patrick.net

Dear Abe,

Unlike certain other posters, I don't see my life purpose as a ....

MISSION to terminate Sarah Connor.

I had a fun 3-day Halloween weekend and was chilling out, and made some posts that amused me and perhaps other. Alcohol may have been a factor. Apologies if this interrupted your 608th reposting of "those darn Libtards make me ANGRY".

Honest Abe says

Government is best that governs the least. No one says NO government and NO taxes is the answer.

You do realize that those two statements are contradictory, right?

If the government that governs least is best, then the best government is no government.

...which is clearly false.

But I think that's not what you're saying, and you really believe the second statement. Great.

Why is it that you can't seem to even acknowledge that the majority of the country, the majority of the world, and pretty much all sane people DO NOT WANT the government to control everything?

Seriously, stop it. Constantly claiming that anyone who ever supports a progressive policy measure is just a supporter of facism isn't helpful. You're just being loud and annoying.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again:

The examples held up of horrible, oppressive governments didn't happen gradually, didn't "slip into" anything. They came about from fast, often violent overthrowing of what already existed.

There is a profound difference between Norway and the former Soviet Union. If you can't see that, then you're an idiot.

It's painfully clear that Honest Abe's worldview is predicated on there being a black/white dichotomy between economic freedom and totalitarian communism.

It's my general impression, as Upton Sinclair observed in 1951, "The American People will take Socialism, but they won't take the label." The "Inner Party" of the conservative movement requires fooling the rubes about socialism. That's what Beck's recent attacks on Teddy Roosevelt and the early 20th century Progressive Movement are about.

Never mind that Norway is, for its size, the wealthiest and happiest country in the world, and has a cradle-to-grave socialism established in the postwar era. Socialism is anathema, the forbidden fruit, move along.

It's getting to the point that in its opposition to teh socialism the right is eating its own. Romney's health care plan mandates was very similar to the 1993 Chafee plan, but since the conservative Senate Dems like Baucus ripped off their playbook with the mandate approach, mandates are the second coming of Lenin and/or Pol Pot.

It makes no sense. I think the bullshit coming from them is entirely intentional. They just lie as needed; they lied about the original Bush tax cuts, they lied about needing to take out Saddam, they lied about social security, they lie about the founding fathers (even so far as to make Jefferson a non-person), they lie about the efficacy of eg. abstinence education, they lie about global warming, they lie about "intelligent design". It's hard to identify a conservative position that isn't formed from outright lies. They know they've got the 40% fundie contingent as their base, they just need to scare up 1/6th of the remaining 60% of the population to get that magic 50% that puts them into power.

Sad, but what can you do, being a nation of morons and all.

ahhh ... Grasshopper .... you miss point ... the best government is SELF government ....

For FREEDOM to work we must first have citizens with proper personal conduct, who accept responsibility for their actions and choices in life. Without a moral code that citizens use to self-gorvern, no form of FREEDOM under government "works".

It all begins at the individual and then to the family and then to the clan and then the village and then the county and then the state and then the nation and then the world. Trying to have a national entity have an effect on the home or individual is not a good idea.

Somebody give Kevin and Troy a hug.

Bap33,

One could think of minimum wage as the default "union" for those who have nothing.

PS: I'm impressed by several things you have said on this thread. Good for you. And I am not being sarcastic, I really mean it.

Honest Abe says

Limited, constitutional government cures personal, fiscal, monetary and moral irresponsibility.

and the clap

Troy says

they lie about global warming

I didn't know the scientists at the East Anglia Climate Research Unit were republicans - I thought they were British?

You don't know much of anything, actually.

Troy says

You don’t know much of anything, actually.

Nice response ... now go get your big boy pants on and say something meaningful.

An update on what's happening in Socialist Europe. Everywhere you look, they're running out of money and the EU is in danger of splitting apart. Thatcher had it right: "The problem with Socialism is that you always run out of other people's money."

http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2010/11/tidal-forces-ripping-europe-apart.html?source=patrick.net

RayAmerica says

An update on what’s happening in Socialist Europe. Everywhere you look, they’re running out of money and the EU is in danger of splitting apart

Suck on it, Ray.

I dedicate this article to Giggles:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26829.htm

Hold your nose and read it. Don't report back until you have. You'll be tested. I'd prefer if you would give a summary.

Bap33 says

For FREEDOM to work we must first have citizens with proper personal conduct, who accept responsibility for their actions and choices in life. Without a moral code that citizens use to self-gorvern, no form of FREEDOM under government “works”.

It all begins at the individual and then to the family and then to the clan and then the village and then the county and then the state and then the nation and then the world. Trying to have a national entity have an effect on the home or individual is not a good idea.

I don't even know what all of this means. None of us live in a vaccuum.

First off, what exactly do you even mean by "FREEDOM" in that statement?

(and I fully expect Giggles or Abe to come in at this point and say "FREEDOM means FREEDOM, you fool". ...So please just don't.)

I think it reads pretty easy to understand. And for me, that is pretty rare!! lol

For our republic to work, each person needs to make choices that are best for the health, safety, soul of all citizens (of which #1 is you) - but that choice needs to be made without force from a government. Free of force, a moral body of citizens should operate correctly as a republic. I guess in this case I see freedom as "no gov forces" dicatating choice. (?)

Bap33 says

For our republic to work, each person needs to make choices that are best for the health, safety, soul of all citizens

Sure, I'll go with that, but again, defining "best for ... all citizens" is where it starts to get tricky, especially when you put the caveat "(of which #1 is you)" because sometimies whats best for the larger number means individual sacrifices. The reason I don't know what it means when you say something like that is that I think its too broad and has internal inconsistencies.

To the rest if it, again I'll say that we don't live in a vacuum.

Here's another article for Abe & giggles:

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_origin_of_americas_intellectual_vacuum_20101115/

Bap33 says

I guess in this case I see freedom as “no gov forces” dicatating choice.

And yet this freedom has not existed without economic domination of hereditary wealth over the poor.

In the conservative utopia of no government. the only recourse the oppressed poor have is to leave, to a country taking them as immigrants (eg the US ~1650 through ~1900, or internally migrate to an open frontier (1820 - 1920), or if that's not available to establish new powers of government where one's economic rights -- justice, education, health care, social insurance -- are not privileges secured by wealth but rights rather by fair and impartial government responsive via democratic processes to the people it serves (the Populist & Progressive movements of the late 19th century and early 20th century, which eventually morphed into social programs we have today).

Where is the government "dictating choice" today, anyway? Every choice it does dictate -- wear your seatbelt (or helmet on a motorcycle), don't drive too fast on the highway, pay into social retirement and disability insurance and old-age health care (OASDI / Medicare) and soon the requirement to obtain health insurance on the private market comes with much greater social payoffs than the cost it incurs on individual liberty.

The Baltic States of Norway, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, and Germany are the most highly socialized and most successful nations on this planet. This very success illustrates all this BS about economic freedom and American exceptionalism is just worn-out nostalgia for the olden days which weren't really that great for most Americans anyway.

The libertarian utopia is just a race to the bottom. It is a pipe dream foisted on stupid people who don't have any grasp on history or economics by rich people who do.

As Liberals continue in their quest to build a Social Welfare state here in America, Europe continues to collapse under a sea of red ink ....

http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Euro+under+siege+Portugal+hits+panic+button/3831814/story.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/15/greek-deficit-bigger-than-thought

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584504575616033310586068.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

The truth.

It does make one wonder, what the hell is going on ? Troy has explained it pretty well, but I still find it so hard to comprehend. At the rate things are going, the typical middle class person isn't going to want to put their hand on their heart and say the pledge of allegiance any more.

The truth.

http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/2010/09/west-wing-video-jimmy-smits-defines-liberal/

Margaret Thatcher on Socialism:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okHGCz6xxiw

The problem with socialism is that it’s mostly socialism for the very rich.
Why do we keep taxing the common people to bail out failed bankers?
Why do the very rich pay only 15% income tax on the interest and dividends they skim off the work of others, while the actual workers pay 28% on honest labor?

Because there is a two party system here in the USA: Rich vs. Poor

YES, socialist programs need reforming however to go away from caring for the mentally ill, elderly, deaf, dumb and bling would be un-godly.

RayAmerica says

As Liberals continue in their quest to build a Social Welfare state here in America, Europe continues to collapse under a sea of red ink ….
http://www.montrealgazette.com/business/Euro+under+siege+Portugal+hits+panic+button/3831814/story.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/nov/15/greek-deficit-bigger-than-thought
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584504575616033310586068.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsThird

Can you at least try to find middle ground, do you want to put the elderly, mentally ill out on the streets? Or are you willing to reform what we have with stricter requirements?

Clarence 13X says

Can you at least try to find middle ground, do you want to put the elderly, mentally ill out on the streets? Or are you willing to reform what we have with stricter requirements?

I am 100% in favor of the government helping those that cannot help themselves. For everyone else, if they want something from the government, they should perform some type of public service. Few things, IMO, are more damaging than the lesson that a person can get something for nothing in this world. Unfortunately, that's exactly the lesson the government has taught to literally millions of people ... to their own destruction.

Ray,

Let's take a quadraplegic. Should they have mandatory government-provided healthcare? You can't exactly get them out picking up trash you know or digging ditches.

Vicente says

Let’s take a quadraplegic. Should they have mandatory government-provided healthcare?

Yes. People that are beyond helping themselves should be taken care of. It that case, I think all their needs should be provided for, including housing, care, etc.

RayAmerica says

Clarence 13X says

Can you at least try to find middle ground, do you want to put the elderly, mentally ill out on the streets? Or are you willing to reform what we have with stricter requirements?

I am 100% in favor of the government helping those that cannot help themselves. For everyone else, if they want something from the government, they should perform some type of public service. Few things, IMO, are more damaging than the lesson that a person can get something for nothing in this world. Unfortunately, that’s exactly the lesson the government has taught to literally millions of people … to their own destruction.

Exactly, the requirements for these programs need to be increased. Plus the length of term should be shortened for repeat usage within a 1 year, 5 year and 10 year period. No one should be on welfare more than 1 or 2 years out of a 10 year period. If they are, then I suspect that they are either lazy or mentally ill. I am for supporting a mentally ill person for life as we know the damage to their mind is most like un-repairable.

RayAmerica says

Vicente says

Let’s take a quadraplegic. Should they have mandatory government-provided healthcare?

Yes. People that are beyond helping themselves should be taken care of. It that case, I think all their needs should be provided for, including housing, care, etc.

I think your right on with your points on social welfare.

Clarence 13X says

No one should be on welfare more than 1 or 2 years out of a 10 year period. If they are, then I suspect that they are either lazy or mentally ill

This statement is of course based on a sound study of actual economics and employment patterns. Its not just a figure you've, say, pulled out of your ass, right?...

Clarence 13X says

I am for supporting a mentally ill person

I'd be curious how you define what constitutes 'mentally ill', whats the cutoff? Because when you put it the way you have been it sure seems to me like an arbitrary jerk off definition. Jus sayin'...

I think anyone who can't support themselves should be shipped over to your guy's places so you can just serve them up for dinner as you please. You could keep them all in a big pen in your back yard and select the meatiest ones... and every once in a while you could have a big ol' barbecue and invite the neighborhood... and the great thing is that you'd never run out! If things get lean you could just stiffen up the ol' 'mentally ill' definition and new ones would come pouring back into the pen...

The problem with socialism is that it’s mostly socialism for the very rich.
Why do we keep taxing the common people to bail out failed bankers?
Why do the very rich pay only 15% income tax on the interest and dividends they skim off the work of others, while the actual workers pay 28% on honest labor?

Thats how too often socialism works. Soviet Union wasn't wildly different. Perhaps word "rich" isn't the right one though.

A better word might be, "well connected" and runs the government. Soviet Union had the same thing. There money didn't matter, since paper currency was meaningless anyway... it was all in who you are connected with at government level.

Nomograph says

Why do we keep taxing the common people to bail out failed bankers?

Unfortunately, it’s because people need banks. If the banking system failed, it’s unlikely your website would even be here.

Most small banks were closed off and sold at firesale prices to the banks that were bailed out. So we essentially gave large institutions money to survive and gobble up smaller failing banks.
Bailouts were not necessary, in fact our lives would have been fine without Goldman Sachs being there. If you note, bail outs were very selective.
They didn't bail out GS competitors such as LB or BS...

kentm says

I’d be curious how you define what constitutes ‘mentally ill’

An illustration of "mentallly ill," posted by an obviously very disturbed person:

kentm says

I think anyone who can’t support themselves should be shipped over to your guy’s places so you can just serve them up for dinner as you please. You could keep them all in a big pen in your back yard and select the meatiest ones… and every once in a while you could have a big ol’ barbecue and invite the neighborhood… and the great thing is that you’d never run out! If things get lean you could just stiffen up the ol’ ‘mentally ill’ definition and new ones would come pouring back into the pen…

Greek leftists take to the streets and riot in response to the Government's plan to cut spending ...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSLDE6BD2FH20101215

The problem with socialism is that it’s mostly socialism for the very rich.
Why do we keep taxing the common people to bail out failed bankers?
Why do the very rich pay only 15% income tax on the interest and dividends they skim off the work of others, while the actual workers pay 28% on honest labor?

I'm quoting Patrick because a lot of it is very agreeable.

Human society has been evolving, but we are still very primitive. Most people know how to live in Feudalism, a plutocratic aligarchy. But Democracy or socialism? Frankly thats too advanced for most people, most are still primitive baboons stuck in 17th century.

Socialism is something to strive for, but it won't be very successful for a while since lets face it, as long as we have leadership that is not transparent we invite a dictatorship ran for the benefit of those in charge.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

Human society has been evolving, but we are still very primitive.

How exactly is human society "evolving." From my vantage point, I see an incredible increase in violence, continuous wars being fought all over the planet, America's prison population is so high they are releasing prisoners early, etc. Crimes against innocent children has skyrocketed in recent years. When I was a kid living in a city environment, the thought of danger never even crossed my mind. Today, parents have to guard their kids in public to the point they can't let them out of their sight for even a minute for fear of an abduction.

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

Socialism is something to strive for

On the contrary, socialism plays to the base nature of mankind. It discourages thrift, hard work and self sacrifice at the expense of others. It is a failed system that eventually ALWAYS runs out of other people's money. It cannot work, because human nature will not allow it to work. Human beings are basically lazy and generally, will always look for an easy way to gain something for nothing. That's the primary reason for the popularity of state run lotteries, etc.

RayAmerica says

When I was a kid living in a city environment, the thought of danger never even crossed my mind.

Because you were naive. Good thing you never ran into guys like this:

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

You'd probably have been a trusting succulent little plum for people like him.

You could argue we are TOO informed I suppose and thus paranoid, but that's a side effect in my view and we are actually safer and more responsible.

Vicente says

You could argue we are TOO informed I suppose and thus paranoid, but that’s a side effect in my view and we are actually safer and more responsible.

A typical, well thought out statement by you. Unfortunately, it's so stupid it doesn't deserve a response.

RayAmerica says

Chris_In_LosAngeles says

Human society has been evolving, but we are still very primitive.

How exactly is human society “evolving.” From my vantage point, I see an incredible increase in violence, continuous wars being fought all over the planet, America’s prison population is so high they are releasing prisoners early, etc. Crimes against innocent children has skyrocketed in recent years. When I was a kid living in a city environment, the thought of danger never even crossed my mind. Today, parents have to guard their kids in public to the point they can’t let them out of their sight for even a minute for fear of an abduction.
Chris_In_LosAngeles says

Socialism is something to strive for

On the contrary, socialism plays to the base nature of mankind. It discourages thrift, hard work and self sacrifice at the expense of others. It is a failed system that eventually ALWAYS runs out of other people’s money. It cannot work, because human nature will not allow it to work. Human beings are basically lazy and generally, will always look for an easy way to gain something for nothing. That’s the primary reason for the popularity of state run lotteries, etc.

Ray, socialism does not discourage hard work. It does in the minds of Americans because we are a society living in a box of "capitalism" that we often miss the nature of human kind. A society where most resources are controlled by the few and the rest have to sacrifice their lives to get crumbs to trickle down. Socialism discourages drudgery, and promotes advancement. Most of the jobs in US (and around the world) are just to enrich a few at the expense to the workers who sacrifice time and happiness in drudgery (since profit is unpaid wages for labor). There is no social benefit to it, of course people will appear lazy. Why should everyone be regimented to work for someone else just because they were not born in a wealthy family?

There is a better way, and it will eventually happen. It just takes time for humans to evolve to it. We achieve as a society, we create as a society, but only a few at the top profit. And besides you are seeing capitalism slowly fail, our business cycles become more and more frequent, more and more permanently unemployed... not a system you can sustain for it lacks human purpose.

Capitalism: From each according to his gullibility to each according to his greed.... bible warned us about a system like that and its dire consequences.

Chris .... for a case study check out the old Soviet Union. You sound like Karl Marx. Socialism sounds great on paper, but it is a complete fraud. The old USSR, like all totalitarian governments, had its ruling elite that enjoyed the fruits of the laborers. Virtually everyone else suffered. My wife & I know a couple that lived there and came here as a result of Carter's deal that brought numerous Jewish Russians to the USA. They have told us repeatedly what it was REALLY like. Just one example: housing was provided by the state for all its citizens. Sounds great, doesn't it? Unfortunately, their "housing" was 17 adults in a single apartment with one single bathroom that serviced the entire floor! Another example: constant shortages due entirely to the managed market by the government. Russia was known as the "Breadbasket of Europe" prior to the revolution due to its ability to export wheat. After the revolution, it required huge imports of wheat in order to feed its people. Churchill accurately said: “The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries.” Take away the incentives to produce and provide for yourself and you remove the advancement of society.

RayAmerica says

Socialism sounds great on paper, but it is a complete fraud.

Tell that to the Norwegians and Swedes, LOL.

What a clown you are. You and your clown Bircher ideologies.

Troy says

Tell that to the Norwegians and Swedes, LOL.
What a clown you are. You and your clown ideologies.

For every TEMPORARY apparent "success," there are numerous failures that can be found beginning with the Left's idol state the good old USSR. Take a look at Europe and the chaos that is spreading there as money to support Socialism continues to disappear. The tiny, little states, combined, such as you cite aren't even half as big as the failed socialist state of California. The Swedes also have a sound currency and make an honest attempt to pay as they go. Can the same be said for the USA?
Another slight little difference between the tiny little states that you cite and the USA is military expenditures. They have virtually none and can direct more of their money into their social programs. You might want to look into what their taxes are. Even better, move their and report back your learned findings.

RayAmerica says

Chris …. for a case study check out the old Soviet Union....[ won't quote whole thing, posts get too long that way, I did read it all though]...

Thanks Ray, I have read "Das Kapital", which is as you know by Marx, and is why I often times sound similar to the man.

I wouldn't rely on USSR as a case study. That wasn't socialism. Socialism is much more utopian than our present state of social development allows. We really aren't a society that can do it. If we implement it tomorrow, it will be very corrupt and won't work. It's an ideal to strive for though.