Thomas Sowell on Drudge and Geraldo

[SassyLady]

Thomas Sowell always has the ability to say something powerful and rational with such simplicity and eloquence.


Some have said that we are living in a post-industrial era, while others have said that we are living in a post-racial era. But growing evidence suggests that we are living in a post-thinking era.

Many people in Europe and the Western Hemisphere are staging angry protests against Israel’s military action in Gaza. One of the talking points against Israel is that far more Palestinian civilians have been killed by Israeli military attacks than the number of Israeli civilians killed by the Hamas rocket attacks on Israel that started this latest military conflict.

Are these protesters aware that vastly more German civilians were killed by American bombers attacking Nazi Germany during World War II than American civilians killed in the United States by Hitler’s forces?

Talk-show host Geraldo Rivera says that there is no way Israel is winning the battle for world opinion. But Israel is trying to win the battle for survival, while surrounded by enemies. Might that not be more important?

Has any other country, in any other war, been expected to keep the enemy’s civilian casualties no higher than its own civilian casualties? The idea that Israel should do so did not originate among the masses but among the educated intelligentsia.

In an age when scientists are creating artificial intelligence, too many of our educational institutions seem to be creating artificial stupidity.

It is much the same story in our domestic controversies. We have gotten so intimidated by political correctness that our major media outlets dare not call people who immigrate to this country illegally “illegal immigrants.”

Geraldo Rivera has denounced the Drudge Report for carrying news stories that show some of the negative consequences and dangers from allowing vast numbers of youngsters to enter the country illegally and be spread across the country by the Obama administration.

Some of these youngsters are already known to be carrying lice and suffering from disease. Since there have been no thorough medical examinations of most of them, we have no way of knowing whether, or how many, are carrying deadly diseases that will spread to American children when these unexamined young immigrants enter schools across the country.

The attack against Matt Drudge has been in the classic tradition of demagogues. It turns questions of fact into questions of motive. Geraldo accuses Drudge of trying to start a “civil war.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/is-thinking-now-obsolete/#9A0j3FAhkBiTcfFB.99

[Drummond]

Thomas Sowell always has the ability to say something powerful and rational with such simplicity and eloquence.



:clap::clap::clap:

Excellent post, great points made !

That Israel isn't getting far more international support is an outrage, in my opinion. BUT, the Left in various countries, including my own, has been going into overdrive to push the 'Gazans are victims of Israeli brutality' line for all they're worth. Here, the Labour leader (Socialist), Ed Miliband, has publicly attacked our Prime Minister for not speaking out far more in favour of Gaza .. with the effect that Cameron has been stung into starting to make 'We abhor what Gazans are suffering' noises.

As I type, BBC Radio 4 is announcing a Government resignation, Baroness Warsi, who's resigned in protest at the Conservative Party's lack of overt support for the Gaza side. I've just found this ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-28656874


Foreign Office minister Baroness Warsi has resigned from the government, saying she can "no longer support" its policy on Gaza.

She wrote on her Twitter feed that she was leaving with "deep regret".

Lady Warsi, who was previously chairman of the Conservative Party, became the first female Muslim cabinet minister when David Cameron took office in 2010.

She grew up in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire, and worked as a solicitor before entering politics.

Lady Warsi was demoted from the cabinet to a middle-ranking Foreign Office post in 2012. She was made minister for faith and communities at the same time.

She wrote on Twitter on Tuesday: "With deep regret I have this morning written to the Prime Minister & tendered my resignation. I can no longer support Govt policy on #Gaza."

London Mayor Boris Johnson, a fellow Conservative, told LBC Radio he had "great respect" for Lady Warsi, adding: "She has done a great job for us and I hope she will be back as soon as possible."

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said it was no "secret" that there were different opinions over Gaza within the government and that Lady Warsi had "strong views" on the subject.

'No justification'

One of five daughters of Pakistani immigrants, Lady Warsi studied at Leeds University, later working for the Crown Prosecution Service before setting up her own legal practice.

Israel launched Operation Protective Edge on 8 July with the stated aim of ending rocket attacks and destroying tunnels used by Palestinian militants.

Gaza officials say the four-week conflict has killed 1,800 Palestinians. Some 67 Israelis have also died.

Lady Warsi has called on Twitter for more international action to end the crisis.

On 21 July, she wrote: "The killing of innocent civilians must stop. Need immediate ceasefire in #Gaza. Leadership required on both sides to stop this suffering."

Three days later she added: "Can people stop trying to justify the killing of children. Whatever our politics there can never be justification, surely only regret #Gaza."

Backbench Conservative MPs have been calling on David Cameron to take a more robust line with Israel amid concerns its actions are disproportionate.

Presumably she requires Israel to stop its actions until Hamas has managed to kill an equal number of Israelis ... 'because it's only fair' ....

What say you, Jafar ? Do you require the death tolls to be equalised ?

[tailfins]

Some have said that we are living in a post-industrial era, while others have said that we are living in a post-racial era. But growing evidence suggests that we are living in a post-thinking era.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/is-thinking-now-obsolete/#0JK8EXwwCixhcLcd.99




http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/is-thinking-now-obsolete/

[Little-Acorn]

People who act without thinking, form the backbone off the U.S. Democrat paty. For that reason, the Democrats work to promote that tendency as hard as they can.

It's the most destructive trend that has ever been unleashed in the United States. Worse even than slavery, worse than taxation without representation.

[Drummond]

This is the second thread I've seen on this article. Also see, courtesy of SassyLady ....

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?46250-Thomas-Sowell-on-Drudge-and-Geraldo&p=697633#post697633

[DLT]

http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/is-thinking-now-obsolete/

At the risk of sounding like a hyper-partisan rightie hack (lol)......

thinking has always been over-rated, under-utilized and obsolete to lefties and especially to leftist Democrats....hehe. (yeah, I said it)

[Gaffer]

At the risk of sounding like a hyper-partisan rightie hack (lol)......

thinking has always been over-rated, under-utilized and obsolete to lefties and especially to leftist Democrats....hehe. (yeah, I said it)

Your going to get along very well here. :thumb:

[SassyLady]

Thomas Sowell is probably the most rational person I've come across. Everything he writes is spot on.

[Drummond]

At the risk of sounding like a hyper-partisan rightie hack (lol)......

thinking has always been over-rated, under-utilized and obsolete to lefties and especially to leftist Democrats....hehe. (yeah, I said it)

How very true !! :clap:

In my experience, they substitute for intelligent thinking by enslaving themselves to a preferred propagandist stance, which they then don't stray from, as if their lives depended on it. If challenged on it, they either ignore the challenge or start 'rubbishing' the challenger .. not the challenge itself.

Anything rather than face realities they'd rather not face, which they remain willfully blind to.

Another is that they rely on the extent of support they can cite for their propaganda (if it exists) as 'proof' that it must be valid. It's the sort of approach that could lead to people believing that the Moon is made of cheese, for example, or that (.. this is REALLY stretching it, admittedly ..) Socialism is reputable !!!

Yet another is to wrap nonsensical arguments in semi-baffling terminology. This is to make the listener believe that said Leftie is hyper-intelligent and therefore 'must' know what s/he is talking about. [I recall a party I attended once where a Leftie tried that on me ... a stream of total gobbledegook .. I just walked away from the individual in the middle of it ..].

Lefties have their entertainment value. But other than that, I don't see the point of the nonsense they buy into. Any political philosophy HAS to be in tune with human nature, and able to serve it, in order to work and to do good. Socialism defies it, in spades ....

[fj1200]

In my experience, they substitute for intelligent thinking by enslaving themselves to a preferred propagandist stance, which they then don't stray from, as if their lives depended on it. If challenged on it, they either ignore the challenge or start 'rubbishing' the challenger .. not the challenge itself.

Irony: Clearly not obsolete.

[Drummond]

Irony: Clearly not obsolete.

Hah ! See something in the description that you recognise, FJ ?

But I fail to see what you're driving at. My point was, and is, that such tactics and behaviour takes the place of actual THOUGHT. Lefties have to rely on tactics and forms of games-playing as substitutes for real, bona fide THINKING, because otherwise, actual THOUGHT would expose them to truths and realities that would clash with their preferred beliefs and propaganda initiatives.

[fj1200]

Hah ! See something in the description that you recognise, FJ ?

But I fail to see what you're driving at. My point was, and is, that such tactics and behaviour takes the place of actual THOUGHT. Lefties have to rely on tactics and forms of games-playing as substitutes for real, bona fide THINKING, because otherwise, actual THOUGHT would expose them to truths and realities that would clash with their preferred beliefs and propaganda initiatives.

Yes, I recognize practically every post you make. My point was your insistence that what you present is the result of actual thought when it's nothing more than rote posting.

[Drummond]

Yes, I recognize practically every post you make. My point was your insistence that what you present is the result of actual thought when it's nothing more than rote posting.

???????????????????

You're accusing me of being a Leftie, then ? If so ... you're being patently absurd. It's very clear to the forum as a whole that I'm no such thing.

As for 'rote' posting ... again, you're being unclear. You object to my ever repeating what I post ?

To the extent that's even true .. well, a good point IS a good point, well worth repeating when circumstances call for it. For example: when arguing with a Leftie, one sometimes has to repeat oneself several times to even get said Leftie to acknowledge what they'd much rather NOT acknowledge.

... Since Lefties habitually don't think ... one has to compensate, you see ...

Then again, perhaps part (or all) of what you object to, is my repetition of others' thoughts ? Such as, for example, those recorded of Margaret Thatcher's ? Well ... you may hope I'd 'apologise' for doing that. BUT, I'm afraid I'll do no such thing. All too often, Lady Thatcher's thinking and principles outclass anything else out there .. and that includes myself.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

I am a liberal and I don't recognize myself in any of these generalizations. But, on the upside, I don't like the people you described either.

Oh and I think though that someone needs to come up with an expression similar to "The Godwin Card" for when someone claims something is "worse than slavery." Stating that is really self-marginalization of the point you're trying to make.

[tailfins]

Yes, I recognize practically every post you make. My point was your insistence that what you present is the result of actual thought when it's nothing more than rote posting.

One telltale sign of thoughtless posts is a lack of action items and unwillingness to conduct experiments. Any idiot can sit there and complain.

[fj1200]

???????????????????

I merely point out you do exactly what you complain about.

[Little-Acorn]

I am a liberal and I don't recognize myself in any of these generalizations. But, on the upside, I don't like the people you described either.

Oh and I think though that someone needs to come up with an expression similar to "The Godwin Card" for when someone claims something is "worse than slavery." Stating that is really self-marginalization of the point you're trying to make.

Not familiar with the Godwin card.

What I meant was, that this Democrat trend toward pushing people to not think, but to react emotionally and irrationally instead, is more destructive than slavery. And that's with an acknowledgement of how horribly demeaning and destructive slavery was in the U.S.

[Drummond]

I merely point out you do exactly what you complain about.

--- Nope. I deal in reality, not propaganda.

And, what 'complaint' ? Describing Leftie methodology, limited thinking and the like, is not a 'complaint' per se. It's just a summary of what's true.

That's not to say that there isn't room for complaint .. just that none had been expressed, as such.

[Drummond]

I am a liberal and I don't recognize myself in any of these generalizations. But, on the upside, I don't like the people you described either.

Oh and I think though that someone needs to come up with an expression similar to "The Godwin Card" for when someone claims something is "worse than slavery." Stating that is really self-marginalization of the point you're trying to make.

Greetings, 'Lemongrass Gogulope'. Welcome to the forum.

By 'The Godwin Card', do you mean 'Godwin's Law' ?

- Anyway, judging by your first paragraph .. I'm encouraged. If you, as a Left winger, think for yourself, you don't consider yourself wedded to any particular propagandist line, then I suggest to you that this forum will give you much to think about ! If you're open to recognition of realities, if you won't follow 'the Party line' just because it IS one, then what you see on this forum will be quite an eye-opener for you.

In my teens, I myself was a Left winger. But, I kept my eyes open, I insisted upon being my own person, recognising the truth of what was happening around me. Since that was true ... I became incapable of continuing as one. Recognition of reality, of commonsense, required me to break with Left wing thought and diktat and instead become loyal to a far better philosophy. One that was constructive, abhored social destruction. One that FOLLOWED, rather than tried to legislate for, human nature.

If you mean what you say, 'Lemongrass', then I've high hopes for you. I hope you stick with this forum !

[red state]

I concur, Drummond. In my youth, I believed in sticking it to the "man" and believed I was owed something...........even at the cost of another's success. I also believed in the betterment of society through the weeding out of "undesirables". I had other leftist views that I will not bore anyone with (AGAIN) on this forum but I have always stood by the Constitution.....GUNS, for example and the more I became enlightened to the real world around me, the more I realized that I was not gauranteed success or happiness but was FREE to strive for happiness and prosperity. There's a difference but most liberals do not see a difference and would prefer to CHANGE the wording or meaning of that which they do not agree with. For example: Freedom FROM religion instead of what it states............FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!! One little word and the libs thought they'd get by with it. They always pull this crap. I know cuz I once thought I was a clever lil' liberal myself. Now I'm just CLEVER.

[Drummond]

I concur, Drummond. In my youth, I believed in sticking it to the "man" and believed I was owed something...........even at the cost of another's success. I also believed in the betterment of society through the weeding out of "undesirables". I had other leftist views that I will not bore anyone with (AGAIN) on this forum but I have always stood by the Constitution.....GUNS, for example and the more I became enlightened to the real world around me, the more I realized that I was not gauranteed success or happiness but was FREE to strive for happiness and prosperity. There's a difference but most liberals do not see a difference and would prefer to CHANGE the wording or meaning of that which they do not agree with. For example: Freedom FROM religion instead of what it states............FREEDOM OF RELIGION!!! One little word and the libs thought they'd get by with it. They always pull this crap. I know cuz I once thought I was a clever lil' liberal myself. Now I'm just CLEVER.

Thanks for that, Red State.

Different societies ... different problems. But common mindsets applied to each ...

Here in the UK, there's a perpetual propaganda war going on. Inroads made tend to lead, if successful, to thoughts and beliefs becoming so 'basic' that they can't be departed from -- which is why full-blown Socialism MUST NOT gain a prolonged foothold.

Take Socialised medicine .. a health service run by the State. We've had that ever since 1948. Acceptance of it over generations means that any politician claiming he'd want to do away with it, or even radically reform it, would be committing political suicide here.

That's despite the fact that - after all this time - it STILL fails people. The scandal at Stafford, for example, where it was estimated that hundreds of people died needlessly. Or the great instance of MRSA outbreaks in many hospitals. Or the fact that, JUST to serve around 60 million people (i.e just a fraction of that number at any one time) .. the NHS has become one of the biggest employers on the planet, absorbing medical personnel from many other countries !

Another example .. in Wales, UK. The Welsh Assembly is moving ahead with plans to turn the principle of organ donation on its head. Instead of opting to leave organs for medical need after your death, under new Welsh plans, consent is considered AUTOMATIC unless a person provably OPTS OUT of doing that. In other words .. if it can't be proved that the hapless donor would've objected, then the State plunders whatever it wants.

BUT NOBODY OBJECTS STRONGLY ENOUGH TO CONSIDER SUCH A SYSTEM WORTH OPPOSING .. BECAUSE GENERATIONS OF SOCIALIST CONDITIONING HAVE OBLITERATED SUCH RESISTANCE.

Socialism doesn't value the individual. Rather, Socialism considers the individual as just raw material for utilisation as diktat sees fit. Socialsts are too busy thinking in terms of 'State ownership' to care a damn about individual rights.

And you're meant to adopt standards which Socialists REQUIRE you to believe in. Object to open immigration .. you can be accused of racism. Publicly-expressed outright opposition to Islam is tantamount to 'hatespeech', actionable in law.

Under Socialism, if it dominates for long enough, your own thoughts aren't actually your own at all, even though you think they are. Sustained propaganda and conditioning over generations makes them become an artificial creation determined FOR you, whether or not you're aware of it.

Our CONSERVATIVE Prime Minister says he 'loves' our NHS. He dare not think the opposite.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Greetings, 'Lemongrass Gogulope'. Welcome to the forum.

By 'The Godwin Card', do you mean 'Godwin's Law' ?

- Anyway, judging by your first paragraph .. I'm encouraged. If you, as a Left winger, think for yourself, you don't consider yourself wedded to any particular propagandist line, then I suggest to you that this forum will give you much to think about ! If you're open to recognition of realities, if you won't follow 'the Party line' just because it IS one, then what you see on this forum will be quite an eye-opener for you.

In my teens, I myself was a Left winger. But, I kept my eyes open, I insisted upon being my own person, recognising the truth of what was happening around me. Since that was true ... I became incapable of continuing as one. Recognition of reality, of commonsense, required me to break with Left wing thought and diktat and instead become loyal to a far better philosophy. One that was constructive, abhored social destruction. One that FOLLOWED, rather than tried to legislate for, human nature.

If you mean what you say, 'Lemongrass', then I've high hopes for you. I hope you stick with this forum !yep. Godwin's law...playing the Godwin card...it's the same thing. I don't deal in hyperbole. Again, it's just marginalizing whatever point one hoped to make. Obama is not worse than Hitler, liberalism isn't a disease and nothing actually comes to mind when I think, "what is worse than slavery." And thank you for the warm welcome. I understand I'm in the minority around here so I'll try hard to not wear out my welcome.

[Kathianne]

http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/is-thinking-now-obsolete/
I merged the two threads so that comments could all be caught.

[Drummond]

yep. Godwin's law...playing the Godwin card...it's the same thing. I don't deal in hyperbole. Again, it's just marginalizing whatever point one hoped to make. Obama is not worse than Hitler, liberalism isn't a disease and nothing actually comes to mind when I think, "what is worse than slavery." And thank you for the warm welcome. I understand I'm in the minority around here so I'll try hard to not wear out my welcome.

No worries ! Besides, if you're as free a thinker as you seem to suggest you are, then whatever liberalism you identify with may just prove to be a merely temporary aberration.

Of course, I could be very wrong about that. But still, I learned to break away from it and do better. If I can ... anybody can ! We shall see.

You say Obama is not worse than Hitler. OK .. I've no argument to counter that, not as such. But then, I'm British. I don't discount the possibility that if I were an American Conservative, I might well challenge that ...

I agree with you that liberalism is NOT a disease, and I do so unreservedly. No, my belief is that it's a form of political insanity.

This is surely easy to prove ?

Political systems, or philosophies, are surely meant to serve individuals in Society ? And .. surely, that requires the necessity of a certain lockstep effect in following human nature ?

Human nature is, to a great degree, self-seeking. It matters to individuals that they prosper, are comfortable in life, that they strive, they achieve, for themselves and their loved ones. Importance of 'self' is universal.

Conservatism values the individual. It can be the political backbone behind such hopes and ambitions.

But, what is Socialism ? Socialism is the antithesis of all that, and in being such, it works AGAINST human nature ... hence its insanity.

Socialism insists that the State is all-important, that if the State is healthy, so, then, are its citizens. But in deciding that, it sets standards for those citizens, and you are a good little State drone only if you accept what you're told is good.

Enterprise is essentially killed off by such an approach. People are mere cogs in a machine, who think what is 'acceptable', because governing authorities tell them what IS acceptable. A dependency culture is deliberately created, encouraged, its psychology insisted upon.

What you end up with is stagnation experienced by robots, with free thinking only BELIEVED to exist, and that only within tight parameters. And that belief is illusion in any case.

As I say ... INSANITY.

Perhaps I've just described to you what IS worse than slavery. What's worse, I suggest, is to be one without realising you are. Because .. if you can't realise that you are, how can you dream of freedom, or ever hope for it ??

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

No worries ! Besides, if you're as free a thinker as you seem to suggest you are, then whatever liberalism you identify with may just prove to be a merely temporary aberration.

Of course, I could be very wrong about that. But still, I learned to break away from it and do better. If I can ... anybody can ! We shall see.

You say Obama is not worse than Hitler. OK .. I've no argument to counter that, not as such. But then, I'm British. I don't discount the possibility that if I were an American Conservative, I might well challenge that ...

I agree with you that liberalism is NOT a disease, and I do so unreservedly. No, my belief is that it's a form of political insanity.

This is surely easy to prove ?

Political systems, or philosophies, are surely meant to serve individuals in Society ? And .. surely, that requires the necessity of a certain lockstep effect in following human nature ?

Human nature is, to a great degree, self-seeking. It matters to individuals that they prosper, are comfortable in life, that they strive, they achieve, for themselves and their loved ones. Importance of 'self' is universal.

Conservatism values the individual. It can be the political backbone behind such hopes and ambitions.

But, what is Socialism ? Socialism is the antithesis of all that, and in being such, it works AGAINST human nature ... hence its insanity.

Socialism insists that the State is all-important, that if the State is healthy, so, then, are its citizens. But in deciding that, it sets standards for those citizens, and you are a good little State drone only if you accept what you're told is good.

Enterprise is essentially killed off by such an approach. People are mere cogs in a machine, who think what is 'acceptable', because governing authorities tell them what IS acceptable. A dependency culture is deliberately created, encouraged, its psychology insisted upon.

What you end up with is stagnation experienced by robots, with free thinking only BELIEVED to exist, and that only within tight parameters. And that belief is illusion in any case.

As I say ... INSANITY.

Perhaps I've just described to you what IS worse than slavery. What's worse, I suggest, is to be one without realising you are. Because .. if you can't realise that you are, how can you dream of freedom, or ever hope for it ??
Drummond, I think you make valid points and they are, if nothing else, well thought out. But some parts of socialism are valid and are part of American government, not the least of which is Social Security which not only cares for the elderly but the disabled and the orphaned. So neither a complete socialistic nor a complete capitalistic form of government is ever going to be satisfactory. Unfortunately, at the moment, I'm posting from my phone which doesn't allow me to give your post the attention it deserves. I'd like to revisit your post tomorrow when I have a keyboard in front of me. Is that okay with you?

[Kathianne]

Drummond, I think you make valid points and they are, if nothing else, well thought out. But some parts of socialism are valid and are part of American government, not the least of which is Social Security which not only cares for the elderly but the disabled and the orphaned. So neither a complete socialistic nor a complete capitalistic form of government is ever going to be satisfactory. Unfortunately, at the moment, I'm posting from my phone which doesn't allow me to give your post the attention it deserves. I'd like to revisit your post tomorrow when I have a keyboard in front of me. Is that okay with you?

I'd like to hear more from you, before jumping in. I can wait until tomorrow.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

I'd like to hear more from you, before jumping in. I can wait until tomorrow.
Please, chime in. I'm just saying that my responses won't be articulate as I'd like because I'm battling this silly one fingered typing and my auto correct!!!

[SassyLady]

I am a liberal and I don't recognize myself in any of these generalizations. But, on the upside, I don't like the people you described either.

Oh and I think though that someone needs to come up with an expression similar to "The Godwin Card" for when someone claims something is "worse than slavery." Stating that is really self-marginalization of the point you're trying to make.


:hithere:

Love your name! Welcome to DP!

Can we call you Lemon?

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

:hithere:

Love your name! Welcome to DP!

Can we call you Lemon?Thank you! I'm glad you like the name. I, however, keep forgetting how to spell the last name. And yes, you can shorten the name anyway you see fit. :hithere:

Now, I have to turn on my brain and respond to Drummond.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Thanks for that, Red State.

Different societies ... different problems. But common mindsets applied to each ...

Here in the UK, there's a perpetual propaganda war going on. Inroads made tend to lead, if successful, to thoughts and beliefs becoming so 'basic' that they can't be departed from -- which is why full-blown Socialism MUST NOT gain a prolonged foothold.

Take Socialised medicine .. a health service run by the State. We've had that ever since 1948. Acceptance of it over generations means that any politician claiming he'd want to do away with it, or even radically reform it, would be committing political suicide here.

That's despite the fact that - after all this time - it STILL fails people. The scandal at Stafford, for example, where it was estimated that hundreds of people died needlessly. Or the great instance of MRSA outbreaks in many hospitals. Or the fact that, JUST to serve around 60 million people (i.e just a fraction of that number at any one time) .. the NHS has become one of the biggest employers on the planet, absorbing medical personnel from many other countries !

And yet, with all that, the UK still ranks number one in healthcare. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/

The US is last. So, it appears socialized healthcare is better than "for-profit" healthcare. My solution would be to do away with both and have health care covered by non-profit corporations.


Another example .. in Wales, UK. The Welsh Assembly is moving ahead with plans to turn the principle of organ donation on its head. Instead of opting to leave organs for medical need after your death, under new Welsh plans, consent is considered AUTOMATIC unless a person provably OPTS OUT of doing that. In other words .. if it can't be proved that the hapless donor would've objected, then the State plunders whatever it wants.

BUT NOBODY OBJECTS STRONGLY ENOUGH TO CONSIDER SUCH A SYSTEM WORTH OPPOSING .. BECAUSE GENERATIONS OF SOCIALIST CONDITIONING HAVE OBLITERATED SUCH RESISTANCE.

I have no idea how that's considered socialism, but it most certainly is a violation of privacy. And, I have to admit that my knowledge of politics in the UK is abysmal and mostly comes from listening to the Clash, so I'm not really comfortable commenting further.


Socialism doesn't value the individual. Rather, Socialism considers the individual as just raw material for utilisation as diktat sees fit. Socialsts are too busy thinking in terms of 'State ownership' to care a damn about individual rights.

And you're meant to adopt standards which Socialists REQUIRE you to believe in. Object to open immigration .. you can be accused of racism. Publicly-expressed outright opposition to Islam is tantamount to 'hatespeech', actionable in law.

Under Socialism, if it dominates for long enough, your own thoughts aren't actually your own at all, even though you think they are. Sustained propaganda and conditioning over generations makes them become an artificial creation determined FOR you, whether or not you're aware of it.

Our CONSERVATIVE Prime Minister says he 'loves' our NHS. He dare not think the opposite.

First of all, I'm a liberal, not a socialist. I don't even own a "Che" t-shirt. However, with that being said, I do believe a country has the right to have access to their natural resources and, if they elect a government that chooses to return those resources to the people, corporations should be respectful of that. Do you think it was right when the US, through overt and covert CIA operations, destabilized the government of Chile to the point where a military junta was able to overthrow Salvadore Allende and install a military dictatorship when the main reason for that destabilization was so that Anaconda Copper,a US corporation, could continue to own Chile's copper mines? How about when they did the same thing in Guatemala in the name of United Fruit? I don't believe US corporations have a right to the natural resources of another country, so to that extent, I guess you could call me a socialist.

Here in the US, as I stated earlier, we have some socialist policies blended in with a mostly capitalistic economy. But those policies aren't what is hurting our economy. NAFTA and CAFTA killed our economy and caused a race to the bottom in labor and environmental standards. We don't make anything any longer and we are addicted to buying cheap shit made in Asia.

[Drummond]

Drummond, I think you make valid points and they are, if nothing else, well thought out.

Many thanks !


But some parts of socialism are valid and are part of American government, not the least of which is Social Security which not only cares for the elderly but the disabled and the orphaned.

I find it hard to argue against any of that (.. to what extent this may be as a result of being 'conditioned' by my own environment, I'm unsure ..).

That said, 'Socialised' healthcare, or socialised provision for citizen care ... even if it is to occur, and is seen as preferable and necessary, it DOES need to be capped at a minimum level. Go too far to create a 'welfare State', and you create a dependence culture which saps any drive to stand on your own two feet ... this creating a 'double whammy' against the economy (taking from State funds, with the expectation of being a continuing drain on such funds, and contributing NOTHING by way of balance).

We see this, in spades, in the UK. We have people who play the system, exploiting whatever they can .. and they're so successful at it that they live a life of leisure, contributing nothing, taking all they can get, and they've done it for ALL OF THEIR LIVES).

Socialism creates and encourages such a culture .. just one of a whole plethora of ways that they rot a system from within.


So neither a complete socialistic nor a complete capitalistic form of government is ever going to be satisfactory.

I suppose I can accept that -- there needs to be a safety net for those genuinely unable to make their way without one .. be it through age, infirmity, long-standing illness. BUT IT MUSTN'T BE TAKEN TOO FAR, otherwise the 'rot' sets in, in the way I've described.


Unfortunately, at the moment, I'm posting from my phone which doesn't allow me to give your post the attention it deserves. I'd like to revisit your post tomorrow when I have a keyboard in front of me. Is that okay with you?

I am often here only sparingly myself .. just post as and when you need, or want to.

And may I say this .. thus far, it's been a pleasure to debate with you !! There are those of a Left-wing persuasion who'd resort to all manner of gimmickry in order to score points, fair debate being far from their minds. It's good to debate with someone wanting a fair exchange of perspective for the sake of it !!

Best wishes, and welcome again to this forum !

[tailfins]

I suppose I can accept that -- there needs to be a safety net for those genuinely unable to make their way without one .. be it through age, infirmity, long-standing illness. BUT IT MUSTN'T BE TAKEN TOO FAR, otherwise the 'rot' sets in, in the way I've described.

Says who? The founders intended the churches to fulfill that role.

[Kathianne]

And yet, with all that, the UK still ranks number one in healthcare. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/

The US is last. So, it appears socialized healthcare is better than "for-profit" healthcare. My solution would be to do away with both and have health care covered by non-profit corporations.



I have no idea how that's considered socialism, but it most certainly is a violation of privacy. And, I have to admit that my knowledge of politics in the UK is abysmal and mostly comes from listening to the Clash, so I'm not really comfortable commenting further.



First of all, I'm a liberal, not a socialist. I don't even own a "Che" t-shirt. However, with that being said, I do believe a country has the right to have access to their natural resources and, if they elect a government that chooses to return those resources to the people, corporations should be respectful of that. Do you think it was right when the US, through overt and covert CIA operations, destabilized the government of Chile to the point where a military junta was able to overthrow Salvadore Allende and install a military dictatorship when the main reason for that destabilization was so that Anaconda Copper,a US corporation, could continue to own Chile's copper mines? How about when they did the same thing in Guatemala in the name of United Fruit? I don't believe US corporations have a right to the natural resources of another country, so to that extent, I guess you could call me a socialist.

Here in the US, as I stated earlier, we have some socialist policies blended in with a mostly capitalistic economy. But those policies aren't what is hurting our economy. NAFTA and CAFTA killed our economy and caused a race to the bottom in labor and environmental standards. We don't make anything any longer and we are addicted to buying cheap shit made in Asia.

I'm conservative, bordering on libertarian. You're quite correct that we have a mix of socialism and capitalism, in the past decade the former is overtaking the later.

You mentioned social security as an example of socialism part of our mixed economy. You mentioned that it 'cares for' the elderly, widowed, orphaned, and disabled, (I maybe overstating your list, but I'm short on time right now.)

Social security is a perfect example of why socialism is not necessarily a good component, indeed a growing drag on the middle class. What started out in the 30's as something that people put into for additional security in their old age, has morphed into an income gobbling portion of workers earnings. It has been raided repeatedly by Congress, both major parties participated. Like school funding at the more local level, too much is being expected outside of what is reasonable. Add to the fact that most people don't have time to scrutinize the spending, it's morphed out of control.

We've gone from Lincoln's first introduction of an income tax to FDR's Social Security to the federal government inserting itself into warnings on buckets to telling employers that they are responsible for employees birth control. Way too much government.

Now the question of 'who cares for the elderly; disabled; orphans; etc? Well that certainly is worth a discussion, believe me I don't want to leave the helpless to fend for themselves. On the other hand, there were and could be much better ways to address their needs if the government let those that can do, do so.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Now the question of 'who cares for the elderly; disabled; orphans; etc? Well that certainly is worth a discussion, believe me I don't want to leave the helpless to fend for themselves. On the other hand, there were and could be much better ways to address their needs if the government let those that can do, do so.


Says who? The founders intended the churches to fulfill that role.

Kathianne, I'm not going to argue with your issues regarding Social Security because you are correct in pointing out the imperfections in the system. But my question to both of you is, do you really believe churches and/or people can/will provide for those who are in need if government would simply get out of the way?

Can you name an industrialized nation where this is happening? And, if so, is it working?

[Kathianne]

Kathianne, I'm not going to argue with your issues regarding Social Security because you are correct in pointing out the imperfections in the system. But my question to both of you is, do you really believe churches and/or people can/will provide for those who are in need if government would simply get out of the way?

Can you name an industrialized nation where this is happening? And, if so, is it working?

I think that for most elderly in the long ago past, longer now than anyone I know has been alive, family and churches did a pretty good job. However, that would discount those without either. That to me seems where something like social security would be a good plan, however I've never agreed with the mandatory part.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

I think that for most elderly in the long ago past, longer now than anyone I know has been alive, family and churches did a pretty good job. However, that would discount those without either. That to me seems where something like social security would be a good plan, however I've never agreed with the mandatory part.

Even if you remove mandatory social security for the elderly and privatize that part of it, how would you suggest society care for the needs of the disabled and the orphaned?

We have this incredible homeless problem in our country where a majority of the homeless are mentally disabled and way too many of whom are veterans of the military. The churches, private charities and the government combined have made barely a dent in this problem. So, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that removing a social safety net as opposed to actually fixing it is going to help make the problem go away.

[Drummond]

Says who? The founders intended the churches to fulfill that role.

Interesting, if true.

Well ... that's one solution that, so far as I know, has never been thought of here (certainly not in modern times, anyway). I'd be surprised if it could work in this day and age. Still .... do I know for a fact that it couldn't ?

I have my doubts - although it's a nice idea ...

[Drummond]

My second attempt at a reply. One aggravating feature of this forum is that, if you draft a long reply, it can be 'timed out' before you try to save the post. THIS time, I'll save the text before trying .....


And yet, with all that, the UK still ranks number one in healthcare. http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/

I'm aware of stats like this. But I question whether all relevant factors are considered when compiling them.

In the UK's example, we've had 'spectacular' failures occur in recent years. The NHS healthcare trust covering Stafford provided 'healthcare' in one of its hospitals which led to literally HUNDREDS of avoidable deaths. And it's not the only such example of scandalous healthcare.

I really have to question whether Forbes took any of that into consideration !


The US is last. So, it appears socialized healthcare is better than "for-profit" healthcare.

For the reason I've given, I have severe doubts about that.


My solution would be to do away with both and have health care covered by non-profit corporations.

That is basically how our NHS is currently structured !! It was the healthcare trust governing Stafford, a largely autonomous entity run on a 'not for profit' basis, which so failed its people !!!

Trouble was, all such trusts have Government legislation and Government overseeing bodies providing a measure of supervision. Which in that case - and others - FAILED.


I have no idea how that's considered socialism, but it most certainly is a violation of privacy. And, I have to admit that my knowledge of politics in the UK is abysmal and mostly comes from listening to the Clash, so I'm not really comfortable commenting further.

I'm happy to give you whatever guidance you may need. I'll correct you whenever it proves necessary. Just post away, and see what comes of it ...

Conservatism respects the individual. Socialism does NOT. In Socialist terms, it's the State that matters, with the good of 'the masses' far outweighing individual rights. Indeed, Socialists work to govern what 'rights' they are pleased to confer. And if that wasn't bad enough, they prop the effort up by propaganda efforts designed to teach what their people should think, and consider 'right'.

In the case of Wales, and its drive to institute 'opt out', not 'opt in' organ donations ... the authorities said that they needed to ensure a plentiful supply of organs for surgical needs. Hence ... their 'opt out' imperative, introduced in the belief that many people might not bother to register their official opposition to having their bodies plundered after death !! Besides ... there could, theoretically, be cases where such lack of approval couldn't be established. No proof of that .. none presumed to exist.

You call it a violation ? Interesting. Because, to our Socialists, its citizens are just cogs in a bigger machine, they're available raw material. What makes this Socialist is the total lack of consideration of the importance of the individual AS ONE.

This is how abuses can be sanctioned, be seen as 'normal'. Fail to recognise the worth of the individual ... and anything's possible ... no matter how dire.

Oh, one thing. For the sake of clarity, let me add this: though we have a Coalition run by Conservatives and LibDems, Wales has a separate governing body called the Welsh Assembly. It has limited autonomy of its own, but that includes the right to determine organ donation procedures.

The Welsh Assembly has a LABOUR (i.e SOCIALIST) MAJORITY, RUNNING IT.


First of all, I'm a liberal, not a socialist.

I struggle to perceive the difference. I just see one as a watered-down version of the other. Indeed .. back in 2010, it came as something of a shock when our LibDems failed to keep Labour in power, folllowing our 'hung Parliament', where no major Party could command a working majority in Parliament. Gordon Brown hung on to power for a week after the election, refusing to move out of 10 Downing Street, keeping the UK politically paralysed while he tried again and again to do a power-sharing agreement with the Liberals.

In the end, the LibDems sided with the Conservatives. Nick Clegg, their Leader, couldn't bring himself to trust Brown .... not after the almighty mess his Party had left us with .....


However, with that being said, I do believe a country has the right to have access to their natural resources and, if they elect a government that chooses to return those resources to the people, corporations should be respectful of that.

Call this what it truly is ... NATIONALISATION.

Nationalisation is the means whereby businesses and corporations are thieved by the authorities governing the countries where they're unfortunate enough to be doing business at the time.


Do you think it was right when the US, through overt and covert CIA operations, destabilized the government of Chile to the point where a military junta was able to overthrow Salvadore Allende and install a military dictatorship when the main reason for that destabilization was so that Anaconda Copper,a US corporation, could continue to own Chile's copper mines?

Well, do YOU think there was anything 'right' about Allende ?!?

See ....

http://www.conservapedia.com/Salvador_Allende


Salvador Allende was was born July 26, 1908, in Valparaiso. Allende was a member of the Socialist Party of Chile.

Allende, representing a coalition of Marxist parties, came to power in 1970 after narrowly beating his closest opponent with 36.3 percent of the vote. Allende was outspoken in his intent to dramatically "transform" Chile according to socialist principles, which concerned moderate voters and politicians. The Chilean Congress voted to give Allende the presidency, in accordance with run-off rules in place at the time, but required Allende to sign a special statement promising that his reforms would always respect the constitution.

During his government, Allende instituted a plan called "La vía chilena al socialismo" which lead to widespread disruption of the Chilean economy. Like Hitler's theft of of Jewish property, upon assuming power Allende expropriated private sector business, middle class and bourgeois property rights. The media wrote extensively of his failures. He "nationalized" many industries. Strikes and shutdowns caused massive inflation and unrest, and the conservative-controlled Chilean Congress sought to reject Allende's proposals whenever possible, causing considerable political gridlock.

US intelligence reports implicated Allende in the assassination of several opponents, while KGB files smuggled out of Russia by Vasily Mitrokhin indicate that Allende received funds from the Soviet Union. Allende was formally condemned by Chile's parliament for systematically destroying democracy in Chile. The Chilean Chamber of Deputies Resolution of August 22, 1973, accused Allende of support of armed groups, torture, illegal arrests, muzzling the press, confiscating private property, and not allowing people to leave the country.

As we'd say over here .... 'What a lovely fella' .... !!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Obviously, that country was a LOT better off once Allende disappeared from the scene !!


How about when they did the same thing in Guatemala in the name of United Fruit? I don't believe US corporations have a right to the natural resources of another country, so to that extent, I guess you could call me a socialist.

I'll call you a Socialist if you really insist, though I'm loathe to gratuitously insult anybody ...:eek:

What about the elected leaders not having the right to abuse their own citizens for the sake of power-grabs ???


Here in the US, as I stated earlier, we have some socialist policies blended in with a mostly capitalistic economy. But those policies aren't what is hurting our economy. NAFTA and CAFTA killed our economy and caused a race to the bottom in labor and environmental standards. We don't make anything any longer and we are addicted to buying cheap shit made in Asia.

Well, for my money, you have a Socialist-in-Chief who works every day to hurt your economy !!! Didn't Government functions have to shut down last year, thanks to a lack of funds being available to pay Government employees ? AND .. didn't it all stem from Obama's bullying tactics, trying to force through yet MORE borrowing ???

But I'll give America its due. In 2008, when the global banking crisis hit, you did at least VOTE for big bailout packages. Here in the UK, we had our own Socialists in charge, led by Gordon Brown. Here -- Socialists have had considerably more experience in being power-mad freaks. Brown didn't bother with a vote, and few expected him to. No, Brown just ORDERED the expenditure of BILLIONS of pounds of PUBLIC money to prop banks up.

Here, Socialists have had several decades of practice when it comes to wielding power. My suggestion ... study how UK Socialists behave, if you want an object-lesson in the true control-freaking nature of unrestrained Socialism !!!

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

My second attempt at a reply. One aggravating feature of this forum is that, if you draft a long reply, it can be 'timed out' before you try to save the post. THIS time, I'll save the text before trying .....



I'm aware of stats like this. But I question whether all relevant factors are considered when compiling them.

In the UK's example, we've had 'spectacular' failures occur in recent years. The NHS healthcare trust covering Stafford provided 'healthcare' in one of its hospitals which led to literally HUNDREDS of avoidable deaths. And it's not the only such example of scandalous healthcare.

I really have to question whether Forbes took any of that into consideration !



For the reason I've given, I have severe doubts about that.



That is basically how our NHS is currently structured !! It was the healthcare trust governing Stafford, a largely autonomous entity run on a 'not for profit' basis, which so failed its people !!!

Trouble was, all such trusts have Government legislation and Government overseeing bodies providing a measure of supervision. Which in that case - and others - FAILED.



I'm happy to give you whatever guidance you may need. I'll correct you whenever it proves necessary. Just post away, and see what comes of it ...

Conservatism respects the individual. Socialism does NOT. In Socialist terms, it's the State that matters, with the good of 'the masses' far outweighing individual rights. Indeed, Socialists work to govern what 'rights' they are pleased to confer. And if that wasn't bad enough, they prop the effort up by propaganda efforts designed to teach what their people should think, and consider 'right'.

In the case of Wales, and its drive to institute 'opt out', not 'opt in' organ donations ... the authorities said that they needed to ensure a plentiful supply of organs for surgical needs. Hence ... their 'opt out' imperative, introduced in the belief that many people might not bother to register their official opposition to having their bodies plundered after death !! Besides ... there could, theoretically, be cases where such lack of approval couldn't be established. No proof of that .. none presumed to exist.

You call it a violation ? Interesting. Because, to our Socialists, its citizens are just cogs in a bigger machine, they're available raw material. What makes this Socialist is the total lack of consideration of the importance of the individual AS ONE.

This is how abuses can be sanctioned, be seen as 'normal'. Fail to recognise the worth of the individual ... and anything's possible ... no matter how dire.



I struggle to perceive the difference. I just see one as a watered-down version of the other. Indeed .. back in 2010, it came as something of a shock when our LibDems failed to keep Labour in power, folllowing our 'hung Parliament', where no major Party could command a working majority in Parliament. Gordon Brown hung on to power for a week after the election, refusing to move out of 10 Downing Street, keeping the UK politically paralysed while he tried again and again
to do a power-sharing agreement with the Liberals.

In the end, the LibDems sided with the Conservatives. Nick Clegg, their Leader, couldn't bring himself to trust Brown .... not after the almighty mess his Party had left us with .....



Call this what it truly is ... NATIONALISATION.

Nationalisation is the means whereby businesses and corporations are thieved by the authorities governing the countries where they're unfortunate enough to be doing business at the time.



Well, do YOU think there was anything 'right' about Allende ?!?

See ....

http://www.conservapedia.com/Salvador_Allende



As we'd say over here .... 'What a lovely fella' .... !!! :rolleyes::rolleyes:

Obviously, that country was a LOT better off once Allende disappeared from the scene !!



I'll call you a Socialist if you really insist, though I'm loathe to gratuitously insult anybody ...:eek:

What about the elected leaders not having the right to abuse their own citizens for the sake of power-grabs ???



Well, for my money, you have a Socialist-in-Chief who works every day to hurt your economy !!! Didn't Government functions have to shut down last year, thanks to a lack of funds being available to pay Government employees ? AND .. didn't it all stem from Obama's bullying tactics, trying to force through yet MORE borrowing ???

But I'll give America its due. In 2008, when the global banking crisis hit, you did at least VOTE for big bailout packages. Here in the UK, we had our own Socialists in charge, led by Gordon Brown. Here -- Socialists have had considerably more experience in being power-mad freaks. Brown didn't bother with a vote, and few expected him to. No, Brown just ORDERED the expenditure of BILLIONS of pounds of PUBLIC money to prop banks up.

Here, Socialists have had several decades of practice when it comes to wielding power. My suggestion ... study how UK Socialists behave, if you want an object-lesson in the true control-freaking nature of unrestrained Socialism !!!

Allende was the duly elected President of a sovereign nation. And I believe the relatives of the 30,000 who were killed in the Santiago Stadium, not to mention the countless others who were tortured and/or "disappeared" under Pinochet's regime, would disagree with your assertion that things were better off without Allende.

It's funny that you say that, too because I'm guessing that you might be one of those people who claim Sadaam Hussein needed to be deposed because he was a "brutal dictator." I'll apologize if I'm wrong.

Also, "Nationalism" involves identifying with a nation and being loyal to it. Wanting the natural resources of a nation to belong to the people instead of American corporations is socialism. You do realize that Alaska shares its oil revenues with the citizens of Alaska, right? How is that any different than what Allende or Arbenz wanted for their people?

And finally, I don't consider "conservapedia" to be any more of a reliable source than you would if I used dailykos for a source. If you want to really understand what happened in Chile, you might want to read Peter Rosenbluth's book on the subject. He includes a lot of actual documents. Or this: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ Personally, I prefer to read documents and draw my own conclusions.

[Drummond]

Allende was the duly elected President of a sovereign nation.

Fair enough ... as far as that goes. But, when you consider what Allende got up to when given the power to perpetrate it .. you surely have to question whether his people truly, knowingly, voted for THAT.

If a leader leads his electorate to believe he'll offer one brand of leadership, then behaves radically differently once he gets the opportunity, can't it be said that the power exercised has been abused, the trust of the electorate ditto, and so he's demonstrably UNFIT FOR OFFICE ?


And I believe the relatives of the 30,000 who were killed in the Santiago Stadium, not to mention the countless others who were tortured and/or "disappeared" under Pinochet's regime, would disagree with your assertion that things were better off without Allende.

Well, even if I take this on board without question, I'm not at all sure which of the two could be said to be worse.

On Pinochet, though .. did he stand trial, and were such charges ever proven against him ?


It's funny that you say that, too because I'm guessing that you might be one of those people who claim Sadaam Hussein needed to be deposed because he was a "brutal dictator." I'll apologize if I'm wrong.

Don't apologise !!! I am EXACTLY one of those people, and proudly so.

... though that was not the reason, was it ? Saddam defied the UN, he defied world opinion, he refused to show he had no WMD's, as UN Resolution 1441 required. Saddam's removal was absolutely necessary.


Also, "Nationalism" involves identifying with a nation and being loyal to it. Wanting the natural resources of a nation to belong to the people instead of American corporations is socialism.

Interesting, that.

Did you know that your description could readily be applied to Adolf Hitler ??

Hitler identified with the German nation, and was loyal to it (... more precisely, he demanded that THEY be loyal to HIM ... just the other side of the same coin). And did you know, Hitler embarked on his own extensive programme of nationalisation ?

I believe your own argument has to lead to an acceptance that Hitler should've never been deposed.

Do you agree ? OR, are there occasionally higher imperatives demanding that a greater justice wins the day ?


You do realize that Alaska shares its oil revenues with the citizens of Alaska, right?

I wasn't - thanks for the information.

Did Obama insist on the nationalisation of all oil companies operating in that State ?


How is that any different than what Allende or Arbenz wanted for their people?

I suspect that a 'NO' answer to my above question might help show a difference.

But tell me. Is Obama receiving funds from the Russians ?

Has Obama ordered the assassination of 'several of his opponents' ?

'Give him time', I hear you cry ....


And finally, I don't consider "conservapedia" to be any more of a reliable source than you would if I used dailykos for a source. If you want to really understand what happened in Chile, you might want to read Peter Rosenbluth's book on the subject. He includes a lot of actual documents. Or this: http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/ Personally, I prefer to read documents and draw my own conclusions.

Thanks for that.

Nonetheless, if you question the Conservapedia account on Allende ... perhaps you could set us all straight ? How did Conservapedia not report factually about Allende ? Can you cite any examples of inaccuracies ?

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

Fair enough ... as far as that goes. But, when you consider what Allende got up to when given the power to perpetrate it .. you surely have to question whether his people truly, knowingly, voted for THAT.

If a leader leads his electorate to believe he'll offer one brand of leadership, then behaves radically differently once he gets the opportunity, can't it be said that the power exercised has been abused, the trust of the electorate ditto, and so he's demonstrably UNFIT FOR OFFICE ?

That's what elections are for. And the people didn't try and overthrow Allende. The CIA did.



Well, even if I take this on board without question, I'm not at all sure which of the two could be said to be worse.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-1973-chilean-military-coup-remembering-the-other-september-11/5348672


On Pinochet, though .. did he stand trial, and were such charges ever proven against him ?

He was declared unfit to stand trial. http://www.globalissues.org/article/493/icc-the-pinochet-case


Don't apologise !!! I am EXACTLY one of those people, and proudly so.

... though that was not the reason, was it ? Saddam defied the UN, he defied world opinion, he refused to show he had no WMD's, as UN Resolution 1441 required. Saddam's removal was absolutely necessary.

I guess it all depends on who the son of a bitch is loyal to when it comes to determining whether or not they should remain in power.



Interesting, that.

Did you know that your description could readily be applied to Adolf Hitler ??

Hitler identified with the German nation, and was loyal to it (... more precisely, he demanded that THEY be loyal to HIM ... just the other side of the same coin). And did you know, Hitler embarked on his own extensive programme of nationalisation ?

I believe your own argument has to lead to an acceptance that Hitler should've never been deposed. I don't think I said that at all. I questioned your definition of "nationalism." And yes, Pre-WWII Germany was a very nationalistic society.


Do you agree ? OR, are there occasionally higher imperatives demanding that a greater justice wins the day ?


I think we disagree on who gets to be the arbiter of what constitutes a higher imperative.


Did Obama insist on the nationalisation of all oil companies operating in that State ?

I suspect that a 'NO' answer to my above question might help show a difference.

But tell me. Is Obama receiving funds from the Russians ?

I'm really not sure the point you are trying to make with these questions.


Has Obama ordered the assassination of 'several of his opponents' ? Under laws enacted under the Ford and Reagan administrations, that is not legal.


Nonetheless, if you question the Conservapedia account on Allende ... perhaps you could set us all straight ? How did Conservapedia not report factually about Allende ? Can you cite any examples of inaccuracies ?

I'm not seeing where they addressed US involvement nor where they addressed Nixon stating the US would "make their economy scream." http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm I also don't believe they addressed the US's cutting off of loans to Chile and the US threatening other countries who did provide loans. Here: https://archive.org/details/Covert-Action-In-Chile-1963-1973 I've attached a copy of the official report issued by the House Intelligence Committee on the subject. It's a much less biased source than "conservapedia."

[NightTrain]

You do realize that Alaska shares its oil revenues with the citizens of Alaska, right? How is that any different than what Allende or Arbenz wanted for their people?

Well... that's very over simplified.

Back in 1969, the North Slope was being developed and politicians blew $900,000,000 from the leasing of the oil fields. That was a hell of a lot of money back then and it pissed people off. I think everyone can relate to politicians being irresponsible with large amounts of money.

The resources of Alaska, such as oil, belong to to us - the citizens of Alaska. We lease the fields to oil companies and they sell it. The State gets a cut of the proceeds.

A portion of those oil revenues are put into a pool of money, and then it's diversely invested in real estate, stock markets, etc. The people that run the fund are top notch and have grown the fund to almost $50 Billion.

The checks that we as Alaskans receive annually are a portion of the earnings of the invested money based on the last 5-year average.
So while the money did originate from the oil fields, the actual money Alaskans get are directly from the investments' earnings. Sometimes the checks are a few hundred bucks, sometimes they're over $2,000 - it all depends on how well the stock market did and when the economy tanks, we can and have lost billions.

There's been talk every few years of the State taking over the oil fields, usually driven from our displeasure at paying over $4 per gallon for gas when we produce it here, but it never goes anywhere.

The oil fields and production of oil in Alaska are completely privately run - there's no socialist oil development & production in Alaska.

[Drummond]

No comments to counter 'Conservapedia', then ? Should we take it that their account was perfectly accurate ?


That's what elections are for. And the people didn't try and overthrow Allende. The CIA did.

Oh, I thought it was Pinochet who deposed Allende ?

My understanding is that Pinochet had American backing, but that it was Pinochet who did the actual deposing.

But ... well, the Hitler parallel again comes to mind. Did 'the German people' try to overthrow Hitler ?

Perhaps, then, Hitler shouldn't have been defeated, and especially by foreigners !! After all ... even Hitler first rose to power following an election victory !!

http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007671


Hitler was a powerful and spellbinding speaker who attracted a wide following of Germans desperate for change. He promised the disenchanted a better life and a new and glorious Germany. The Nazis appealed especially to the unemployed, young people, and members of the lower middle class (small store owners, office employees, craftsmen, and farmers).

The party's rise to power was rapid. Before the economic depression struck, the Nazis were practically unknown, winning only 3 percent of the vote to the Reichstag (German parliament) in elections in 1924. In the 1932 elections, the Nazis won 33 percent of the votes, more than any other party. In January 1933 Hitler was appointed chancellor, the head of the German government, and many Germans believed that they had found a savior for their nation ...

I wonder how much of this could also have been said to be true of Allende ?

And don't forget Hitler's nationalisation programme ...

The lesson is clear. Once a nation elects a Leader to power, foreign nations shouldn't ever take it upon themselves to arrange his defeat. Therefore .. Hitler should never have been opposed. Certainly not by the Americans.

Do you agree with that suggestion ?

I fail to see how you can do anything other than agree with that proposition ! It IS where your argument leads you.


He was declared unfit to stand trial.

... meaning, therefore, that accusations against Pinochet never did receive a viable, legal challenge from a court.


I guess it all depends on who the son of a bitch is loyal to when it comes to determining whether or not they should remain in power.

Like so many despots, Saddam was loyal to HIMSELF.

Ditto Hitler.

Likewise Stalin. Pol Pot. Castro .. Lefties like that. Power seekers, all ... and all enjoying the good wishes of their people.

Tell me. Do you lament that Saddam wasn't able to hang on to power ? What's your position on his defiance of the UN ? The wars he picked ? His dictatorship ? The people he had killed and tortured ? The 'rape rooms' ?

There are times when foreign interventions serve a greater good and are eminently supportable. The example of Saddam most definitely qualifies.

And consider the circumstances of Gulf War #1 ....


I don't think I said that at all. I questioned your definition of "nationalism." And yes, Pre-WWII Germany was a very nationalistic society.

Yes, wasn't it ? After all, under Hitler, they were ruled by the 'National Socialist Party' [Nazi], and wholesale nationalisation WAS ordered .... products of 'nationalism' ?


I think we disagree on who gets to be the arbiter of what constitutes a higher imperative.

Evidently we do.

Do you think that America should stayed out of World War II ... maybe left Europe to the tender mercies of the Third Reich ?

And should America not have been the arbiter of their right to decide whether any higher imperative to intervene applied ?

I suggest to you that there are times when it is RIGHT and JUST to intervene, not least in the name of humanitarianism. And that America had her own right to decide what she did.


I'm really not sure the point you are trying to make with these questions.

I question the parallel you've tried to draw. Allende's nationalisation programme ... just as with Hitler's, come to think of it ... saw their central Government, the Government governing each nation, thieve public Companies FROM, AND BY, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. But you introduced Alaska into this ... so I questioned the closeness of the parallel, and whether it actually WAS one.


Under laws enacted under the Ford and Reagan administrations, that is not legal.

Good.

Still, Obama isn't a stranger to bulldozing his own path .. and he's made Constitutionally questionable decisions, as a number of fellow Forum members would also argue ...


I'm not seeing where they addressed US involvement nor where they addressed Nixon stating the US would "make their economy scream."

You're claiming omissions ? I was questioning INACCURACIES.

You have none to report ?

[Drummond]

Well... that's very over simplified.

Back in 1969, the North Slope was being developed and politicians blew $900,000,000 from the leasing of the oil fields. That was a hell of a lot of money back then and it pissed people off. I think everyone can relate to politicians being irresponsible with large amounts of money.

The resources of Alaska, such as oil, belong to to us - the citizens of Alaska. We lease the fields to oil companies and they sell it. The State gets a cut of the proceeds.

A portion of those oil revenues are put into a pool of money, and then it's diversely invested in real estate, stock markets, etc. The people that run the fund are top notch and have grown the fund to almost $50 Billion.

The checks that we as Alaskans receive annually are a portion of the earnings of the invested money based on the last 5-year average.
So while the money did originate from the oil fields, the actual money Alaskans get are directly from the investments' earnings. Sometimes the checks are a few hundred bucks, sometimes they're over $2,000 - it all depends on how well the stock market did and when the economy tanks, we can and have lost billions.

There's been talk every few years of the State taking over the oil fields, usually driven from our displeasure at paying over $4 per gallon for gas when we produce it here, but it never goes anywhere.

The oil fields and production of oil in Alaska are completely privately run - there's no socialist oil development & production in Alaska.

So, it seems evident that what happens in Alaska is NOT the same as Allende's own Nationalisation programme. Thanks for the clarification.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

No comments to counter 'Conservapedia', then ? Should we take it that their account was perfectly accurate ?



Oh, I thought it was Pinochet who deposed Allende ?

My understanding is that Pinochet had American backing, but that it was Pinochet who did the actual deposing.

But ... well, the Hitler parallel again comes to mind. Did 'the German people' try to overthrow Hitler ?

Perhaps, then, Hitler shouldn't have been defeated, and especially by foreigners !! After all ... even Hitler first rose to power following an election victory !!

http://www.ushmm.org/outreach/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007671



I wonder how much of this could also have been said to be true of Allende ?

And don't forget Hitler's nationalisation programme ...

The lesson is clear. Once a nation elects a Leader to power, foreign nations shouldn't ever take it upon themselves to arrange his defeat. Therefore .. Hitler should never have been opposed. Certainly not by the Americans.

Do you agree with that suggestion ?

I fail to see how you can do anything other than agree with that proposition ! It IS where your argument leads you.



... meaning, therefore, that accusations against Pinochet never did receive a viable, legal challenge from a court.



Like so many despots, Saddam was loyal to HIMSELF.

Ditto Hitler.

Likewise Stalin. Pol Pot. Castro .. Lefties like that. Power seekers, all ... and all enjoying the good wishes of their people.

Tell me. Do you lament that Saddam wasn't able to hang on to power ? What's your position on his defiance of the UN ? The wars he picked ? His dictatorship ? The people he had killed and tortured ? The 'rape rooms' ?

There are times when foreign interventions serve a greater good and are eminently supportable. The example of Saddam most definitely qualifies.

And consider the circumstances of Gulf War #1 ....



Yes, wasn't it ? After all, under Hitler, they were ruled by the 'National Socialist Party' [Nazi], and wholesale nationalisation WAS ordered .... products of 'nationalism' ?



Evidently we do.

Do you think that America should stayed out of World War II ... maybe left Europe to the tender mercies of the Third Reich ?

And should America not have been the arbiter of their right to decide whether any higher imperative to intervene applied ?

I suggest to you that there are times when it is RIGHT and JUST to intervene, not least in the name of humanitarianism. And that America had her own right to decide what she did.



I question the parallel you've tried to draw. Allende's nationalisation programme ... just as with Hitler's, come to think of it ... saw their central Government, the Government governing each nation, thieve public Companies FROM, AND BY, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. But you introduced Alaska into this ... so I questioned the closeness of the parallel, and whether it actually WAS one.



Good.

Still, Obama isn't a stranger to bulldozing his own path .. and he's made Constitutionally questionable decisions, as a number of fellow Forum members would also argue ...



You're claiming omissions ? I was questioning INACCURACIES.

You have none to report ?

Omitting key information does make it inaccurate. The article discusses the Chilean economy under Allende, but does not even bother to mention US involvement. And most of the article is simply speculation without any actual evidence. Again, for a complete and accurate understanding of what happened, I suggest the Church Report as opposed to a source that outs itself as being biased right in its name.

I have no idea why you are insisting on comparing Allende to Hitler when it was Pinochet who more closely resembled him. It was Pinochet who had people tortured and killed in the Santiago Stadium. It was Pinochet who would have stood trial for crimes against humanity. Also, I simply said that Allende was the duly elected President and that if the people didn't like him, they didn't have to vote for him again. Hitler was a dictator. The people had no choice. And, the last time I checked, Allende didn't kill his own people or invade any foreign nation. I also never said that US should never intervene. I'm saying that this wasn't one of those times.

And I'm unsure as to how anyone can believe the people of Iraq are better off today than they were when Saddam Hussein was their leader given the current situation.

Oh and one more thing - if you insist on bolding your points and using all caps, I consider that you are e-screaming at me and the conversation will be over.

[Lemongrass Gogulope]

So, it seems evident that what happens in Alaska is NOT the same as Allende's own Nationalisation programme. Thanks for the clarification.
It's similar in that the people of Alaska benefit from the natural resources of the country. The Chilean people should have the same rights with regard to their copper.

[jimnyc]

Oh and one more thing - if you insist on bolding your points and using all caps, I consider that you are e-screaming at me and the conversation will be over.

Oh man, you are going to HATE me! I don't bold, but I often capitalize a word entirely for effect. I try to type exactly how it sounds in my head. I do it when talking football too, so I hope it's not taken personally. :)

[Drummond]

Omitting key information does make it inaccurate.

You consider it 'key'. Conservapedia did not. Articles which concentrate on properly contextual information don't fail to be accurate if they omit non-contextual material. That said, read on .......


The article discusses the Chilean economy under Allende, but does not even bother to mention US involvement.

Actually, UNTRUE. It says ....


The Senate Intelligence Committee under Senator Frank Church (http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Frank_Church&action=edit&redlink=1) investigated US involvement and exonerated the Nixon administration of any unlawful activity

True, or not ?

Conservapedia did more than just state this. They also provided a working link, to ....

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=15648


Contrary to urban legend, America did not install Gen. Pinochet.

The 30th anniversary of the coup d'etat that deposed Chile's Marxist president Salvador Allende has come and gone, but not without a burst of accusations of American complicity with--if not responsibility for--that event. Even before the commemorations had gotten under way, Secretary of State Colin Powell took it upon himself to apologize for the U.S. role in Chile, though in terms so vague as to leave many wondering exactly what he was referring to.


The fact that the coup itself took place on the very same date--September 11--that the World Trade Center was destroyed by a sensational terrorist attack in 2001 was a coincidence too fraught to be overlooked. In an editorial titled "The Other September 11," the New York Times, with characteristic condescension, reminded its readers that "our nation's hands have not always been clean" and managed to suggest a smoking gun ("the United States . . . laid the groundwork for [the coup] and supported the plotters") without actually producing one. The foreign press was more categorical. In Le Monde, the flagship daily of anti-Americans worldwide, a front-page cartoon on September 11 depicted a plane about to hit the World Trade Center. But the roles of villain and victim had been grotesquely altered: the twin towers were labeled "Chile," the plane "USA."


The name invariably linked to our Chilean involvement is that of Henry Kissinger, today the leading survivor of the Nixon administration and at the time the evident architect of much of its foreign policy, first as National Security Adviser and then as Secretary of State. The case against him has been before the public for several years now, most notably in an article by Christopher Hitchens in Harper's that was subsequently reproduced in Hitchens's book The Trial of Henry Kissinger and then repeated with a wealth of lurid detail in a BBC "documentary" in which Hitchens appears as prosecutor-in-chief. In addition to his supposed role as the intellectual author of the coup, Kissinger has been accused in both film and book of responsibility for the murder of General Rene Schneider, commander-in-chief of the Chilean army--that is, of homicide. The sons of the late general, egged on by political sympathizers in Europe and the United States, have even filed suit against Kissinger in hopes of recovering substantial damages for their father's death.


Chilean politics past or present is not a particular specialty of Americans, even Americans normally well informed about world affairs. What people know--or think they know--about that country is often a digest of newspaper headlines and of vague allegations, rather than substantiated facts.

... h'mm.

Well, according to that link, the accusation of American involvement in Pinochet's rise to power, is ... bogus.

I see from the link that the BBC was involved in some propagandising about this. Enough said, then ... have you been a victim of Leftie propaganda ?

Are 'frontpagemag' LYING ?

Here's what the CIA have to say:

https://www.cia.gov/library/reports/general-reports-1/chile/


Q. All activities of officers, covert agents, and employees of all elements of the Intelligence Community with respect to the assassination of President Salvador Allende in September 1973.


A. We find no information—nor did the Church Committee—that CIA or the Intelligence Community was involved in the death of Chilean President Salvador Allende. He is believed to have committed suicide as the coup leaders closed in on him. The major CIA effort against Allende came earlier in 1970 in the failed attempt to block his election and accession to the Presidency. Nonetheless, the US Administration’s long-standing hostility to Allende and its past encouragement of a military coup against him were well known among Chilean coup plotters who eventually took action on their own to oust him.


Q. All activities of officers, covert agents, and employees of all elements of the Intelligence Community with respect to the accession of General Augusto Pinochet to the Presidency of the Republic of Chile.


A. CIA actively supported the military Junta after the overthrow of Allende but did not assist Pinochet to assume the Presidency. In fact, many CIA officers shared broader US reservations about Pinochet’s single-minded pursuit of power.


Q. All activities of officers, covert agents, and employees of all elements of the Intelligence Community with respect to violations of human rights committed by officers or agents of former President Pinochet.


A. Many of Pinochet’s officers were involved in systematic and widespread human rights abuses following Allende’s ouster. Some of these were contacts or agents of the CIA or US military. The IC followed then-current guidance for reporting such abuses and admonished its Chilean agents against such behavior. Today’s much stricter reporting standards were not in force and, if they were, we suspect many agents would have been dropped.

It looks more and more as though you are the victim of Leftie misinformation.

Would you agree ? OR, do you prefer to be loyal to your sources ?



And most of the article is simply speculation without any actual evidence. Again, for a complete and accurate understanding of what happened, I suggest the Church Report as opposed to a source that outs itself as being biased right in its name.

That particular source seems particularly important to you. Is it more important than others ?


I have no idea why you are insisting on comparing Allende to Hitler when it was Pinochet who more closely resembled him. It was Pinochet who had people tortured and killed in the Santiago Stadium. It was Pinochet who would have stood trial for crimes against humanity. Also, I simply said that Allende was the duly elected President and that if the people didn't like him, they didn't have to vote for him again. Hitler was a dictator. The people had no choice. And, the last time I checked, Allende didn't kill his own people or invade any foreign nation. I also never said that US should never intervene. I'm saying that this wasn't one of those times.

No bias there, then ...

Allende abused his power. He therefore betrayed his peoples' best interests. As did Hitler.

Both were keen on asset-grabs, State-based thievery.

Hitler did become a dictator, but initially he was voted into power .. LIKE Allende, UNlike Pinochet.

But you've conceded that there CAN be times when a foreign power can be, is, entitled to intervene in another country's affairs and depose its leader. This is progress.


And I'm unsure as to how anyone can believe the people of Iraq are better off today than they were when Saddam Hussein was their leader given the current situation.

You can blame terrorists for Iraqi hardships, NOT America. Besides, they now have democratic process. Saddam denied them that.


Oh and one more thing - if you insist on bolding your points and using all caps, I consider that you are e-screaming at me and the conversation will be over.

... ah. You don't like the opposition I'm supplying, so now, you're criticising the way I'm expressing it ?

I'm not the only contributor to use bolded fonts here, nor caps. Not by a long shot ! Are you going to be equally picky with other forum members here ? If you did these things, I'd not complain. I've seen far worse here ! Try having quotations of yours rewritten, sometimes in a derogatory fashion !!

And this is extremely tame stuff, compared with what I've seen other Left-wingers get up to on less well regulated forums than this !!

To be blunt .. I hope you grow a thicker skin. You are still new here. Perhaps in time your greater familiarity with this forum will help you acclimatize to those who post here.

[Kathianne]

Even if you remove mandatory social security for the elderly and privatize that part of it, how would you suggest society care for the needs of the disabled and the orphaned?

We have this incredible homeless problem in our country where a majority of the homeless are mentally disabled and way too many of whom are veterans of the military. The churches, private charities and the government combined have made barely a dent in this problem. So, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that removing a social safety net as opposed to actually fixing it is going to help make the problem go away.

I'd turn that question back on you and Congress. Seems to me that any gov't program should have means testing, yet with Obamacare we see the opposite.

Medical science is a miracle, but also a problem. As a teacher I can rant on about how my heart breaks for the 'children' that are 'special needs.' Those with a nurse riding the short bus with them, then entering a classroom of 4 or less kids, with as many as 10 adults there, to provide education, (pretend to teach and pretend to learn, then be figured into the standardized test scores). Do these kids and their families deserve 'support?' Certainly, if the parents can't afford it on their own. Should it be on a sliding scale? Should there be a DNR required or highly suggested?

I don't know all of those answers, but I do know those children's 'education' shouldn't be coming out of the local budget, nor their multitude of caretakers and support staff.

Mind you, I've nothing but empathy for the families and the children, their care though shouldn't be part of 'best placement for the child,' because that isn't the best choice for the child. In fact, the school setting is a hot bed of infectious diseases, not a problem for most, but a serious problem for medically fragile.

[Drummond]

It's similar in that the people of Alaska benefit from the natural resources of the country. The Chilean people should have the same rights with regard to their copper.

No. Talking just about the resource of copper comes close to being disingenuous within this context. Nationalisation is applied to private Companies. A privately owned Company is just that. Nationalisation of one is State thievery of its ownership, depriving its rightful owner(s) of ownership.

It's State-sponsored and State-connived theft, pure and simple. A particular act of the Left that more reputable Conservatives would very rightly balk at.

[fj1200]

--- Nope. I deal in reality, not propaganda.

Keep telling yourself that. I'm sure some knuckleheads will enable your imagination. :)

[fj1200]

Here in the US, as I stated earlier, we have some socialist policies blended in with a mostly capitalistic economy. But those policies aren't what is hurting our economy. NAFTA and CAFTA killed our economy and caused a race to the bottom in labor and environmental standards. We don't make anything any longer and we are addicted to buying cheap shit made in Asia.

Not even close. The US has been resting on its laurels and has not been making itself more competitive on the global stage while other economies are doing just the opposite. China is no longer a bunch of commies killing their own citizens and India is no longer a Socialist backwater. Shall I post our plummeting global competitiveness rankings?

The US makes plenty of things, we just don't make labor intensive cheap S*.

[fj1200]

Even if you remove mandatory social security for the elderly and privatize that part of it, how would you suggest society care for the needs of the disabled and the orphaned?

Treat it for what it is; welfare?

[fj1200]

... ah. You don't like the opposition I'm supplying, so now, you're criticising the way I'm expressing it ?

To be blunt .. I hope you grow a thicker skin.

:laugh:

[aboutime]

No. Talking just about the resource of copper comes close to being disingenuous within this context. Nationalisation is applied to private Companies. A privately owned Company is just that. Nationalisation of one is State thievery of its ownership, depriving its rightful owner(s) of ownership.

It's State-sponsored and State-connived theft, pure and simple. A particular act of the Left that more reputable Conservatives would very rightly balk at.


Sir Drummond. And something else that is often abused by our government, in the name of advancing society (falsely) is EMINENT DOMAIN.

Come to think of it. OBAMACARE...is, in rather invisible, protected ways...also Nationalization of Our Healthcare, and somewhat of an Eminent Domain effect, where Government DEMANDS, and uses the courts to STEAL private property from citizens. All in the name of PHONY PROGRESS.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. And something else that is often abused by our government, in the name of advancing society (falsely) is EMINENT DOMAIN.

Come to think of it. OBAMACARE...is, in rather invisible, protected ways...also Nationalization of Our Healthcare, and somewhat of an Eminent Domain effect, where Government DEMANDS, and uses the courts to STEAL private property from citizens. All in the name of PHONY PROGRESS.

State thievery - it all comes down to that.

Socialism doesn't care in the slightest about individuals, and this is one example which proves it. Socialists will claim 'it's for the common good', when it never really is .. meanwhile, the individual(s) thieved from, get royally shafted !

Same with healthcare ... applying a 'State sausage machine' setup, where - whether you're ill or well, you pay through the nose not only for your own provision, but everyone else's. Enter illegals on to the scene, and they'll take full advantage of what YOU have paid for !!!

And all the while, the 'service' you get is second or third rate -- and at its worst, actually lethal ...

Take that from someone in a society that's been trying to make it work ever since 1948 ....

But Socialist trash don't care. They want that control, so they'll take it. All people have to do is vote them in.