People outside the US: We didn't vote for Bush because we are afraid, stupid, etc.

In summary, Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish expressed shock at the re-election of George W. Bush, stating that it shows Americans are "out of step" with the rest of the world. She also criticized Bush for his war-like policies and urged him to focus on resolving conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. NDP Leader Jack Layton also expressed concern about the future of Canada-U.S. relations under Bush's continued leadership. However, some individuals argue that Bush's victory is a result of the American people's moral and religious beliefs, as well as fear and lack of intelligence. They also point out flaws in the American democracy and the importance of considering a candidate's stance on multiple issues before casting a vote.
  • #36
Franznietzsche;I also forgot to add, you are pretentious.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
jcsd said:
Maoism, Marxism and Trotskyism are very, very marginal poltical views in Europe (though certinly some parties have been influenced by Marxism). Stalisnism is alive (but again very marginal) in all parts of the world (for example in the US, the orgnaisers of the antiwar protests were ANSWER who are Stalinists). Most far left groups claim to be Leninists to some extenet (for example the Maosist-Leninists). Hoxha was the communist dicataor of Albania.



To general, neraly all governmenst , especially democratic ones go for some level of wealth redistribution whether direct or indirect.



Again neraly all governemnts worldwode subsidize helathcare to some extent (and I fail to see what's wrong with that, should we want the poor to die through lack of healthcare) again define exoribitant.

In short I really think your repeating some half-assed views that you heard someone else say as you don't know how the term 'socialist' is actually used other than as an insult. Sthe word socialism is used to describe a myriad of difefrent polical philsophies, some of them extremely unlike each other.


Actually i should have been more clear. I am against a system like Sweden's. That is socialist. I think it is a very good example of what i refer to when i say socialist. But i don't just mean that system, I'm referring to the fundamental personal beliefs that lead to such a system. I'm referring to socialism as a recurrent set of cultural beliefs that are very strong in Europe, and form the foundation of the far liberal left in America.

I have no problemwith government run health care, as long as it is not the only option. There are county hospitals now. Expanding them and opening care options to the poor is fine. But not at the expense of people who are in no way involved or profit from that policy. Raising taxes on those who worked for what they have to provide for those who ahve not is unacceptable to me.

Further example: democratic pandering to illegal aliens in california. Unaccpetable. They are non citizens, they have no business profiting or benefitting form the tax dollars of citizens. IF they have violated the laws to come here, they should be sent back. If they are here legally, paying taxes, contributing, fine they should get a basic standard of care that they get for being alive. But they should not be subsisting off of the taxes, and thus earnings of others.

Thats the problem. Where do you draw the line between fair aid, and survivng soley on the earnings of others? What is the line between self-sufficiency and dependency? Socialism favors dependency on the state. I am categorically opposed to that.
 
  • #38
"Raising taxes on those who worked for what they have to provide for those who ahve not is unacceptable to me."

And paying out share profits to someone who doesn't do a damn thing is okay?

IMO, BOTH groups are leeches.
 
  • #39
arildno said:
"Raising taxes on those who worked for what they have to provide for those who ahve not is unacceptable to me."

And paying out share profits to someone who doesn't do a damn thing is okay?

IMO, BOTH groups are leeches.


I'm not sure if you're referring to dividends for market investors, or to CEOs or both. Either way:

Let me explain capitalism to you, since you must have had trouble in economics in college. You offer a service, you get a price. That price is affected by the demand for your product, which is affected by its necessity (gas is very necessary, so the price can afford to go higher without lowering demand too much), and its quality.

In the case of investors, they provide capital to a company when they buy shares. That capital is used to supplement the company's revenue and is used for typically for special expenditures, expansionary moves, infrastsructure building, etc. the investors provide a service, and in return, they get paid.

If you're saying CEOs don't work i would love to see you try their jobs. Just because they don't unload the docks doesn't mean they have easy jobs. And the nature of capitalism is such that their jobs are more valuable, they are harder to replace than a guy unloading the docks. Anyone, with sufficient muscle mass, can unload a truck. Far fewer people know how to run a major corporation successfully.
 
  • #40
franznietsche:
That is precisely the type of idiot comment which shows how brainwashed you are.


Brainwashed by what? We are free with no socialism or communism in our government.

Does it not make sense to Europeans that when enemies of the United States would rather John Kerry get elected than George Bush that maybe Kerry is not that great? That it isn't a good idea to elect him? That they fear Bush and realized that he will not allow them to slip through our fingers again, allowing terrorist groups time to gain strength once more?

Well, I should rephrase, I suppose. Ignorance correlates to a lack of intelligence, and in some cases ignorance can be related to fear. Indeed, I am saying religious people are morons.

I'm sorry you feel I am a moron. The problem is I could care less if you make what can be considered a personal attack by any muslim, christian, hindu, or jewish or any other religious person in the forums. Be more conscious of what you say.
 
  • #41
I lived in many European countries, each one of them has national health care,early child care(kindergarten),maternity leave -no big deal.
In USA there is none of that.What the ****? those are basic human needs, in particular child development and social interaction.This is needed to form strong communal bonds between people.
Instead, here we have kids growing to be selfish and egoistic,spending most of their early lives lonely in front of the TV and growing to become very easilly influenced by propaganda.
 
  • #42
This has nothing to do with the health care system. that is a societal problem. That is caused by more women having jobs. You don't see men looking for time off to raise kids. If women want equal pay then they have to do equal work, which means timeoff to raise the kids is not something to be expected. This wasn't a problem before women entered the workforce in large numbers. I'm not saying women shouldn't work, but i am saying that them working is not a good idea if they have kids. Of course, some have to. This brings in the decay of the nuclear family, a major republican issue. Again that didn't use to be a problem.

You keep talking about basic human rights. This is the most privileged nation on the earth. The poor have it damn good here. Go talk about basic human rights somewhere else, like Uganda or Sudan.
 
  • #43
if i needed an operation- I would rather be in Sweden than Philadelphia- and so would you Franz-


it always puzzles me how people rationalize social-darwinism when fitness is too complex to measure in humans- we all have weaknesses and strengths- and you cannot justify discarding PEOPLE- what do you have to say about people that are disabled and cannot work? do we throw them to the wolves? what about the working poor- like black single mothers working two jobs that still can't pay for her children? do we let her family suffer instead of helping? do you relay on the private sector and hope they aren't greedy? what about the homeless who 90% are too mentally ill to even make basic life decisions? do we restart the zyklon ovens or do you try to help them? do we abandon the "lazy" and the addicted because their brains are structured to make dopamine impossible to resist? do we stick with old incorrect judgements and condemnations about the shiftless and the slovenly being sinful instead of ignoring the facts shown in neuroscience?
 
Last edited:
  • #44
I would also like to add Graphic7 that I am by no means a heavily religious person. Yes, I practice my faith but I am not obsessed with it as some people are. And you have no right to judge anyone let alone a large group of people, considering that over 90 percent of the worlds population believes in a God of some sort, meaning they either have a religion or are likely in search of one. Congratulations on that half thought through insult.
 
  • #45
No socialism does not favour depedning on the state, it's odd that you should be against the Sweedish model as for many years it consistent;ly deloivered one of the highest standards of living the world, ceratoinly higher than the standard of living in the US.

Most socialists views believe in helping other people to some extent and it seems to me that this is what you are against! Personally I would not like to live in a soceity of scoipaths (if such a thing can be called a society) were no-one lifts a finger o help anyone else. Ypou seem to think that if you work hard you will not be poor and you will always be able to afford helathcare, this is quite frankly naive (I infact used to work for the UK Department of Work and Pensions so I can tell you this view is completely wrong).

I don't know why you bring up the Democrats as they are not by amny strecth of the imagination socialist and there is no consistent view on immigration among the many different beliefs that are called sometimes called socilaist. Socialism does not favour depwendcy on the state, a feature genrally shared by these ideas (again I sya it is stupid though to talk about Stalisim and the Swedish model as if they share any common ground) is that evryone should contribute.

The point is that you seem to be launching a blind attack against views that you are not famlir with.
 
  • #46
Political Prodigy said:
I'm sorry you feel I am a moron. The problem is I could care less if you make what can be considered a personal attack by any muslim, christian, hindu, or jewish or any other religious person in the forums. Be more conscious of what you say.

I am conscious of what I said above. :blushing:

And if you "don't care," why in the world are you wasting your time by making this reply? :rolleyes:
 
  • #47
franznietzsche said:
You keep talking about basic human rights. This is the most privileged nation on the earth. The poor have it damn good here. Go talk about basic human rights somewhere else, like Uganda or Sudan.

Give me 2 billion $ which USA spends on one B-2 bomber and I personally will make those two countries prosperous for the next 100 years.
 
  • #48
franznietzsche said:
The poor have it damn good here. Go talk about basic human rights somewhere else, like Uganda or Sudan.

That's the point though isn't it? The poor in the US are infact some of the worst off people in the Western world.
 
  • #49
And if you "don't care," why in the world are you wasting your time by making this reply?

1) To tell you to be more conscious of what you say.
2) So that you know that although I could care less what you think of religious people it is still offensive and I highly doubt I am the only one to think so.
3) In case someone did not want to reply and felt the same way, but were afraid they would have to put up with many of the insults that have already been given out to several people in this thread.
 
  • #50
Political Prodigy said:
3) In case someone did not want to reply and felt the same way, but were afraid they would have to put up with many of the insults that have already been given out to several people in this thread.

I applaud your courage. :wink:
 
  • #51
setAI said:
if i needed an operation- I would rather be in Sweden than Philadelphia- and so would you Franz-


it always puzzles me how people rationalize social-darwinism when fitness is too complex to measure in humans- we all have weaknesses and strengths- and you cannot justify discarding PEOPLE- what do you have to say about people that are disabled and cannot work? do we throw them to the wolves? what about the working poor- like black single mothers working two jobs that still can't pay for her children? do we let her family suffer instead of helping? do you relay on the private sector and hope they aren't greedy? what about the homeless who ar 90% too mentally ill to even make decisions? do we restart the zyklon ovens or do you try to help them?

1) The disabled.

There are few people so disabled that they cannot find some work. The majority of the "disabled" (by that i mean people turning in disability checks from the government) are people who could function just fine, and are complaing of something like Carpal tunnel's synndrome, which while painful is not generally debilitating. Those people should be getting nothing.

People who in fact are so disabled that they cannot provide for themselves, which to truly be that disabled they would have to be very nearly unable to survive on their own, are what i would consider a special case, and an exception.

2)Working poor

Maybe you've never worked with the working poor (I worked in San Fernando for a while, largely hispanic, in fact you can't work there without speaking spanish so many people don't speak english. ), but there are two groups of them:

Immigrants who moved here. I've met people who moved here from Mexico, legally, and have held the same job for 15-20 years. The same minimum wage job, working to support their families. And those jobs suck, i know, i was working right there next to them for a while. I have enormous respect for them as people who have worked to earn what they get. Help them. I would support that wholly.

Young, second or third generation poor. I worked with these people too. Almost everyone of them sold or did drugs (about 3/4). Some of them were single mothers pregnant at nineteen. They are irresponsible people. they have no sense of responsibility, honor, or dignity. They had bad attendance records at work, wasted their paychecks within days. These people deserve exactly what they've gotten. They can rot. AS for their children, get them the hell away from their parents. try to save their children from them. But they themselves deserve nothing.

3) The Mentally ill homeless

If they are severely mentally ill i consider them to fall under the section of truly disabled. that does not mean you hand them money though, you ahve them committed.
 
  • #52
That's the point though isn't it? The poor in the US are infact some of the worst off people in the Western world.

I feel badly for poor people but at least they have a better chance to make a living in the U.S than in a communist or socialist country because it is very hard for them to move up and it causes many problems throughout the government.

Take Canada for example. Their health care is terrible because of socialism. For those of you who do not know, doctors (who make a lot of money in the United States) are state employees in Canada because of the socialist system. They get payed very little, compared to what they are payed in the U.S and many of them move to the United States, especially in neighboring states such as mine. (NY) When I went on a trip up North, I met many Canadian people. Also, while medicine is cheaper in Canada, it also is not as new and they haven't the money to make much new medicine or medical technology because most of their funding comes from taxes which are not enough to supply money for everything.
 
  • #53
jcsd said:
No socialism does not favour depedning on the state, it's odd that you should be against the Sweedish model as for many years it consistent;ly deloivered one of the highest standards of living the world, ceratoinly higher than the standard of living in the US.

Most socialists views believe in helping other people to some extent and it seems to me that this is what you are against! Personally I would not like to live in a soceity of scoipaths (if such a thing can be called a society) were no-one lifts a finger o help anyone else. Ypou seem to think that if you work hard you will not be poor and you will always be able to afford helathcare, this is quite frankly naive (I infact used to work for the UK Department of Work and Pensions so I can tell you this view is completely wrong).

I don't know why you bring up the Democrats as they are not by amny strecth of the imagination socialist and there is no consistent view on immigration among the many different beliefs that are called sometimes called socilaist. Socialism does not favour depwendcy on the state, a feature genrally shared by these ideas (again I sya it is stupid though to talk about Stalisim and the Swedish model as if they share any common ground) is that evryone should contribute.

The point is that you seem to be launching a blind attack against views that you are not famlir with.


Actually i don't think i am going to be able to afford healthcare by just working hard. But i do expect that i will get what i deserve for my work. That is the bottom line. I do not want more than i deserve. I don't want a house on the beach, i don't want a flatscreen tv, i don't want a $50,000 car, i don't want money from the government. I want what i earn. If i earn those things, then so be it. If not, i wouldn't accept them for free.

Again socialism is taking form people to give others more than they deserve based upon what they have done, what they have contributed, their work. I am against this.
 
  • #54
Political Prodigy said:
I feel badly for poor people but at least they have a better chance to make a living in the U.S than in a communist or socialist country because it is very hard for them to move up and it causes many problems throughout the government.

Take Canada for example. Their health care is terrible because of socialism. For those of you who do not know, doctors (who make a lot of money in the United States) are state employees in Canada because of the socialist system. They get payed very little, compared to what they are payed in the U.S and many of them move to the United States, especially in neighboring states such as mine. (NY) When I went on a trip up North, I met many Canadian people. Also, while medicine is cheaper in Canada, it also is not as new and they haven't the money to make much new medicine or medical technology because most of their funding comes from taxes which are not enough to supply money for everything.


Yes whoever said socialized medicin is of higher quality because it is not driven by competition was wrong. Economic competition is what drives up quality.
 
  • #55
franznietzsche said:
Yes whoever said socialized medicin is of higher quality because it is not driven by competition was wrong. Economic competition is what drives up quality.


medical science is driven by academic/intellectual competition- like all science- and is mosly funded by govt grants [I know-my job is to administrate funds and budjets for the University of California Regents- UC is the largest source of medical research on Earth] economic competition only plagues pharmaceuticals- to be honest- all of our economical worries are aout GOP cutting our funds- not competition with for-profits or other non-profit orgs- that's all about status and ego
 
  • #56
Political Prodigy said:
I feel badly for poor people but at least they have a better chance to make a living in the U.S than in a communist or socialist country because it is very hard for them to move up and it causes many problems throughout the government.

Hardly, OK if you comapre to a country like China yes, but if you comapre to somewhere like Western Europe you see that the US has less oppurtunites open to the poor in general due to the fact that there are more obstacles in obtianing a decetn eductaion in the US if you are poor.

Take Canada for example. Their health care is terrible because of socialism. For those of you who do not know, doctors (who make a lot of money in the United States) are state employees in Canada because of the socialist system. They get payed very little, compared to what they are payed in the U.S and many of them move to the United States, especially in neighboring states such as mine. (NY) When I went on a trip up North, I met many Canadian people. Also, while medicine is cheaper in Canada, it also is not as new and they haven't the money to make much new medicine or medical technology because most of their funding comes from taxes which are not enough to supply money for everything.

Actually Canada frequently tops QOL assemsemnts because of it's healthcare system which is one of the best in the world.

The US spends much, much more per capita on helathcare than any other country, but because of it's privatized system this infact entails paying more for less.
 
  • #57
setAI said:
medical science is driven by academic/intellectual competition- like all science- and is mosly funded by govt grants [I know-my job is to administrate funds and budjets for the University of California Regents- UC is the largest source of medical research on Earth] economic competition only plagues pharmaceuticals-

Medical science is not medical practice. Science is driven by a desire for knowledge, not competition. Practice is a business, and that is driven to quality by competition.
 
  • #58
phatmonky said:
Socialized medicine and poverty programs are mostly smart becasue they are axiomatic- but socialism itself is dead and gone-

socaialized medicine will always be pushed- becasue IT IS A HUMAN RIGHT to have equal access to the best healthcare available-

God this makes me sick. As a future Health care professional, I will want to kill myself the day I lose the right to run a private practice the way I want, the best way I can for my patients.

Socialized medicine isn't the only alternative. It's the only alternative for those who:
1>Haven't researched the issue enough
2>Don't have a problem forcing OTHERS into government servitude, so long as they don't have to be forced into the same thing

Quoted for emphasis.
 
  • #59
franznietzsche said:
Yes whoever said socialized medicin is of higher quality because it is not driven by competition was wrong. Economic competition is what drives up quality.

Then why do countries like Canda, sweden and Norway with socialized medicine beta the US on ALL core helath indicators?
 
  • #60
I keep hearing that people like myself are wrong for criticizing individuals who voted for Bush. I have criticized with logic and valid beliefs, and others like me have as well. I didn't see any of my points countered in any way by my critics.

A system of government is supposed to be the best for the majority of people. How many people are unhealthy, uneducated, poor, ect? - quite a few are. The majority of people don't know how to choose what is best for them. That is where the U.S democracy is failing. Propoganda has infested U.S politics making the average person unable to decifer the correct candidate to vote for in any election.

How can you claim my post to be ignorant logically? All points should be justified otherwise they are just impassioned rhetoric. I enjoy the twisting of English diction and the use of glittering generalities too; however, it does make the debate futile after awhile.
 
  • #61
I don't know about lots of Bush voters not being stupid.

My science teacher said he voted Bush because he felt like he could "Sit down and have a beer with him". He elaborated that if he had a beer with Kerry, he felt that Kerry would be speaking down to him, wheras he feels Bush is at or below his level of thinking, so he relates to him better.

Little did he know, Bush has stopped drinking since his wife almost left him because he drank so much...
 
  • #62
jcsd said:
Then why do countries like Canda, sweden and Norway with socialized medicine beta the US on ALL core helath indicators?


Because it is easier to get there, not because quality is higher. That means that the average care received is higher, yes. But, we have Mayo, Johns Hopkins, UCLA, and Bethesda, the best hospitals in the world. The socialist systems do have a higher averageof care. But they do not offer the best care.
 
  • #63
Dooga Blackrazor said:
I keep hearing that people like myself are wrong for criticizing individuals who voted for Bush. I have criticized with logic and valid beliefs, and others like me have as well. I didn't see any of my points countered in any way by my critics.

A system of government is supposed to be the best for the majority of people. How many people are unhealthy, uneducated, poor, ect? - quite a few are. The majority of people don't know how to choose what is best for them. That is where the U.S democracy is failing. Propoganda has infested U.S politics making the average person unable to decifer the correct candidate to vote for in any election.

How can you claim my post to be ignorant logically? All points should be justified otherwise they are just impassioned rhetoric. I enjoy the twisting of English diction and the use of glittering generalities too; however, it does make the debate futile after awhile.

1)And they call me pretentious. As if you know what is in the best interests of all the people who voted for Bush. not everyone has the same priorities as you.

2) You are contradicting the basics of democracy. refer to mencken quote.

3) You talk about people being uneducated and unable to decide what is best for themselves, but then say "ignorant logically"? Who is the uneducated one? Furthermore, the basis of democracy is they get what they want, not what is best for them.

4) Again, and they call me pretentious. I don't pretend to know what is best for everyone. I don't claim people are too stupid to decide what they want.
 
  • #64
Hardly, OK if you comapre to a country like China yes, but if you comapre to somewhere like Western Europe you see that the US has less oppurtunites open to the poor in general due to the fact that there are more obstacles in obtianing a decetn eductaion in the US if you are poor.

Actually, I admit I was thinking of China. However, what I mean is that the poor in America can rise in social class where as in communism the government decides what you are what you own and what your salary is. It's totalitarian.

For example, say one of my classes in college is a communist country. Let's also say I have a 4.0 GPA. If one day my professor comes in and says we will all receive a 3.0 GPA for the rest of the year, do you think me and many of the others in my class (with the exception of those with less thana 3.0) will work as hard? What would the point be in working hard if we can't get a better grade anyway? That is why communism so often fails. No motivation for work, no room for improvement, no freedom . In America, we have that.
 
  • #65
I'm closing this thread because too many insults have been made and we can't seem to get past it.
 

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
4K
  • General Discussion
2
Replies
56
Views
10K
  • General Discussion
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
65
Views
7K
  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Art, Music, History, and Linguistics
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • General Discussion
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
24
Views
5K
Back
Top