billvon 3,114 #51 June 8, 2011 >No, I am trying to explain that your position is reactionary to me and my >peer group. My position is that we should use government money to provide government-managed healthcare to veterans. >It is like telling a Vietnam vet on disability that he gets a welfare check. He's not. Welfare is a socialist program implemented in the US to provide money for the poor. It has nothing to do with the US Department of Veterans Affair's disability program. Just because they are both socialist programs does not make them in any other way similar. So you could say that, but you'd be incorrect, and would again be redefining words to make a political point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #52 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuote Sounds like you have agreed to make a lot of noise about it - but quietly use those services when it benefits you to do so. Which makes you like most Americans. No, I am trying to explain that your position is reactionary to me and my peer group. It is like telling a Vietnam vet on disability that he gets a welfare check. It would be wrong to tell a vet that because it's a diifferent program. But both are funded by the government. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #53 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuote>Your are using the wrong term. It is called "Veterans Benefits." Yes, it is. And if you look up the list of entitlement programs that the government runs, it's right there on the list. A government run, government funded program is a socialist program. There are lots of them; veteran's benefits is one of the better ones. >To refer to veterans benefits as socialized medicine is beyond stupid; it is an insult. I find the desire to redefine words to fit one's political views funny. It is not a question of word redefinition. It is a reaction against the dismantling of the American culture in the name of good ideas. As I stated in the above reply to Stevebabin, the group that I hang with is reactionary against socialist principles. Why? Because we have made decisions about our lives that we agree upon. It is what binds us together and we have no reason to change. Play word and mind games all you want. I remain convicted in my beliefs. It will be interesting to see how the Lord views those convictions upon his return. I don't know about you but a lot of what he taught goes against what you consider to be good conservative values. Somehow I don't think he would appreciate the conservative dog eat dog world that modern conservatives long for. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #54 June 8, 2011 Look, I stand firmly with the idea that the USA should have a free-market, capitalist system. Even within that system, there will be some goverment funded programs. There should be some collective funding for things like taking care of our military, roads, schools, etc. An amalgam of socialist programs within a predominantly capitalist society IS the American way, at least for anyone who isn't afraid of a word. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #55 June 8, 2011 QuoteLook, I stand firmly with the idea that the USA should have a free-market, capitalist system. Even within that system, there will be some goverment funded programs. There should be some collective funding for things like taking care of our military, roads, schools, etc. An amalgam of socialist programs within a predominantly capitalist society IS the American way, at least for anyone who isn't afraid of a word. I whole heartedly agree, but it does annoy me that so many in this country are incapable of seeing the reality in front of their faces and wish to call something that is.... something that is not... because they have been brainwashed into an incorrect assumption of what the definition is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #56 June 8, 2011 Quote >It is like telling a Vietnam vet on disability that he gets a welfare check. He's not. Welfare is a socialist program implemented in the US to provide money for the poor. It has nothing to do with the US Department of Veterans Affair's disability program. Just because they are both socialist programs does not make them in any other way similar. Uh, that was my position in the beginning.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 379 #57 June 8, 2011 QuoteI can only vote and bitch. This is my venue for bitching. That, I can relate to! QuoteI do not want to see our culture dismantled. I accept what we already have not what the current batch of politicians, Democrats and/or Republicans, want to do to our country. OK. I didn't really expect a specific answer from you (though that might have been more interesting). I've just been trying to get you to acknowledge that there are a lot of "socialist" aspects to our culture, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. I think it's a tempting trap to believe that we succeed as individuals, and that America has been spectacularly successful, as a result of every individual person standing alone against the world, succeeding or failing solely on their own merits. In reality, humans have been successful as a species because we have an incredible capacity to work together towards common goals. If it was only each individual against everyone else in some winner-take-all struggle for survival, we wouldn't need the capacity for language, for example, any more than a hawk does. A better model is a balance between individual and collaborative efforts. The individuals who do best are the ones who are able to contribute to and benefit from collaborations, yet still take the initiative or go the extra mile to benefit their own interests. Individuals who only contribute to the social collaborations will survive, but never do better than "average". Individuals who refuse to participate in necessary collaborations such as defense of the group or food gathering will be perceived as parasites, and will be cast out to sink or swim on their own; mostly they end up as lion chow. Individuals who insist on doing everything on their own will generally not be competitive against groups of people working together. Think of the military service you are justifiably proud of: on average, how would one soldier acting alone without supply lines, military intelligence, and fellow soldiers to provide cover or backup fare against a well-organized platoon? Society is like that platoon: some things we do to cover one another, to increase the chance of us all succeeding, but that doesn't mean we aren't all individuals responsible for doing what is necessary to ensure our own survival. The question it is fair to debate is where is the optimal balance between collaborative and individual effort? It's disingenuous, and unproductive, to pretend that collaborative efforts are inherently bad and individual efforts are inherently good. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #58 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Sounds like you have agreed to make a lot of noise about it - but quietly use those services when it benefits you to do so. Which makes you like most Americans. No, I am trying to explain that your position is reactionary to me and my peer group. It is like telling a Vietnam vet on disability that he gets a welfare check. It would be wrong to tell a vet that because it's a diifferent program. But both are funded by the government. Thank you.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #59 June 8, 2011 Quote It will be interesting to see how the Lord views those convictions upon his return. I don't know about you but a lot of what he taught goes against what you consider to be good conservative values. Somehow I don't think he would appreciate the conservative dog eat dog world that modern conservatives long for. I'm sure He would totally agree with you. There will be no need for that competitive conflict during Christ's millennial reign. However, until then capitalism produces better results than socialism. Both are flawed but the former encourages and strengthens the spirit of man to reach beyond his grasp.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
RonD1120 62 #60 June 8, 2011 QuoteOK. I didn't really expect a specific answer from you (though that might have been more interesting). I've just been trying to get you to acknowledge that there are a lot of "socialist" aspects to our culture, and that is not necessarily a bad thing. I think it's a tempting trap to believe that we succeed as individuals, and that America has been spectacularly successful, as a result of every individual person standing alone against the world, succeeding or failing solely on their own merits. In reality, humans have been successful as a species because we have an incredible capacity to work together towards common goals. If it was only each individual against everyone else in some winner-take-all struggle for survival, we wouldn't need the capacity for language, for example, any more than a hawk does. A better model is a balance between individual and collaborative efforts. The individuals who do best are the ones who are able to contribute to and benefit from collaborations, yet still take the initiative or go the extra mile to benefit their own interests. Individuals who only contribute to the social collaborations will survive, but never do better than "average". Individuals who refuse to participate in necessary collaborations such as defense of the group or food gathering will be perceived as parasites, and will be cast out to sink or swim on their own; mostly they end up as lion chow. Individuals who insist on doing everything on their own will generally not be competitive against groups of people working together. Think of the military service you are justifiably proud of: on average, how would one soldier acting alone without supply lines, military intelligence, and fellow soldiers to provide cover or backup fare against a well-organized platoon? Society is like that platoon: some things we do to cover one another, to increase the chance of us all succeeding, but that doesn't mean we aren't all individuals responsible for doing what is necessary to ensure our own survival. The question it is fair to debate is where is the optimal balance between collaborative and individual effort? It's disingenuous, and unproductive, to pretend that collaborative efforts are inherently bad and individual efforts are inherently good. Don I really have no response. What you state makes sense to me.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
GeorgiaDon 379 #61 June 8, 2011 QuoteWhat you state makes sense to me. I hope you have a great afternoon. Don_____________________________________ Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996) “Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
shropshire 0 #62 June 8, 2011 QuoteQuoteQuote Sounds like you have agreed to make a lot of noise about it - but quietly use those services when it benefits you to do so. Which makes you like most Americans. No, I am trying to explain that your position is reactionary to me and my peer group. It is like telling a Vietnam vet on disability that he gets a welfare check. It would be wrong to tell a vet that because it's a diifferent program. But both are funded by the government. One is pre-paid for in blood whilst the other ... not so much. (.)Y(.) Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #63 June 8, 2011 Bloody hippys When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,114 #64 June 8, 2011 >An amalgam of socialist programs within a predominantly capitalist society >IS the American way . . . Agreed. Our strength as a nation is that we have taken the best of every system. Sure, pure democracy is great - but having every voter in the US vote on every bill would make government nearly impossible. So we use representatives rather than a more pure Athenian model. Having every single representative make minute by minute decisions during an attack - and act via consensus - would be nearly impossible, so we have a president. Capitalism is great, but doesn't work for things like highways - we've seen what capitalist abuses did to railroads. So we have socialist highways, and police forces, and air traffic control systems. Religion is great, but makes a lousy basis for government. So we keep them separate. And outside the realm of political zealots, that mix has worked pretty well for us. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
brucet7 0 #65 June 9, 2011 My answer is no to suicide, but I also believe that medical science can keep people alive longer than they need to. I am not opposed to unplugging the vent or not continuing with chemo or radiation.POPS #10623; SOS #1672 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
popsjumper 2 #66 June 9, 2011 QuoteMy answer is no to suicide, but I also believe that medical science can keep people alive longer than they need to. I am not opposed to unplugging the vent or not continuing with chemo or radiation. This is a viewpoint I have a hard time understanding. One would let them die but at the same time force them to die and ugly, painful death instead of an easy one. I don't get it at all.My reality and yours are quite different. I think we're all Bozos on this bus. Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
