignoring other safety methods, aren't you?

However, if you both have guns, you're more than likely not going to risk getting shot by taking her on.
Guns make it a level playing field.

Actually, my gun to her gun I just have to pull the trigger first. It's not that hard to aim, I'd rather risk going after her gun to gun than to try to take her knife to knife.

Besides, I did mention tranquilizers right?

Completely impractical.

Proof? We've used them on bears and tigers and all manner of wild beast, humans are no exception to the rule. Stun guns, if you don't believe a chemical does the trick.

There's just other ways to do it besides leaving a firearm next to your bedside, filled with explosives designed to project shrapnel towards a target. These things aren't designed to be used for anything other than killing, and I don't believe that power belongs in the hands of anyone who isn't bright enough to see that they don't need it.

If you break into someone's house you full well deserve to be subjected to the risk of being shot.
A thief being shot is far better than an innocent home owner even getting mildly injured by the thief.

I agree, but I'd rather have neither happen. Oh, and don't forget, it's not just violent crime we're reducing by nixing guns, you also drop off accidental shootings. No handgun means kids don't pick them up by accident. No shotguns means no Dick Cheney repeats.

I'd like to see one person argue that they, in this modern society, need a gun for ANYTHING that some other method of protection can't be used AT LEAST as effectively for. Mace, stun guns, tazers, knives, all excellent defensive implements. Guns are an offensive implement, not for protection but for attack. I don't see anyone not living in a remote desert or mountain region far from modern conveniences needing to hunt to live, it's done for sport. You don't need it to hunt, you don't need it to defend yourself, you don't need it to protect a right which no longer has any purpose in this world. It's a ridiculous concept that just plain needs to go.

[Musician]

At 5/17/10 09:48 PM, adrshepard wrote: 100% wrong. It's not wealth-redistribution. It's public investment that enables people to prosper economically.

Alright, so minus the spin what's the difference? I mean look at what actually happens here. Taxes are collected from society through progressive tax brackets, then redistributed equally in the form of services. Sounds like wealth redistribution to me.

[Gorgonof]

At 5/18/10 12:12 AM, Musician wrote:

At 5/17/10 09:48 PM, adrshepard wrote: 100% wrong. It's not wealth-redistribution. It's public investment that enables people to prosper economically.

Alright, so minus the spin what's the difference? I mean look at what actually happens here. Taxes are collected from society through progressive tax brackets, then redistributed equally in the form of services. Sounds like wealth redistribution to me.

No, taxes are mostly spent on the people they come from.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/sh ow/22685.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/sh ow/266.html

[Ravariel]

At 5/18/10 07:26 AM, Gorgonof wrote:

At 5/18/10 12:12 AM, Musician wrote:

At 5/17/10 09:48 PM, adrshepard wrote: 100% wrong. It's not wealth-redistribution. It's public investment that enables people to prosper economically.

Alright, so minus the spin what's the difference? I mean look at what actually happens here. Taxes are collected from society through progressive tax brackets, then redistributed equally in the form of services. Sounds like wealth redistribution to me.

No, taxes are mostly spent on the people they come from.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/sh ow/22685.html
http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/sh ow/266.html

You're ignoring the fact that people who make less than about $15k/year don't pay federal taxes at all, while those who make a lot of money pay a lot in taxes. Also, just because each state spends about as much as they tax does not mean that all of the residents of that state are equally benefited by those tax dollars. Social programs to help the needy are a major expense, as are schools and health care, the poorer people being the largest users of those programs.