1. Welcome to Green Bay Packers NFL Football Forum & Community!
    Packer Forum is one of the largest online communities for the Green Bay Packers.

    You are currently viewing our community forums as a guest user.

    Sign Up or

    Having an account grants you additional privileges, such as creating and participating in discussions. Furthermore, we hide most of the ads once you register as a member!
  2. Announcement is LIVE: Read the Forum Post

Fellow gun owners: hide your property

Discussion in 'The Atrium' started by GreenBlood, Jan 10, 2013.

  1. buggybill2003

    buggybill2003 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,296
    Ratings:
    +1,889
    Socialism is not Communism. Just a question here, no aggressive argument intended, but why is socialism so scary ???
     
  2. Oshkoshpackfan

    Oshkoshpackfan YUT !!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Ratings:
    +1,453
    ^ it's a step in the wrong diretion. Socialism will help to take away free enterprise and many rights of citizens.
     
  3. realcaliforniacheese

    realcaliforniacheese A-Rods Boss

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,264
    Ratings:
    +966
    So I am curious. If you don't get your information from the leftest, pinko, mainstream media then where do you get it? The rightist, anti science, anti truth, paranoid fascism press?
     
    • Like Like x 2
  4. realcaliforniacheese

    realcaliforniacheese A-Rods Boss

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,264
    Ratings:
    +966
    So, what is your definition of socialism? what rights will we lose and why would it affect the free market. There are many countries that could be considered socialist that have rights and free markets and by most research are much happier than Americans. I fear more the knee jerk reactions such as the patriot act and needlessly going to war, more than I am worried about socialism. Seems there are certain buzz words that catch on and are reused constantly. The buzz words of fear.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  5. realcaliforniacheese

    realcaliforniacheese A-Rods Boss

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2011
    Messages:
    2,264
    Ratings:
    +966
    So not being able to buy a gun will make people miserable? If they can't have their assault weapons and their high capacity magazines, they will become despondent.

    I see your point. To have to fill out some extra paperwork and maybe wait a little longer for their killing toy would be horrendous.
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • Old Old x 1
  6. Darth Garfunkel

    Darth Garfunkel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    520
    Ratings:
    +495
    It seems weird to me that there are more licensing requirements to get a job at Great Clips than there are to purchase a military style rifle.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
    • Disagree Disagree x 1
  7. Darth Garfunkel

    Darth Garfunkel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    520
    Ratings:
    +495
    Oshkosh, what's there to disagree with? It took me 45 minutes to buy a surplus military rifle. In the same state you have to log 1500 clock hours and take an exam to be licensed to give $7 haircuts. Seems weird.

    *I apologize to the mods if this is pushing the no politics policy
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. Oshkoshpackfan

    Oshkoshpackfan YUT !!!

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2012
    Messages:
    3,286
    Ratings:
    +1,453
    you are going to compare a private companies rules for employment to that of your state back ground check for a rifle purchase,time vs time requirments? Apples to oranges buddy. One is for a job that has certain requirments for employment, the other is just a name, criminal check etc...., done by computer, which happens to be faster than taking actual on the job training. Poor comparison, that's all. And yes, that is something I disagree with when you can't even make a valid comparison.
     
  9. Darth Garfunkel

    Darth Garfunkel Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2010
    Messages:
    520
    Ratings:
    +495
    I was talking about state regulations and requirements to get a license to cut hair, not company policy. If the state thinks scissors falling into the wrong hands must be avoided at all costs then why do we shrug our collective shoulders when it comes to guns?

    Anything that is potentially dangerous to it's operator or those around him or her requires some sort of training and licensing. Except guns. Again, that's weird to me.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  10. Jordyruns

    Jordyruns Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    436
    Ratings:
    +175
    On a spectrum where one end is pure communism and the other is pure capitalism everything in between can technically be considered socialism. Our country was founded on pure capitalism and as time has past we have slowly crept away from the capitalism and towards the communism side, into socialism. I'm not saying this is a bad thing some of it is very important (New Deal and the Sherman Antitrust Act to name a few) but eventually it hits a point where we get too close to the communism side and I personally believe that under the Obama administration we have the potential to get too close to the communism side.

    Maybe I'm wrong, I didn't major in government or history at school and am not overly active in politics, but I do not feel I am too far off base here.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  11. NorthWestCheeseHead

    NorthWestCheeseHead Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,117
    Ratings:
    +375
    You do realize that almost every government sponsored public assistance program is generally the embodiment of socialist concepts and ideals don't you? Socialism has been in America since at least as far back as Woodrow Wilson and "The New Deal".
     
  12. NorthWestCheeseHead

    NorthWestCheeseHead Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,117
    Ratings:
    +375
    Have you been to a Great Clips? They need some stricter regulations because those are some really unskilled people giving $7 haircuts.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  13. NorthWestCheeseHead

    NorthWestCheeseHead Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2012
    Messages:
    1,117
    Ratings:
    +375
    WTF am I looking at? O.O
     
  14. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    Amazing the evolution of a thread - from nukes in North Korea to haircuts in Wisconsin. I was thinking to say the reason for the license is that razor so near to the jugular, but more likely, it has to do with Wisconsin being a state in the pocket of labor unions. Here in Texas, I'm pretty sure no license is required, because there are a lot of pretty Korean ladies (wow full circle on the thread - back to something Korean hahaha) here in our military dominated city (next to Fort Hood) who will give you a haircut with a smile for $6. Back to the reason why it is easier to get an assault rifle than a barber license, maybe because there is more chance for an incompetent barber killing or maiming somebody (and even that is almost zilch) than there is of a good normal American killing or maiming somebody - unless, of course, they NEED killin' or maimin', as we say here in Texas hahahaha. As for the "miserable" comment I made and the "despondent" reply by californicheese or whatever, I wasn't talking result so much as intent. A lot of the libs stupid and unnecessary regulations are aimed squarely at the good people of America, most of whom don't buy the leftist crap they like to sell to gullible voters. Most of it, however, is too nitpicky to really depress anybody. Also for realcalicheese or whatever, I apply the principal of Know Thy Enemy hahaha. I am open to getting news from all sources - the leftist mainstream media, the internet, the fair and balanced news channel, etc. There really is no fascist right wing media, of course. What the lefties like to label that is nothing more than talk show hosts etc. who REFLECT the good normal pro-American views of good normal pro-American Americans.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  15. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    Bill, I have come to respect you, even though I don't often agree with you. True, socialism is not Communism. It's strictly an economic system that does not automatically have an element of tyranny and denial of freedom like Communism. As a practical matter, however, either true socialism - the government owning factories, etc. or what a lot of people call socialism - nanny state government welfare programs and regulation - put too much power in the hands of government and erode freedom. The more scary thing about socialism by either definition, however, is that doesn't work. It dampens the economy - hurting the achievers and doing less good for those receiving benefits than a healthy mostly unregulated free enterprise economy - the thing that put America - and Britain before us - on top in the world.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. buggybill2003

    buggybill2003 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,296
    Ratings:
    +1,889
    Thanks Texas, I don`t want to offend you or any Americans on here, it was just a question. We didn`t exactly get it right, but certainly our health service for all USED to be the envy of the world once. ;)
     
  17. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    I'm not that familiar with the British health care system, but the Canadian system which I thought was fairly similar to Britain's was generally ridiculed and held up as a bad example by most of what I call good normal Americans for about a generation now. The leftist/Hillary/Obama types in this country do envy "single-payer" government health care systems - often called socialized medicine, and of course, the leftist mainstream media has done a slick job of trying to sell the public on it. They see Obamacare as a step in that direction. I don't know, my conservative instincts tell me to strongly oppose it, but at the same time, two generations ago - when I was young, many good people hated social security in the same way. Now that is accepted and popular, so I wouldn't rule out the same happening with government health care. Why do you say "USED to"?
     
  18. PackFanNChiTown

    PackFanNChiTown Bear Fan's Bane

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    731
    Ratings:
    +364
    By "good, normal Americans do you mean those on the right? :)

    You bring up a good point about SS then compared to now.

    Playing devil's advocate I guess the natural question is how do Canadians rate it? I've worked in Canada before and every person I asked about it said they loved it, despite it's flaws, and wouldn't want to do without it. The disadvantage is, if you need a hip replacement you'll wait a while. The advantage is, when you get the replacement, it's free to you (not including what you pay in taxes on it obviously).

    I see the benefits of both arguments but will admit, there is a certain appeal in not having to worry about health insurance from the employer, which is where most of us get it. I have some friends and family that are, currently, too high of income earners to qualify for state health insurance, but too low to afford their own. My brother in law is a good example. Living in the Chicago area he makes just shy of $40k. His law firm eliminated any contributions to the plan so the employees have to finance the entire thing. With a stay-at-home wife and two kids, that's roughly $1000 per month (or something similar). He can't afford it. The two kids are covered by the state and the two parents don't have coverage. As the sole income earner, if he gets hurt or anything similar they're in trouble.

    For people like them, I wouldn't mind seeing a system that provides them coverage. Does it have to be single payer? Probably not, but it would be nice if the prices for treatment weren't so extraordinarily high which they are now.

    I guess the question I would have is, in regard to Canada and Britain and the other countries that have a single-payer system, are they Socialist? Canada is still a capitalistic country, they just have a single-payer healthcare system. Is that a necessarily bad thing? Or does it give people up there the courage to try starting their own businesses because they're not bound to having to stay with an employer for health-insurance reasons?
     
  19. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    No, by "GOOD NORMAL AMERICANS", I mean what the leftists of the mainstream media and otherwise like to call "the right" - actually just the average sensible people of the country, unencumbered by political agendas or propaganda and demagoguery which the left uses to promote its sick "change".

    You did a good job of summarizing government health care - Canadian or other. It's free, although you have to sit around and wait (literally in the case of your example: a hip replacement hahaha). What if it's cancer or heart bypass surgery or some other slightly more time sensitive procedures? What I heard is there were numerous clinics just this side of the Canadian border catering to those with needs and ability to pay.

    You also did a pretty fair and balanced job of describing the effect of Obamacare on people's health insurance situation - driving the price up and forcing people into the government system. Are you aware that your brother-in-law and his wife are breaking Obama's law hahaha? I got by without health insurance most of my adult life - never had it, never missed it, never wanted it. Fortunately, by the time this new law and the damn mandate came along, I was too old for it to apply.

    The problem with Canada's system - and any other that is free - is that as the law of supply and demand would dictate, when there is extremely low or no cost, demand goes through the roof - people tend to overuse it, seeking medical care for a lot of unnecessary stuff. That, of course, is the reason for the wait time you mentioned.
     
  20. buggybill2003

    buggybill2003 Moderator Staff Member Moderator

    Joined:
    May 22, 2012
    Messages:
    3,296
    Ratings:
    +1,889
    I'd say at the risk of sounding Racist that European immigrants have had the benefits without paying in to the national insurance. IF we controlled it better, it would be again I believe. By controlling I mean foreign nationals having some form of insurances which would contribute to the funding if treatment was required (non emergency only of course !)
     
  21. PackFanNChiTown

    PackFanNChiTown Bear Fan's Bane

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    731
    Ratings:
    +364
    "The Right" is not some twisted liberal agenda my man, conservatives refer to themselves as "the right" also.

    I believe higher priority treatment goes to the head of the line. In regard to having clinics available, I see no problem with that. One of the flaws in a Single Payer System (SPS) like Canada is when they refuse to allow insurance companies and/or other treatment that goes above what the government provides. SPS is fine for those who need it, but those who can afford to pay for better/more immediate treatment should be allowed to do so.

    The driving the price up thing isn't ObamaCare, that's just the world we live in where insurance companies set all the rules. They tell the docs what they'll pay, I'm not sure if it's based on a percentage or not, (I'm hardly an expert), and, as I understand it, the docs are then forced to increase the price they charge in order to get a better return. However it works, the inflated prices are set, so when someone without insurance needs treatment, they're billed for the full, inflated amount.

    As for my brother in law, the mandated coverage doesn't go into effect until next year so he's still good. Plus, technically, since he's a vet he is entitled to VA coverage so I wonder if he'd be penalized if he still doesn't have coverage? His wife doesn't have that luxury. On the other hand, they're actually hoping that when the exchanges are setup they can get some affordable insurance.
    I really can't speak intelligently about insurance or the Canadian system, but I did do one brief Google search (Bing sucks) and found this article from a Canadian site that counters your claim that the long wait is based on overuse, (for what it's worth). That's not concrete proof that this article is right and you're wrong obviously, (no real sources in the article), but it lends input to a friendly conversation.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  22. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    hahahaha A little bit of Racism - in moderation when justified by the situation - ain't bad. How very British of you hahaha to think of feeling negative toward "Europeans" as racist. Oh those slimy Europeans. Don't take this the wrong way hahaha, but to most Americans, British ARE Europeans.

    America, of course, would never make that mistake - letting people from a neighboring country in the same continent come in and soak up all the free health care and other benefits hahahaha.

    Seriously, am I correct in my understanding that any resident of the British Commonwealth or the old British Empire or whatever is welcome as a citizen in Britain? If so, do you think that might explain some of the problems you speak of with the health care system - not to mention a plethora of Pakistani potential pipe bombers?
     
  23. texaspackerbacker

    texaspackerbacker Cheesehead

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2004
    Messages:
    347
    Ratings:
    +58
    yes, PFNCT, and I also appreciate the friendly civil conversation with you.

    Yes, conservatives, including myself, don't shy away from the term "right" - even though the "left" (which really is a dirty word hahaha) uses the epithet "right" or "right wing" to mean extreme or bad. What I was saying, though, is that good normal Americans - I venture to say, people no more to the right of dead center than you are to the left of it hahaha, are portrayed as "right" - meaning extremist by the elitist dilettantes of the leftist mainstream media - just for "extreme" things like loving their country, believing in God and/or going to church, hating the killing of unborn babies, respecting the right of non-crazy/non-criminal people to own guns, etc.

    Could it be the key to whatever limited success the Canadian health care system has lies in BuggyBill's post above? Specifically, unlike Britain and America, Canada doesn't have hordes of (how can I say this and not sound racist hahaha?) ...... outsiders coming in and soaking up free health care.

    I agree with you about that "flaw" you mentioned. I don't see any reason why governments with a single payer system feel like they need to outlaw people who can pay from using alternative providers - within the country I mean.

    I disagree with what you said about insurance companies setting prices. The market sets the price - it just happens that in the old system, cases paid by insurance companies strongly dominates that market. Doctors can charge anything they wish, but insurance companies can also set the limit they will pay, leaving the patient to pay the rest or go to a different doctor. Would you rather have the government set the prices? With them, it wouldn't be a case of market domination. It would be actual rules and laws. Combine that with the government committees dictating what care a patient gets (a.k.a. death panels) and a mandate requiring people to get insurance or be saddled with "the system" and you have something pretty hateable IMO.

    Just the same, I will depart from the conservative position to say, I could see the possibility of the bugs and flaws being fixed or removed from the Obamacare system and having it be fairly workable.
     
  24. mayo44

    mayo44 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Margaret Thatcher (RIP) said it best when she stated, "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

    While it is an over-simplification of the inherent problems, if you want to sum it up in a single sentence, Baroness Thatcher nailed it.

    If I work my *** off in school to get myself educated to perform in a professional career, and then I dedicate myself to doing what it takes to succeed and am rewarded one day with great wealth only to have 50-75% of my income taken away (ala France) to be wasted by a gargantuan bureaucracy where very little of it is left to do any real good, then what incentive is there to succeed in the first place?

    If I'm poor and am provided a minimal standard of living free of charge by the government and I'm satisfied with that, then what incentive is there for me to contribute to society in any way when I can just sit at home playing video games and watching football while I have my bills, healthcare and food paid for by someone else?

    Socialism in general is designed to cause the failure of large corporations. When that happens, the corporation is either dissolved or is "bailed out" by the government and comes under government control. The idealistic view is that there is eventually no upper class nor lower class, but rather one big, happy middle class. In reality, you end up with an exploding lower class, a diminished middle class, and an elite ruling class made up of government officials.

    FrankRizzo, what say you?
     
  25. mayo44

    mayo44 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    You are correct. Socialism is an economic system/set of policies. However, Socialism causes a greater and greater reduction in individual freedoms the more it is implemented because the more government regulates, the less freedom there is.
     

Share This Page