DescentBB

Just out of curiousity...

Can we have Mickey Mouse as an option?

I was planning on voting for Nader, but last time I looked, he couldn't make it on the Georgia ballot. Then I was going to vote libertarian but then I realized I have to register to vote in my new county because I just moved. I don't really have the time to go register. Bottom line: I am allowing my disgust to get the better of me and I am not voting at all. Bush is going to win Georgia anyway so what is the point?

Krom wrote:Can we have Mickey Mouse as an option?

Heck with Mickey, I want Bugs. He'd know the correct way to handle terrorists: Acme-brand TNT .

nah there'd be a terrorists-be-gone repelant spray. like the anti-shark spray that batman keeps handy at all times.

btw, acme sells WMD.

Actually right now I think Goofy would make a better canidate then what we have.

I think we should be ruled by commitee. I'm voting for the Seven Dwarfs.

I was considering Nader until I sat down and listened to him speak. That guy's a socialist!


B-

Fusion pimp wrote:I was considering Nader until I sat down and listened to him speak. That guy's a socialist!


B-

Lol, yea on some things he is but if he ever gets enough support to be a threat one or both of the 'Big Two' will have to adopt the reasonable parts of his platform, of which there are many, to neutralize him and that will be a good thing!

Socialist or not, we need Nader and we *really* need Nader as a threat. Nothing in this country is going to change until it's forced. So, I agree with you, Will.

Will Robinson wrote:

Fusion pimp wrote:I was considering Nader until I sat down and listened to him speak. That guy's a socialist!


B-

Lol, yea on some things he is but if he ever gets enough support to be a threat one or both of the 'Big Two' will have to adopt the reasonable parts of his platform, of which there are many, to neutralize him and that will be a good thing!

We agreed! *dies*

Fusion pimp wrote:I was considering Nader until I sat down and listened to him speak. That guy's a socialist!


B-

No sh!t.

Nader *is* a threat -- not to win, but certainly to disrupt the major political parties.

The real problem with Nader, though, is that he gives the Democratic party an excuse -- it gives them someone other than themselves to blame for losing. Right now, IMO, they'd be better off losing without Nader involved, so they'd wake up and reform.

Lothar wrote:Right now, IMO, they'd be better off losing without Nader involved, so they'd wake up and reform.

No, because they would just blame it on republican "marketing and packaging" like when Reagan beat them. They need to see the cause of their defeat embodied in a platform of ideas to realize that reform is needed! Otherwise they will rationalize their defeat as someone elses failure ie; 'the voters were wrong' and not their own failure. They would just refuse to take responsibility as is their nature.

Same with the repub's...

The 'Big Two' have turned our electoral system into a one act play with two actors trying to upstage each other for the best write up in the daily critique.
They need to see the audience turn its backs on the whole production to get them to improve the script.

What's wrong with socialism?

we didn't invent it

Ferno wrote:What's wrong with socialism?

It's morally wrong and will never work.

Nothing's wrong with socialism....



If you're Canadian.

Morally wrong Clay? Where in the bible does it say that?

Socialism is a nice, idealistic idea (lol) that IMO works in certain areas (socialized medicine), but is overall nearly-impossible to properly make work in a modern, growing society as a whole.

p.s. jesus would have been a socialist

Socialism is a great idea *if* it's undertaken voluntarily by everyone involved (see Acts 2:44-45.) Socialism doesn't work if it's forced upon people, though. It only works if it's 100% voluntary -- which means it only works in a culture or community where everyone cares about each other and everyone is willing to give freely to take care of one another.

American culture does not have those values, so socialism won't work for us without a complete cultural transformation.

If you need a law that says "you MUST redistribute your stuff", that means the culture doesn't have the right values for socialism to work. It's like morality -- you can't legislate it. If you try, you only get a vague and corrupted shadow of what it's supposed to be.

I won't vote for someone who wants to legislate socialism. I don't mind people who want to teach the culture to value each other, encouraging a tranformation toward heavy charitable giving and eventually socialism. But if they have to legislate it, it's guaranteed not to work.

I would like to remind the board that Socialism is not a only about social issues, but equally important about economics policy. It is a system with co-operative ownership, or the workers owning the means of production.

IMO, it's bad economic policy. Incentives matter.

in the form of socialism I mentioned above, incentives do exist. Granted, it's a pretty limited form of socialism. It's when socialism is forced that incentives really disappear.

Birdseye wrote:I would like to remind the board that Socialism is not a only about social issues, but equally important about economics policy. It is a system with co-operative ownership, or the workers owning the means of production.

IMO, it's bad economic policy. Incentives matter.

Roger. Economic socialism has been proven time and time again to be a massive failure

"which means it only works in a culture or community where everyone cares about each other and everyone is willing to give freely to take care of one another."

Canada in a nutshell.

It's also evident in small towns where everyone knows everyone.

Birdseye wrote:IMO, it's bad economic policy. Incentives matter.

Exactly!

Ferno wrote:"which means it only works in a culture or community where everyone cares about each other and everyone is willing to give freely to take care of one another."

Canada in a nutshell.

It's also evident in small towns where everyone knows everyone.

Give me a break, Ferno. Doesn't the rest of Canada hate Quebec, for instance?

Everybody hates quebec, that doesn't count.

Werd

Some things should be socialized. Health care, for instance. But a country can't be entirely socialist. It still has to have aspects of capitalism.

Query: why should health care be socialized? If private companies can do a better job than the government, why should we force people to use governmental health care? Bigger government=bigger problems.

Vertigo 99 wrote:p.s. jesus would have been a socialist

yep!

Socialism is a great idea, but human nature turns it bad.

Top Gun wrote:Query: why should health care be socialized? If private companies can do a better job than the government, why should we force people to use governmental health care? Bigger government=bigger problems.

I agree, health care should NOT be socialized. I spent 2 years in England and saw how that type of health care works. Many Brits told me stories of hospital blunders (why care about a patient if they aren't paying your salary?), and some people try to get to the US for more serious opperations.

Lothar wrote:The real problem with Nader, though, is that he gives the Democratic party an excuse -- it gives them someone other than themselves to blame for losing.

Which is true.

But what's equally ironic is how an intelligent man like Nader can honestly think he's robbing votes from Bush. o..O

Economic systems cannot be implemented simply because they will theoretically work in a utopian economic model. They must be empirically proven to function in the real world.

Morally wrong Clay? Where in the bible does it say that?

The Bible doesn't speak directly to issues of governmental boundaries. Further, using the Bible as a standard to set moral rules for laws and legislation is flawed IMO, because not everyone follows Christianity. However, one does not need to believe in any religion at all to recognize fundamental principles, such as depriving other people of life, liberty, and property. Socialism violates this because taxation is forced coercion. You worked for your money, but the government then claims the right to do whatever the hell they want with it. That's nothing less than theft.

Birdseye wrote:It is a system with co-operative ownership, or the workers owning the means of production.

IMO, it's bad economic policy. Incentives matter.

Holy cow batman, I agree with Birds for the 2nd time in a month

Kyouryuu wrote:But what's equally ironic is how an intelligent man like Nader can honestly think he's robbing votes from Bush. o..O

He took mine from Bush...
What, you think only democrats can see the wisdom in his platform?

Toronto too Verty

Don't forget about Canada's new york.

True that. Also, in an interesting twist, although almost everyone I know hates quebec, almost everyone [at least that i know] loves montreal. It's f*cking mind blowing.

Xamindar wrote:

Top Gun wrote:Query: why should health care be socialized? If private companies can do a better job than the government, why should we force people to use governmental health care? Bigger government=bigger problems.

I agree, health care should NOT be socialized. I spent 2 years in England and saw how that type of health care works. Many Brits told me stories of hospital blunders (why care about a patient if they aren't paying your salary?), and some people try to get to the US for more serious opperations.

social health care works fantastic here in australia.
but the government has to actively defend it from huge international medical corporations*, whom all hate it and are trying their best to undermine it.

*THAT'S capitalism for ya.

doctors are bound by the hypocratic oath. doctors who are bound by nothing but money arn't good doctors.

The thing is, private organizations AREN't doing a good job, and many people go without health care.