[QUOTE="theone86"]
[QUOTE="qwertyoip"] who would know, my father, or you? point made?tycoonmike
Worst. Argument. Ever.
You're saying your father, who could be getting his information from anywhere in the world, knows more about the bill than the President who is very closely involved in forming policy on this piece of PENDING legislation? OK, good luck with that one.
As to that constituting socialism, socialism is not synonymous with government control. Socialism is an economic system where the government controls the means of production and is responsible for handling distribution of goods and access to resources. Socialism has nothing to do with control of/involvementwithcivil liberties. Even if you were correct about Obama forcing abortions, which you're not, that has nothing to do with socialism.
Even though Obama himself has come out and said he hasn't read the bill?
And about socialism not being about control, the bold should be enough to show you why socialism is about control, of all the aspects of life. If you are starving, why would you worry about civil liberties? In this world, money is power, and if the worst case scenario occurs, being that the government does end up controlling all access to resources and the distribution of goods, guess who holds the power? It sure isn't the people, where the power belongs.
One thing that baffles me is how youn consistently miss the point of PENDING legislation. There are three or four different bills floating around right now and this issue is not the only one facing the President right now. Reading the different bills at this point would be a tremendous waste of time, an exercise in the excessive beurocracy that conservatives supposedly hate. What the President is doing now is pushing his views on what should be in the legislation. That doesn't mean he comes out and writes the legislation, that doesn't mean all the Democrats get together in one room, toss all their own ideas onto the bill and vote on it, it means that the legislative body, you know, the body actually concerned with writing legislature, gets together, submits proposals, changes the legislation, etc., etc. All Obama is doing right now is commenting on what he thinks needs to be in the bill and trying to direct his party. Either way, the legislation is still being written, going through changes. Nothing is set in stone, if there is wording in the bill forcing doctors to perform abortions, which there isn't, Obama has publicly come out against that and is most likely telling the senators to remove any such wording. Regardless, what makes this anonymous source any better of a source than Obama? Hmmm, a practicing doctor who probably is pretty busy running or being a part of his practice, I'm sure he's read every word of all three bills and knows for sure that forcing doctors to perform abortions is going to be at the top of the Democrats' list of priorities, right? It's pure populism. Perhaps he raises a valid concern, but instead of actually trying to find out if that concern is valid he's going around spouting out some lie he probably heard from the right-wing media.
As for socialism, if the government is controlled by the people then yes, the people do hold the power in a socialist government. You say that money is power, well guess who owns the most money in the United States right now? The top 1% of the population. Free market capitalism is as muchy about control as a completely socialist government, which by the way no one is talking about in the slightest. It's laughable that you attribute a system of government that was designed to provide equal access to basic needs for all people to a tyrannical government that would starve its citizens in order to amass wealth. I'm not saying socialism is perfect and its previous implementations certainly haven't been, although they were much better than most people in America make them out to be, but the goal of socialism is not to starve citizens and strip civil liberties, it's to allow for more civil liberties. And the fact is that a smaller government does not equal more civil liberties, it can very well equal less. Libertarians so want to equate liberty with economic freedom, with a lack of oversiight and taxation. The fact is that can be just as tryannical, if not more, than socialism. Instead of the people controlling government, the wealthy control it. How? They control accesss to education, they control wages, they control the majority of the wealth, meaning they can control which campaigns receiver the most money. That's not liberty, that's an oligarchy. Assuming the most tyrannical and corrupt form of each form of government, a libertarian and socialist utopia, both use an institution to assert control over the general population, only government can be affected by the people themselves. Politicians still have to rely on votes to stay in power, if corporations and the wealthy have no regulations governing them then what's to stop them from hijacking the politics of a country?
Log in to comment