Skronk, you seem to be mixing up the current administration with the American government past, present and future. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but did the Clinton government do wiretapping? Did Carter spy on American citizens? What does terrorism have to do with big government?

And of course I actually thought about that before I posted it. I disregard that notion not because the messenger is Ron Paul. Instead, because we seem to be going into this one based on subjective opinion, it's because a lot of the "smarter, and generally more enlightened" people I know came from a public schooling system. The smartest person I know came from a publicly-funded Catholic school.

"Affordable" private education? Like "affordable" private health care? Don't make me laugh, dude. The rest of the house is asleep.

Johnny C wrote:Skronk, you seem to be mixing up the current administration with the American government past, present and future. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but did the Clinton government do wiretapping? Did Carter spy on American citizens? What does terrorism have to do with big government?

You think Clinton had a problem with operation Echelon? I doubt it. I doubt he had a problem with the "Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act." Clinton's shady maneuvers didn't get a quarter as much press as this idiots did. I haven't forgotten Carter's little pledge to decriminalize "soft" drugs, which never happened. They're good liars.

Terrorism, if you've been keeping your eye on it, serves a nice pretext for whatever the current administration wants to do. Terrorism, a pretext for war, a pretext to take away our rights, a giant smokescreen so no one sees the abuses.

What exactly am I mixing up?

Johnny C wrote:And of course I actually thought about that before I posted it. I disregard that notion not because the messenger is Ron Paul. Instead, because we seem to be going into this one based on subjective opinion, it's because a lot of the "smarter, and generally more enlightened" people I know came from a public schooling system. The smartest person I know came from a publicly-funded Catholic school.

Good for you, but if I had been smarter in my high school years, I would've opted for home schooling. Public education can't give a better or even equal education compared to a private school.

Johnny C wrote:"Affordable" private education? Like "affordable" private health care? Don't make me laugh, dude. The rest of the house is asleep.

Yeah, I guess community college is better than some liberal arts deal, right? Good luck with "free" healthcare.

I'm at a publicly funded university. We still have to pay but tax dollars subsidize the place, just like tax dollars fund the hospitals I've used frequently in my life. I'm getting a degree in education from one of the better faculties in the country.

Also, since I'm not an American your assistance in proving to me that Clinton in fact wiretapped and that Carter, uh, well, you didn't really prove that any of those points apply to Carter, but the Clinton thing was invaluable. It's a mistake I won't make again. I brought up "terrorism" because you're invoking it to lend gravitas to your statement the same way the current administration does.

P.S. The NY Times weighs in but I know this thread doesn't care much for the Liberal Jew-Run Media.

Johnny C wrote:I'm at a publicly funded university. We still have to pay but tax dollars subsidize the place, just like tax dollars fund the hospitals I've used frequently in my life. I'm getting a degree in education from one of the better faculties in the country.

Also, since I'm not an American your assistance in proving to me that Clinton in fact wiretapped and that Carter, uh, well, you didn't really prove that any of those points apply to Carter, but the Clinton thing was invaluable. It's a mistake I won't make again. I brought up "terrorism" because you're invoking it to lend gravitas to your statement the same way the current administration does.

I brought up terrorism, or more appropriately, the threat of terrorism, because is a major problem the world has to deal with. It's the governments play card. It's used as an excuse to further an agenda, from the crackdown on drugs, to the death of Habeas Corpus.

Carter was a pretty shitty president, more people know about his peanut farming hobby than his foreign and domestic policy. He changed nothing, he kept the war on drugs going, the federal reserve, kept us on the leash of middle east oil. He wasn't a standout character, good or bad.

My argument isn't focused on one particular party, the same left/right shit, but what bigger government will do to the average person. That's what I'm worried about.

If keeping ridiculous laws from being passed, and keeping our "freedoms", and people not being continually afraid of "the bad guys" means no socialized health care, or whatever else that needs bigger government, I'd go without them to be sure we can still say and write whatever we like.

Johnny C wrote:P.S. The NY Times weighs in but I know this thread doesn't care much for the Liberal Jew-Run Media.

Jews don't run the media. Let me check out the article.

Fair points. Once again, I know dick-all about the presidents - I think Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize but I could be wrong and besides who hasn't these days.

It seems in your last paragraph that you've created a false dilemma, though. Why is it "small government, no loss of 'freedoms,' no socialized health care" or "big government, loss of 'freedoms,' socialized health care"? Should that be a choice anyone has to make, or is it a choice imposed upon them artificially by that same left/right divide you're railing against?

EDIT: Yeah, I just like the ring of "Liberal Jew-Run" anything.

Johnny C wrote:Fair points. Once again, I know dick-all about the presidents - I think Carter won the Nobel Peace Prize but I could be wrong and besides who hasn't these days.

Yeah, even Kissinger got one. Go figure.

Johnny C wrote:It seems in your last paragraph that you've created a false dilemma, though. Why is it "small government, no loss of 'freedoms,' no socialized health care" or "big government, loss of 'freedoms,' socialized health care"? Should that be a choice anyone has to make, or is it a choice imposed upon them artificially by that same left/right divide you're railing against?

EDIT: Yeah, I just like the ring of "Liberal Jew-Run" anything.

How would it be any other way? I'm running with the example of the American government. We already have a big government, one that sets rules and laws, on a social level, never mind economically. We've seen the shit our government can do right now. Big government, in my mind, is synonymous with more laws, more of a role in everyday life, to "fix" and "regulate" what it sees fit. Idealistically, a smaller government does the opposite. The big/small government framework is not dependent on the left/right paradigm.

I don't see this as a two party system, not as long as the "left" won't serious challenge the "right" in it's policies. Even the phrase is full of shit, the right in this country are some weird mix, the "Neo-cons" the imperialists, while the "left" have advocated for censorship (Gore and his wife, Tipper, in the PMRC) and have barely done anything in the way of civil liberties. I don't see a difference. Both are in it for themselves.

I think we're coming to a point of mutual agreement and that is that the American democratic system - at least in terms of its partisan nature and its governmental structure - is in need of some upheaval.

A big government providing things like socialised health care and education is not something I see as a bad thing, though. It's just securing services that its citizens are entitled to. Any other system fosters classism.

It's a good talk.

The American system really needs a different way of working, although one that won't reduce the constitution to toilet paper, but I'm not an optimist.

I think a lot of this argument, particularly about health care and education, comes down to whether you see health care and education as "rights". Rights altogether, are a tricky subject. It's a man made concept, although one I really care about.

Unfortunately, I don't see classism, or class hierarchy disappearing at all in human society.

I don't think it's really a "right." Rights are things like voting and driving and stuff. On the other hand, humans need health care and I would be willing to argue that in modern society especially they need education.

And yeah, I don't see classism disappearing anytime soon but the least we can do is not tacitly endorse it, hey?

My posts are getting smaller and smaller. Weird.

A lot of the reasoning behind this argument comes down to "entitlement", or rights. Even voting is not a right, because it can be given or taken. Like the sufferage movement, for example. It can't be a "right" if women were allowed the "right" to vote in 1920.

I'm for equality, and people having access to education and health care, but it can't be haphazard, or in the case of education, a tool of indoctrination.

I think in every political branch, classism is still an outcome. Even if the underclass is given ample health care, and education, there will always be some sort of oppression, and different social classes. It's inevitable.