• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ted Cruz going on Obamacare

What is it about ordinary English that eludes you? "Force" is used in several senses:

Examples of FORCE

They forced us to work long hours without pay.

The flooding forced hundreds of residents to flee their homes.

After seeing the evidence, I was forced to admit my error.

I am forced to conclude that more funding will be necessary.

The scandal forced his resignation.

Lack of time may eventually force a compromise.

They are trying to force a vote on this issue.


Synonyms of force include: compel, coerce, constrain, oblige which means to make someone or something yield. Force is the general term and implies the overcoming of resistance by the exertion of strength, power, or duress. And yes, Obamacare is enforced by coercion (actual or threatened pressure through a major fine), constraints (the effect of a circumstance and law that limits freedom of action), and obligation (to follow the law).

Next time you read a dictionary or thesaurus, I suggest you take off your blinkers. The words "force" and "forced" have several meanings and usages, including those used in this discussion.

Ssssshheeeesh.

I understand this, and accept it, but it seems like the hysteria surrounding this uses the meaning we all infer, again, I refer to being "coerced" to pay taxes.
 
social programs=/= socialism.

all those countries you are going bananas over are capitalist countries... period.

I already state that I accept a modern, fully socialist state will not occur for some time that is in a well developed country. The programs are aligned to socialist ideas, capitalism there isn't always a bad thing, I accept the current system, they do it better, obviously.
 
I'm not new to any of this, nor am I a kid... you're not bringing me anything i haven't see nor read before.

Just showing how successful these socialist minded policies are. :peace
 
Im pretty sure I listed more than two Countries.

If your'e trying to say the Danes are a example of a working Socialist template than YOU'RE the one being selective

They have ALWAYS incentivized the creation of wealth and profit. Those are two concepts that don't fit into central planning.

Chavez rose to power under the pretense that he would give the wealth of the Country " back to the people."

But without the free market principles that efficiently allocate goods and services his Socialist utopia turned into a nightmare.

Government intervention corrupts and undermines the core principles of the Free market and then people like you point to the destruction as a example of Capitalisms failure

In the 90s the Democrats manufactured the false narrative of " discriminatory lending practices " and implemented new Regulations to force Banks to offer " equal credit ".

Ten Federal agencies ( Fair lending Task Force) were tasked with hunting down Banks who wouldn't or didn't comply with their arbitrary new standards. Banks were sued by the DOJ, by HUD and by Community activist groups like ACORN and Plaintiffs Attorney's like Barrack Obama.

The Democrats decided that the decades old lending standards were innately racist and through threats , DOJ lawsuits and executive actions they forced lenders to lower those standards.

In 1995, Bill Clinton co-opted the GSEs into the Subprime market by giving them " affordable lending " quotas that started out at 46 percent.

That meant Freddie and Fannie had to purchase 1 subprime loan for every prime loan they purchased. These loans were then bundled and sold off as Securities with a " AAA " rating.

In 1993 Homeowner-ship rates were 63 percent and by 2000 they rose to 68 percent. A unprecedented 5 percent increase in Homeowner-ship rates.

From 2000- 2008 they rose another 1 percent.

In 2008 the GSEs were declared insolvent holding over 5 Trillion dollars in debt.

Progressives like to point to the 2008 Subprime mortgage crisis as a example of the dangers of " Capitalism ".

The 2008 Financial crisis wasn't the fault of Capitalism or the Free market. It was caused by unprecedented Government intervention into the private sector and it was all predicated on a Lie.

That the Government would or could be a fair and unbiased arbiter of what was " fair " and undermining the principles of our free market economy would lead to a positive result.
Way more then the danes who have socialist minded policies, Germany, canada, denmark, finland, netherlands, ireland, new zealand, belgium, england, costa rica, heck, most of europe has socialist minded policies. Oh yes, because the free market was doing fantastic for everyone before any regulation. :roll:
 
The way he handled her questioning reminded of Romney. He didn't want to answer the question and kept trying to talk his way out of answering the question, which made him look like a total jackass as the interview went on. The whole thing makes him look like a typical, slime ball politician. I can't stand the guy.

There is no question needing an answer. If you need health insurance, ACA is the only game in town. ACA has eliminated all options other than ACA approved policies (be they created by your employer or bought through an exchange or directly from an insurer). When the state eliminates all options other than their options, you either go without insurance for your wife and kids or you make the best of a crappy program.

But, I guess, he looks 'bad' because he played by the rules and didn't sacrifice his family to avoid the jeering of of those who made the rules.
 
I sleep fine.. i actually know the meaning of the words "mandate" and "force"... though i can understand why an authoritarian socialist would be hesitant to talk bad about govt. force.

I'm a democratic socialist, how am I authoritarian? The mandate still doesn't make you get the plan, heck, tons are exempt, read the article I've sent you, also, the fine is not forcing anyone, I wouldn't be so concerned if words like this didn't cause mass hysteria.
 
Just showing how successful these socialist minded policies are. :peace

they are social policies, not socialist policies.... they are not synonyms.

all brought to people through capitalism... every bit of it.... so us capitalists thank you for supporting the greatest economic system the earth has ever seen :)
 
What is it about ordinary English that eludes you? "Force" is used in several different senses (Merriam-Webster):

Examples of FORCE

They forced us to work long hours without pay.

The flooding forced hundreds of residents to flee their homes.

After seeing the evidence, I was forced to admit my error.

I am forced to conclude that more funding will be necessary.

The scandal forced his resignation.

Lack of time may eventually force a compromise.

They are trying to force a vote on this issue.


Synonyms include: force, compel, coerce, constrain, oblige which means to make someone or something yield. Force is the general term and implies the overcoming of resistance by the exertion of strength, power, or duress. And yes, Obamacare is enforced by coercion (actual or threatened pressure through a major fine), constraints (the effect of a circumstance and law that limits freedom of action), and obligation (to follow the law).

Next time you read a dictionary or thesaurus, I suggest you take off your blinkers. The words "force" and "forced" have several meanings and usages, including those used in this discussion.

Ssssshheeeesh.

Ok, I agree, but the way it is being used causes paranoia, and read up on the number of people getting exemptions, and the fines that scale based on income, no where are you forced to get on it, you may have to pay a fine, but that's completely different from forcing as it is used in its primary sense.
 
they are social policies, not socialist policies.... they are not synonyms.

all brought to people through capitalism... every bit of it.... so us capitalists thank you for supporting the greatest economic system the earth has ever seen :)

Really? Universal healthcare is government run healthcare that benefits everyone that is not privatized, that seems "socialist" to me. I agree capitalism brings forth these programs, as there has never been good bearing for true socialism to rise up in a well developed country, so I accept that capitalism exists, and contributes. I've already said this.
 
Last edited:
that would be nice for the cameras, but in reality , it's an idea that would cost Cruz about 25-30,000 bucks a year.... as opposed to following the law and spending about $2,400.

it's a no- brainer.... even for a dude who I suspect of having no brain.

He is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard (juris Doctor), honors in both, chief editor of the Harvard Law Review. USA National Debate and Speech Champion. Law Clerk for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Entered a race for US Senate at 3% in the polls and won.

You may intensely disagree with him, but I suspect he is vastly more intelligent than you and I. You could tell us YOUR educational and professional resume to prove my suspicious inaccurate.
 
I'm a democratic socialist, how am I authoritarian? The mandate still doesn't make you get the plan, heck, tons are exempt, read the article I've sent you, also, the fine is not forcing anyone, I wouldn't be so concerned if words like this didn't cause mass hysteria.

the only one hysterical here is you... and I don't really care what the forbes article says.
it's an individual mandate, not an individual suggestion... the mandate is an official order, sanctioned and enforced by the federal government... end of story.

authoritarianism is inherent to the collectivists ideologies...well, that's pertaining to practical application, not the Utopian bull**** rhetoric collectivists use to sell their snake oil.
 
the only one hysterical here is you... and I don't really care what the forbes article says.
it's an individual mandate, not an individual suggestion... the mandate is an official order, sanctioned and enforced by the federal government... end of story.

authoritarianism is inherent to the collectivists ideologies...well, that's pertaining to practical application, not the Utopian bull**** rhetoric collectivists use to sell their snake oil.

It still doesn't force you to get the plan, you can get exemptions or pay a fine, that is not relevant to forcing someone to get the plan. and I'm talking about the definition being used by those who rally and say it's forcing them in the context of what people attribute forcing to, not the other meanings. I won't even bother addressing the other points, want me to talk about the rhetoric of capitalism by citing one of my inspirational figures? You claim what I believe is snake oil, I can say the same for your rampant support of capitalism as the best system. We will both never agree, that is obvious, but let's not resort to such nonsense.
 
He is a graduate of Princeton and Harvard (juris Doctor), honors in both, chief editor of the Harvard Law Review. USA National Debate and Speech Champion. Law Clerk for the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court. Entered a race for US Senate at 3% in the polls and won.

You may intensely disagree with him, but I suspect he is vastly more intelligent than you and I. You could tell us YOUR educational and professional resume to prove my suspicious inaccurate.

he's highly educated in his filed, that much i'll certainly give him... but he's a political idiot who marginalizes himself with his rhetoric and "take no prisoners" attitude.
I expect such things from activists, talking heads, and blowhards...not from elected officials who should be acting like adults with a job to perform.

as for resume, we are in different worlds ( private sector versus public sector)... I'm nothing in his world, and he's nothing in mine.
 
It still doesn't force you to get the plan, you can get exemptions or pay a fine, that is not relevant to forcing someone to get the plan. and I'm talking about the definition being used by those who rally and say it's forcing them in the context of what people attribute forcing to, not the other meanings. I won't even bother addressing the other points, want me to talk about the rhetoric of capitalism by citing one of my inspirational figures? You claim what I believe is snake oil, I can say the same for your rampant support of capitalism as the best system. We will both never agree, that is obvious, but let's not resort to such nonsense.

i've given my definitions already.. .they are supported by the dictionary.
be wary of ruling out a term based on a single definition that does not apply.... as words have more than one definition, others may indeed apply( as is the case with the term "force")

when there is an official government order with or without a penalty... there is force... end of story.

and no, it's not rhetoric or snake oil to claim capitalism is the best economic system the earth has ever seen.. it's objective fact.
Socialism cannot offer the potential capitalism actually lives up to... it's an inherently constrained system resulting in mediocrity at best.
 
i've given my definitions already.. .they are supported by the dictionary.
be wary of ruling out a term based on a single definition that does not apply.... as words have more than one definition, others may indeed apply( as is the case with the term "force")

when there is an official government order with or without a penalty... there is force... end of story.

and no, it's not rhetoric or snake oil to claim capitalism is the best economic system the earth has ever seen.. it's objective fact.
Socialism cannot offer the potential capitalism actually lives up to... it's an inherently constrained system resulting in mediocrity at best.

Sure it is :roll: Like I said, not worth us both going back and forth. I already have stated it is the best system currently in existence and being utilized as of right now.
 
Really? Universal healthcare is government run healthcare that benefits everyone that is not privatized, that seems "socialist" to me. I agree capitalism brings forth these programs, as there has never been good bearing for true socialism to rise up in a well developed country, so I accept that capitalism exists, and contributes. I've already said this.

universal healthcare can be socialist, depending on it's structure... but as the socialized aspect of universal healthcare is primarily in the delivery of healthcare, you'd be hard pressed to categorize it as "production".
every bit of the infrastructure in the universal healthcare system in developed countries in capitalist in nature, though the delivery and funding are public and can be construed as socialist in a loose sense of the term.
 
universal healthcare can be socialist, depending on it's structure... but as the socialized aspect of universal healthcare is primarily in the delivery of healthcare, you'd be hard pressed to categorize it as "production".
every bit of the infrastructure in the universal healthcare system in developed countries in capitalist in nature, though the delivery and funding are public and can be construed as socialist in a loose sense of the term.

The delivery and funding are socialist in nature, and I've already attested to capitalism as a supporting factor.
 
The delivery and funding are socialist in nature, and I've already attested to capitalism as a supporting factor.

that's kinda sorta what i said... though the term "socialist" must be used in a very loose sense to be accurate.

capitalism isn't a "supporting factor"... it's the reason the programs exist and succeed.:cool:
 
that's kinda sorta what i said... though the term "socialist" must be used in a very loose sense to be accurate.

capitalism isn't a "supporting factor"... it's the reason the programs exist and succeed.:cool:

Yes, a supporting factor, and the main reason, I agree, I've already said multiple times capitalism is the current system being used, and the one working as of now.
Socialism doesn't need to be used loosely, universal healthcare is socialist in it's very application. I still do not agree with capitalism fundamentally, as you do not agree with socialism.
 
Last edited:
Way more then the danes who have socialist minded policies, Germany, canada, denmark, finland, netherlands, ireland, new zealand, belgium, england, costa rica, heck, most of europe has socialist minded policies. Oh yes, because the free market was doing fantastic for everyone before any regulation. :roll:

You're not one for details are you ?

You just make these generic replies without substance.
 
You're not one for details are you ?

You just make these generic replies without substance.

They have plenty of substance when you cherry pick select countries and ignore all of the others. Tell me these countries are doing bad with socialist policies :roll: I also forgot to add Britain.
 
They have plenty of substance when you cherry pick select countries and ignore all of the others. Tell me these countries are doing bad with socialist policies :roll: I also forgot to add Britain.

So I'm not allowed to bring up ACTUAL Socialist failures because that would be " cherry picking " ?

Sorry, I dont work like that. I'm not restricted by the confines of a ideology that doesnt allow the mentioning of the many fallacies of Socialism.

I can be honest, post facts and if it offends you then maybe you should re-evaluate your loyalty to a destructive and twisted world view.

Just a suggestion.

And I offered up a very detailed explanation of just how destructive Government intervention is.

You offered up lazy generic talking points.
 
So I'm not allowed to bring up ACTUAL Socialist failures because that would be " cherry picking " ?

Sorry, I dont work like that. I'm not restricted by the confines of a ideology that doesnt allow the mentioning of the many fallacies of Socialism.

I can be honest, post facts and if it offends you then maybe you should re-evaluate your loyalty to a destructive and twisted world view.

Just a suggestion.

And I offered up a very detailed explanation of just how destructive Government intervention is.

You offered up lazy generic talking points.

You're of course allowed! But when the successes of socialist policies override the few failures, it isn't a good argument against it. Here you go: Occupy was right: capitalism has failed the world | Books | The Guardian Some good reading to show how capitalism is a failure, even though I'll even agree it is working, for the wealthy :lamo
I'm not restricted to a confine, I appreciate your inquiry.
I don't dispute your facts, they show that every system has flaws, which I agree with.
They have ALWAYS incentivized the creation of wealth and profit. Those are two concepts that don't fit into central planning.

Chavez rose to power under the pretense that he would give the wealth of the Country " back to the people."

But without the free market principles that efficiently allocate goods and services his Socialist utopia turned into a nightmare.

Government intervention corrupts and undermines the core principles of the Free market and then people like you point to the destruction as a example of Capitalisms failure

In the 90s the Democrats manufactured the false narrative of " discriminatory lending practices " and implemented new Regulations to force Banks to offer " equal credit ".

Ten Federal agencies ( Fair lending Task Force) were tasked with hunting down Banks who wouldn't or didn't comply with their arbitrary new standards. Banks were sued by the DOJ, by HUD and by Community activist groups like ACORN and Plaintiffs Attorney's like Barrack Obama.

The Democrats decided that the decades old lending standards were innately racist and through threats , DOJ lawsuits and executive actions they forced lenders to lower those standards.

In 1995, Bill Clinton co-opted the GSEs into the Subprime market by giving them " affordable lending " quotas that started out at 46 percent.

That meant Freddie and Fannie had to purchase 1 subprime loan for every prime loan they purchased. These loans were then bundled and sold off as Securities with a " AAA " rating.

In 1993 Homeowner-ship rates were 63 percent and by 2000 they rose to 68 percent. A unprecedented 5 percent increase in Homeowner-ship rates.

From 2000- 2008 they rose another 1 percent.

In 2008 the GSEs were declared insolvent holding over 5 Trillion dollars in debt.

Progressives like to point to the 2008 Subprime mortgage crisis as a example of the dangers of " Capitalism ".

The 2008 Financial crisis wasn't the fault of Capitalism or the Free market. It was caused by unprecedented Government intervention into the private sector and it was all predicated on a Lie.

That the Government would or could be a fair and unbiased arbiter of what was " fair " and undermining the principles of our free market economy would lead to a positive result.
I don't like Chavez, Venezuela has failed horribly, I agree.
I am not necessarily against the free market, as realistically, socialism in it's true form will never exist in my lifetime in a country able to support it. I support a free market with regulations and socialist policies, as that's realistic although I'd love socialism.
Government intervention may not be beneficial all the time, but for the majority of cases, yes, it is. Can you imagine an unregulated free market? Come on now, just look at Americas history. You say the 2008 financial crisis was caused by government intervention, any evidence to back this up apart from your opinion? You want to talk dangers of capitalism and discussion on capitalism?
http://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-failed-world-french-economist-thomas-piketty
I agree that government intervention can be bad, but it has done more good then bad.
 
Last edited:
Yes, a supporting factor, and the main reason, I agree, I've already said multiple times capitalism is the current system being used, and the one working as of now.
Socialism doesn't need to be used loosely, universal healthcare is socialist in it's very application. I still do not agree with capitalism fundamentally, as you do not agree with socialism.
there are quite few forms of universal healthcare... not all are socialist in nature.. .some are far from socialist (such as single payer health insurance)

at this time in human history, I believe socialism to be unnecessary and ultimately a destructive force( in most cases)..... maybe in the future, as we trend out of human labor based production, Socialism might become necessary and even constructive. ( think in terms of near total automation, and such).
 
Back
Top Bottom