View Poll Results: Do you support John Kerry for Secretary of State?

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    11 52.38%
  • No

    10 47.62%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 35

Thread: Now that Rice is out of the picture... Kerry?

  1. #21
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: Now that Rice is out of the picture... Kerry?

    Quote Originally Posted by DaveFagan View Post
    Right! Make an honest warrior look bad to make a AWOL, dope using, "No, I refuse to go to Vietnam after the USA spends one milion dollars to teach me to fly fighter planes," your hero. I got the message.
    Bush was not AWOL, and didnt refuse to go to Vietnam. However, I realize you may beleive this, regardless of the lack of evidence. Not that Bush has anything to do with this topic.

  2. #22
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Now that Rice is out of the picture... Kerry?

    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    We all have different ways of using terminology, so I won't criticize you too much. Here we go:
    1. Liberal is an inaccurate term to describe political philosophy.
    2. Regulated capitalism is still capitalism.

    Not at all. Government regulation doesn't equate to government ownership.
    I agree that Liberal is the wrong term and is a misuse of the actual definition of Liberal, however, I don't know what the real term should be, nor has our society given me another term to use for those who follow that socio-economic philosophy. The real term should probably be something or another socialist.

    I disagree. When government regulation exceeds reasonable levels, it is directly controlling the economy and economic factors. There is no real difference between direct ownership and total government control under "Regulated Capitalism". It is not Capitalism in any form, it's use of Capitalism is simply to cover the real economy and to build a desirable facade to show people, a fake front if you will. It leaves the appearance of Capitalism where it does not actually exists.

    Recently, provisions of the law commonly called Obama-care, instituted government control of how much profit an industry can make, specifically the healthcare insurance industry. Wallstreet Reform has taken on the mantra of CEO's getting overpaid while workers are underpaid and attempts to place some regulation on it. Further, the Left in America has been calling for direct government control of healthcare and also calling for higher taxes on the "rich" and corporate profits. Couple this with the existing regulations such as minimum wage and the government attempting to control how much each person gets paid. Add in EPA and other regulations and they attempt to control what markets a company may enter and what technologies may be pursued.

    If the government controls pay, profits, allowable markets and through taxes claims any profits, how is that different really from the government just out right claiming ownership of the Market? The only difference is that they leave a false front to appear not to be exercising the control they really exert.


    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    Now sweetie, provide evidence if you want me to believe that nonsense.
    Please don't call me sweetie, while I appreciate the offer, I just don't swing that way.

    Lets see,

    Mandatory teaching of muti-culturalism.

    Teaching of "minority sensitive" history.

    Teaching children "homosexual tolerance" that is targeted not at accepting homosexuals as deserving human rights, but to glorify homosexuality.

    Teaching hatred of religion and suppressing religious expression.

    Lack of teaching of government and different governmental approaches and theory.

    Controlling, through Affirmative action, who can even receive certain levels of education. A few years back, the Law School at the University of Texas, adopted an acceptance policy that used only academic performance as a measure. The best performers amongst the applicants received the slots. However, because the make up of the accepted did not meet standards (quotas) for Affirmative Action, the school was sued and forced to accept black applicants over other applicants that were more qualified. This is good example of control of who receives educations. Not to mention a plethora of other laws designed to open opportunities for minorities but do not offer the same opportunities the the so-called majority. Anytime race is used as a selection criteria, that law is racist, whether it benefits or oppresses a particular race. Same with sex and other factors.

    Redistricting of Political districts based, not upon geographical boundaries, but upon guaranteeing an increase in "minority" representation.

    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    A troll who fakes extreme views, basically.
    Well, since I am no more a troll than most people here, that alone makes the term not apply. Also, I don't fake my views, extreme or otherwise. I do sometimes exaggerate my views to demonstrate that such extremes can exist, but the core is still my view. Also, I intentionally post views in a confrontational in order to spur further discussion.

    BTW, who gets to decide if someone is a Troll, you? What standard do you use to come to that determination? That they express views contrary to your own?


    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    But you don't seem to know what it means.
    Socialism is a term used by Marx to explain the transition from Capitalism, different societies and governments into an unified form called Communism. Marx, or perhaps it was Engels, that codified the socio-economic philosophies and methodologies gained from various sources into a cohesive form of Socialism and Communism. Later the term was altered in meaning to mean Marxist who did not believe in the full transition to Communism but believed that Socialism was not a means of transition, but an actual philosophy of it's own. The term was later adopted and attempted to be redefined as different non-Marxist, but socially focused theories of government and economics, however, all forms of socialism incorporate some or all of Marx's teachings.

    Since Marx, under his theory of Socialism, called for government seizure/control of means of production and distribution, economy, it has become popular to use the term Socialism for any government ownership of a market or part of the economy.

    Also, government control to educate and bring about changes in the behavior of a society were also called for, government programs that appear or actually change societies behavior are called socialist, referring to one who practices socialism.

    Redistribution of wealth, actually resources, since his theory does away with money, upon an equal basis, once again, government programs that are or appear to be focused upon achieving this goal, whether through Marx's methodologies or other means, are referred to as socialist or socialism.

    What is called Liberalism in America, through their actions, appear to attempt to achieve these same goals that Marx had, then I believe it is indeed a form of socialism. However, not communism, as I have never actually heard a so-called Liberal call for the reduction of government.

    What is called Liberalism, in America today, is far left-authoritarian instead of far left-libertarian. The only real difference between so-called Fascist and current Liberal Doctrine is that it has not yet progressed to militarism to oppress opposing views and the fact that Fascist didn't oppress religion to the extent that Liberalism does. However, it does appear that Liberalism in America today does have a strong Nationalistic streak. Apparently there is a difference in Nationalism expressed by the Liberals today, since some call for strong Nationalism while others have negotiated and gotten approval for Free-Trade agreements. Clinton, NAFTA and Obama, Free-Trade agreement with S. Korea.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  3. #23
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Now that Rice is out of the picture... Kerry?

    Quote Originally Posted by jonny5 View Post
    Bush was not AWOL, and didnt refuse to go to Vietnam. However, I realize you may beleive this, regardless of the lack of evidence. Not that Bush has anything to do with this topic.
    I don't know about him refusing to go to Vietnam, however, he definitely appeared to be AWOL, or something similar, during his second term.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  4. #24
    Sage

    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Republic of Florida
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,040

    Re: Now that Rice is out of the picture... Kerry?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    I don't know about him refusing to go to Vietnam, however, he definitely appeared to be AWOL, or something similar, during his second term.
    The military has no record of Bush being AWOL. That is a fact. Not that Bush has anything to do with this topic.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Riding a tapir
    Last Seen
    01-27-13 @ 10:21 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,432
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Now that Rice is out of the picture... Kerry?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    I agree that Liberal is the wrong term and is a misuse of the actual definition of Liberal, however, I don't know what the real term should be, nor has our society given me another term to use for those who follow that socio-economic philosophy. The real term should probably be something or another socialist.
    No, it should not be "socialist". I just go based on partisan lines.

    I disagree. When government regulation exceeds reasonable levels, it is directly controlling the economy and economic factors. There is no real difference between direct ownership and total government control under "Regulated Capitalism". It is not Capitalism in any form, it's use of Capitalism is simply to cover the real economy and to build a desirable facade to show people, a fake front if you will. It leaves the appearance of Capitalism where it does not actually exists.
    Ownership and regulation(which we don't have a whole lot of in this country, relatively) are vastly different.

    Recently, provisions of the law commonly called Obama-care, instituted government control of how much profit an industry can make, specifically the healthcare insurance industry.
    Now I don't know the specifics of ACA, but I'm fairly certain it does not set limits on corporate profits.

    [QUOTE]Wallstreet Reform has taken on the mantra of CEO's getting overpaid while workers are underpaid and attempts to place some regulation on it.[QUOTE]

    That's just raising the minimum wage... Not exactly socialism.

    Further, the Left in America has been calling for direct government control of healthcare and also calling for higher taxes on the "rich" and corporate profits.
    Okay, a few things:
    1. The left in this country is a disorganized, marginalized group of minor political groups. They're calling for anything, or at least they're not getting it.
    2. Government run health care is a key part of democratic socialism, but it's a capitalist idea as well. Canada and various capitalist European countries do it.
    3. Progressive taxation is not an exclusively socialist idea.

    Couple this with the existing regulations such as minimum wage and the government attempting to control how much each person gets paid.
    Minimum wage is a strictly capitalist policy - a large number of right wingers advocate for it. Socialists advocate for direct worker or government control of production.

    Add in EPA and other regulations and they attempt to control what markets a company may enter and what technologies may be pursued.
    That's not exactly true. The EPA is an organization that sets regulations to prevent the over-expenditure and damage of natural resources. If anything, it's a largely beneficial force to corporations.

    If the government controls pay, profits, allowable markets and through taxes claims any profits, how is that different really from the government just out right claiming ownership of the Market? The only difference is that they leave a false front to appear not to be exercising the control they really exert.
    See above

    Please don't call me sweetie, while I appreciate the offer, I just don't swing that way.
    If your views are those of a child, you'll be spoken to as a child.

    Lets see,

    Mandatory teaching of muti-culturalism.

    Teaching of "minority sensitive" history.

    Teaching children "homosexual tolerance" that is targeted not at accepting homosexuals as deserving human rights, but to glorify homosexuality.
    In public schools, the government has the right to set a curriculum, provided it falls within basic moral guidelines. Bear in mind that republicans regulate public schools as well.

    Teaching hatred of religion and suppressing religious expression.
    That's incorrect and contrived.

    Lack of teaching of government and different governmental approaches and theory.
    That varies based on school, but, last time I checked, public schools didn't teach any comprehensive government theory.

    Controlling, through Affirmative action, who can even receive certain levels of education. A few years back, the Law School at the University of Texas, adopted an acceptance policy that used only academic performance as a measure. The best performers amongst the applicants received the slots. However, because the make up of the accepted did not meet standards (quotas) for Affirmative Action, the school was sued and forced to accept black applicants over other applicants that were more qualified. This is good example of control of who receives educations. Not to mention a plethora of other laws designed to open opportunities for minorities but do not offer the same opportunities the the so-called majority. Anytime race is used as a selection criteria, that law is racist, whether it benefits or oppresses a particular race. Same with sex and other factors.
    That not "brainwashing", nor is it socialism. Stay on topic.

    Redistricting of Political districts based, not upon geographical boundaries, but upon guaranteeing an increase in "minority" representation.
    Bear in mind that Republicans redistrict as well. It's up to the discretion of state officials.

    Well, since I am no more a troll than most people here, that alone makes the term not apply. Also, I don't fake my views, extreme or otherwise. I do sometimes exaggerate my views to demonstrate that such extremes can exist, but the core is still my view. Also, I intentionally post views in a confrontational in order to spur further discussion.
    Cool beans, kiddo.

    BTW, who gets to decide if someone is a Troll, you? What standard do you use to come to that determination? That they express views contrary to your own?
    It's just my opinion. Don't read in to it so much.

    Socialism is a term used by Marx to explain the transition from Capitalism, different societies and governments into an unified form called Communism. Marx, or perhaps it was Engels, that codified the socio-economic philosophies and methodologies gained from various sources into a cohesive form of Socialism and Communism. Later the term was altered in meaning to mean Marxist who did not believe in the full transition to Communism but believed that Socialism was not a means of transition, but an actual philosophy of it's own. The term was later adopted and attempted to be redefined as different non-Marxist, but socially focused theories of government and economics, however, all forms of socialism incorporate some or all of Marx's teachings.
    Good for you.

    Since Marx, under his theory of Socialism, called for government seizure/control of means of production and distribution, economy, it has become popular to use the term Socialism for any government ownership of a market or part of the economy.
    Not exactly true. Socialism commonly refers to any political philosophy that advocates for government, or collective ownership of production.

    Also, government control to educate and bring about changes in the behavior of a society were also called for, government programs that appear or actually change societies behavior are called socialist, referring to one who practices socialism.
    Completely false.

    Redistribution of wealth, actually resources, since his theory does away with money, upon an equal basis, once again, government programs that are or appear to be focused upon achieving this goal, whether through Marx's methodologies or other means, are referred to as socialist or socialism.
    True enough, but redistribution is almost solely an authoritarian idea.

    What is called Liberalism in America, through their actions, appear to attempt to achieve these same goals that Marx had, then I believe it is indeed a form of socialism. However, not communism, as I have never actually heard a so-called Liberal call for the reduction of government.
    1. American liberalism is actually pretty right wing, compared to the capitalist countries in Europe.
    2. The Republicans aren't exactly anti-government, either.

    What is called Liberalism, in America today, is far left-authoritarian instead of far left-libertarian.
    In relative terms, American liberalism would be considered right wing.

    The only real difference between so-called Fascist and current Liberal Doctrine is that it has not yet progressed to militarism to oppress opposing views and the fact that Fascist didn't oppress religion to the extent that Liberalism does.
    1. Liberals don't oppress religion. They just don't advocate for religious control of society.
    2. By definition, fascism is right wing authoritarianism.

    However, it does appear that Liberalism in America today does have a strong Nationalistic streak. Apparently there is a difference in Nationalism expressed by the Liberals today, since some call for strong Nationalism while others have negotiated and gotten approval for Free-Trade agreements. Clinton, NAFTA and Obama, Free-Trade agreement with S. Korea.
    See above.

    Look, if you want to debate this, I'm more than willing to. But let's do so in a private debate so you can stop derailing my thread.

  6. #26
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Now that Rice is out of the picture... Kerry?

    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    No, it should not be "socialist". I just go based on partisan lines.
    Please explain.


    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    Ownership and regulation(which we don't have a whole lot of in this country, relatively) are vastly different.
    How? As I stated, with enough regulation and taxes, the end result looks the same.



    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    Now I don't know the specifics of ACA, but I'm fairly certain it does not set limits on corporate profits.
    Effective January 1, 2011

    Insurers must spend 80% (for individual or small group insurers) or 85% (for large group insurers) of premium dollars on health costs and claims, leaving only 20% or 15% respectively for administrative costs and profits, subject to various waivers and exemptions. If an insurer fails to meet this requirement, there is no penalty, but a rebate must be issued to the policy holder. This policy is known as the 'Medical Loss Ratio'. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    That's just raising the minimum wage... Not exactly socialism.
    The act also creates a panel and funding, outside of the control of Congress. The panel allows the government to seize any company that the panel says is a threat to economy. It was intended to control "too big to fail" companies and allow them to broken up to minimize the damage done to the economy. Interestingly, there is no appeals process in the law, it can fund itself without oversight or going through congress and is given broad powers over business.

    Nor do I see where it relates to minimum wage.


    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    Okay, a few things:
    1. The left in this country is a disorganized, marginalized group of minor political groups. They're calling for anything, or at least they're not getting it.
    2. Government run health care is a key part of democratic socialism, but it's a capitalist idea as well. Canada and various capitalist European countries do it.
    3. Progressive taxation is not an exclusively socialist idea.
    1. your opinion, accepted as your opinion.
    2. And from my experiences, It sucks ass. Sure it doesn't cost anything but some taxes, but quality, technology and availability anything beyond basic visits falls way short of what is available in the US, outside of socialized facilities/systems in the US.
    3. Did I say it was? Even if it is socialistic, It does not a socialist make. Just another potential commonality.



    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    Minimum wage is a strictly capitalist policy - a large number of right wingers advocate for it. Socialists advocate for direct worker or government control of production.
    In that you have to have a capitalist based economy to have wages, you are correct. Under true Communism, there is no money, so there is no wages.

    They do? Please present any evidence that "right-wingers" support minimum wage.

    I haven't posted any opposition to "right-wingers" because they were not the subject of the discussion. Apparently you feel that because I am anti-left, that I am to the right, that is incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    That's not exactly true. The EPA is an organization that sets regulations to prevent the over-expenditure and damage of natural resources. If anything, it's a largely beneficial force to corporations.
    It is? Really? Maybe you believe that, but the current EPA is a rogue organization that is tremendously harmful to America.


    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    If your views are those of a child, you'll be spoken to as a child.
    Ah, opposing views are childish now, very good argument. (sarcasm)

    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    In public schools, the government has the right to set a curriculum, provided it falls within basic moral guidelines. Bear in mind that republicans regulate public schools as well.
    And who says I support all of their regulation of schooling? Having any examples of schools teaching conservatism? I already given some of them teaching liberalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    Bear in mind that Republicans redistrict as well. It's up to the discretion of state officials.
    No, it is not always. Texas at least has to have theirs approved by a federal court, hence the current court fight over it. If it was strictly the state, then there would of been no case. The whole disapproval of the redistricting was entirely based upon it not creating enough "minority" representation.

    And while I might not approve of all the republicans efforts, I do trust them more than the left and using "minority" representation as a criteria.

    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    1. American liberalism is actually pretty right wing, compared to the capitalist countries in Europe.
    2. The Republicans aren't exactly anti-government, either.
    Obviously we greatly disagree on where American Liberalism stands.

    You are correct, that would be Libertarians, although, Republicans believe in a greatly reduced form of government.

    BTW, you keep bring up Republicans. Is there some reason you think I am a Republican? If so, then you haven't seen some of my posts. While I do agree with some of their stances, I also agree with many ideas from the left, I just don't like their methodologies.

    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    In relative terms, American liberalism would be considered right wing.
    Relative to whom or what? Stalin or Hitler? Even them, they are quickly approaching.

    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    1. Liberals don't oppress religion. They just don't advocate for religious control of society.
    2. By definition, fascism is right wing authoritarianism.
    They don't? Really. They haven't support the anti-Christian activist? They didn't boo the inclusion of religion in their parties platform and their national convention?

    You have your wings mixed up, Fascism is Nationalist Socialism. Hitler, Mussolini and other Fascist all had socialistic controls in their economic philosophies and even named themselves Socialist, it was their socio policies that were different. So now, they didn't embrace the socio-economic philosophy of Marx, just his economic philosophies. No, they didn't like Communism, because they were the authoritarian left, not the libertarian left. You may not like them being called socialist because they were too strongly Authoritarian and maybe you lean more to Libertarian, but left they most certainly were/are. The Nationalist portion of Fascism is really the only distinguishing feature between early fascism and American Liberalism, and we are seeing a trending towards that Nationalism.

    Quote Originally Posted by waas View Post
    Look, if you want to debate this, I'm more than willing to. But let's do so in a private debate so you can stop derailing my thread.
    Your are the one who "derailed" your thread, my first comment was in keeping with the thread.

    Private Debate is just argument and other than maybe some entertainment value, serves no useful purpose. The whole reason for debate is to present differing opinions, facts, philosophies, etc before an audience in-order to allow the audience to form their opinions. If you are debating with the intention of changing the beliefs of those who participate, then you need to get a better understanding of debate. People who participate already believe in their stances to the point they express them openly to influence others. You are probably not going to change the stance of someone debating, the only affect is upon the audience. I am not trying to change you or your opinion in anyway, I am only giving opinion, facts, viewpoints contrary to yours because I believe the audience needs to have differences to compare.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  7. #27
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,227

    Re: Now that Rice is out of the picture... Kerry?

    Kerry is much less female and black than Ms Rice, surely much better a candidate from a GOP point of view. He's old like them too!
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

  8. #28
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    The Republic of Texas.
    Last Seen
    11-15-17 @ 11:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,647

    Re: Now that Rice is out of the picture... Kerry?

    Quote Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
    Kerry is much less female and black than Ms Rice, surely much better a candidate from a GOP point of view. He's old like them too!
    How quickly we forget. Um, you do know that under the last Republican President, that both the Sec States he appointed were Black and one was also Female? And Condi was not exactly old either.
    Only a fool measures equality by results and not opportunities.

  9. #29
    On Vacation
    joko104's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:30 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    31,569
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Now that Rice is out of the picture... Kerry?

    Sure, it gets him out of the Senate. Of course, he may do like he did in Iraq and convince no country to sell the USA oil.

  10. #30
    Wrinkly member
    Manc Skipper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Southern England
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    23,227

    Re: Now that Rice is out of the picture... Kerry?

    Quote Originally Posted by DVSentinel View Post
    How quickly we forget. Um, you do know that under the last Republican President, that both the Sec States he appointed were Black and one was also Female? And Condi was not exactly old either.
    The last RINO President didn't have the teabaggers on his back.
    Don't work out, work in.

    Never eat anything that's served in a bucket.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •