Two words for my fellow Americans...

[Grunker]

Zimbabwe and Bangladesh probably has lower cost to health care too. so I wont bother with dealing with that.

 

the wii thing is me demonstrating absurdness by being absurd. when will this absurdness end? is exactly my point and thanks for agreeing.

 

the rest I am not sure if you are even on topic and swearing well that is not called for is it? are you really that upset?

 

Upset? Gods no.

 

Swearing is simply part of my vocabulary, I think it helps evolve the language so stuff isn't so boring to read. I will abstain from it, though, if someone gets hurt by it

 

As for the rest of what you say, you hardly answer any of my arguments, so I think I'll drop this discussion. No point in an argument if you aren't responded to ^^

 

I'll be glad to pick it up again though, should you decide to quote my points and deal with each one, as I had the courtesy to do with yours.

[Jarno Mikkola]

politics are simple for me. I simply look at "does this infringe on my rights or others. yes or no.

your rights end where mine begin (this also applies in reverse)

If it's just a point of perspective, then may I rip you a new one(the big picture). By saying that you are already paying most of it already. How, well the Country/Goverment/Nation-whatever is responsible for paying the hospitals, and unlike you would know, even the "free"-clinics need money! And from where do they get that money? Yes, most of it is by donations... and should you know, most of these donations can be given, so one gets tax benefits from them, the tax benefits are of course the Country's money that it won't get, though it would -should the thing not exist. So, essentially Country is already paying for the "Free"-clinics.

I don't know should I laugh or cry, but I'll give you this:

[grogerson]

This has gotten way off topic, folks. But as a reminder to some, and news to others, the function of government, whether national or local, is not benevolence. To the contrary, it is coercive. Properly, the domain of benevolence belongs to the Church/Synagogue/Mosque.

 

American history is only too clear on socialism's weaknesses, beginning with the Pilgrims and Plymouth Colony. They were to operate on socialist principles, and it almost destroyed them. Only after the principle "if a man will not work, neither will he eat" was instituted did they begin to fully function.

 

It's a very basic, and Biblical, principle that we humans try to get the most while giving the least. It is also true that we value those things we put our greatest efforts in to. However if we are penalized for succeeding, our drive to continue is diminished. That is why, in the end, Socialism has failed. It sets everything to the "lowest common denominator," gives too much to those who put forth the least effort and takes from those who put forth the most.

 

The Church is the best place to solve many of the problems stated here. It is local, has better oversight, and is much more aware of budgets (they can't just increase taxes when things get tight). Sadly, the religious communities have surrendered too much to the government of these United States, and we suffer for it.

[Jarno Mikkola]

The Church is the best place to solve many of the problems stated here.

Yeah, I am full along with you, but I have a small question, which one of them? And remember I am a principle Atheist, so which ever you decide I can get on with. Sorry, that was "I am fool along with you."

 

And by the way, this was never about Socialism. Now, if only the ruling party in the United States would just ban the tax brakes , it might have enough money to actually pay the bills it has, and so the American economy could recover...

[Guest sk]

Now, if only the ruling party in the United States would just ban the tax brakes rolleyes.gif , it might have enough money to actually pay the bills it has, and so the American economy could recover...

.....I...I am....I am just at a loss for words........is this a joke..?? you cant possibly think that is how it works.

[icelus]

This has gotten way off topic, folks. But as a reminder to some, and news to others, the function of government, whether national or local, is not benevolence. To the contrary, it is coercive. Properly, the domain of benevolence belongs to the Church/Synagogue/Mosque.

 

Since you went there first, I'll ask...

So, why do so many "benevolent" churches spew hatred about so many people?

 

That is why, in the end, Socialism has failed. It sets everything to the "lowest common denominator," gives too much to those who put forth the least effort and takes from those who put forth the most.

No, communism has failed. Socialism is alive and well all around the world. See: Europe.

 

The Church is the best place to solve many of the problems stated here. It is local, has better oversight, and is much more aware of budgets (they can't just increase taxes when things get tight). Sadly, the religious communities have surrendered too much to the government of these United States, and we suffer for it.

Again, you went there first...

Depend on the church? And what of those who don't belong to the church in their locale? What of those that the church has deemed unfit to qualify as worthy? Better oversight? Are you kidding? See: Catholic priest sex scandal

 

The Founding Fathers of the United States, much to the chagrin of conservatives and evangelicals, founded this nation on the principles of religious freedom and separation of church and state. Not as a theocracy. See: Iran.

[Guest sk]

Ill leave the rest to grogerson but the separation of church and state to much to the chagrin of the left was to keep the state out of the church not the other way around.

and this is coming from one that is not religious

[Grunker]

I just want to remind everybody that goverment health care i hardly socialism.

 

Unless you're calling France and England socialist, in which case I guess no arguments can convince you of anything otherwise.

 

Plus, as Icelus points out, communism under dictatorship failed miserably, while socialism is very much alive all over the world. Even democratic forms of communism, although they've yet to prove themselves.

 

But, the richest countries in the world besides USA: Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark and so on), are all socialdemocratic. Goverment health care is fundamental in the social democratic thought.

[Guest sk]

what scale are you using to come up with your numbers?

http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PNB2.html

or are you saying per capita?

[icelus]

Ill leave the rest to grogerson but the separation of church and state to much to the chagrin of the left was to keep the state out of the church not the other way around.

and this is coming from one that is not religious

How, exactly, is that different? If one religion is influencing the government to perform actions counter to another religion, how is that a separation?

 

Most of the founding fathers were Christians, but their intent was to setup a secular government. Jefferson referred to it as a "wall of separation" and Madison as "perfect separation." They didn't care if religion affected society, but the government was established to be secular.

[Grunker]

what scale are you using to come up with your numbers?

http://www.studentsoftheworld.info/infopays/rank/PNB2.html

or are you saying per capita?

 

Heh. Your numbers are based on total wealth, which hardly says anything, except about the effectiveness of the industry.

 

My numbers are based on BNP per citizen (refer to http://www.oem.dk/publikationer/html/vvilkaar/kap03.htm - I know it's in danish, but the index should still be pretty easy to read or simply search the web)

[Jarno Mikkola]

Norway, Sweden, Denmark and so on), are all socialdemocratic.

False, for example Sweden: "Sweden is a constitutional monarchy" -Wikipedia. As is Norway, and Denmark, after all they are all officially Kingdoms. They are close however as the King is just a puppet, but not officially.

 

Finland however has "a representative democracy with a semi-presidential parliamentary system"=social democracy, or as close one you want. And by the way, if we take the PNB numbers you SK showed and divide it with capita, we (Finnish) have more than two times the number.(USA: 12970/305=15.18, Finland: 195/6=32.50, that's GNP:billions $ per million people, numbers closed to the next whole figure (which reduces the Finnish numbers a bit as there is actually only about 5.1million of us, though I put it as 6)).

[Gorilym]

Norway, Sweden, Denmark and so on), are all socialdemocratic.

False, for example Sweden: "Sweden is a constitutional monarchy" -Wikipedia. As is Norway, and Denmark, after all they are all officially Kingdoms. They are close however as the King is just a puppet, but not officially.

 

Finland however has "a representative democracy with a semi-presidential parliamentary system"=social democracy, or as close one you want.

No, true. As long as it's democratic, any monarchy could, in theory, be a social democracy; whether the nominal head of state is king or president is irrelevant (most presidents are figureheads anyway, with the U.S. and France as notable exceptions) - what's important is if there's some sort of social security net, progressive taxation etc. - i.e. established social[ist] policy.

[Grunker]

This discussion has gone on long enough, but I have to say that this:

 

False, for example Sweden: "Sweden is a constitutional monarchy" -Wikipedia. As is Norway, and Denmark, after all they are all officially Kingdoms. They are close however as the King is just a puppet, but not officially.

 

is very funny (though I guess you're not wrong about the overall part of it). True, officially, we might be called a constitutional monarchy, but since most sociology and science takes its standpoint in real life, let's do that in this discussion too. And the fact of the matter is, our queen has no power what so f-ing ever, and even officially "King" in our constitution has taken precedence (I am, admitted, unsure of how to translate this legal term from Danish) in our legal system, and now effectively means "government"

 

I know Denmark's parlimentary system in and out, so it might not be the best spot to challenge my knowledge. I am surely, however, quite the idiot on other fields, so it might be best to start there.

 

Although you're not entire wrong about our parliamentary-system, you are wrong about the social-democracy part. Social democracy refers not to a system of rule (see "The Welfare State" by Jørgen Ghoul Andersen, "Oikos" by Jesper Andersen and Henrik Adrian or almost all other books on the subject), but rather a way to describe how the state is build in terms of finance, spending, public service and direct democracy. Therefore, Gorilym is absolutely correct.

[grogerson]

So, why do so many "benevolent" churches spew hatred about so many people?

Please explain what you mean by "hatred." If you mean standing against abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide, adultery, homosexuality, and a whole host of other socially charged actions, they have done so for two thousand years. Demanding they change their stand on moral issues now is not hatred on their part. If you mean what radical Islam espouses, then I agree.

No, communism has failed. Socialism is alive and well all around the world. See: Europe.

"Communism" failed because it was a totalitarian regime, which, by the way, still exists in a form in China. Socialism in other governmental structures functions better, but in the end still plays Robin Hood without moral or ethical controls.

Again, you went there first...

Depend on the church? And what of those who don't belong to the church in their locale? What of those that the church has deemed unfit to qualify as worthy? Better oversight? Are you kidding? See: Catholic priest sex scandal

Catholic or Protestant, Jewish or Muslim, those that are truly interested in benevolence are more fit that a government that has only the most tenuous of connections with the community at large. And your choice of "transgressions" that disqualify is a poor one, since only a very small percentage of clergy are involved in such problems. And Christianity and Judaism have an understanding that every man, woman and child has a sin nature, from Adam to David to modern day sex scandals. Being clergy does not make you immune to it.

The Founding Fathers of the United States, much to the chagrin of conservatives and evangelicals, founded this nation on the principles of religious freedom and separation of church and state. Not as a theocracy. See: Iran.

You need to review your history. Start with Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptist Convention, where the phrase "separation of Church and State" comes from. No, they did not want a theocracy. But neither did they want a state controlled church. And one item of note, the Founding Fathers saw "Church" as we see "Denomination." The Church, made up of multiple denominations and faiths, was to influence the government, not control it. And the government certainly was not to control the Church.

 

...If one religion is influencing the government to perform actions counter to another religion, how is that a separation?

As stated above, no denomination controls the government here. And influence is not control. Separation, as you seem to define it here, is both a philosophical and physical impossibility. A balanced tension is necessary if one is not to control the other. And right now it seems to me the State has more control than the Church.

Most of the founding fathers were Christians, but their intent was to setup a secular government. Jefferson referred to it as a "wall of separation" and Madison as "perfect separation." They didn't care if religion affected society, but the government was established to be secular.

This is an incorrect statement. The Founding Fathers wanted nothing to do with a "secular" government. They knew what would transpire, and looked on in horror at what the French Revolution produced. That was an attempt at a secular government. Their writings, as well as Supreme Court decisions into the middle 1900's, declared this was a "Christian Nation." Note it was not Catholic or Anglican or some other denominational nation, but Christian in its broadest sense, where Judeo/Christian values controlled our leaders and laws.

 

If there are concerns about this election, it is because of what has happened in the past because we rejected those very values, and what will happen if they are further eroded. As I said before, only the future will tell whether we deserve a "thank you" . . . or a "curse you."