Amercians, anti-communist/socialist?

[UncannyGarlic]

For their weak and sick - that's right. Like I care about my family, my parents, my brother and friends. Not about some random bum from the street. I'm not expecting that some random person from the street should care about me or my relatives either. If you ever have a chance to talk with chimpanzee if he cares about happiness of all chimpanzees in the world - I bet he will answer you that he doesn't give a flying fuck. No wonder apes are symbols of wisdom in the Chinese culture. Sometimes they are wiser than men.

Actually chimpanzee's care about their entire community, it isn't just their family. And guess what socializeed healthcare deals with? The weak and sick of the community.

The thing is - a lot of people will stop just there, at the very basic things because all they need are those basic things. Current Russian village is an excellent example. Most peasants just drink vodka from 9 A.M. because they don't need fancy computers and stuff. I'm talking from experience - worked there for some time. Still shocked from what I've seen.

Explanation is simple - the socialist state of USSR has removed a chance to seriously fail from the equation. So they've stopped caring.

Some people - a lot of people, actually - just lack ambitions.

You assume that US culture is the same as Russian culture, it isn't. US culture is heavily based on consumerism, ie buying shit, and the american dream is becoming extremely wealthy. Sure, there will be people who don't do shit but guess what? They don't do shit now, so it's not like everyone is going to become lazy bastards because they don't have to worry about starving to death.

The problem is not his stupidity per se, but the fact that his stupidity aims him to destroy and rebuild the existing system, instead of getting to the root of the problem and repairing it.

If there's a better system out there, why not adopt it and build on it rather than build on a system which is fundamentally fucked? That doesn't have to be government run healthcare (though it is a very good approach) but disallowing companies from refusing claims or clients and setting the maximum rate is really the only other option. Health insurance as it is in the US is a scam and that's just they way insurance companies like it.

Note that people who have "experts" usually have these "experts" look at things the same way they do. I.E. Bush-Cheney. Obama surrounded himself with as many yes-men as he could.

Which is why he appointed a number of republicans to his cabinet...? Besides which, obviously you aren't going to appoint people who you think are fundamentally wrong in their approach, it doesn't mean that they are "yes men". Bush's experts didn't look at things the same way as him, they looked at things the same basic way as Cheney and they told Bush what to think. It took him seven years to figure out that he wasn't the one actually running the country.

George Lucas was surrounded by experts when making the Phantom Menace. They actually had a lot to say. He just didn't listen to any of them.

The fuck does that have to do with Obama or even presidents in general?

 

[Tagaziel]

huh, 19th century russia, a prosperous nation?

Compared to what? To 19th century Brazil? Wanna bet?

Seriously, even in 1970s communists still made a lot of bragging comparing quality of life to 1913. "The Soviet industry produced X% more of this and Y% more of that compared to 1913".

It's hilarious how people here talk about 19th century Russia like they have any idea about its history.

BTW, even if someone really thinks that he has an idea of how pre-revolution Russia looked like, he could ask himself - if everyone had such a miserable life here before Soviets - something that you guys seem to believe... why the revolution has lead to 7 years of Civilian war? Why almost all the population of Russian south and Siberia, consisting mostly of Cossacks (who were basically farmers with arms, living on the frontier and free of slavery for centuries) didn't exactly welcomed the revolution? Some regions and peoples, like Terek Cossacks, became victims of genocide because they couldn't be pacified. One may also consider looking up the term "kulak" as well - and why them, those rich peasants, were considered a danger for revolution and have been subjected to extermination.

Concerning what Russia looked like before the 1917 - one who reads Russian could look at the wiki entry. Especially at the part that tells us about 13th times growth in industry in the 1861-1913 period. About positive balance in the foreign trade. And many others.

Or you may consider listening to those of your leftists who tell you horror stories about life of poor Russian peasants before the Soviet state took care of their needs. I couldn't care less, actually.

You do realize the civil war was between two branches of the revolutionaries, who deposed the Tsar with full support of the people, right?

 

[shihonage]

If there's a better system out there, why not adopt it and build on it rather than build on a system which is fundamentally fucked?

Hey, if there'a better system out there, let's do it ! I hear Sweden has a good healthcare system. Let's do Swedish healthcare ! Oh wait, Obama isn't.

That doesn't have to be government run healthcare (though it is a very good approach)

You must be joking, sir. Whenever the government gets exclusive control of anything of significance, it deteriorates into a stagnant, inefficient, barely functional bureaucratic mess.

Case in point: DMV. 9-11 crash site (still nothing there after 9 years). Oh... SOVIET UNION.

but disallowing companies from refusing claims or clients and setting the maximum rate is really the only other option. Health insurance as it is in the US is a scam and that's just they way insurance companies like it.

I... agree ?

Which is why he appointed a number of republicans to his cabinet...? Besides which, obviously you aren't going to appoint people who you think are fundamentally wrong in their approach, it doesn't mean that they are "yes men".

You're free to believe so. We have freedom of religion here, I guess.

George Lucas was surrounded by experts when making the Phantom Menace. They actually had a lot to say. He just didn't listen to any of them.

The fuck does that have to do with Obama or even presidents in general?

Only that both Lucas and Obama are narcissists, pedestrian minds with large egos, so Obama ignoring his advisors in the same fashion Lucas did, wouldn't at all be surprising to me.

 

[UncannyGarlic]

Hey, if there'a better system out there, let's do it ! I hear Sweden has a good healthcare system. Let's do Swedish healthcare ! Oh wait, Obama isn't.

Technically Obama isn't doing anything, congress is the one putting together the plan.

You must be joking, sir. Whenever the government gets exclusive control of anything of significance, it deteriorates into a stagnant, inefficient, barely functional bureaucratic mess.

Case in point: DMV. 9-11 crash site (still nothing there after 9 years). Oh... SOVIET UNION.

What's so ineffcient about DMV? I've never had a problem with them other than the employees being disgruntled. Also what about the IRS and the postal service, both of which are extremely effective.

You're free to believe so. We have freedom of religion here, I guess.

Yeah well, crazy people see Satan in everyone they disagree with or, in most cases, are told to disagree with.

Only that both Lucas and Obama are narcissists, pedestrian minds with large egos

You know this how exactly?

People love and hate him far more than he deserves. He isn't my ideal president but he was one of the better candidates in the last election, even if he seems to have his balls in a drawer 95% of the time.

 

[Crni Vuk]

...

What do we have here? A Russian nationalist. How refreshing.

 

[Sander]

For their weak and sick - that's right. Like I care about my family, my parents, my brother and friends. Not about some random bum from the street. I'm not expecting that some random person from the street should care about me or my relatives either. If you ever have a chance to talk with chimpanzee if he cares about happiness of all chimpanzees in the world - I bet he will answer you that he doesn't give a flying fuck. No wonder apes are symbols of wisdom in the Chinese culture. Sometimes they are wiser than men.

Yes. Let's all just care about people we know and no one else, because those are the only people deserving of anything.
That's a very moral stance there.

Imagine a big political split in a country - like the one U.S. are facing today. Now, the country has a never ending war at the Western front, so a lot of people are really angry because of casualties amongst their relatives and those they know. Add a weak Czar like Nikolay the 2nd to the mix, add a huge amount of money that another side in the war conflict invests in various political movements in the country in order to destabilize the situation and put in the power someone they could talk about separate peace later.

Get the picture now?

No. Because that's not the whole picture, and neither is the picture I was painting. There are always a miriad of causes, and amongst those causes was the immense poverty and poor living standards of a very large part of the Russian population. I'm well aware of the political circumstances, but you can't sweep the economic circumstances under the rug just because there are other causes as well.
Fact: 19th century Russia was a society built on the back of serfdom, with a very prosperous upper layer. The fact that an upper layer was doing well does not mean that the overall situation is beneficial.

Also, to compare the situation in early 20th-century Russia in terms of civil unrest to the situation the US is in now is beyond ridiculous.

The thing is - a lot of people will stop just there, at the very basic things because all they need are those basic things. Current Russian village is an excellent example. Most peasants just drink vodka from 9 A.M. because they don't need fancy computers and stuff. I'm talking from experience - worked there for some time. Still shocked from what I've seen.

Explanation is simple - the socialist state of USSR has removed a chance to seriously fail from the equation. So they've stopped caring.

Some people - a lot of people, actually - just lack ambitions.

Yes, there will always be some freeloaders. The fact that there will be some freeloaders does not mean there will be some gigantic economic collapse - and the fact that there are freeloaders in a country that ran on a fully communist

The idea of incentives is why capitalism works, sure. But that doesn't mean that you have to remove every social system because you want to add as many incentives as possible - that leads to inhumane situations, such as neglecting care for the handicapped because that wouldn't be economic.

Also, in most cases welfare isn't just 'here have some free money'. Usually, compulsory

You mean like shrinking native population which is being replaced by immigrants (including illegal ones) from poor-OMG-so-unfortunate countries who are attracted by welfare? OTOH those who wish to live there, work are not being allowed to come in because everyone is rightly afraid that they will get on welfare too?

Your rhetoric is pretty far removed from the actual truth. Have you ever actually lived in a western-European welfare state?

And yes, some people are going all panicky over immigrants. That's neither a factor unique to welfare states, nor actually relevant as to the prosperity of those systems. Fact: Almost all nations high on the HDR index are welfare states.

Besides, what do I care if my country is inhabited by people descended from people who did not live here 200 years ago? It already is.

You must be joking, sir. Whenever the government gets exclusive control of anything of significance, it deteriorates into a stagnant, inefficient, barely functional bureaucratic mess.

Case in point: DMV. 9-11 crash site (still nothing there after 9 years). Oh... SOVIET UNION.

Western European welfare state! Total mess!
Oh wait.

And yes, there's a very good reason why healthcare needs to be run by the state. Without a government-run (or at least a government-wide mandated healthcare system) you create an imbalance in information in the market. Low-risk people don't get healthcare, high-risk people do, this leads to an increase in prices for insurance, leading to more low-risk people falling off, leading to yet again an increase in prices etc. This leads to a system where health insurance is ridiculously expensive, which leads to people being fucked when they encounter incidental but high-cost medical problems.
See: the USA.
Several remedies exist, all of them require government intervention.

The problem is not his stupidity per se, but the fact that his stupidity aims him to destroy and rebuild the existing system, instead of getting to the root of the problem and repairing it.

So you're saying that he is destroying a system, building a new one, but that he is not intending to fix it?

Note that people who have "experts" usually have these "experts" look at things the same way they do. I.E. Bush-Cheney. Obama surrounded himself with as many yes-men as he could.

You're acting as if Obama makes every decision on every subject he can. That's ridiculous, and impossible.

Also, next one to double post gets a strike.

 

[shihonage]

What's so ineffcient about DMV? I've never had a problem with them other than the employees being disgruntled. Also what about the IRS and the postal service, both of which are extremely effective.

Have you checked the DMVs online services ? Theyre a decade behind everything else in functionality and design. Possibly some of the least friendly and counterintuitive shit ever.

As for government-run mail...

Yeah well, crazy people see Satan in everyone they disagree with or, in most cases, are told to disagree with.

It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of Obama being Statist at the core, and the plentiful history of Statism being nothing but a force of destruction in the 20th century.

People love and hate him far more than he deserves. He isn't my ideal president but he was one of the better candidates in the last election, even if he seems to have his balls in a drawer 95% of the time.

He sure talked up a storm.

And yes, there's a very good reason why healthcare needs to be run by the state. Without a government-run (or at least a government-wide mandated healthcare system) you create an imbalance in information in the market. Low-risk people don't get healthcare, high-risk people do, this leads to an increase in prices for insurance, leading to more low-risk people falling off, leading to yet again an increase in prices etc. This leads to a system where health insurance is ridiculously expensive, which leads to people being fucked when they encounter incidental but high-cost medical problems.
See: the USA.
Several remedies exist, all of them require government intervention.

Low-risk people don't get healthcare, high-risk people do ? Are we talking America, or Canada ? Because it's in Canada where low-risk people (or people "deemed low-risk at the time") get put in queues and wait for their surgeries for years.

So you're saying that he is destroying a system, building a new one, but that he is not intending to fix it?

His intentions are not in question. His experience/ability is. This man has none. He is a poster child of a typical Berkeley graduate, filled with beliefs that do not reflect how the real world works.

You're acting as if Obama makes every decision on every subject he can. That's ridiculous, and impossible.

No, but he does pick a lot of people surrounding him. Usually, they're leftist radicals.

 

[Sander]

It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of Obama being Statist at the core, and the plentiful history of Statism being nothing but a force of destruction in the 20th century.

Hurray confirmation bias!
When you look for examples to support your cause, you will find them and only them. When you look for examples in general, you'll find a very different picture.

This issue is not so stupidly simple that you can just go 'More state is terrible!'

 

[shihonage]

It's not a matter of disagreement, it's a matter of Obama being Statist at the core, and the plentiful history of Statism being nothing but a force of destruction in the 20th century.

Hurray confirmation bias!
When you look for examples to support your cause, you will find them and only them. When you look for examples in general, you'll find a very different picture.

This issue is not so stupidly simple that you can just go 'More state is terrible!'

To many of us former Soviets it really is that simple. The brainwashing that goes on in Berkeley and similar institutions is very similar to what we were subjected to in school, its a slow and gradual process affecting generations, and it produces remarkable results on mass scale. It's the boiling frog effect. Only as result of this process, ultra-leftists like Obama can appear "centrist" to the affected voters.

You ask a random youth on the streets of San Francisco if they prefer capitalism or socialism. You'll see.

The "President" hogged television time like our Fearless Leaders of the past, plastering his face over the major networks (and annoying them in the process), and attacked a radio talk show host and then a news network that criticized him. That's Soviet style, baby !

 

[Sander]

To many of us former Soviets it really is that simple.

So you're saying that many of 'you former Soviets' oversimplify an issue because you don't like the Soviet system?

Every time this comes up and some dude from a former Soviet state comes along, they bring up an argument that basically boils down to 'Yes well for us it all sucked!'
Well, okay, but former Soviet states aren't the exclusive model of state intervention.

The brainwashing that goes on in Berkeley and similar institutions is very similar to what we were subjected to in school, its a slow and gradual process affecting generations, and it produces remarkable results on mass scale. It's the boiling frog effect. Only as result of this process, ultra-leftists like Obama can appear "centrist" to the affected voters.

Ignoring the idiotic conspiracy there, you really think Obama is an ultra-leftist? Seriously? Are you entirely kidding me? If you think Obama is an ultra-leftist, you would hate to live in Europe where Obama would be considered a moderate at best.

You ask a random youth on the streets of San Francisco if they prefer capitalism or socialism. You'll see.

Ask random people about something they have no real knowledge of! Hurray! Proof that statism doesn't work!
Wait, what?

Also, good job ignoring the actual counter-example: western-European welfare states, which are doing fine.

 

[shihonage]

To many of us former Soviets it really is that simple.

So you're saying that many of 'you former Soviets' oversimplify an issue because you don't like the Soviet system?

No, I'm saying that we can call a spade and spade without trying to muddy the waters with faux sophistication.

Every time this comes up and some dude from a former Soviet state comes along, they bring up an argument that basically boils down to 'Yes well for us it all sucked!'
Well, okay, but former Soviet states aren't the exclusive model of state intervention.

You're right. China is doing great !

Ignoring the idiotic conspiracy there,

During a process of gradual change, somewhere along its smooth curve, someone eventually points it out. The masses, blindly following inertia of everyday existence, ridicule them for the seemingly binary change of mind which does not match the smooth, gradual curve. The story is old as time itself.

you really think Obama is an ultra-leftist? Seriously? Are you entirely kidding me?

Of course I'm not kidding you. He was voted the most liberal senator of 2007. In the area of domestic policy voting, the study found that "Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 key votes on which he voted … [and] garnered perfect liberal scores in both the economic and social categories."

He has close ties to ACORN during his career. There's a video of him explicitly saying that. ACORN was started in the 1970’s by radicals, with input from sociologists.... all of them are neo-Marxist ideologists.

One of the points of ACORN's "manifesto" is that they want all doctors have set salaries. That's just one among many. Soviet style, baby !

If you think Obama is an ultra-leftist, you would hate to live in Europe where Obama would be considered a moderate at best.

You're right, that's why I don't live in Europe. Fuck Europe.

Ask random people about something they have no real knowledge of! Hurray! Proof that statism doesn't work!
Wait, what?

Meaningless ridicule aside, the point is to show the educational slant.

Also, good job ignoring the actual counter-example: western-European welfare states, which are doing fine.

You mean Scandinavia ? Hooray confirmation bias !

Even those that do function, eventually fall apart, as people's homogeneous values and strong traditions get replaced with a sense of entitlement. Either that, or they already live under totalitarian rule.

 

[Sander]

No, I'm saying that we can call a spade and spade without trying to muddy the waters with faux sophistication.

Differentiating between the Soviet state and the welfare state the Netherlands, for example, runs is now 'faux sophistication'?

You're right. China is doing great !

That does not refute my point even in the slightest. You keep saying that *all 'statism' is terrible*. The fact that there are examples of statism being terrible does not mean that all statism is terrible.

Saul Alinsky's rules for radicals - ridicule is a potent weapon, eh.

I'm a radical now? Also, who's Saul Alinksy?
Also also, methinks you started the ridicule by implying that people need to be brainwashed to believe in leftist ideas.

Of course I'm not kidding you. He was voted the most liberal senator of 2007. In the area of domestic policy voting, the study found that "Obama voted the liberal position on 65 of the 66 key votes on which he voted … [and] garnered perfect liberal scores in both the economic and social categories."

He has close ties to ACORN during his career. There's a video of him explicitly saying that. ACORN was started in the 1970’s by radicals, with input from sociologists.... all of them are neo-Marxist ideologists.

One of the points of ACORN's "manifesto" is that they want all doctors have set salaries. That's just one among many. Soviet style, baby !

Obama is relatively leftist for American sensibilities, yes. This does not make him an ultra-leftist.

You're right, that's why I don't live in Europe. Fuck Europe.

Fuck Europe and the happy people that live there!

Meaningless ridicule aside, the point is to show the educational slant.

So you think oversimplifying the US education system to a point where you imply every institute of higher learning teaches the same things, and they all brainwash students is a good point to make?

You mean Scandinavia ? Hooray confirmation bias !

I don't think you understand confirmation bias.
Here's the line of argument:
You argue that *all* statism is terrible.
I give a counter-example, namely that statism works pretty well for western-European nations like, indeed, the Scandinavian nations.
Hence, I have disproven your assertion that *all* statism is terrible.

Where's the confirmation bias there?

Even those that do function, eventually fall apart, as people's homogeneous values and strong traditions get replaced with a sense of entitlement. Either that, or they already live under totalitarian rule.

That's a neat assertion there, not supported by actual factual evidence. Again: the soviet mold of totalitarian 'communism' isn't the only mold for 'statism'.

 

[CloudlessDruid]

discussing with nationalists is like discussing with religious people... Some things seems really clear to anyone who study a bit of adminstration, economy or politics, yet, people with certain traditional dogmas can't see that.

 

[WillisPDunlevey]

I think the biggest problem with the USA is that we have just enough "socialism" (some sort of safety net) to allow people that are just an IQ point or two above being legally retarded to vote and reproduce rather than dying off.

in the old days the really stupid would die off through horrible industrial accidents, diseases, accidents at home, and stupidity.

Now they not only survive, but thrive and join/vote for BOTH parties.

Problems with the "Right"
It takes someone really stupid to think that Medicare and social security are OK but any other form of government run health care is some sort of communist take over.

Problems with the "Left" It takes someone really stupid to believe that 9-11 was an inside job done by Bush, cheny, and rumsfeld.

 

[CloudlessDruid]

so you are just saying the stupid should die because they mess society and so they dont deserve to be alive?



Eugenics detected

 

[Dragula]

Eugenics worked in Europe. In Sweden most of the hereditary diseases died off during 1900-1970.

 

[CloudlessDruid]

I think Willis concept of stupid who can vote and influenciate society is not the same of someone who suffer of a mental disease.

 

[WillisPDunlevey]

yes, their problem is an unwillingness to "not be ignorant, fearful, stupid etc." rather than being born with chromosome problems.

The Stupid People on the right or left would rather believe that there is some grand conspiracy going on when examining any issue rather than believe something that makes them feel uncomfortable or something that hurts their ego.

i.e. it cant be that more people voted for obama than mccain... it must be some sort of liberal conspiracy

it cant be that the greatest country in the world lost two buildings to some muslims who hijacked airplanes... it must be a conspiracy led by the government.

it cant be that healt care costs are going to keep going up as long as we allow it to be for profit and dont reform them.
(medical possibilities and expenses alone go up every year as we develop new things that can be done to help people or treat them. Long gone are the days of dying from tetanus child birth or simple injuries as a rule.)
Health care reform must be some sort of liberal-communist conspiracy because I have been told this (with no facts to back that up) by an on the outs political party....
P.S. europe must have terrible health care problems because someone told me so... not that I can name 2 european countries besides england and canada.


Note... these are not my beliefs, just the sort of thing I hear all the time. Oh, and I realize Canada is not in europe... but you can find americans that are not aware canada is not a US state.

 

[CloudlessDruid]

well, you you are right, people prefer to believe in conspiracies than really analizying the facts before, but you cannot judge them stupid, and declare them should be dead hahaha. I judge them immature. Any radical is immature, because only a immature person would not analyze other views.

 

[pipboy-x11]

Differentiating between the Soviet state and the welfare state the Netherlands, for example, runs is now 'faux sophistication'?

Well, the USSR was doing great too until 1960s - somewhere around those years everything has started collapsing.

That does not refute my point even in the slightest. You keep saying that *all 'statism' is terrible*. The fact that there are examples of statism being terrible does not mean that all statism is terrible.

So do you have a counter example then?

Argument like "oh, it works for Western Europe so far" doesn't count. If you'd visit the USSR in 1961 and asked random people from the street if they'd believe that the country is going to disintegrate in 25 years, would they believe you? They'd a best laughed at you and said that they've been promised to live in Communism in 25 years. The country looked absolutely happy and successful. A good educational system, free health care, a science is on its peak, first man in space and so on - 45 years after the revolution, just 15 years after horrible devastating war that took 20 millions. So how long does the modern Western European socialist welfare system exist?

If you kill all the wolves in an area - deers will extinct there too, it's a known fact. Those who are weaker have to die so the population can live - this is how the universe works and it was never supposed to be humane or something. It doesn't give a shit if you make lethal mistakes out of your best intentions or anything else. If you make a support for those who can't take care of themselves the main purpose of a society - you're making a lethal mistake.

But your reply, guys, it's always like "oh, you've screwed it up because you are stupid Russian nationalists, we are smarter and will make it better". Uh... whatever. Seriously... whatever.