Don Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 Let me guess - all Republicans are greedy, oppressive, racist, bigoted, homophobes, right?You're a joke. You're also sad and pathetic. You are also VERY typical of the liberals in our country. The truth is: You hate capitalism You embrace collectivism (ie. socialism, communism, fascism, liberalism, etc.) You hate America. You have nothing but contempt for anyone who opposes your views. You have nothing but contempt for the American people, whom you believe are incapable of handling their own finances, raising their own children, making decisions for themselves, or running their OWN lives. You believe in a humongous government welfare state where the govt. handles all aspects of our lives, runs our economy, controls our people (except YOU of course). You think anyone who disagrees with your world view is "stupid." You thumb your nose at history which demonstrates the failings of your ideology. How humourous. You condemn generalizing people and then proceed to generalize. Well done. I'm impressed. You'll fit in well here. There are a goodly number of socialist countries that are doing just fine thank you. It's not an all or nothing black and white world. We've seen pure communism fail in Russia as centralized government powers become corrupted and we've seen pure capitalism fail in Somalia as the lack of government has lead to chaos and suffering. Shades of grey seem to work best in this world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HngKngPhooey Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 How humourous. You condemn generalizing people and then proceed to generalize. Well done. I'm impressed. You'll fit in well here. There are a goodly number of socialist countries that are doing just fine thank you. It's not an all or nothing black and white world. We've seen pure communism fail in Russia as centralized government powers become corrupted and we've seen pure capitalism fail in Somalia as the lack of government has lead to chaos and suffering. Shades of grey seem to work best in this world. It was not "pure capatalism" that failed. It was pure democracy that failed. Pure democracy is the equivalent of mob rule, which is why it fails. Capatalists are not for NO government. We are for SMALL, unobtrusive government. To suggest otherwise is simply silly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eltab213 Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 (edited) And yet you fail to acknowledge the fact that the Republican party was formed for the very purpose of distinguishing themselves as the anti-slavery party against the rest of the Whigs who (as I and others have phrased it) "waffled" on the slavery issue. This happened long before Lincoln. Republicans have ALWAYS opposed slavery.Oh, and do you, as well, have any dispute with any of my other points? Just curious. And, thank you for the "welcome." Nice to be here I do understand why and how the Republican party was formed, I'm not disputing that. My point is, the Republican party, before, during, and for some time after the civil war, opposed slavery for reasons other than civil equalities. Your original post gave the impression that the Republicans abolished slavery because of their attitudes toward racial equality, which isn't true. Edited March 6, 2007 by Eltab213 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted March 6, 2007 Share Posted March 6, 2007 It was not "pure capatalism" that failed. It was pure democracy that failed. Pure democracy is the equivalent of mob rule, which is why it fails. Capatalists are not for NO government. We are for SMALL, unobtrusive government. To suggest otherwise is simply silly. Hrm? Who is "we"? There is a whole branch of capitalists (note the spelling) called anarcho-capitalists dedicated to the elimination of the state. Not all "capitalists" are as homogenic as you seem to insinuate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HngKngPhooey Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Hrm? Who is "we"? There is a whole branch of capitalists (note the spelling) called anarcho-capitalists dedicated to the elimination of the state. Not all "capitalists" are as homogenic as you seem to insinuate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 (edited) As for its application to capatalism (note spelling), again such a notion fails. There must be some sort of access to protection provided best by a govt., whether it be thru law or otherwise. Edited March 8, 2007 by Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devilish34 Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Anarchy in any form is inherently self-destructive.The presence of a governing body is necessary for the safety of the people and guarding of the nation. This can be accomplished via a government body whose focus remains mainly on foreign and domestic aggression. Anarcho-capatilism supports the notion of the privatization of the functions of law enforcement and the military. I know of no such groups within the US that propose such an institution. It goes against the core structure of our nation. As for its application to capatalism (note spelling), again such a notion fails. There must be some sort of access to protection provided best by a govt., whether it be thru law or otherwise. Enuff for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HngKngPhooey Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 cool avatar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HngKngPhooey Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 I do understand why and how the Republican party was formed, I'm not disputing that. My point is, the Republican party, before, during, and for some time after the civil war, opposed slavery for reasons other than civil equalities. Your original post gave the impression that the Republicans abolished slavery because of their attitudes toward racial equality, which isn't true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camden28 Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 It would be helpful to the discussion if you could go into better detail. For instance, explain what you know to be the reason for Republican support for the abolishing of slavery.Also, you stated that the Republican party opposed slavery "for some time after" the civil war. That needs to be extended. You should have said, "and ever since...," instead. In addition, for those of you reading, keep in mind that ownership of slaves by our (USA) nation's Founding Fathers, most of whom objected to slavery and had stated so, is not the contradiction or hypocrisy it may seem. At that time in history it was illegal for blacks to be free. There were dire and often fatal consequences for a black man or woman who was found to be without an owner. So they did the next best thing - treated them as well as they could. In addition, the framers did not have nearly enough support amongst the colonies to incorporate a ban on slavery into the U.S. Constitution. A 90% vote in favor of the Constitution was necessary in order for it to be ratified. Had the abolishment of slavery been made an issue, the Constitution would NEVER have been ratified. However, they did make way for the FUTURE abolishment of slavery - "...that all men are created equal...," as well as, our "inalienable rights." Nuff for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HngKngPhooey Posted May 16, 2007 Share Posted May 16, 2007 How humourous. You condemn generalizing people and then proceed to generalize. Well done. I'm impressed. You'll fit in well here. There are a goodly number of socialist countries that are doing just fine thank you. It's not an all or nothing black and white world. We've seen pure communism fail in Russia as centralized government powers become corrupted and we've seen pure capitalism fail in Somalia as the lack of government has lead to chaos and suffering. Shades of grey seem to work best in this world. Which socialist countries do you mean? The ones where people are dying from various diseases, such as, "curable forms of cancer" after having to wait in line for eight months or longer for treatment? Or perhaps you mean the ones with stagnant economies, rampant poverty, and little or no job growth? Oh, wait! Maybe you mean the ones where the younger adults have almost no work ethic and have come to depend on everyone else and expect everything to be given to them (aka- uselessness) as if their very existence merits it? Which ones were YOU referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Wow. There are no people in the US that die waiting for cancer treatment? Not even the ones the HMOs delay paying for surgery until the people keel over? Good article: http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/S...178243-sun.html Quick summary: While Canada's system needs to be faster, we still kick your health care system around the block and back. The problem is that being better than the U.S. isn't enough anymore. We have to strive higher. Much higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 My Canadian friends would strongly disagree with your view of Canadian medicine. My Hawkesbury friend's mom died of cancer a couple of years ago and she blamed the poor health care her mom got in Canada and her dad is a retired cop. I swear that if you were the only source I had on Canada I'd think it was freakin Utopia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Where did you get that? I just posted an article which says that Canada's health care system needs to be fixed. Let's see the logic here: *Don posts article stating that Canada's health care is flawed and needs fixing* *Liz says that Don says Canada's health care is a Utopia* Oi. But I agree with the author of that article that if we chose to fix it by turning to the American solution, we would be taking a step even further backwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Don Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 I swear that if you were the only source I had on Canada I'd think it was freakin Utopia. BTW - If I went by what the posters like HongKongPhooey or Leeds say, Canada is backwards, meaningless, powerless POS country. Count me as a counterbalance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Leeds Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 BTW - If I went by what the posters like HongKongPhooey or Leeds say, Canada is backwards, meaningless, powerless POS country. Count me as a counterbalance. More outrage. I love Canada. I just do not like their jealousy of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizDevil30 Posted May 17, 2007 Share Posted May 17, 2007 Wow. There are no people in the US that die waiting for cancer treatment? Not even the ones the HMOs delay paying for surgery until the people keel over?Good article: http://www.ottawasun.com/News/Columnists/S...178243-sun.html Quick summary: While Canada's system needs to be faster, we still kick your health care system around the block and back. The problem is that being better than the U.S. isn't enough anymore. We have to strive higher. Much higher. I wasn't commenting on the article (didn't read it) commented on your brief summary, "we kick your health care system around the block and back" Oi, hence my comment. My friends told me all the good Canadian doctors run to the US to practice and there is a pay for service medical system up there for the rich. They begged me to go into nursing because of the tremendous shortage in Canada. When I visited with them and engaged in conversation, I thought I was pretty Canada savy and was all for some Canadian flag waving, but they painted a different picture than the one I had in my head. I have nothing against Canada at all. I'm sure it's a lovely place to live like the US and Europe but like all countries has its problems. I think the US healthcare system needs an overhaul, but we do have the greatest medical advances and care, the problem is making them available to all. Our huge problem is the working uninsured. Yes, I'm sure you feel you need to be the counterbalance againsts the likes of Leeds, but Leeds et all all feel their patriotism is under seige. I don't understand the need to bash the other, but whatever. Personally both countries are plagued by serious problems that transcend nationalism and politics but rather are focused on universal ethics and morals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HngKngPhooey Posted May 18, 2007 Share Posted May 18, 2007 Most impressive. Also, love the avatar of the #1 superguy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnie Posted May 19, 2007 Share Posted May 19, 2007 More outrage.I love Canada. I just do not like their jealousy of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts