Indefensible.

[IU90]

There are basically two choices in this world: Socialism or Capitalism.

BULL****! This idea that that we must choose between a purely capitalist or socialist system is simple-minded dim-witted nonsense. There are no successful pure versions of either system. Every successful economy in the world is a combination of both, including our own. If we had a purely private capitalist system, there'd be no public school system, postal system, military, or public police force.

Every successful society has to make a choice between which services will be guaranteed to the public, and which will left to the dog-eat-dog private marketplace. All Western European nations, Canada, and Japan have concluded that health care belongs in the former category; we're the only 1st world industrialized nation in the world that still puts it in the latter. And our health care system a ****ing disaster right now as a result.

 

[old_tony]

Since we're jumping into the Capitalism or Socialism: CHOOSE YOUR SIDE! stuff: Tony, I'm sure as a champion of capitalism you know who Adam Smith is. Smith's philosophy on capitalism was a capitalist society is only as strong as its weakest link. That means helping the less fortunate, and for more than humanitarian reasons. It means helping them stay healthy so they can work and contribute. Granted it's impossible to do 100%, but does that mean we should just completely abandon the ideal totally, since it's not totally attainable?

In principle, the government shouldn't be involved in it at all. It should be the domain of the families and private charities. But I know how much principle bothers the left.

And your weakest link argument sure sounds like an argument to make every link the same strength -- ie, socialism.

 

[zeke12]

It's ironic that tony understands the world as a dichotomy between capitalism and socialism and yet understands neither concept.

 

[Trouser_Buddah]

The federal government is supposed to provide national defense. It is not supposed to buy everyone's health insurance. In fact, it is not supposed to buy ANYone's health insurance.

Tony, since you bring up the Constitution, where in the Constitution does it say that?

The Constitution is a document that limits the power of the government. The only powers the government has are the ones explicitly stated. That being the case, I don't have to show you where in the Constitution the government can't take my money and give it to others. Rather, it's incumbent on you show me where it says in the Constitution that the government CAN do that. And since it doesn't, you don't have a leg to stand on.

My favorite part of the Constitution is the part where it grants the President powers of warrantless wiretapping...

 

[old_tony]

Since we're jumping into the Capitalism or Socialism: CHOOSE YOUR SIDE! stuff: Tony, I'm sure as a champion of capitalism you know who Adam Smith is. Smith's philosophy on capitalism was a capitalist society is only as strong as its weakest link. That means helping the less fortunate, and for more than humanitarian reasons. It means helping them stay healthy so they can work and contribute. Granted it's impossible to do 100%, but does that mean we should just completely abandon the ideal totally, since it's not totally attainable?

DK,

Don't take the bait and play the OT carousel of stupid arguments game.

Nice to see he's following my prediction to a T.

I don't recall you predicting I would take apart all the liberal arguments on principle, but apparently you did.

 

[old_tony]

The federal government is supposed to provide national defense. It is not supposed to buy everyone's health insurance. In fact, it is not supposed to buy ANYone's health insurance.

Tony, since you bring up the Constitution, where in the Constitution does it say that?

The Constitution is a document that limits the power of the government. The only powers the government has are the ones explicitly stated. That being the case, I don't have to show you where in the Constitution the government can't take my money and give it to others. Rather, it's incumbent on you show me where it says in the Constitution that the government CAN do that. And since it doesn't, you don't have a leg to stand on.

My favorite part of the Constitution is the part where it grants the President powers of warrantless wiretapping...

So you're really pissed at Clinton? Then why will you be voting for his wife?

 

[Dangerous_K]

Since we're jumping into the Capitalism or Socialism: CHOOSE YOUR SIDE! stuff: Tony, I'm sure as a champion of capitalism you know who Adam Smith is. Smith's philosophy on capitalism was a capitalist society is only as strong as its weakest link. That means helping the less fortunate, and for more than humanitarian reasons. It means helping them stay healthy so they can work and contribute. Granted it's impossible to do 100%, but does that mean we should just completely abandon the ideal totally, since it's not totally attainable?

In principle, the government shouldn't be involved in it at all. It should be the domain of the families and private charities. But I know how much principle bothers the left.

And your weakest link argument sure sounds like an argument to make every link the same strength -- ie, socialism.

It's not MY argument, it's Adam Smith's...you know, the guy credited as the father of American capitalism?! And don't talk about "principle," principle IS helping others: both for their sake and your own. Like I said before, Smith's ideal was helping the lesser was pragmatic because it made them more able and willing to contribute...which in turn increased production/profit for the bosses.

As for the principle government should have zero monetary involvement, I guess maybe we should just not tax anyone and those with the most money can do whatever they see fit with it. It works oh-so-well for South and Central America, doesn't it?!

 

[Norman Stansfield]

Since we're jumping into the Capitalism or Socialism: CHOOSE YOUR SIDE! stuff: Tony, I'm sure as a champion of capitalism you know who Adam Smith is. Smith's philosophy on capitalism was a capitalist society is only as strong as its weakest link. That means helping the less fortunate, and for more than humanitarian reasons. It means helping them stay healthy so they can work and contribute. Granted it's impossible to do 100%, but does that mean we should just completely abandon the ideal totally, since it's not totally attainable?

DK,

Don't take the bait and play the OT carousel of stupid arguments game.

Nice to see he's following my prediction to a T.

I don't recall you predicting I would take apart all the liberal arguments on principle, but apparently you did.

What's REALLY indefensible is no one bringing up global warming on this thread...

 

[old_tony]

The best a government that promotes freedom should guarantee is equal opportunity. It can never guarantee equal outcome. Now socialist governments do guarantee equal outcome. And it's always equal misery. That is what you want? I seem to recall an awful lot of Soviets and Cubans seeking to get here. I don't recall many seeking to move from here to there (with the brief exception of Lee Harvey Oswald).

I can't believe you just compared universal healthcare to communism.....oh no wait.....

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck ... it's a duck.

 

[Dangerous_K]

Since we're jumping into the Capitalism or Socialism: CHOOSE YOUR SIDE! stuff: Tony, I'm sure as a champion of capitalism you know who Adam Smith is. Smith's philosophy on capitalism was a capitalist society is only as strong as its weakest link. That means helping the less fortunate, and for more than humanitarian reasons. It means helping them stay healthy so they can work and contribute. Granted it's impossible to do 100%, but does that mean we should just completely abandon the ideal totally, since it's not totally attainable?

DK,

Don't take the bait and play the OT carousel of stupid arguments game.

Nice to see he's following my prediction to a T.

I don't recall you predicting I would take apart all the liberal arguments on principle, but apparently you did.

I'm sorry, but this here is a JDV post. ME WINNER! ME BEST IN THREAD! You didn't take apart anything, unless you were disassembling an Erector-Set while posting.

 

[old_tony]

And as I did in my last post, I refer to Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15.

Oh, and I noticed your last post that you can't argue it's capitalism as I was written this. Again, I refer to my earlier point about Adam Smith. Yes, you CAN argue it's smart capitalism. In fact, you can argue it's PURE capitalism.

Because you say so? That's the best joke I've heard in years!

In what definition of capitalism do you find the government forcibly taking someone else's money and giving it to someone else? Because I'm sure I missed that in my 18 years of schooling. Actually, I'm sure it wasn't taught.

 

[old_tony]

Since we're jumping into the Capitalism or Socialism: CHOOSE YOUR SIDE! stuff: Tony, I'm sure as a champion of capitalism you know who Adam Smith is. Smith's philosophy on capitalism was a capitalist society is only as strong as its weakest link. That means helping the less fortunate, and for more than humanitarian reasons. It means helping them stay healthy so they can work and contribute. Granted it's impossible to do 100%, but does that mean we should just completely abandon the ideal totally, since it's not totally attainable?

DK,

Don't take the bait and play the OT carousel of stupid arguments game.

Nice to see he's following my prediction to a T.

I don't recall you predicting I would take apart all the liberal arguments on principle, but apparently you did.

What's REALLY indefensible is no one bringing up global warming on this thread...

 

[Dangerous_K]

And as I did in my last post, I refer to Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15.

Oh, and I noticed your last post that you can't argue it's capitalism as I was written this. Again, I refer to my earlier point about Adam Smith. Yes, you CAN argue it's smart capitalism. In fact, you can argue it's PURE capitalism.

Because you say so? That's the best joke I've heard in years!

In what definition of capitalism do you find the government forcibly taking someone else's money and giving it to someone else? Because I'm sure I missed that in my 18 years of schooling. Actually, I'm sure it wasn't taught.

Ideally it wouldn't have to come down to the government forcibly taking it, but the sad fact of the world is if the government doesn't, you end up like Central/South America, with 1 percent holding 99 percent of the wealth and living in fortresses while the unwashed masses murder each other. Somehow tony, if America went that route, I doubt you'd be in the 1 percent.

 

[old_tony]

Since we're jumping into the Capitalism or Socialism: CHOOSE YOUR SIDE! stuff: Tony, I'm sure as a champion of capitalism you know who Adam Smith is. Smith's philosophy on capitalism was a capitalist society is only as strong as its weakest link. That means helping the less fortunate, and for more than humanitarian reasons. It means helping them stay healthy so they can work and contribute. Granted it's impossible to do 100%, but does that mean we should just completely abandon the ideal totally, since it's not totally attainable?

In principle, the government shouldn't be involved in it at all. It should be the domain of the families and private charities. But I know how much principle bothers the left.

And your weakest link argument sure sounds like an argument to make every link the same strength -- ie, socialism.

It's not MY argument, it's Adam Smith's...you know, the guy credited as the father of American capitalism?! And don't talk about "principle," principle IS helping others: both for their sake and your own. Like I said before, Smith's ideal was helping the lesser was pragmatic because it made them more able and willing to contribute...which in turn increased production/profit for the bosses.

As for the principle government should have zero monetary involvement, I guess maybe we should just not tax anyone and those with the most money can do whatever they see fit with it. It works oh-so-well for South and Central America, doesn't it?!

Adam Smith's argument is fine as long as it's private charities. Once the government gets involved in the forcible confiscation of Peter's bank account to pay Paul's bills, you're not talking capitalism, whether Adam Smith wanted it or not.

 

[old_tony]

And as I did in my last post, I refer to Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15.

Oh, and I noticed your last post that you can't argue it's capitalism as I was written this. Again, I refer to my earlier point about Adam Smith. Yes, you CAN argue it's smart capitalism. In fact, you can argue it's PURE capitalism.

Because you say so? That's the best joke I've heard in years!

In what definition of capitalism do you find the government forcibly taking someone else's money and giving it to someone else? Because I'm sure I missed that in my 18 years of schooling. Actually, I'm sure it wasn't taught.

Ideally it wouldn't have to come down to the government forcibly taking it, but the sad fact of the world is if the government doesn't, you end up like Central/South America, with 1 percent holding 99 percent of the wealth and living in fortresses while the unwashed masses murder each other. Somehow tony, if America went that route, I doubt you'd be in the 1 percent.

Well, you keep believing that we're on our way to that. As for me, I'll keep living in reality.

 

[Dangerous_K]

And as I did in my last post, I refer to Article 1, section 8, paragraph 15.

Oh, and I noticed your last post that you can't argue it's capitalism as I was written this. Again, I refer to my earlier point about Adam Smith. Yes, you CAN argue it's smart capitalism. In fact, you can argue it's PURE capitalism.

Because you say so? That's the best joke I've heard in years!

In what definition of capitalism do you find the government forcibly taking someone else's money and giving it to someone else? Because I'm sure I missed that in my 18 years of schooling. Actually, I'm sure it wasn't taught.

Ideally it wouldn't have to come down to the government forcibly taking it, but the sad fact of the world is if the government doesn't, you end up like Central/South America, with 1 percent holding 99 percent of the wealth and living in fortresses while the unwashed masses murder each other. Somehow tony, if America went that route, I doubt you'd be in the 1 percent.

Well, you keep believing that we're on our way to that. As for me, I'll keep living in reality.

The reality of the American economy existing mostly on capitalist ideals with a few socialist ideals sprinkled in? Because that's what it is, and that's what's effective. Another reality is that nation's that are what you're advocating -- leaving the distribution of wealth solely to the device of those with the wealth -- rival the purely socialist nations as the worst on Earth. You can't be purely one or the other. That's reality.

 

[deskslave]

Since we're jumping into the Capitalism or Socialism: CHOOSE YOUR SIDE! stuff: Tony, I'm sure as a champion of capitalism you know who Adam Smith is. Smith's philosophy on capitalism was a capitalist society is only as strong as its weakest link. That means helping the less fortunate, and for more than humanitarian reasons. It means helping them stay healthy so they can work and contribute. Granted it's impossible to do 100%, but does that mean we should just completely abandon the ideal totally, since it's not totally attainable?

In principle, the government shouldn't be involved in it at all. It should be the domain of the families and private charities. But I know how much principle bothers the left.

And your weakest link argument sure sounds like an argument to make every link the same strength -- ie, socialism.

It's not MY argument, it's Adam Smith's...you know, the guy credited as the father of American capitalism?! And don't talk about "principle," principle IS helping others: both for their sake and your own. Like I said before, Smith's ideal was helping the lesser was pragmatic because it made them more able and willing to contribute...which in turn increased production/profit for the bosses.

As for the principle government should have zero monetary involvement, I guess maybe we should just not tax anyone and those with the most money can do whatever they see fit with it. It works oh-so-well for South and Central America, doesn't it?!

Adam Smith's argument is fine as long as it's private charities. Once the government gets involved in the forcible confiscation of Peter's bank account to pay Paul's bills, you're not talking capitalism, whether Adam Smith wanted it or not.

What if it's robbing Peter's bank account to pay Nouri's bills? Is that OK?

 

[Dangerous_K]

Since we're jumping into the Capitalism or Socialism: CHOOSE YOUR SIDE! stuff: Tony, I'm sure as a champion of capitalism you know who Adam Smith is. Smith's philosophy on capitalism was a capitalist society is only as strong as its weakest link. That means helping the less fortunate, and for more than humanitarian reasons. It means helping them stay healthy so they can work and contribute. Granted it's impossible to do 100%, but does that mean we should just completely abandon the ideal totally, since it's not totally attainable?

In principle, the government shouldn't be involved in it at all. It should be the domain of the families and private charities. But I know how much principle bothers the left.

And your weakest link argument sure sounds like an argument to make every link the same strength -- ie, socialism.

It's not MY argument, it's Adam Smith's...you know, the guy credited as the father of American capitalism?! And don't talk about "principle," principle IS helping others: both for their sake and your own. Like I said before, Smith's ideal was helping the lesser was pragmatic because it made them more able and willing to contribute...which in turn increased production/profit for the bosses.

As for the principle government should have zero monetary involvement, I guess maybe we should just not tax anyone and those with the most money can do whatever they see fit with it. It works oh-so-well for South and Central America, doesn't it?!

Adam Smith's argument is fine as long as it's private charities. Once the government gets involved in the forcible confiscation of Peter's bank account to pay Paul's bills, you're not talking capitalism, whether Adam Smith wanted it or not.

What if it's robbing Peter's bank account to pay Nouri's bills? Is that OK?

Wow. That's a Randy Johnson circa 2001 fastball under the chin. Well played, sir.

 

[hockeybeat]

The SCHIP bill.

http://energycommerce.house.gov/press/FINALReptGAO-01-883.pdf

 

[old_tony]

Since we're jumping into the Capitalism or Socialism: CHOOSE YOUR SIDE! stuff: Tony, I'm sure as a champion of capitalism you know who Adam Smith is. Smith's philosophy on capitalism was a capitalist society is only as strong as its weakest link. That means helping the less fortunate, and for more than humanitarian reasons. It means helping them stay healthy so they can work and contribute. Granted it's impossible to do 100%, but does that mean we should just completely abandon the ideal totally, since it's not totally attainable?

In principle, the government shouldn't be involved in it at all. It should be the domain of the families and private charities. But I know how much principle bothers the left.

And your weakest link argument sure sounds like an argument to make every link the same strength -- ie, socialism.

It's not MY argument, it's Adam Smith's...you know, the guy credited as the father of American capitalism?! And don't talk about "principle," principle IS helping others: both for their sake and your own. Like I said before, Smith's ideal was helping the lesser was pragmatic because it made them more able and willing to contribute...which in turn increased production/profit for the bosses.

As for the principle government should have zero monetary involvement, I guess maybe we should just not tax anyone and those with the most money can do whatever they see fit with it. It works oh-so-well for South and Central America, doesn't it?!

Adam Smith's argument is fine as long as it's private charities. Once the government gets involved in the forcible confiscation of Peter's bank account to pay Paul's bills, you're not talking capitalism, whether Adam Smith wanted it or not.

What if it's robbing Peter's bank account to pay Nouri's bills? Is that OK?

By the way, anyone else notice how now that the surge has led to huge gains in Iraq that we're suddenly not hearing very much news at all from Iraq?

I noted that some of you lefties were on a thread earlier this week bitching that US deaths were down to two a day in Iraq.