The Religious Left, Dean & the DNC, and our Republic.

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Eschatos, Feb 13, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    I hate money. That's why I prefer socialism to capitalism.

    Why?

    Don't you wanna keep more of what you earn?

    Don't you wanna be able to start your own business and not owe most of it to your government?

    And why would you want to turn America into a socialist government rather than just move to one that already exists?
  2. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    Don't you wanna keep more of what you earn?

    I'd rather have less, and let another person have enough to survive.

    Don't you wanna be able to start your own business and not owe most of it to your government?

    If my government=all of its citizens (as in my ideal), then no. Why start a business if it's not going to benefit the rest of the world?

    And why would you want to turn America into a socialist government rather than just move to one that already exists?

    Because I'd like all the world to be socialist, and right now America is the most powerful country in the world. Sort of like the people who think the world would be a nicer place if everyone were Christian. Of course, America becoming socialist would require a major retraction of our nation's usual arrogance, so I don't see it happening anytime soon. But I can always hope.


    My desire for socialism is rooted in the most admirable traits of the Christianity I was exposed to as a child. The idea that you're only on this planet for a short time, and there's more to existance than this short lifetime. So why not be good to your neighbors on this planet, instead of stepping all over them while trying to climb to the top of the money chain? I think "Christian" capitalists are perhaps the biggest brand of hypocrites I've ever seen.
  3. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Because I'd like all the world to be socialist, and right now America is the most powerful country in the world.

    Don't you understand that if we became socialist we would soon be very far from the most powerful country in the world? Our ability to earn money and use it to help people would soon run dry. We would loose opportunities to further ourselves, much less anyone eles.

    Then what?
  4. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    Honestly, J-Rod, I don't know.

    It's an interesting and frustrating paradox. Again, I liken it to Christianity, because if all the early Christians had been true Christians (in other words, no "conversion by the sword"), then Christianity would be nowhere near as prevalent as it is now. Sometimes doing the right thing is going to hurt, but that doesn't make it any less right.
  5. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    The point is that in a free society, people should be allowed not only the freedom of religious practice but the freedom to property and goods ownership and the right to pursue happiness.

    I think that's something both parties can agree upon.

    However, there is a sect in the Democratic base that has no regard for the property of others and is supportive of income redistribution (otherwise known as stealing).

    Dean is friendly with certain politicians of that vein (e.g., his support for the socialist in Vermont).

    If the Democrats lose the next Presidential election and even more seats in Congress, there is a possibility the party could break up. The far-left base (MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, et al) will demand more control and change, and the moderates within the Democratic Party will either have to squelch that to stay in the mainstream or break up altogether.
  6. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Honestly, J-Rod, I don't know

    Maybe you should find out before destroying our capitalism.

    I know God talks about charity. He also talks about taking care of your neighbor. Can this be done better if you are making alot of money, or if you live off a little money provided by the government.

    The answer seems obvious to me.

    Also, God talks about laziness. Seems that it is one of the bigger sins. Socialism allows for alot of laziness.

    I could go on, but it is late...
  7. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    But taking care of your neighbor through capitalism is like the proverbial robbing Peter to pay Paul. You can't get ahead in capitalism without putting someone else behind. Saying "I'll have more stuff to give to others" is a poor way of rationalizing capitalism, because without capitalism others would already have what you've accumulated.
  8. Darth Mischievous Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 12, 1999
    star 6
    Taking care of your neighbor is one thing.

    Having some government agent come into your house and force you to give up your money to the guy next door is another.
  9. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    But taking care of your neighbor through capitalism is like the proverbial robbing Peter to pay Paul.

    Your gonna haveta explain that one to me. 'Cause socialism is the government robbing Peter to pay Paul. And because that is happening, Paul now has the opportunity to be lazy and slothful. Both describes as sins in the Bible.

    You can't get ahead in capitalism without putting someone else behind.

    Capitalism allows for everyone to become rich. Look at all the money made by Microsoft. Look at the home video market after the introduction of DVD's. Look at the $11B video game market. Where was all this money 20 years ago.

    Some people loose as a result of competition, that's true. But as economies grow due to new markets, everyone wins. That is the long term result of capitalism.
  10. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    I'd rather my work provide someone the choice between productivity and laziness, than see my efforts result in him living in poverty regardless of how hard he works.

    Capitalism doesn't make everyone a winner. It puts the slimiest, trickiest person on top, and puts everyone else at that person's mercy.
    It's either a monopoly, with that person tyrannically dominating the market, or it's a competition where the person with the least ethics is going to outdo his competitors.
  11. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    I'd rather my work provide someone the choice between productivity and laziness, than see my efforts result in him living in poverty regardless of how hard he works.

    Give me one example of how your hard work will result in someone elses poverty.

    Your hard work can result in a job that keeps someone from poverty.

    Also, show me someone in America who works hard and can't get out of poverty.

    Capitalism doesn't make everyone a winner. It puts the slimiest, trickiest person on top, and puts everyone else at that person's mercy.

    Give an example.

    It's either a monopoly, with that person tyrannically dominating the market, or it's a competition where the person with the least ethics is going to outdo his competitors.

    I don't know if you know it or not, but the government provides for and props up the monopolies. Example: Try switching electric companies. Example: Try switching cable companies. ECT.

    A socialist government is nothing but monopolies.

    Look at our own socialist programs. Say you are unhappy with the rate of return on you retirement savings. If you try to put the money somewhere else where it will grow faster, you go to jail for not paying your social security taxes. How's that for a monopoly?
  12. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    DS77, you raise some good points.

    However, it now appears that there are those within the Democratic party itself telling Dean to cool it:

    HERE

    Just four months into his tenure as head of the Democratic Party, Howard Dean has found himself on unforgiving, if familiar, terrain. As he visited Capitol Hill on Thursday, he faced a growing number of critics and received a private scolding from leading members of his party for several derogatory remarks he has made about Republicans in recent weeks...

    ...while Democrats struggled to defend him yet quietly acknowledged that Dean was showing signs of being as polarizing as they once feared.


    I think that last sentence captures the main point.

    But, is there a growing movement to swing politics back to the center, or do these politicians simply want to score poltical points?

  13. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Check this out.

    I think I am gonna start a campain to keep Howard Dean....

    Where the Hell is Triple B? He'd love this.
  14. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Last I heard TripleB has been 'taken care of.'
  15. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    Fire_Ice... I think you should stick around. I thought about leaving, but its fun to chime in once in a while. The fundamentalists are threatening the country. I hope they soon learn to work together with the rest of us instead of damning us to the demon's pit with all the innefective might they can muster.
  16. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    Hey everybody, I've got it ALL figured out. Instead of this tug of war between capitalism and socialism, why doesn't EVERYONE here take their turn to admit that our country works best as a combination of both. No extreme capitalism, no extreme social programs. One feeds the other after all.
  17. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    Mr44

    I agree with what Dick Durbin said (not verbatim) ?That we all put our foot in our mouths sometimes, and we move on?. I also believe that the ?outrage? is only to deflect from more important issues.

    DM

    Yes there is an aspect of the Democratic party that takes it too far, but so-called ?income redistribution? is just another fancy name for excusing excessive financial burden and exploitation of the middle class, the lifeblood of our country, for the benefit of the upper classes, the entrepreneurs of our country. Speaking as a Democrat, I believe in a society where BOTH are justly rewarded for their hard work and diligence.

    J-Rod

    I agree with much of what you have said about capitalism. As you said, if people want socialism, there are places to go. But it ain?t happenin? here.

    And yes, people/coworkers out here consider me a conservative, which I know probably makes people like you and DM laugh. That said, I?d like to touch on what DM and Mr44 brought up.

    As I (and Senator Danforth) have said, the Republicans could face some problems, especially in the long-term, if they cater too much to the far-right. There is certainly a sect in the Republican party that has no respect for privacy issues (i.e. Schiavo).

    However I do believe that the fragile Democrat coalition does indeed exist, and could come to a fork in the road. There are those who staunchly defend everything Dean says, who believe universal health care is a must, who believe anyone who opposes gay marriage is a bigot, etc. On top of that, anyone who disagrees is a ?Republican lite?. Naturally they are entitled to their opinion, but so am I. [face_mischief]

    I caught flak from some coworkers for agreeing with the recent Republican proposal to raise the Social Security age and to index wages so that upper income people receive less (this is the gist of it as I understand). They absolutely disagreed with raising the age, and again (somewhat sarcastically) called me a ?closet conservative?. I told them that they need to get out more. We don?t win seats in the South not because we don?t run as ?true Democrats?, rather IMO because (aside from it becoming a GOP stronghold) because the South has always been more conservative, especially regarding socially issues. Thus IMO we need to run conservative Democrats in these areas. For example, some were outraged (and screaming for his head) that Senator Ben Nelson (D) from Nebraska (as far as I know) supports a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. While I disagree with Sen. Nelson on this issue, and he is generally more conservative than I, I do agree with him on a number of issues and respect his consensus-building. The point being that there has to be some pragmatism and realism involved. I would certainly welcome more Senator Nelsons into our party. In states like Nebraska, its either a conservative/moderate Democrat or a Republican. Liberals are NOT going to win in those states. So again, some pragmatism is in order.

    IMO the reason the South used to be Democratic was due to economic populism. Aside from that, they did not have much in common with the rest of the party, especially considering this was before the civil rights movement, Roe v. Wade, and other social issues were brought into the forefront.

    I?d go on but I should probably get some work done. I guess in summary my opinion is that the groups DM mentioned (moveon.org, etc.) need a dose of reality and pragmatism when it comes to politics.
  18. Shelley Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Sep 9, 2001
    star 5
    Its just another example of the right-wing echo chamber blowing a quote out of proportion.

    That's exactly what it is.

    I doubt they were similarly upset when...

    Rick Santorum said on the Senate Floor that Democratic filibusters of Bush's judicial nominees were "the equivalent of Adolf Hitler in 1942 saying: I'm in Paris, how dare you invade me, how dare you bomb my city. It's mine."

    Or when Bill Frist claimed Democrats wanted to "kill, to defeat, to assassinate these nominees."

    Or when Tom Delay said "You know, the Democrats want to balance the budget by raising spending and raising taxes. The Soviet Union had a balanced budget."


    Or when Newt Gingrich blamed Susan Smith's drowning of her two children on Democrats.

    I'm afraid that Democrats and Republicans throwing mean words at each other is nothing new, nor is it going to stop anytime soon, if ever. That's the nature of politics.
  19. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    If the Democrats lose the next Presidential election and even more seats in Congress, there is a possibility the party could break up. The far-left base (MoveOn.org, People for the American Way, et al) will demand more control and change, and the moderates within the Democratic Party will either have to squelch that to stay in the mainstream or break up altogether.

    DM, do you really believe that?

    If the GOP could survive Goldwater-who almost caused the party to break up-than the democrats can survive Dean. The leftists will end up leaving to make their own party, because it's the moderates who have all the power.

    I see MoveOn.Org as a flavor of the moment. No-one pays them serious mind; however, I think that if the religious right continues to push too hard towards their definition of religious "freedom", that this will be far more damaging to the GOP in the long run.

    Of course, we're on opposite sides of the spectrum here.

    Peace,

    V-03
  20. Special_Fred Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2003
    star 4
    I hate money.

    Your emotions do not give you the authority to steal from others.

    I'd rather have less, and let another person have enough to survive.

    Since you hate money so much, why not go out and give all of yours to some random homeless person? That way, you can "have less, and let another person have enough to survive," and no one's rights are being infringed upon! Yay capitalism!

    Why start a business if it's not going to benefit the rest of the world?

    Because there's really no way to "benefit the rest of the world." All the billionaires on Earth could give away every penny to their name, and still not help everybody. Thus, if you want to try to make a difference as an individual, go for it. But it is not your place (or anyone else's) to demand money that I have earned so that it can be given to someone who hasn't earned a thing.

    So why not be good to your neighbors on this planet, instead of...trying to climb to the top of the money chain?

    It is possible to do both, you know. You know how much Bill Gates donates to charity every year? I'll have to Google an exact figure, but believe me, it's a hell of a lot more than most people earn in a lifetime. We need less government control over people's money, not more.
  21. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    Honestly you people need to stop being manipulated by the parties. Look at it logically. Nobody wants to see oppression by corporations OR government. Therefore both pure capitalism and pure socialism will fail the people. It should no longer be argued! What we need is what we have. A country with some social programs, as well as enough capitalistic freedom to allow growth and entrepreneurship. It just needs to be tweaked so we get the business men and oil tycoons out of public office. We also need to send a clear message that we no longer care about their image, but their aptitude and loyalty to the public.

    Scientific studies need to be done to show is which social programs cause the people to flourish, and which are detrimental to the economy. Social programs can not be completely given up for the benefit of the companies, or we would quickly become at the mercy of companies.

    Any ideological leaning toward one extreme or the other is ridiculous and immature in this day and age, when it has been proven time and time again that our people could never survive without a balance of healthy capitalism and social programs.

    Dean was correct to point out some of the failings of those who would lean toward the capitalist extreme, but this does not make him a socialist. JRod is correct in tempering the socialist extreme, but methinks he may be too optimistic about the power of capitalism without some social programs to keep the people happy and healthy.

    Also, we have to keep in mind, that if we don't come up with some anti-monopoly laws, then business will become the big government that JRod seeks to avoid.
  22. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    Also, show me someone in America who works hard and can't get out of poverty.
    See, this is while I'll never convince you. Your excessive nationalism allows you to ignore the fact that capitalism in America is supported by maintaining terrible standards of living in the rest of the world. But here's some folks OUTSIDE of America who can't work out of poverty, thanks to the support of capitalist American corporations:
    [image=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/1997/11/assembly.jpeg]


    Look at our own socialist programs. Say you are unhappy with the rate of return on you retirement savings. If you try to put the money somewhere else where it will grow faster, you go to jail for not paying your social security taxes. How's that for a monopoly?

    Money is an artificial trade negotiation system, which is issued by the government. The money is the government's to begin with, provided as a service to its citizens. But essentially the money is still the government's. "Give to Caesar what is due Caesar, and give to God what is God's," or something along those lines.
  23. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    look at this.

    Anyone who thinks that a cold room, or loud music is representative of Pol Pot or the Jewish Holocaust or the Russian Gulags has not properly learned about any of those events in history.

    Wonder why the libs are sooooo concerned about keeping control of our schools...
  24. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    I heard about this on the radio today (I listen to Christian talk radio--it tends to lean conservative).

    The thing is, J, his meaning is clear. That it's not good to be doing those kinds of things. It's valid, so long as he believes that we are not treating our prisoners appropriately, since those institutions and regimes are also famous for not treating their prisoners poorly.

    I, personally, am uncomfortable with what's going on down there. I mean that both generally, and in specific reference to the quote Durbin read to preface this comment.

    As a pratical matter, he neeeded to fill the analogy. It wouldn't have been appropriate to say, "you would have thought it was 'some country with a real bad record POW treatment'" or something of that sort. It also wouldn't make sense to reference something that few people had heard of before. So he picked something sensational. Was it vrey apt? Not terribly. BUt people do it all the time.

    In my opinion it was neither seriously meant, nor taken, as an actual insinuation of American soldiers as Nazis. Rather, it was a general point that we were doing something inappropriate. And, again, if he feels we are doing soemthing inappropriate (ex Abu Ghraib), you'd kind of expect him to condemn it somehow.

  25. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Here's the problem with that wocky: He is intentionally distracting from the issue as a way to, presumably, hurt the adminisration.

    See, they don't want it to close. They want to keep using it as a club to keep bashing with.

    I've already gone on record saying I'd like it closed. So it puzzles me why the Dems keep giving this adminastration the will to fight it. Just quit it.

    Saying that it is unAmerican and against our moral values is plenty enough to debate. There is no reason to distract with the incredible.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.