|Politics| Election 2009: Obama or McCain? - Page 3

Skrrp · 08-05-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ames

I actually have been looking for something like these for a while, I appreciate the effort.

No worries man. These are ones I have known about for a long time, but I can research as well.

Want info on any subject, post me a VM and I'll see what I can dredge up.

The Ragged Trousered is also well worth a read. Long, slow and repetitive, but it drills into you all the Socialist points of view.

Dupe of USSJed · 08-05-2008

Quote:

Socialism refers to any of various economic and political concepts of state or collective (i.e. public) ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services, some of which have been developed into more or less highly articulated theories and/or praxis. In a sense, the government does everything for you and shares compensation with everyone in that specific Global area, under free notion.

Democratic control is therefore also essential to the meaning of socialism. Socialism will be a society in which everybody will have the right to participate in the social decisions that affect them. These decisions could be on a wide range of issues—one of the most important kinds of decision, for example, would be how to organize the production of goods and services.

Production under socialism would be directly and solely for use. With the natural and technical resources of the world held in common and controlled democratically, the sole object of production would be to meet human needs. This would entail an end to buying, selling and money. Instead, we would take freely what we had communally produced. The old slogan of "from each according to ability, to each according to needs" would apply.

Furthermore, people have different specific needs under this new system of government, correct? These needs will, of course, vary among different cultures and with individual preferences—but the democratic system could easily be designed to provide for this variety. In socialism, everybody would have free access to the goods and services designed to directly meet their needs and there need be no system of payment for the work that each individual contributes to producing them. All work would be on a voluntary basis. Producing for needs means that people would engage in work that has a direct usefulness. The satisfaction that this would provide, along with the increased opportunity to shape working patterns and conditions, would bring about new attitudes to work.

What country are you from again, USSJed?

New Zealand.

Heres how I read it...
Socialism is a form of government, in which the governing party decides what everyone is going to do as work. The majority(or entirity) of work revolves around producing things, such as food or material goods, which then go into a sort of communal pool, which anyone can take whatever they want from.

There would be no need for money in such a government, and people would be working without pay, and for 'The greater good' or 'The good of the country' etc. The upside to no pay is the fact that you just take what you want. The downside is that you cannot leave the country(you will have no money for living someplace else), and that greedy people will take heaps and leave others to starve.

Was that correct?

Skrrp · 08-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by USSJed

New Zealand.

Heres how I read it...
Socialism is a form of government, in which the governing party decides what everyone is ~~going to do as work~~ tests people to see what they want to do and what they would be most adept at. The majority(or entirity) of work revolves around producing things (tell me how Capitalism is any different), such as food or material goods, which then go into a sort of communal pool, which anyone can take whatever they ~~want~~ need from.

There would be no need for money in such a government, and people would be working without pay, and for 'The greater good' or 'The good of the country' etc. The upside to no pay is the fact that you just take what you ~~want~~ need. The downside is that you cannot leave the country(you will have no money for living someplace else), and that ~~greedy people will take heaps and leave others to starve~~ the fruits of the labour will be divided based on need. The surplus can go towards helping people have the luxuries of life, such as foreign holidays or education.

Was that correct?

It was after I fixed it.

Dupe of USSJed · 08-06-2008

This is similar to the universal health care argument for USA.

Except this time, I side with the selfish people who prefer private. I don't like the idea of someone going on holiday due to my hard work, and I don't like the idea of people(or myself) getting handouts. Why should the lazy sonofabitch over there get the same as me, who works my ass off?

Quote:

tests people to see what they want to do and what they would be most adept at.

Thats part of my 'Nightmare Future', and has a disgustingly high chance of leading to a Geneshaft-like or Gundam Seed Destiny-like future, with people being born with GE'd skills at a particular job.

gogitass4 · 08-06-2008

i usually leave the ballot form blank. i seriously hate voting

Ames · 08-06-2008

@ Skrrp, that was flawless.

Its kind of ironic, every form of government does promote "the good for the people" in an indirect way I suppose

[From their viewpoint, anyway]

Vivi · 08-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by vega123

Obama, it's time for those soldiers to come back. Too many deaths and too much money spent. We are in inflation and reports have shown we are in a recession. Mccain would just add more to the problems instead of fixing them. Obama on the other hand has plans and i believe in them. we need a democrat in the whitehouse. Things weren't that bad with Bill around, so we need a democrat. Give them a chance to fix this country. just my opinion.

You realize that McCain has stated our job in Iraq is finished and that our troops will be out of that country in two years? Any sooner than that amount of time, Iraq could collapse, Obama too has stated a similar time slot.

You are giving two uncorrelated pieces of data, that of Clinton being in office, and times being good. I can also give two pieces of uncorrelated data, the amount of active pirates have been on a decline since the 1700's, the amount of tropical storms have been on the increase since the 1700's. Obviously pirates are contributing directly to the tropical storms, by your logic.

Obama may have plans, but they are ineffectual. For example, look at his opinion on the energy crisis, he says to fill up your tires and keep your cars in working condition. He is against off-shore drilling and McCain's plan of using Nuclear Power. Obama also voted for the Cheney-Bush Oil Act back when, obviously he is confused as to where he stands on the oil issue.

America is not a Democracy. It never has, it never will be. Our forefathers were afraid of Democracies, you will see them never once using the word in a description of a young America. As said by Plato, Democracy is a mob-rule.

Now, you Obamanites tell me exactly why Obama would make a good president. Evidence would be godly.

As for the Socialism/Capitalism issue:

Socialism=Regulation of the market, public ownership, and uncompetitive environment.

Capitalism=Free market, private ownership, competitive environment.

Obviously this is oversimplifying things.

Dupe of USSJed · 08-06-2008

Quote:

I can also give two pieces of uncorrelated data, the amount of active pirates have been on a decline since the 1700's, the amount of tropical storms have been on the increase since the 1700's. Obviously pirates are contributing directly to the tropical storms, by your logic.

It makes more sense the other way around, with storms influencing Pirate activity...

Quote:

Socialism=Regulation of the market, public ownership, and uncompetitive environment.

Capitalism=Free market, private ownership, competitive environment.

What exactly does Regulation of the Market mean? Does Public mean I can't sell my car, but rather I 'give it back' when I don't need it anymore?

Skrrp · 08-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivi

You are giving two uncorrelated pieces of data, that of Clinton being in office, and times being good. I can also give two pieces of uncorrelated data, the amount of active pirates have been on a decline since the 1700's, the amount of tropical storms have been on the increase since the 1700's. Obviously pirates are contributing directly to the tropical storms, by your logic.

Correlation != causation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivi

As said by Pluto, Democracy is a mob-rule.

??????

I think you may find it was Plato. There's a difference.

Bogard · 08-06-2008

I'm not really into politics but I want ~~Baraka~~ Barack Obama to win.

Vivi · 08-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skrrp

Correlation != causation.

??????

I think you may find it was Plato. There's a difference.

LMFAO. I posted that laaaate last night. Can't believe I said Pluto. >_>; Banish this from your minds. Nao.

maxoutedssj4 why do you want Barack Obama? What exactly does he have that would make him a great leader?

Quote:

Originally Posted by USSJed

It makes more sense the other way around, with storms influencing Pirate activity...

What exactly does Regulation of the Market mean? Does Public mean I can't sell my car, but rather I 'give it back' when I don't need it anymore?

Basically the government decides what will be sold and for how much.

Quote:

In the Soviet Union, state ownership of productive property was combined with central planning. Down to the workplace level, Soviet economic planners decided what goods and services were to be produced, how they were to be produced, in what quantities, and at what prices they were to be sold

Also, Skrrp. Who are you going for?

Skrrp · 08-06-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivi

Also, Skrrp. Who are you going for?

Well, during the primaries, I was an Obama fanboi. He looked like the best choice. Change, anti-establishment, didn't take money from lobbyists. Means there wouldn't be a Bush or a Clinton in the house for over 20 years (both with Skull and Bones links). Saw his pro-liberal pro-gay voting record and the fact that he got the rules changed so that campaign donaters could only donate up to the $2,(some numbers here - basically just over $2k) limit, making the process more democratic and about broad grass roots support rather than small individuals with big money.

The way he ran his campaign was flawless, his opponents were slinging shiat and looking like little kids, while he stood above it all and nothing stuck. The handling of the church thing was a masterpiece. The wife thesis thing was a non starter. His opponents cherry picked sentences and quoted them out of context, but further analysis showed that the thesis was generally rabid and made no sense, let alone a point.

Never liked Clinton from the start, but when she cried for sympathy on camera, my estimation fell to vote grubbing whore. McCain - the only reason to vote for him is if you have a morbid fascination about how many countries full of brown people he is going to bomb.

The other candidates - didn't find out too much about them till it was too late (more on them later).

When Obama actually got the nomination, eh, things started to go bad. His first speech was in total support of Israel. If he follows through on this, he will ensure years more tension, hatred and violence in the middle east. Then we find out how he got his Senatorial nomination. He was a lawyer and studied the Democrat's rules well. He legally challenged all his opponents applications and had them thrown out, making him the only choice. Also, his message of change sounded so good back then, but the message hasn't changed. I would have thought by now that we might hear some policies on say, the economy, the endless costly wars (ok, out of Iraq, but only to shift troops to Afghanistan), the international and national security mechanisms. So ... I don't like him so much now, and certainly don't think he would be the best choice.

As for the rest:

Cynthia 'Don't you know who I am' or 'Mugabe isn't that bad' McKinney - do some Googling.

Nader - always have a lot of time for this guy, even though I know nothing about his policies or stance. I figure that someone who has been trying for so long without picking a party must have something he wants to do and if the parties don't want him to do it, it must be good.

Sadly, the person who I now think most fit to lead is unlikely to be on the ballot (no, not Colbert). His fiscal conservatism would be seriously needed in the next 8 years and his stance against the vampiric Federal Reserve makes him a man to be respected (yep, at this time, the gold standard is a better choice than the Fed).

Ron Paul '08.

Vivi · 08-06-2008

Well, unfortunately Ron Paul is out of the race. If between Obama and McCain, who do you choose?

Quote:

McCain - the only reason to vote for him is if you have a morbid fascination about how many countries full of brown people he is going to bomb.

McCain has sound economic/ecological policies, he wants to get out of Iraq in two years, wants to fix our border situation. etc. etc. There's more to him than bombing.

Skrrp · 08-06-2008

Well, if I had the option of voting, it would be for Nader, but between the two, Obama all the way.

McCain has been endorsed by Dubya and verbally fellated him many times. McCain is going to be 4 or 8 year

View Poll Results: Who do you want as the next President
Obama	18	58.06%
McCain	4	12.90%
Neither	3	9.68%
Don't care	6	19.35%
Voters: 31. You may not vote on this poll

08-06-2008	#35 (permalink)
gogitass4 (14) Warrior of Namek Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: chillin' on Bondi Beach Posts: 351 Blog Entries: 2 Rep Power: 6	Re: Election 2009: Obama or McCain? i usually leave the ballot form blank. i seriously hate voting __________________

08-06-2008	#36 (permalink)
Ames (20) Super Saiyan 2 Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: Omnipresent Posts: 1,284 Rep Power: 78	Re: Election 2009: Obama or McCain? @ Skrrp, that was flawless. Its kind of ironic, every form of government does promote "the good for the people" in an indirect way I suppose [From their viewpoint, anyway] __________________ Ignorance is Bliss...

08-06-2008	#40 (permalink)
Bogard (18) Artificial Human Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Virginia Posts: 894 Rep Power: 42	Re: Election 2009: Obama or McCain? I'm not really into politics but I want ~~Baraka~~ Barack Obama to win.

08-06-2008	#44 (permalink)
Skrrp (17) Super Saiyan Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Wales Posts: 639 Rep Power: 58	Re: Election 2009: Obama or McCain? Well, if I had the option of voting, it would be for Nader, but between the two, Obama all the way. McCain has been endorsed by Dubya and verbally fellated him many times. McCain is going to be 4 or 8 year