CONGRATS! US HEALTHCARE REFORM PASSES!

[lx_theo]

They are different. But many scholars today will also tell you Fascism sprang forth from socialism. As a matter of fact, before he invented fascism, Mussolini was an ardent socialist. There are many small differences between the two but the root still remains the same: statist tyranny. That's why I lump them together. I get that they're different but they're still tyrannical.



1. You're darn right I do. Those principles are timeless. And you're still hashing together the definitions of liberalism. You're just another person who thinks no morality is equal, therefore no principle is equal. If there were no morals and principles upheld throughout time then there would only be chaos. That's what makes our constitution so great. It brings together all the influential freedom-creating principles discovered throughout civilization together.

2. You're still missing the point. Conservatives support liberty, with no forms of tyranny. As I said before, pure capitalism is a non-tyrannical system because it gives everyone equal opportunity. I'll say this again too: we're not living in capitalism anymore, we're living in quasi-socialist corporatist cronyism.

3. He follows the same governmental principles as Hitler. That doesn't mean he believes in eugenics and mass-murdering like Hitler did. You keep missing the point of this statement.

0. Psst. I have a secret I've been telling you. And I'll let Wikipedia tell you, since you've been using it as proof.

Scholars generally consider fascism to be on the far right of the conventional left-right political spectrum,although some scholars claim that fascism has been influenced by both the left and the right

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism



1. The fundamentals, I agree, are timeless. But a country will always have to adapt to modern day and age. What happened with the civil rights act back in the early to mid '60s? It was actually surprising similar treatment to the healthcare now. Guess what, that was a liberal movement.

2. More ignorance. Pure capitalism naturally separates the rich from the poor. No middle class, no opportunity for those not born with it (rich). Government regulation has been used to create more fair systems through the U.S.'s history. Modernly speaking, Conservatism is based on the idea of opportunity while liberalism is based on equality. At the radical ends of each, tyranny created from both take away any reality of either. Thats why we need a middle ground.

3. Whats the point of comparing him to Hitler in any way? No matter what Hitler's political stances were, almost no one will ever take it as anything but he's evil. It doesn't do justice to anything.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

0. Psst. I have a secret I've been telling you. And I'll let Wikipedia tell you, since you've been using it as proof.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism



1. The fundamentals, I agree, are timeless. But a country will always have to adapt to modern day and age. What happened with the civil rights act back in the early to mid '60s? It was actually surprising similar treatment to the healthcare now. Guess what, that was a liberal movement.

2. More ignorance. Pure capitalism naturally separates the rich from the poor. No middle class, no opportunity for those not born with it (rich). Government regulation has been used to create more fair systems through the U.S.'s history.

3. Whats the point of comparing him to Hitler in any way? No matter what Hitler's political stances were, almost no one will ever take it as anything but he's evil. It doesn't do justice to anything.

Just because it's the general consensus doesn't mean it's correct. Just look at the global warming scandal.

1. The fundamental you just listed was already present in the Declaration and carried through in the Constitution; it just wasn't being followed. All men are created equal.

And health care isn't a right. See here: https://www.pokecommunity.com/posts/5664378/

2. No, it does not. You forget the concept of investment. The money just doesn't sit in the bank. That's what funds other companies and new innovative inventions which gives the middle class its jobs and education.

3. Yes it does, from an informed standpoint. Just because people are ignorant about the governmental applications of Hitler's philosophy doesn't make my point any less valid.

 

[lx_theo]

Just because it's the general consensus doesn't mean it's correct. Just look at the global warming scandal.

1. The fundamental you just listed was already present in the Declaration and carried through in the Constitution; it just wasn't being followed. All men are created equal.

2. No, it does not. You forget the concept of investment. The money just doesn't sit in the bank. That's what funds other companies and new innovative inventions which gives the middle class its jobs and education.

3. Yes it does, from an informed standpoint. Just because people are ignorant about the governmental applications of Hitler's philosophy doesn't make my point any less valid.

0. You're the one who's been rattling around about scholars saying that support your point, and when something says that scholars believe exactly what I've been saying it, you can't trust them. Don't be a hypocrite.

1. But in reality thats all from perspective, now isn't it? There's a reason it took almost three hundred years for civil rights to be a reality, and that because the world changes. They had slaves when they made the constitution. The founding fathers had slaves, and so did many. But what happened? The world changed. The nation changed. The laws changed, and eventually, our people changed.

2. Yes it does. PURE capitalism does. You will have the few rich up on the top who can do whatever they want, and they will, based on human nature, oppress any attempt for the poor to gain any ground.


3. Then don't say things that DON'T HELP. All the statement does is what I already said. You can't just come onto a Pokemon forum and expect many to be well informed on Hitler's political stances.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

0. You're the one who's been rattling around about scholars saying that support your point, and when something says that scholars believe exactly what I've been saying it, you can't trust them. Don't be a hypocrite.

1. But in reality thats all from perspective, now isn't it? There's a reason it took almost three hundred years for civil rights to be a reality, and that because the world changes. They had slaves when they made the constitution. The founding fathers had slaves, and so did many. But what happened? The world changed. The nation changed. The laws changed, and eventually, our people changed.

2. Yes it does. PURE capitalism does. You will have the few rich up on the top who can do whatever they want, and they will, based on human nature, oppress any attempt for the poor to gain any ground.


3. Then don't say things that DON'T HELP. All the statement does is what I already said. You can't just come onto a Pokemon forum and expect many to be well informed on Hitler's political stances.

0. I'm no hypocrite. It's just that your scholars happen to be on the wrong side of history. Read the book I mentioned, Liberal Fascism, to see what I mean.

1. The principle never changed; that's why it was in the Constitution and Declaration. Historically, the only reason the founders didn't want slavery gone immediately was because they were afraid the union would dissolve. Look what happened when they tried 100 years later. The Civil War.

2. No. You're ignoring the concept of investment again. Even if they wanted to make more money just for themselves, they would still inadvertently create the middle class and fund the lower class by supporting new inventions so that they can make more money.

3. Not my fault.

 

[lx_theo]

0. I'm no hypocrite. It's just that your scholars happen to be on the wrong side of history. Read the book I mentioned, Liberal Fascism, to see what I mean.

1. The principle never changed; that's why it was in the Constitution and Declaration. Historically, the only reason the founders didn't want slavery gone immediately was because they were afraid the union would dissolve. Look what happened when they tried 100 years later. The Civil War.

2. No. You're ignoring the concept of investment again. Even if they wanted to make more money just for themselves, they would still inadvertently create the middle class by funding new inventions so that they can make more money.

3. Not my fault.

0. :laugh: You are so a hypocrite. A consensus says otherwise, but then you point to a single persons book as the answer. Why would I read a whole book. Honestly, its not worth the effort. I'll probably just read the exact same viewpoint I'm reading here. Have you ever heard of walking in another person's shoes?

1. I know that much, but my point still stands. The difference those 100 years made was that the north loss their dependency on slavery as the world became technologically advanced. With a much more supportive region of the United States standing with the idea, they were able to bring the Union together once again by the end. If the founders would have done it, the nation would have been much more fragile without a strong base of support in any area, leading to most likely a collapse of the entire effort.

2.They wouldn't get the chance. Prices would be high and wages would be low. They'd have barely enough to live let alone invest. So its irrelevant.

3. Yeah, it is. If you want to purpose an idea without diluting it to things like implying Obama is Hitler, don't do that.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

0. :laugh: You are so a hypocrite. A consensus says otherwise, but then you point to a single persons book as the answer. Why would I read a whole book. Honestly, its not worth the effort. I'll probably just read the exact same viewpoint I'm reading here. Have you ever heard of walking in another person's shoes?

1. I know that much, but my point still stands. The difference those 100 years made was that the north loss their dependency on slavery as the world became technologically advanced. With a much more supportive region of the United States standing with the idea, they were able to bring the Union together once again by the end. If the founders would have done it, the nation would have been much more fragile without a strong base of support in any area, leading to most likely a collapse of the entire effort.

2.They wouldn't get the chance. Prices would be high and wages would be low. They'd have barely enough to live let alone invest. So its irrelevant.

3. Yeah, it is. If you want to purpose an idea without diluting it to things like implying Obama is Hitler, don't do that.

0. It's not just his opinion. He compiles tons of facts and historical documents. That's why I want you to read the book, so you can see.

1. You just echoed my point, lol. Slavery should have died with the Constitution when it was written, it just wasn't feasible.

2. Yes they would. The pure capitalist system laid the foundation for our current middle class. With all the technology much more people have access to better education and can better provide for themselves. Guess who funded the development of that technology? Rich people.

3. Again, I made the difference quite clear. If you see it now then that means others can too. That argument is ineffective.

If you can't make any more points than this, I'd rather just end my discussion with you in particular here unless you want to find something new to talk about that's directly about health care. I'm rather tired of repeating myself. Not to say I don't enjoy talking about this; but for the sake of staying on topic. No offense though, I'm glad we came together on point 1 and a little on point 3. =P

 

[lx_theo]

0. It's not just his opinion. he compiles tons of facts and historical documents. That's why I want you to read the book, so you can see.

1. You just echoed my point, lol. Slavery should have died with the Constitution when it was written, it just wasn't feasible.

2. Yes they would. The pure capitalist system laid the foundation for our current middle class. With all the technology much more people have access to better education and can better provide for themselves. Guess who funded the development of that technology? Rich people.

3. Again, I made the difference quite clear. If you see it now then that means others can too. That argument is ineffective.

If you can't make any more points than this, I'd rather just end my discussion with you in particular here unless you want to find something new to talk about that's directly about health care. I'm rather tired of repeating myself. No offense though, I'm glad we came together on point 1 and a little on point 3. =P

0. Still makes you a hypocrite, only willing to listen to people who don't like the other side as much as you.

1. And the world changes, meaning you have to adapt to it. The health care bill is a part of that process.

2. What laid out our current system was government intervention. What I've already stated happened, in America. Taking away monopolies, setting minimum wage standards, all liberal for their time, set up the chance for the opportunities you mentioned like investments. But that's not a pure capitalist system.

3. People still won't do research. Its not a good point even when doing that, I don't know what Hitler's stances were and in all honesty I don't care. Because we're not Nazi Germany, Obama is not an anti-semite or a fascist no matter what you want to believe, and Hitler's actual political stances (though I don't know the specifics) were very effective in bringing the country back from their tough times.

4. You want another point? How about this: The bill was very bi-partisan. The one the democrats wanted was much more liberal, and the one the Republicans wanted was much more conservative. No Public option, no single payer plan... none of the actual real liberal parts ever got through.

 

[bmah]

Well, well, wasn't this predictable. This was kind of the main reason why I was hinting at revisiting the issue later, because points have been made, and the subject's been exhausted of things to say, other than nit-gritty pedantical facts to keep the other person on his toes and say, "you didn't acknowledge this and that". I obviously disagree with Prince_of_Light's viewpoints (especially with giving credit to Tea Party activists?! - *despite the provided evidence*) but who am I kidding - can't change someone's mind just like that. Since debates and arguments is an art form, he/she who articulates the best is all I'm really seeing. :/

 

[Prince_of_Light]

4. You want another point? How about this: The bill was very bi-partisan. The one the democrats wanted was much more liberal, and the one the Republicans wanted was much more conservative. No Public option, no single payer plan... none of the actual real liberal parts ever got through.

Actually it wasn't bipartisan at all. On the House health care vote, no Republicans voted for it. If anything the bipartisanship was on the "NO" side of the vote because more democrats defected to voting no.

I already addressed this, too. i don't want to link back so please read backward along the thread yourself.

Well, well, wasn't this predictable. This was kind of the main reason why I was hinting at revisiting the issue later, because points have been made, and the subject's been exhausted of things to say, other than nit-gritty pedantical facts to keep the other person on his toes and say, "you didn't acknowledge this and that". I obviously disagree with Prince_of_Light's viewpoints (especially with giving credit to Tea Party activists?! - despite the provided evidence*) but who am I kidding - can't change someone's mind just like that. Since debates and arguments is an art form, he/she who articulates the best is all I'm really seeing. :/

I agree with this even though apparently I disagree with you ideologically. XD

But yeah we did get a bit off-topic. I wanna get back to health care. And the reason why we've gone to pedantics is because I've discussed the practical portions equally as exhaustively, along with a few others back toward the beginning of this thread.

 

[lx_theo]

Actually it wasn't bipartisan at all. On the House health care vote, no Republicans voted for it. If anything the bipartisanship was on the "NO" side of the vote because more democrats defected to voting no.

I already addressed this, too. i don't want to link back so please read backward along the thread yourself.

Not my job to read backwards, so I'll just reply to what you actually said.

I don't believe any republicans actually cared what was in the bill by the end. The party as a whole had taken such a stance on the issue of the Democrats actually getting it passed that if even one had voted for it, then they would have been shunned by their party. In the end it was political strategy by the Republicans, not actual care for the country. The Democrats had actually lost votes on their side when the bill became much more bi-partisan and less liberal.

 

[Prince_of_Light]

Not my job to read backwards, so I'll just reply to what you actually said.

I don't believe any republicans actually cared what was in the bill by the end. The party as a whole had taken such a stance on the issue of the Democrats actually getting it passed that if even one had voted for it, then they would have been shunned by their party. In the end it was political strategy by the Republicans, not actual care for the country. The Democrats had actually lost votes on their side when the bill became much more bi-partisan and less liberal.

Simply untrue. Again I will point to previous posts I have made about Republican and conservative methods of reforming health care, so you can fish for them. Given all the arguments you are making have already been addressed by myself, I'll refrain from replying to you again until I find something you've said I haven't mulled over in my brain or haven't already written down yet. Nothing personal though, it's just that I've been the main dribbler of this thread since page 2.

EDIT: And by the way, bmah, this kind of thing usually happens because of lack of contribution from multiple people. Feel free to throw your head in the ring. ;P

 

[lx_theo]

Simply untrue. Again I will point to previous posts I have made, so you can fish for them. Given all the arguments you are making have already been addressed by myself, I'll refrain from replying to you again until I find something you've said I haven't mulled over in my brain yet. Nothing personal though, it's just that I've been the main dribbler of this thread since page 2.

EDIT: And by the way, bmah, this kind of thing usually happens because of lack of contribution from multiple people. Feel free to throw your head in the ring. ;P

Fine, I looked at some of your stuff, and although everything I just said is completely true and I've seen nothing to say otherwise, one thing stuck out to me.

You said it would be unsustainable. Using the organization both the Dems and Republicans use for economic calculation and such calculate the bill will take a trillion dollars off the national debt in the next 20 years.


EDIT: Adding to my first point, what would a bi-partisan bill include? Only what the Republicans wanted?

 

[SBaby]

Fine, I looked at some of your stuff, and although everything I just said is completely true and I've seen nothing to say otherwise, one thing stuck out to me.

EDIT: Adding to my first point, what would a bi-partisan bill include? Only what the Republicans wanted?

Bi-partisan means exactly that. TWO parties. It would be things that BOTH parties/factions want, not just things that ONE party wants. The Democratic faction passed this bill themselves, against the will of the people. By doing so, Obama has declared that he will not listen to the American people. That is why we need to get rid of these people.

Again, you need to stop misinforming people, because it isn't helping matters.

 

[lx_theo]

Bi-partisan means exactly that. TWO parties. It would be things that BOTH parties/factions want, not just things that ONE party wants. The Democratic faction passed this bill themselves, against the will of the people. By doing so, Obama has declared that he will not listen to the American people. That is why we need to get rid of these people.

Again, you need to stop misinforming people, because it isn't helping matters.

And it was middle ground. If we're going by what you said then the only way it would be bi-partisan was if it was exactly what the Republicans wanted. They wouldn't have voted for anything else. AS the for the American people, how can you say about half is the will? What about the other half? Do they get no say?

And I'm not misinforming people. I'm disagreeing. As far as I'm concerned, what I've said is true. If you can't tell the difference, too bad.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Liberty: The right to be left alone by the government.
Thought that needed clearing up.

 

[Meta-Morph]

Good job, Mr. Obama. Now you'll have more time to do all that other stuff you said!

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Good job, Mr. Obama. Now you'll have more time to do all that other stuff you said!

We'll all be six feet deep by then. :D

 

[SBaby]

We'll all be six feet deep by then. :D

And this country will no longer be a free country by then. It'll be the USSA or the Union of North America. This is just the first of many steps toward that.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

<p>

And this country will no longer be a free country by then. It'll be the USSA or the Union of North America. This is just the first of many steps toward that.

</p>
<p> </p>

Amen we all need pray to God/Allah/Science or whatever you believe in that the Republicans take a few seats in both houses this Novemeber. At least enough seats to take away the Dems fillibuster-proof majority.

I'm not saying that because I'm a Republican but I'm saying that because a system of checks and balances fails when the executive and legislative are the same ideology. There needs to be a strong opposition Party to keep things in check.

 

[TheUltimateSacrifice]

Lulz. I now proclaim this thread "the pseudo-intellectual capital of the world"!