Political Crossfire Forums

[The Central Scrutinizer]

perdidochas wrote: ontheyslay wrote: Thrilla wrote: martys_f wrote: I think the "Third Way" is the best direction for this country. Christian fundamentalists ( so called conservatives) are trying to" Talibanize" our country. Thru media , they try to spread the message of hate and discrimination especially against minorities. They do not believe in diversity. Rather, they believe if you are not a christian and follow Jesus , there is something wrong with you.


I hope Americans can benefit from the social democracy that exist in Europe especially in Sweden and France. So called conservatives are trying to shift the direction of this country thru intimidation . They try to depict in the American psyche that "others" ( Arabs, Mexicans, South Americans .. etc) are a clear and present danger to the so called " American culture".

I do firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would be the best choice for our country to transform our great America to be one of the best social democratic countries. christian fundamentalist = conservative?.. ummm ok :roll:

why are people trying to change our country into something other than it is.. a constitutional representative republic.

if a person likes the whole social democracy thing... good for them... move to a country that has one...stop messing with the US

It's no secret christian fundamentalists are conservative. To say they are not is a little ridiculous.

However, the opposite is not true necessarily. Not all conservatives (heck not even all Christian conservatives) are Christian fundamentalists. I would venture that MOST conservatives are not Christian fundamentalists.

I like to think so. Unfortunately, it is often the vocal minority that rules in any large coalition such as a political party.

[Ozzone]

CursedLemon wrote: Way to pull the ideology-argument out from behind your ear, but it's not going to work here.

Look who's talking.

Quote: Wal-Mart is "low prices" for people on DECENT incomes.

Excuse me? First of all, define decent. Second of all, when was the last time you were in a Wal-Mart? Most of the people I see in there are in the lower income range. Not a few - MOST.

Quote: Once Wal-Mart takes over the world, and everybody gets a job at Wal-Mart for $8 an hour with no benefits, then we'll see just how "low" those prices are.

Now who is being ideological?

Quote: And actually, the auto industry is failing because the American auto companies are making stupid vehicles.

I'm not going to sit here and argue about whether American vehicles are stupid or not. I'll just look at the numbers.

Ok, let's see the top 10 globally:

World-wide auto sales in 2000

GM 8,591,300
Ford 7,350,500
Toyota 5,703,450
Renault/Nissan 5,067,310
Daimler/Chrysler 4,749,000
VW AG 5,161,190
Hyundai 2,634,530
Fiat 2,646,500
Peugeot-Citroen 2,877,900
Honda 2,540,000

There you have it. GM #1. Ford #2. Chrysler #5. That world-wide.

Now, think for a minute. If GM or Ford of Chrysler is selling so many cars (and often at a higher price), then why are they hurting financially?

Can it be that they build "stupid" cars? Well, hmmm. GM sold over 8 million stupid cars.

Quote: It's as simple as that.

Yep, it's as simple as that. You can build more cars, but if it costs you a whole lot more in expenses, then you can lose money. Now GM has a choice, increase prices and watch sales drop or drop prices and watch profit tank.

The choice they want - to be more competitive - will probably never happen as long as the unions have them by the b@lls.

Quote: Not because the workers want what they deserve, which is, I don't know...retirement packages after working there for 30 years, and GOOD wages.

There you go. You side with the workers. I guess when GM and Ford and Chrysler lays off workers, you'll be the first to blame them for their own incompetence. God forbid you would ever blame the regulations, high cost of benefits, and the union stranglehold.

Quote: Not "yay, now I can shop at Wal-Mart for paper plates and bath towels" wages.

That would be in the center aisle just behind the wide-screen plasma TVs and iPods.

Quote: How is it the "libruhl's" fault that illegal immigration is running wild when conservatives enjoy the idea of slave labor, so they don't have to worry about the well-being of their employees, they can just stuff their pockets with the profits gained from paying their workers absolute crap instead of offering Americans the jobs at decent wages? Last I checked, liberals want illegal immigrants out.

It's never the liberals fault. It won't be their fault when companies file bankruptcy either because they can't compete in a global market and can't compete with foreign goods because other countries pay slave labor wages.

Quote: And what did I JUST say?

WELFARE NEEDS TO BE OVERHAULED

I'm pretty sure I just said that. But, of course, fiscal conservatives have only the welfare issue to take a stab at socialism. Hey, guess who was in office for six years? That's right, a Republican majority. I suppose they really didn't have a problem with the way welfare was run.

Oh they have a problem with it. They just don't want to play political suicide.

Case in point: the conservatives wanted to privatize social security. We all saw how that turned out. The socialists, with SUPPORT FROM THE LIBERAL MEDIA, made damn sure that went nowhere.

When the Democrats were in charge (back during Clinton), Social Security was in a "crisis". When they weren't - it wasn't a "crisis". Let's see how fast it becomes a "crisis" again now that they are back in charge.

[Ozzone]

dupe - deleted

[perdidochas]

Ozzone wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Way to pull the ideology-argument out from behind your ear, but it's not going to work here.

Look who's talking.

Quote: Wal-Mart is "low prices" for people on DECENT incomes.

Excuse me? First of all, define decent. Second of all, when was the last time you were in a Wal-Mart? Most of the people I see in there are in the lower income range. Not a few - MOST.

Not around here. I see all kinds at Wal-Mart, and I was in one yesterday. I see all kinds of cars in the parking lot from beatup pickups to Mercedes and BMWs. I often see people in their SUVs pulling 24 ft sportfishing boats at my Wal-Mart.

[Eduffy80911]

What's wrong with the US becoming a social democratic country?

Nothing if you're a socialist democrat.
There's nothing wrong with the US becoming a Talibanist country if that's what you prefer. There's nothing wrong with the govt issuing you a daily kick in the nads if you're really into pain.

To a capitalist, becoming a socialist democracy is like being an avid downhill skier in a country with no mountains.

If you don't mind giving up innovation and progress in exchange for the perception of order and security, social democracy may be the way for you. Even if you wind up with a lower standard of living, no one will blame you because it will be the norm. No pressure to excel, just do your duty.

I wont say it's evil, just not my bag.

[Benvolio]

Not all christian fundamentalists are conservatives or far right extremists (not the suicidal extrmist).

The christian conservative extremist (meaning extremly religious republican) is a stereotype of all conservatives.Muslims stand up for their religion just as much as Christians but the stereotype was formed because Christians have more voice in this country.

Other ethnic groups are not hazardous to our country's health unless they are sneaking across the border, which is what christian fundamentalists are demonizing and being stereotyped for.

It seems that Eduffy is the only one who doesn't have it twisted

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Eduffy80911 wrote: What's wrong with the US becoming a social democratic country?

Nothing if you're a socialist democrat.
There's nothing wrong with the US becoming a Talibanist country if that's what you prefer. There's nothing wrong with the govt issuing you a daily kick in the nads if you're really into pain.

To a capitalist, becoming a socialist democracy is like being an avid downhill skier in a country with no mountains.

If you don't mind giving up innovation and progress in exchange for the perception of order and security, social democracy may be the way for you. Even if you wind up with a lower standard of living, no one will blame you because it will be the norm. No pressure to excel, just do your duty.

I wont say it's evil, just not my bag.

As someone pointed out more eloquently earlier in this thread, quibbling over whether or not the US should be a social democracy is silly because to an extent, it already is. It is a democracy that provides many social programs like welfare, social security, food stamps, etc. So it is pointless to argue whether or not it should become one, but which programs we think are necessary.

[Ozzone]

perdidochas wrote: Ozzone wrote: CursedLemon wrote: Way to pull the ideology-argument out from behind your ear, but it's not going to work here.

Look who's talking.

Quote: Wal-Mart is "low prices" for people on DECENT incomes.

Excuse me? First of all, define decent. Second of all, when was the last time you were in a Wal-Mart? Most of the people I see in there are in the lower income range. Not a few - MOST.

Not around here. I see all kinds at Wal-Mart, and I was in one yesterday. I see all kinds of cars in the parking lot from beatup pickups to Mercedes and BMWs. I often see people in their SUVs pulling 24 ft sportfishing boats at my Wal-Mart.

I said "most". Like > 50%. Yes I've seen BMWs and Lexus in the Wal-Mart parking lot and SUVs pulling big boats, but the majority of people, that shop at Wal-Mart, are living on a tight budget.

I just wanted to point that out since Cursed Lemon generalized that Wal-Mart was for people on "decent incomes". I would love to know where people shop that have indecent incomes. First he needs to define decent.

[Ozzone]

Thrasymachus wrote: Eduffy80911 wrote: What's wrong with the US becoming a social democratic country?

Nothing if you're a socialist democrat.
There's nothing wrong with the US becoming a Talibanist country if that's what you prefer. There's nothing wrong with the govt issuing you a daily kick in the nads if you're really into pain.

To a capitalist, becoming a socialist democracy is like being an avid downhill skier in a country with no mountains.

If you don't mind giving up innovation and progress in exchange for the perception of order and security, social democracy may be the way for you. Even if you wind up with a lower standard of living, no one will blame you because it will be the norm. No pressure to excel, just do your duty.

I wont say it's evil, just not my bag.

As someone pointed out more eloquently earlier in this thread, quibbling over whether or not the US should be a social democracy is silly because to an extent, it already is. It is a democracy that provides many social programs like welfare, social security, food stamps, etc. So it is pointless to argue whether or not it should become one, but which programs we think are necessary.

Very true. We've long since given up arguing if they are even constitutional since FDR padded the Supreme Court to rule it constitutional (after ruling repeatedly that it wasn't).

Of course that's water under the bridge now. There is no way in hell that the Supreme Court can undo that nightmare juggernaut. We are stuck with it.

[bob.appleyard]

What's wrong? Way too much power to the state, and its hangers on.

[CursedLemon]

Ozzone wrote: Excuse me? First of all, define decent. Second of all, when was the last time you were in a Wal-Mart? Most of the people I see in there are in the lower income range. Not a few - MOST.

Well, let me put it this way. If you work at Wal-Mart, then Wal-Mart is the only place you can shop.

Quote: I'm not going to sit here and argue about whether American vehicles are stupid or not. I'll just look at the numbers.

Ok, let's see the top 10 globally:

World-wide auto sales in 2000

GM 8,591,300
Ford 7,350,500
Toyota 5,703,450
Renault/Nissan 5,067,310
Daimler/Chrysler 4,749,000
VW AG 5,161,190
Hyundai 2,634,530
Fiat 2,646,500
Peugeot-Citroen 2,877,900
Honda 2,540,000

There you have it. GM #1. Ford #2. Chrysler #5. That world-wide.

Now, think for a minute. If GM or Ford of Chrysler is selling so many cars (and often at a higher price), then why are they hurting financially?

Can it be that they build "stupid" cars? Well, hmmm. GM sold over 8 million stupid cars.

And would you also care to look up how much ground the Japanese auto makers have been gaining against American ones? Just because American companies still produce the highest stats this year doesn't mean they're losing out. And again, I don't think the unions are killing the business.

Quote: Yep, it's as simple as that. You can build more cars, but if it costs you a whole lot more in expenses, then you can lose money. Now GM has a choice, increase prices and watch sales drop or drop prices and watch profit tank.

So what exactly are workers getting nowadays that they weren't getting in the 70s?

No, here's a different question. What are they LOSING?

Quote: There you go. You side with the workers. I guess when GM and Ford and Chrysler lays off workers, you'll be the first to blame them for their own incompetence. God forbid you would ever blame the regulations, high cost of benefits, and the union stranglehold.

Why not? It's kind of hard when a lot of employees are being screwed over by a company that runs by the capitalist motto - f*ck the workers, stuff the pockets. Capitalism is all about "survival of the fittest", isn't it? So, if an industry can't afford to compete while giving its employees a decent quality of life, IT FAILS.

Quote: That would be in the center aisle just behind the wide-screen plasma TVs and iPods.

Want to tell me how many wide-screen plasma TVs you can buy on an $8 per hour salary?

Quote: It's never the liberals fault. It won't be their fault when companies file bankruptcy either because they can't compete in a global market and can't compete with foreign goods because other countries pay slave labor wages.

So what you're saying is, you don't have an answer. You trying to fight against the liberals for wanting illegal immigrants out because Americans can't get good jobs anymore, and at the same time, you WANT cheap labor out of this country?

Is that a joke?

Quote: Oh they have a problem with it. They just don't want to play political suicide.

Case in point: the conservatives wanted to privatize social security. We all saw how that turned out. The socialists, with SUPPORT FROM THE LIBERAL MEDIA, made damn sure that went nowhere.

When the Democrats were in charge (back during Clinton), Social Security was in a "crisis". When they weren't - it wasn't a "crisis". Let's see how fast it becomes a "crisis" again now that they are back in charge.

So what does that mean? That the majority of America likes the idea of welfare being in place? Why should Americans want social security to be privatized? Last I checked, we're all going to grow old (oh, wait, I forgot...fiscal conservatism dictates that we'll be working till we die), so it's not like social security will be going to "lazy bums". And the money SHOULD be perfectly safe in the government cache...right? Unless a certain President feels the need to dip into it to fund a certain war?

You're not going to sit here and tell me that the government is somehow a larger avenue for corruption that the private sector. Ever heard of the pharmaceutical industry?

[Revenant]

CursedLemon wrote: Ozzone wrote: Excuse me? First of all, define decent. Second of all, when was the last time you were in a Wal-Mart? Most of the people I see in there are in the lower income range. Not a few - MOST.

Well, let me put it this way. If you work at Wal-Mart, then Wal-Mart is the only place you can shop.

Quote: I'm not going to sit here and argue about whether American vehicles are stupid or not. I'll just look at the numbers.

Ok, let's see the top 10 globally:

World-wide auto sales in 2000

GM 8,591,300
Ford 7,350,500
Toyota 5,703,450
Renault/Nissan 5,067,310
Daimler/Chrysler 4,749,000
VW AG 5,161,190
Hyundai 2,634,530
Fiat 2,646,500
Peugeot-Citroen 2,877,900
Honda 2,540,000

There you have it. GM #1. Ford #2. Chrysler #5. That world-wide.

Now, think for a minute. If GM or Ford of Chrysler is selling so many cars (and often at a higher price), then why are they hurting financially?

Can it be that they build "stupid" cars? Well, hmmm. GM sold over 8 million stupid cars.

And would you also care to look up how much ground the Japanese auto makers have been gaining against American ones? Just because American companies still produce the highest stats this year doesn't mean they're losing out. And again, I don't think the unions are killing the business.

Quote: Yep, it's as simple as that. You can build more cars, but if it costs you a whole lot more in expenses, then you can lose money. Now GM has a choice, increase prices and watch sales drop or drop prices and watch profit tank.

So what exactly are workers getting nowadays that they weren't getting in the 70s?

No, here's a different question. What are they LOSING?

Quote: There you go. You side with the workers. I guess when GM and Ford and Chrysler lays off workers, you'll be the first to blame them for their own incompetence. God forbid you would ever blame the regulations, high cost of benefits, and the union stranglehold.

Why not? It's kind of hard when a lot of employees are being screwed over by a company that runs by the capitalist motto - f*ck the workers, stuff the pockets. Capitalism is all about "survival of the fittest", isn't it? So, if an industry can't afford to compete while giving its employees a decent quality of life, IT FAILS.

Quote: That would be in the center aisle just behind the wide-screen plasma TVs and iPods.

Want to tell me how many wide-screen plasma TVs you can buy on an $8 per hour salary?

Quote: It's never the liberals fault. It won't be their fault when companies file bankruptcy either because they can't compete in a global market and can't compete with foreign goods because other countries pay slave labor wages.

So what you're saying is, you don't have an answer. You trying to fight against the liberals for wanting illegal immigrants out because Americans can't get good jobs anymore, and at the same time, you WANT cheap labor out of this country?

Is that a joke?

Quote: Oh they have a problem with it. They just don't want to play political suicide.

Case in point: the conservatives wanted to privatize social security. We all saw how that turned out. The socialists, with SUPPORT FROM THE LIBERAL MEDIA, made damn sure that went nowhere.

When the Democrats were in charge (back during Clinton), Social Security was in a "crisis". When they weren't - it wasn't a "crisis". Let's see how fast it becomes a "crisis" again now that they are back in charge.

So what does that mean? That the majority of America likes the idea of welfare being in place? Why should Americans want social security to be privatized? Last I checked, we're all going to grow old (oh, wait, I forgot...fiscal conservatism dictates that we'll be working till we die), so it's not like social security will be going to "lazy bums". And the money SHOULD be perfectly safe in the government cache...right? Unless a certain President feels the need to dip into it to fund a certain war?

You're not going to sit here and tell me that the government is somehow a larger avenue for corruption that the private sector. Ever heard of the pharmaceutical industry?

The pharmaceutical industry is not kept in check because of government involvement. No dice on that example.

Capitalism good. Corporatism bad.

[CursedLemon]

Revenant wrote: The pharmaceutical industry is not kept in check because of government involvement. No dice on that example.

Capitalism good. Corporatism bad.

Corporatism = unchecked capitalism.

Enter socialism.

[Anarko-Kapitalizt]

ontheyslay wrote: bigstick61 wrote: Quote: A social democracy and a socialist state are two different things. It is not a kinder word for socialism. A socialist state is not even a democracy

This is untrue. A country can be socialistic to varying degrees and still be a democracy. In fact, one could say this is the socialist ideal. However, I am wholly against such a system. It goes against the principles of liberty, limited government, and is not a republican form of government, thereby allowing tyranny of the majority to take place in various, often more subtle forms. Democracy is a terrible form of government, a social one even moreso.

A country can have varying degrees of socialism in it, hence the term social democracy, but the idea of a full socialist state is that of control, not freedom.

By "full socialist state" do you mean State Socialism (Stalin/Castro)?

Democracy is one of the most important tenets of socialism. Many socialists believe that socialism is unattainable without Democracy.

I wouldn't be surprised to see America turn into a Democratic Socialist state soon (Democratic Socialism != Social Democracy).

[Revenant]

CursedLemon wrote: Revenant wrote: The pharmaceutical industry is not kept in check because of government involvement. No dice on that example.

Capitalism good. Corporatism bad.

Corporatism = unchecked capitalism.

Enter socialism.

No, corporatism = ...

nevermind I'll link to wiki

Political scientists may also use the term corporatism to describe a practice whereby an authoritarian state, through the process of licensing and regulating officially-incorporated social, religious, economic, or popular organizations, effectively co-opts their leadership or circumscribes their ability to challenge state authority by establishing the state as the source of their legitimacy. This usage is particularly common in the area of East Asia studies, and is sometimes also referred to as state corporatism.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

The state mixing with capitalism does not make for great results.

[Feslin]

Social: Third Way, just as bad as pure socialism. It's still robbery.
Democratic: Mob rule? No thanks. I like my Constitutional (in name only) Republic, thank you very much.
Countery: I have no idea what a countery is, and as a result, I don't want it.

[sublime]

martys_f wrote: I think the "Third Way" is the best direction for this country. Christian fundamentalists ( so called conservatives) are trying to" Talibanize" our country. Thru media , they try to spread the message of hate and discrimination especially against minorities. They do not believe in diversity. Rather, they believe if you are not a christian and follow Jesus , there is something wrong with you.

LIBERAL KNEEJERK PAVLOV ALERT! Or a Michael-Moron Alert!

Equating conservatives with ..................THE TALIBAN!!

Whew! Powerful stuff here!

Fact check:

Quote:
I hope Americans can benefit from the social democracy that exist in Europe especially in Sweden and France. So called conservatives are trying to shift the direction of this country thru intimidation . They try to depict in the American psyche that "others" ( Arabs, Mexicans, South Americans .. etc) are a clear and present danger to the so called " American culture".


What intimidation? "Depiction" is hardly intimidation!

And it's Arabs who fly Airplanes into our buildings and those who threaten to destroy our country (Iran) that many Americans are concerned with, not just conservatives.

And we are not all Christian Fundamentalist. Only a small percentage of Republicans are.

A small percentage of Democrats are Communisits or Socialists; are you aware of that? Look at the groups who supported Cindy Sheehan. Look at their websites.

And South American leaders who want to destoy us. (Chavez)

And it's Mexicans who enter our country illegally that are a threat to our medical system, our schools, use of your tax money, etc.

Social Democracy is failing in France; causing serious economic and med care problems there and in many countries; France has high unemployment and double-digit inflation; Social Democracy is precisely what our enemies would wish for us; it would make us as militarily weak as Western Europe is and would be the fastest route to weakening the West to the point where they could be easily overcome by its enemies.

Quote:
I do firmly believe that Hillary Clinton would be the best choice for our country to transform our great America to be one of the best social democratic countries.

What a hoot! Besides, aren't you blowing her cover? She's trying to pretend she's not a Far Far Left Leftwinger at this point. :lol: