Democratic Socialism

[Setton]

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

You should actually listen to the man instead of listening to other people’s opinion of him. Nearly everything you said here is a lie. The things that are not a lie are a serious twisting of the truth. Take just the “he refused to call transgender peoples by their pronouns” that is a outright lie. He said he shouldn’t be forced by the government to call people by words that In many cases don’t even exist. 

How does any word exist? Because people decided to start using it. Modern English didn't just appear out of thin air one day. It evolves. 

[Aquila King]

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Wow!  You are totally immersed in the koolaid!  You’ve espoused so much BS, it’s not worth trying to comment on item by item, let alone correct.  What’s the pictograph with the description: “The stupidity – it burns!”.  So instead of wasting time trying to wallow with you in your natural environment, let me just try to refocus the message.  You’re analytical skills have much to be desired.

*SNIP*

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

I take it you didn’t peruse the clips I presented?  If you did, please note that they are not just entertainment but also instructional.  The “American form of Government” is perhaps the best at explaining our Republic in the most simplest of terms, so that a 5 year old can understand it.  I suspect it’s probably a mental block with you.

I honestly don't remember seeing you post any clips here. Sorry, but I don't read every single post in the threads that I follow. Must've missed them, though I do watch whatever videos from someone who quotes me. So feel free to quote me with the links to them and I'd be happy to watch them for you.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Most people are confused with the common interpretation of the political spectrum.  This is where groups like Communists occupy the Left and Fascists occupy the Right.  But this just perpetuates the confusion as both sides can play off each other.  A better way to look at the spectrum is to view it as part of human nature.  The spectrum is actually 0% government (anarchy) at one end and 100% total government (Authoritarian & Totalitarian) at the other.  All government starts on this spectrum somewhere.  It can be benevolent or power hungry.  There is no Left or Right.  It is all the same.  Only the flavors differ.  What is important is the intent and that is what they share.  The tendency of each government on this line is to progress toward the 100% end (absolute).  Some move faster than others.  This is the most commonly known state of government.  The different flavors include (but not limited to) are Communism, Fascism, Marxism, Nazism, Theocracy, Monarchy, and especially Democracy.  These all are Oligarchies (or they in time evolve into them).  But most people don’t know the term Oligarchy too well, so Socialism becomes a better generic term.  But what is important about these forms of government is not their differences, but their similar intent, which is control and enslavement of the people.  Sacrificing the rights of the individual for the benefit of the state.  Yes, that is a bad state for an enlightened people to be in.

I will admit, that's an interesting take on things. I like the idea of ignoring the labels, and simply looking at the entire spectrum as one big whole. However despite this, you and I have an entirely different approach to all of this, so since you've been so kind as to provide your framework POV, I'll do my best to provide my own. This is a bit long-winded, but since you clearly don't get it I think it's necessary, so here we go...

Of all the things you claim above, the #1 glaring difference between you and I is this mentality that government is inherently authoritarian and evil by it's very nature. This just simply isn't the case, and I'll tell you why.

Under a Democracy, the government is created and maintained of, by, and for the people. If the government acts against the best interests of the people, then the people have the authority to replace their political leaders with those they so choose through the process of democratic elections. Therefore, rather than the government having an authoritative oppressive thumb over the heads of the people, the people have an authoritative thumb over the heads of the government officials. In essence, the people control the government, not the other way around.

Could the government in this kind of system become corrupt and totalitarian? Unfortunately yes, it could. But it is not destined towards this end-goal by nature. Such a totalitarian regime could only arise through a democracy by means of the people themselves electing to lay down their freedoms in the place of government control. Therefore this system of government while not perfect (since no government ever is) is not inherently evil by nature, and so long as the majority of the populace are well educated, and as you've said before on here, the people remain ever-vigilant, they can maintain control over the government, thereby eliminating any potential abuses this said government might have over the everyday people, since it is in fact the people who are the ones ultimately in charge. The only other alternative to this form of government are governments that have an oppressive control over the people (i.e. Communism, Fascism, Theocracy, Monarchy, Oligarchy, Corporatocracy, etc.), or absolutely no central government at all (total anarchy).

So, with that being said, any social programs ever implemented by said Democracy that are elected by the people (or indirectly elected by means of politicians who support such legislation) are not oppressive programs put in place against the will of the people. If you wish to argue that any and all government social programs are oppressive by their very nature, then you're essentially arguing for a certain degree of anarchy. An 'every man for himself' type of primitive ideology, that does not make for a healthy society.

If every man, woman, and child, has the self-evident inalienable basic human rights of 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' then when these rights are threatened, it should be the job of the people to band together to ensure that every man, woman, and child maintains these most basic human rights to the bitter end. And the best way to do that is to unite under one government, and use our democratic process's elective power to create the right programs to protect these rights. Such programs would include: a military for defending the homeland from foreign entities, a public school system for making sure every child has an equal opportunity education which is necessary to properly function in society, a universal healthcare system which ensures it's citizens their right to life without bankrupting them (this one is unfortunately debated against by conservatives, but nonetheless), as well as a myriad of other laws that ensure such liberties. Such would include things like: murder, rape, theft, etc. Essentially it would be the people's job to create and maintain a central government to the extent to that which is necessary for creating a maximally healthy, happy, and functioning society that ensures all of it's citizens have all of their rights fully protected.

Do you understand now exactly what my logic here is? All you are doing is complaining about how evil the government is without offering any solutions beyond essentially total anarchy. Government of some form is necessary, so instead of eliminating it, we need to created the best functioning form of it as possible.

For the more condensed version of the above, just watch this quick clip from Family Guy (yes, they actually teach us something worth while in that show. Who'd have thought?):

Now, I realize you go on in your speech about how specifically bad all of the above I just mentioned is, so before I dissect it I just want to let you know that I primarily explained this as a general response to you from the mindset of someone arguing against all government in general.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Most of these forms of government claim some form of Divine Right to place their authority above the people.

Yes, but not in a Democracy.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Any sense of democracy in the people is an illusion because ultimately, the ruler makes the final decision.

...until said ruler is ousted by the people the next election for making a final decision that the people didn't like or agree with.

How is democracy an illusion exactly? The mere fact that elected officials make the rules while in office, does not mean that the people have no say in what rules are put in place. The people elect politicians who represent their ideals, and we can even rally, call, and protest the politicians that are currently in office so as to influence the actions of current political leaders. Democracy works just as it is intended to work. There is no rational basis for the claim that it's merely an 'illusion'.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Democracy is perhaps the worse form a government because all it takes is the politician to promise the moon and the mob will follow.

WOW. So you're basically saying you're just straight-up un-American here.

What exactly kind of alternative are you suggesting? You've already complained about every other form of government, there's literally none left. Are you an anarchist? Do you seriously believe anarchy to be the most beneficial to society as a whole?

It's sad that you think so lowly of everyday people. Granted, I don't doubt that there is an insanely large amount of idiots out there who'll vote for any schmuck who tells them whatever lies they wanna hear (like Donald Trump), but despite this overall naivety of the general populace, democracy is still the greatest form of government, and so long as you properly educate the general populace (which Republicans always want to cut funding for) then the system works fine. You don't have to worry too much about it.

Honestly, I find it bitterly ironic that conservatives want to call a democratic socialist like myself 'unpatriotic' and 'un-American' for being a socialist, but then I hear some of you say things like the bolded above ^. How in the hell is that patriotic? Do tell.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Yes, that is what we have at the local level.  But it works at the low/family level because when these promises don’t materialize or are abused, said politician will get tarred and feathered and other niceties.

Good. And they should get tarred and feathered (not literally of course) if their promises don't materialize, that's once again how Democracy works! You really are proving yourself to be anti-democracy here.

And btw, this shouldn't just operate this way at the local level. There's no legitimate reason why it shouldn't operate at the national level in this same way as well.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

This is why we have the Electoral College at the top level, to prevent mob rule. 

Unfortunately yes, it does prevent 'mob rule'.

Which by 'mob rule' you mean 'majority rule'.

And by 'majority rule' you mean Democracy.

So you're right, the Electoral College eliminates Democracy, and should therefore be eliminated.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

And hence, that is what makes us a Republic (ruled by law) and not a democracy.

Sigh... I've explained this before, and I guess I'll explain it again...

Saying that 'this is a Republic, not a Democracy' is a not so clever phrase that Republicans use to rally support around the idea that this nation was founded on Republican principles and not democratic ones when it really wasn't. All a Republic means is that government officials democratically vote on various things, rather than the people directly voting for whatever it is. Here in America, we have both a Republic and a Democracy. We the people directly vote for politicians, who then indirectly vote for us on our behalf.

It's nonsensical to say: "This is a Republic, not a Democracy." It's like looking at a salad with lettuce and carrots in it, and saying: "This is made of lettuce, not carrots!" Uh, no dips**t, it's made of both. It's a salad.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

“We the People” does not refer to the mob but to the People under the Law. 

"We the People" are the 'mob'. You can't just label the people something else just so you can dismiss them.

It's like if I were to be hiding a butt ton of illegal drugs under my bed, and the cops come in and find it so I say "those aren't drugs, they're fun plants, so they don't count."

Sorry, but that's just not how it works.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

The Preamble is a Law Abstract.  The construct “We The People” establishes our sovereignty.  It is very similar to GOD saying “I Am!”  I don’t know if you understand that??  This is at a very high level of comprehension.  It is not found in the extremes of democracy.

Lol, I wouldn't boast so heavily there, cause you aren't saying anything I haven't heard before. It's not that complex.

Sovereignty is established by the people in power. In a Monarchy, they (typically) establish and justify their sovereignty by way of 'divine right', because it is the king who has total power. In an Democracy however, the people are the ones in power, and so they are the ones that establish sovereignty. So when it says "We the People", it's basically saying that "by the power of the people, we establish sovereignty over this land."

It couldn't be any more clear, this nation is a Democracy (and yes, also a Republic, don't flip your wig over it) created and sustained of, by, and for the people. It's as plain as day.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

At one point in time, only those on the tax rolls could vote and state legislations elected Senate positions.

Unfortunately that was indeed the case. Thankfully that's not the case anymore.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

“Democracy” does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. You will find the reference to “Republican Government” in Article IV.  On the spectrum then, a ConstitutionalRepublic appears at the lower end (10% to 30% for argument’s sake) and is limited by law.  It cannot follow the natural progression unless the people forget about being vigilant (if we can keep it).

First of all, the Constitution also doesn't directly say that the government can't burn heretics at the stake, it didn't originally say that slavery was illegal, or that women have equal rights to that of men, etc. The Constitution whether you like it or not is meant to be an open and moldable document. It's meant to adapt to the times, not get stuck in an irrelevant-to-today past. That would just set us up to be stuck in a governmental dark ages for years to come. You conservatives act as if the Constitution is like the Bible, never meant to be altered or changed at any point EVER, which again, is the exact same mentality that brought us the thousand years of the dark ages of Christianity. 

The Constitution isn't set in stone. That's why there are amendments to the Constitution in the first place. Yes, these amendments are damn bloody difficult to pass (which they should be), but it isn't impossible. The reason why I support the current constitutional amendments put in place still today is simply because those amendments to the Constitution are correct, not because they simply are a part of the Constitution and should therefore never be changed simply because it's written there. I for one personally would like to add another Constitutional amendment that gets big money out of politics, but that gets into a separate topic entirely.

Second, at the time the Constitution was setup, it was a different world with different words that had different meanings that do not translate perfectly into American English as it exists today. I mean, we're talking about a document that's over 200 years old here. Words change over time. They can have various meanings, and those meanings are often vague even today.

The Constitution setup a very specific type of government (a Federal Presidential Republic with a Bicameral Legislature) that today is considered "a Liberal Democracy" as are other types of government. (for example: non-presidential republics, republics with purely symbolic presidents, constitutional monarchies, etc.) Including those like the UK with implicit as opposed to explicit Constitutions, Republics with Unicameral Legislature, non-Federalist Republics, etc. etc.

At the time of the Constitution's writing, democracy generally meant a direct Athenian-style democracy, unlimited by any sort of constitution. Today, when we say 'democracy', we don't mean "citizens gather in a public place and use shards of broken pottery to vote on anything and everything, including ostracizing (or worse) any other citizen without a trial, presumption of innocence, any other legal rights, or an appeals process, etc. etc." Usually, we prefix "democracy" with (lower-case l) "liberal", which is roughly the same thing as what the 18th century liberals like US founders, the British Whig party (which also included thinkers now considered "conservative" in the Anglo-American tradition, like Edmund Burke), and ethical/legal philosophers like Kant (who also disparaged what he called democracy, but advocated a system that, again, would today be described as a "liberal democracy") meant when they said "Constitutional Republic" or "Constitutional Monarchy".

So at the end of the day, the Constitution is not perfect or set in stone, by today's standards this is a 'democracy', and words change over time. What was said and done then, does not perfectly equate to how things are and/or should be said and done now today.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

In this form of government, Liberty grants power as opposed to the other way around as found in other forms where liberty is granted by those in power.  I know you were having difficulty trying to understand that.  Seems that most people do, but this is the main difference between America and the world (especially the free West).  Most people in the world sense freedom as a bird in a gilded cage.  It is quite comfortable for those that are not aware.  It is almost like a Garden of Eden.  But America takes that to the next evolutionary step; removing the cage.  We now live under the concepts of the Enlightened Thinkers.  They gave us the apple.  Man was not meant to live in the Garden.  It’s past time to come out of the cocoon.

An inspiring speech at the end, but I'll disregard that since most of what you've brought up here I've already addressed.

I'll I'd like to add, is that you seem to have a hint of 'American Exceptionalism' sprinkled in there, to which I disagree. Right-wingers often call me unpatriotic to not constantly stroke our own ego by calling us the 'greatest country in the world', but the fact is we aren't. There's no statistical basis for the claim that America is the greatest country on Earth. We have the largest military by about a mile and a half, but that's about it. That doesn't mean we're great, that just means we're powerful. I don't personally think that America should constantly try and act like we're better than everyone else. I take a more egalitarian stand. That's what helps unite us a bit more on the global stage. Works slowly but steadily towards a path to world peace.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents worth here.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Now you freely admit that socialism functions as a means of wealth redistribution.

I never once denied that.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It is not the place of anyone to determine what an individual’s wealth is used for.

I fully agree with you.

However tax dollars are not a part of someone's 'individual wealth', they are automatically deducted percentages of our wealth that go towards the government so as to help pay for various programs. That's not the same as telling someone what they can or cannot invest in with their own private money. While taxes are essentially earned portions of your labor, those portions are not yours, they are automatically set aside and owned by the government whether you properly supply them with it or illegal withhold it for yourself. In the end, it's still 'theirs', so they aren't dictating a damn thing in regards to your personal private investments.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Yes, taxes is a form of socialism, but it is also a form of obligation for living under a government that protects the rights of the individual (this goes back to Washington’s quote). For that, no one really has an issue except that this tax should be minimal.

I don't remember you ever quoting Washington here, but whatever...

Anyway, I find it interesting that you finally admit taxes to be a form of socialism, and that at least in this sense, socialism is a good thing. I guess this means we're actually getting somewhere.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

But Progressives don’t want to stop there. They want to take 50% or more and redistribute it. 

First of all, 50% for whom? You're pulling that number out of your ass and asserting it to be an actual policy position from the left, as if we just want a 50% flat tax or something. That's absolute horse crap. No one on the left is suggesting that.

Phew, this gets into crunching numbers and I'm already rather tired of writing all this, so I'll try and keep things as simple here as possible...

Currently, the top 0.1% of the people in this nation own the same amount of wealth as the bottom 99.9% of US citizens. I for one (and many other of my Democratic Socialist colleagues) think that is absurd. We could in fact tax them 50% or more, and they'd still be above and beyond fabulously wealthy. There's no logical reason for them to have that much wealth while millions of hardworking Americans live in abject poverty. We are denied basic healthcare as a right, not a privilege, a living wage despite working full time, outrageous tuition costs for colleges and universities while other nations provide a higher education for free like we do with public education on up through high school. There are numerous separate issues such as this where Americans are more impoverished then most other hardworking people in other modern 1st world nations. That's because we have a far-right conservative legislature (this includes both parties, not just the GOP) that continues to shrink the middle class by giving massive tax cuts to the wealthiest individuals all while refusing to address the core issues that everyday Americans are facing.

Bottom line is, it's not in the least bit unreasonable to suggest that the wealthiest Americans should pay more in taxes (since they have more) while the poorest Americans should pay less (since they have less). That's literally all we're suggesting here. Is that really such an outrageous proposal? Really?

I realize that none of this ^ is going to do one lick of good by me just telling you this, since this relies on sitting down and crunching the actual numbers to make this work. I could do that for you here as I've done so myself, but I'm getting quite tired of writing all this, and you'd likely reject it even if the math works.

So yeah, that's that.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

That destroys a nation’s wealth and infringes on the rights of the individual.

Once again, it's a numbers game.

Although, I'm not sure what you mean when you say 'our wealth.' Who's wealth? The American people's? The US government's? The very few rich cucks who basically own the government? Who?

Lastly, I've already explained how this doesn't infringe on anyone's rights, so yeah, nuff said.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It’s not a matter of taxing but the intent of it that makes one a socialist.

Well, my intent is to insure that people don't die or go bankrupt due to lack of medical care simply because they don't have enough money. I mean do you realy deserve a death sentence simply for being poor?

My intent is to insure that those who work full time are able to pay for their basic living expenses. Should someone who works their butt off in a full time job not be able to put food on the table for their kids, or even pay the rent?

My intent is to insure that anyone who is academically capable of going to college is also financially capable of going to college. Should someone who's brilliant be denied a higher education simply because they were born to a poor family? Should that person have to live under the constant overbearing pressure of immense college debt for literally decades to come, again, simply because they were born to a poor family?

If these ^ things make me a Socialist, then yes, I'm a Socialist. I'm a Socialist and proud.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

This Republic does not exist to redistribute individual wealth.

ALL governments exist to redistribute individual wealth, it's just a matter of how much and where to. It's called taxes, and whether you like the 'socialist' label or not, that's just simply what it is.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

It does not exist to ensure equal outcome, but only provide the people with the tools for equal opportunity.

I fully agree. If you think we want an equal outcome, then you have the wrong idea of what we're suggesting. Literally all we're asking for is equal opportunity.

When we support free public college, we're offering people the equal opportunity to get an education regardless of their parents financial situation. That doesn't mean everyone is going to have the exact same outcome, or that everyone even has to go to college, just that you can if you so chose. 

When we support Medicare for all single-payer healthcare, we're offering people the equal opportunity to have their medical conditions treated regardless of their finances. That doesn't mean everyone gets treated in the exact same way, as I'm not at all against private health insurance for those who can afford something better if they so chose. Just for those who can't afford any insurance, they shouldn't have to die or go sick simply because they haven't enough money in the bank.

When we support a living wage as the minimum wage, we're supporting everyone having the equal opportunity to be able to pay their basic living expenses if they work full time. We're not talking a lavish and luxurious lifestyle here, just enough for food and keeping the lights on. Maybe a one bedroom apartment or something. That's it. It doesn't mean they have to stay in that job for the rest of their lives, and given that numerous other countries (like Australia for instance) already have a living wage, people are more than willing to work harder and get an education so they can end up living even more financially secure in the future.

Literally every one of our policy positions center around providing an equal opportunity to ALL Americans, not just those who happen to already be wealthy or at the very least financially secure. If you honestly think that I'm advocating for a universal flat wage or something, then think again. That's even more extreme then most communist countries. That's not in the least bit what I'm advocating for.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

There is no more of an incentive killer than socialism.

This is absolute nonsense. Australia, Canada, most countries in Europe; they all are intrinsically socialistic in the ways I just described, and have been that way for a long time. If it truly was an incentive killer, then they'd all be third-world countries by now, but they're not.

Again, I'm not advocating for minimum wage jobs to be able to provide you with a lavish lifestyle by any means. I'm simply advocating for you to be able to keep food in the fridge and the lights on. I'm not advocating for everyone to get the exact same medical care. I'm just advocating that those who don't have the money can still have their basic needs treated. And what more of an incentive killer is there then denying someone who's fully intellectually capable of going to college the right to do so simply because they can't afford it?

This is just the kind of nonsense that those multi-billion dollar cucks on Fox News force feed into your heads so that you end up acting against your own best interests.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

History is replete with the failures of Socialism. Sure, there are “golden ages” but they are short lived by those that had bought in early to the failed message and when they die, the newness fades. 

And you'll likely cite Communist countries as the examples of this, not the kind of Socialist countries to which I'm referring to.

17 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

A Republic exists so that the individual can prosper off of their own effort. There is no greater incentive. No greater strength. No greater power. You can’t do that if you are in fear of someone else coming by and taking whatever they want.

I am not in any way shape or form advocating against that. In fact, I'm arguing for that.

Someone who works a full time job should be able to make enough money to get ahead, but here in America they can't. Someone who works their but off in school to get a better job shouldn't have to live paycheck to paycheck worrying about any unforeseen medical expenses if they pop up because so much of their money is being poured into paying off massive student loan debt.

Of course people should be able to prosper off of their own effort. That's exactly what I'm advocating for! But they can't do that if they aren't provided the necessary tools that even give them a chance to do so.

That's what I mean when I say I support Socialism. It's hardly the big bad evil killing machine you keep wanting to paint it as.

 

And with that, I am finally done...

[Aquila King]

3 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

You should actually listen to the man instead of listening to other people’s opinion of him. Nearly everything you said here is a lie. The things that are not a lie are a serious twisting of the truth. Take just the “he refused to call transgender peoples by their pronouns” that is a outright lie. He said he shouldn’t be forced by the government to call people by words that In many cases don’t even exist. BIG difference

You are listening to the opinions of people who are threatened by him. I know first hand you are seriously misinformed.

I have listened to him before actually, and while I didn't have that specific list of things when I first listened to him, I later found out that they were in fact true. It's not a matter of me simply taking some other guy's opinion of him as true, it's a matter of me listening to the words from his own mouth and determining it to be full of complete horse s**t.

I'll come back and list out all the links of when he said what later today. Right now I need to go take my dog to the vet (nothing serious). Brb.

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, Setton said:

How does any word exist? Because people decided to start using it. Modern English didn't just appear out of thin air one day. It evolves. 

Yes it does.  Not through decree but through popular usage.  Once the government starts deciding which words you can, can't, must and must not use you've lost your freedom.

[preacherman76]

53 minutes ago, Aquila King said:

I have listened to him before actually, and while I didn't have that specific list of things when I first listened to him, I later found out that they were in fact true. It's not a matter of me simply taking some other guy's opinion of him as true, it's a matter of me listening to the words from his own mouth and determining it to be full of complete horse s**t.

I'll come back and list out all the links of when he said what later today. Right now I need to go take my dog to the vet (nothing serious). Brb.

Man I've had a really strange day. I suddenly feel like there is no hope for us to ever come even close to anything either side will accept as livable. Now seeing this man get slandered I know there is no hope. There is no compromise in you folks. There is no starting point for even a discussion. If you can just throw his idea's an knowledge out that easily, well, never mind.

 

[preacherman76]

2 hours ago, Setton said:

How does any word exist? Because people decided to start using it. Modern English didn't just appear out of thin air one day. It evolves. 

Yes. Not one word that I ever heard of required force to catch on. That is tyrannical. If a word doesn't catch on, even though you would have liked it too, tough ****. Who is anyone to force another to say something they don't want to? That's compelled speech. I think the fact I even have to say this means we are totally screwed. That we have already descended into a place that will be near impossible to come back from without,,,, smh never mind.  

[Setton]

49 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Yes it does.  Not through decree but through popular usage.  Once the government starts deciding which words you can, can't, must and must not use you've lost your freedom.

Yes, but we're not talking about government dictating what words to use, we're talking about people's choice not to treat others with respect because 'it's not a real word'. Which makes zero sense. Since people are using it, it is a word and likely on its way to the dictionary. 

Whether you like it or not. 

[Setton]

1 minute ago, preacherman76 said:

Yes. Not one word that I ever heard of required force to catch on. That is tyrannical. If a word doesn't catch on, even though you would have liked it too, tough ****. Who is anyone to force another to say something they don't want to? That's compelled speech. I think the fact I even have to say this means we are totally screwed. That we have already descended into a place that will be near impossible to come back from without,,,, smh never mind.  

See above response to OverSword. It answers yours too but you posted as I was writing. 

[preacherman76]

13 minutes ago, Setton said:

Yes, but we're not talking about government dictating what words to use, we're talking about people's choice not to treat others with respect because 'it's not a real word'. Which makes zero sense. Since people are using it, it is a word and likely on its way to the dictionary. 

Whether you like it or not. 

No we are talking about individuals forcing others to use words that don't exist, with the full weight of the governments force behind them. Honestly if your side cant understand what is so overwhelmingly tyrannical about that then you are an authoritarian. Are you really ok with putting someone in a cage over this?

[preacherman76]

Why do you assume all people deserve my respect? Is respect not something earned? Being tolerant is something you can demand. Respect is a whole other ball park.

 

ETA- are you also ok with completely throwing out all known human biology over this nonsense? 

Edited March 23, 2018 by preacherman76

[Michelle]

5 minutes ago, Setton said:

Yes, but we're not talking about government dictating what words to use, we're talking about people's choice not to treat others with respect because 'it's not a real word'. Which makes zero sense. Since people are using it, it is a word and likely on its way to the dictionary. 

Whether you like it or not. 

Could you explain why we need the new term "cisgender"? Why do people insist on being put into tiny little boxes?

I've spent most of my life bringing people together by pointing out what we have in common. That is how it should work.

[Farmer77]

7 hours ago, OverSword said:

So did you read my pre-ACA corporate experience where I paid zero of a $20k hospital bill? 

No I apologize, I missed that. Sounds like you know exactly what I'm referring to. When it comes to healthcare we already have a socialist system of sorts. Its just a system which we the people have zero say over. 

[+OverSword]

38 minutes ago, Setton said:

Yes, but we're not talking about government dictating what words to use, we're talking about people's choice not to treat others with respect because 'it's not a real word'. Which makes zero sense. Since people are using it, it is a word and likely on its way to the dictionary. 

Whether you like it or not. 

No we're not.  What he said was  he wouldn't use certain language just because it was required through legislation. I don't know how many times he needs to state that before hysterical people will stop misquoting him.  He has also stated that you can't force me to respect you which doesn't mean he won't it means he doesn't have to.  Also your definition of respect is much broader than his if not being rude is your definition of respect.  Respect and respectful are two different things. 

 

 

 

Edited March 23, 2018 by OverSword

[+OverSword]

10 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No I apologize, I missed that. Sounds like you know exactly what I'm referring to. When it comes to healthcare we already have a socialist system of sorts. Its just a system which we the people have zero say over. 

It's in the same post that you quoted Farmer   Don't make me come over there.

[Farmer77]

1 minute ago, OverSword said:

It's in the same post that you quoted Farmer   Don't make me come over there.

Man I'm sorry I made a bunch of posts last night that I thought about this AM and realized I probably should have quit an hour or two before I did......night shift's a b**** and it makes me even more stupid than normal   

[+OverSword]

4 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Man I'm sorry I made a bunch of posts last night that I thought about this AM and realized I probably should have quit an hour or two before I did......night shift's a b**** and it makes me even more stupid than normal   

No prob.  I never take this stuff personally.  I've pulled enough boners in posts while heated or distracted.

[Setton]

Just now, Michelle said:

Could you explain why we need the new term "cisgender"? Why do people insist on being put into tiny little boxes?

I've spent most of my life bringing people together by pointing out what we have in common. That is how it should work.

Don't ask me, ask someone who uses it. 

I'm with you on this. Buy I'm also pointing out that claiming 'we shouldn't use it because it's not a real word' just shows a woeful lack of decent arguments (like the one you just put forward). If the best people can do is shout 'it's not real so I won't use it', they should probably leave the debate to others. 

11 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

No we are talking about individuals forcing others to use words that don't exist, with the full weight of the governments force behind them. Honestly if your side cant understand what is so overwhelmingly tyrannical about that then you are an authoritarian. Are you really ok with putting someone in a cage over this?

That, right there, those two words sums up your entire problem. 

This idea that every issue is split between two sides and they can never mix will destroy your country far faster and more surely than anything else. 

And again in here you insist on calling these 'words that don't exist'. They do exist. People are using them therefore they exist. That's how language evolves. 

10 minutes ago, preacherman76 said:

Why do you assume all people deserve my respect? Is respect not something earned? Being tolerant is something you can demand. Respect is a whole other ball park.

 

ETA- are you also ok with completely throwing out all known human biology over this nonsense? 

Tolerance then. Call it what you like. 

And again, you assume to know my position on all this (and every other issue) from one thing (the nonsense of saying words don't exist). 

You're so determined to put everything and everyone into their own little boxes that you can't even see the irony of it. 

[Farmer77]

7 minutes ago, Setton said:

This idea that every issue is split between two sides and they can never mix will destroy your country far faster and more surely than anything else. 

Very well said. 

[preacherman76]

56 minutes ago, Setton said:

Don't ask me, ask someone who uses it. 

I'm with you on this. Buy I'm also pointing out that claiming 'we shouldn't use it because it's not a real word' just shows a woeful lack of decent arguments (like the one you just put forward). If the best people can do is shout 'it's not real so I won't use it', they should probably leave the debate to others. 

That, right there, those two words sums up your entire problem. 

This idea that every issue is split between two sides and they can never mix will destroy your country far faster and more surely than anything else. 

And again in here you insist on calling these 'words that don't exist'. They do exist. People are using them therefore they exist. That's how language evolves. 

Tolerance then. Call it what you like. 

And again, you assume to know my position on all this (and every other issue) from one thing (the nonsense of saying words don't exist). 

You're so determined to put everything and everyone into their own little boxes that you can't even see the irony of it. 

Ok I'll try it one more time. PEOPLE CAN DESTROY OTHER PEOPLES LIVES BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO SAY SOMETHING THEY DONT AGREE THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE TO SAY. That is far beyond equal. That is unprecedented   No one but the insane far left are responsible for it. I do not see every single thing as a left right issue, but this most certainly is one.

 

[Aquila King]

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

This part, not okay AK.

Lol, Made me laugh. That's what matters.

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Man I've had a really strange day. I suddenly feel like there is no hope for us to ever come even close to anything either side will accept as livable.

Pretty much.

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

Now seeing this man get slandered I know there is no hope.

'Slandered?'  I'm literally just quoting the dumb s**t that he's said. Which speaking of, here's the official list of sources I promised earlier:

• His position on Porn
• His quote regarding wars and Natural Resources
• His quote regarding Atheists only being moral because of Christianity
• JP arguing that proof is impossible without God
• And finally, how he got famous

I'm not making up or exaggerating any of this. He has said and done legitimately stupid stuff. Plain and simple.

2 hours ago, preacherman76 said:

There is no compromise in you folks. There is no starting point for even a discussion. If you can just throw his idea's an knowledge out that easily, well, never mind.

Woah there, I never said that I thought that absolutely everything he's ever said is garbage. I agree with most of the things he says about SJWs. I'm just saying that he's said a bunch of legitimately stupid things as well.

[F3SS]

We the people control the government, ideally. So if we vote in people to enact socialist policies we are voting to relinquish that control. The last time the government forces me to participate in some great social program my insurance premiums began rising $2400/year. Gee thanks.

Have you seen that crap show of a spending bill today? Who knows what the hell is in that thing. The idea that a bunch of guys like Sanders would do anything better just because yay it socialism and you feel that it is an inherently altruistic form of governing is nonsense. They’d spend us into oblivion (not that we aren’t pretty much there already) and reduce your life into an existence rather than an actual life. That’s pretty much where the ACA has me right now. I can’t afford anything fun anymore. I’m spending $12,600/yr plus $3500 out of pocket per person per year all because the country was forced into participating in this failed pseudo-socialistic program. Imagine the joy if you gave these idiots the power to force that kind of fun into all aspects of your life. 

[Aquila King]

58 minutes ago, F3SS said:

We the people control the government, ideally. So if we vote in people to enact socialist policies we are voting to relinquish that control.

Sigh... I've explained this over and over again by now, but I'll explain it again (for whatever reason)...

That's like saying that hiring somebody to do a job relinquishes your control. If I hire a contractor to work on my house, the contractor has control of the situation, and I don't. However I do have the ability to oversee the operation, and if I don't like the job they're doing then they're fired. I could just replace them with someone else to properly do the job.

You're painting this as if you're losing some sort of precious Constitutional liberties when you're not. You are paying the government through your tax dollars to do a job. So if you tell them to do a job and they do it, that is nothing like having some precious freedom of yours being take away. The only 'freedoms' taken away is your 'freedom' to do the job yourself, which in reality millions upon millions of Americans can't do. We need some sort of governmental system to ensure that every American receives the full benefits of their tax dollars.

1 hour ago, F3SS said:

The last time the government forces me to participate in some great social program my insurance premiums began rising $2400/year. Gee thanks.

Under a Medicare for all single-payer system, you wouldn't even have any private insurance premiums at all. You're essentially complaining about our for-profit private healthcare system and then blaming government healthcare. That's like finding out a friend of yours stole from you, so you blame the cops for the theft. You aren't making any sense.

1 hour ago, F3SS said:

Have you seen that crap show of a spending bill today? Who knows what the hell is in that thing. The idea that a bunch of guys like Sanders would do anything better just because yay it socialism and you feel that it is an inherently altruistic form of governing is nonsense.

That 'nonsense' works in almost every modern nation, and has worked for decades. Read the 2018 World Happiness Report and you'll see that the top ten happiest countries in the world (as well as the most well-off financially) are social democracies. Mainly in Scandinavia. Quite possibly the most liberal part of the world.

It's not nonsense. It's our current system that's utter nonsense.

1 hour ago, F3SS said:

They’d spend us into oblivion (not that we aren’t pretty much there already)

Just the other day Donald Trump came out with another dumb tweet literally bragging about spending $716 billion dollars on our military budget. You could literally cut that in half, and we'd still be the largest military force in the world, and have enough money left over to fund free college.

Funny how when it comes to the military it's perfectly fine to spend into oblivion, but when it comes to things that actually improve the lives of the American citizens, we don't have enough money. Nobody ever says 'we don't have enough money' in regards to military spending, do they? Of course not. Because their priorities are backwards.

We do have the money, we just keep spending it on useless s**t while the rest is hoarded by billionaires and big corporations in their endless greed.

1 hour ago, F3SS said:

and reduce your life into an existence rather than an actual life.

Again, top ten happiest nations are Earth are socialist nations, so your argument is invalid.

1 hour ago, F3SS said:

That’s pretty much where the ACA has me right now.

Obamacare sucks. I think we can all agree on that. What we disagree on is why it sucks.

It sucks because it's a pathetic little Band-Aid over a big gaping wound. What we need is a Medicare for all single-payer healthcare plan, but instead we got (not even) a half-measure that made those with private insurance suffer even worse, while ignoring millions more who don't have Obamacare.

1 hour ago, F3SS said:

I can’t afford anything fun anymore. I’m spending $12,600/yr plus $3500 out of pocket per person per year all because the country was forced into participating in this failed pseudo-socialistic program. Imagine the joy if you gave these idiots the power to force that kind of fun into all aspects of your life. 

If you'd stop blaming poor people and immigrants for your problems, and would instead fight the rich b******* in Washington and the millionaires and billionaires that are actually screwing you over here, then you wouldn't be having these problems for very long.

But no. Republican politicians and the billionaires/corporations that finance conservative media outlets like Fox News have brilliantly propagandized millions of Americans into thinking that it's poor people, immigrants, and their social programs that are making things harder on working Americans, as opposed to the very rich people feeding you this garbage. They want you to keep blaming poor people for being poor, because it's more profitable for them. How exactly they managed to convince so many people to vote against their own best interest is still beyond me, but somehow they did...

[Michelle]

4 hours ago, Setton said:

Buy I'm also pointing out that claiming 'we shouldn't use it because it's not a real word' just shows a woeful lack of decent arguments (like the one you just put forward)

Pardon me? How does accepting the gender you were born with, and being perfectly fine with it, constitute a new term?

[F3SS]

Kid you need to start talking to people with respect. All your cussing and contempt is yawn worthy and if we are being frank I think you’re full of shlt, don’t see the big picture and overall don’t really know what the hell youre talking about. You want what feels good, not what actually works. 

[Aquila King]

20 minutes ago, F3SS said:

Kid you need to start talking to people with respect. All your cussing and contempt is yawn worthy and if we are being frank I think you’re full of shlt, don’t see the big picture and overall don’t really know what the hell youre talking about. You want what feels good, not what actually works. 

You're openly supporting a man who calls people every kind of insulting and disgusting thing under the sun. Trump has not yet said a single thing the least bit respectable. And you seriously want to say I need to speak to you more respectfully? Sorry to burst your bubble here, but quite frankly, I don't respect you in the slightest.

If Trump supporters want to support quite possibly one of the most insulting politicians in American history, then they shouldn't complain about getting insulted right back. You shouldn't dish out what you yourself can't take.

I'll 'respect' you as a fellow human being, but any respect beyond that must be earned. And so far, you, nor any Trump supporter for that matter, has earned the least bit of respect from me.