Republican Voter Suppression!

[OE800_85]

The evils they experienced weren't of socialism. That's a wad of crap. They faced communism, and the more serious problem they faced was totalitarianism. In fact, these countries aren't socialist, there are massive gaps between the rich and poor and there is rampant corruption. That goes against the very principle of socialism which is empowering the people, particularly the lower and middle class. I don't know who brainwashed you into thinking that way.

[sanantone]

Its very hard to have a conversation like this with people on the completely opposite side of the spectrum so its probably not worth doing it.
Have this conversation with a Russian or Cuban immigrant and you will understand the evil that is socialism and communism.

This is another example of Americans not understanding what socialism actually is. Socialism can be paired with any form of government. There is democratic socialism which is seen in Europe, there is totalitarian socialism which was seen in communist and some fascist countries, and there is anarcho socialism that was seen in the rebel-controlled areas of Spain during their civil war with the fascist government. Anarcho socialism or social anarchism is almost the complete opposite of totalitarianism (communism in practice as opposed to theory, fascism, authoritarian monarchies, dictatorships, etc.).

http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-diff...munism.htm
http://www.differencebetween.net/busines...mmunism-2/
http://www.wereyouwondering.com/what-is-...communism/

[mrs.b]

Its very hard to have a conversation like this with people on the completely opposite side of the spectrum so its probably not worth doing it.
Have this conversation with a Russian or Cuban immigrant and you will understand the evil that is socialism and communism.

With all due respect, ryoder - and I do respect you a lot - until recently (as in the last few days), I agreed that political discussions were about as useful as beating one's head against a brick wall in the hopes the wall will realize we want to pass. I think that tendency to give up is what has led to most of the impressive impasses that brought us to such heights as teetering on the Fiscal Cliff, among many other highlights of recent years.


For the record, I've voted for the Republican candidate in every presidential election since I turned 18. While it is rarely a comfortable decision, I tend to agree with economic and international affairs policies of those candidates more. It depends on the issue as to where I fall for social issues, and vote both ways for State and Local offices because of it. Both major parties are far too polarized in recent years, and growing moreso. It's sad. Both dismiss the other as incompetent and refuse to discuss or negotiate, which is shameful and not at all what the country was founded upon. There is nothing wrong with disagreement and discussion. The only result of dismissal of opposing opinions is a complete failure to make effective progress. Maybe if the everyday non-politician can figure out how to do it without shooting one another, Washington will figure it out and get off their ever-expanding backsides.

[ryoder]

This is the greatest forum on the net as far as I am concerned.
Lets not sully it with our divisive language.

[OE800_85]

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it" - Frederic Bastiat

[quasarvs]

Regulation is not socialism, but the U.S. already has socialist elements mixed into its capitalist economy: Social Security and Medicare. The government wanting to control everything is called totalitarianism or authoritarianism, but to apply that term to our government would be a gross exaggeration. It is quite annoying how people these days like to slap "socialism" on everything without even knowing what it means.

Here is a dictionary definition of socialism: "A system or theory of social organization in which the producers possess both political power and production and distribution means."
So in other words if the government distributes/produces healthcare, foodstamps, etc. along with a whole host of other social programs it has the political power as well as the distribution means. All it needs now is to strengthen regulation in order to harness and control private businesses, and it has all three making it a socialist government.
Therefore, my argument simply is, why let the government transform itself into a socialist government when it was created to protect the rights of individual people? Socialism goes against our constitution.
Unfortunately, with regards to well-meaning social programs, it is inefficient for the government to provide things for people, which they ought to procure/produce themselves. East Germany's economy etc. will bear witness to that.

Oh gee! Here we go again. When I say higher employment rate I mean, for example, 86% of black people being employed vs. 93% of white people being employed. That means that 14% of black people are unemployed vs. 7% of white people being unemployed.

Regardless of the percentages, WHY do we need to level the playing field? The keys of power have to be placed in someone's hand in order to do that and the government's hand is the worst hand to put them in. We should instead say, that as long as the laws are equal and the same for everyone, everyone is free to make the most of themselves with hard work etc.

Where is your proof that racism is rare? Most Americans have an unfavorable view of black people. Most non-Hispanic white people hold anti-Hispanic sentiments. Then, there are the name studies that prove employers use names to try to guess an applicant's ethnicity.
Racial Views: Poll Shows Majority Harbor Prejudice Against Blacks

Well I can tell you are biased (prejudiced) by that gross generalization. You cannot objectively say that most Americans (what you meant was white people) have an unfavorable view of black people. A poll is not a good enough proof.
Even if you could say that, what makes you think that most Americans have an unfavorable opinion about blacks on account of their race?
Maybe some parts of the black culture, ya know like da hood(uneducated) tallk(accent) and all dat don't necessarily appeal tuh some folks.
Could that possibly be the case? Or perhaps they believe that a good percentage of blacks are on welfare or maybe they think the promiscuity rate is higher?
There's a million and one reasons why someone could have an unfavorable opinion of blacks folks, as there is also a million and one reasons why someone could have an unfavorable opinion of white folks.
You're still blaming racism as if it was the only significant reason in the world for "inequality" and the downfalls of different cultures.

What does this have to do with unemployment rates? Outside of when the immigration debate gets heated, I would say that black people face more racism than Hispanic people. Hispanics weren’t held as slaves and, while they did have to deal with some segregation laws, they didn’t face nearly the amount of harsh racism that black people did.

Can you show me one black person in America today that suffered under slavery?
Can you show me one white person in America today that mistreated other people as their slaves?
The answer is no to both questions.
So why is there a payback among the races for something that happened in the past?
If you cannot lay blame on anyone, except for people who are dead, why are we laying out punishments and punitive paybacks in the form of socialistic programs used for equalizing everyone?

Anyway, there are some cultural issues that need to be worked out, but this does not wipe away the disparities between EQUALLY qualified people. If you let employers discriminate against people because of their race, gender, disability, etc., expect to pay taxes for those people to live off of government assistance. That is more in line with socialism and infringing upon individual rights in my opinion.

The black man leaving the home from divorce, promiscuity or other reasons leaves no man in the home to help raise the children. Traditionally, and I also believe, the man is the head of the household and needs to be the strong one in order to lead and train his children. In a similar way, it can be sort of understood like the chain of command in the military. Whether, right or wrong a captain, sergeant etc. has to bear the responsibility of making decisions and accepting the consequences. With a higher divorce rate there are fewer men in the family, and less motivation and training for particularly the boys to be motivated to graduate school and work hard. Simply put, by shirking familial responsibilities black men have caused a whole chain of events regarding black people in America. Therefore I maintain that higher divorce rates for blacks have been a contributing factor in lower graduation and eventually higher unemployment rates etc.

They are also less likely to complete college than black people, but I guess that doesn’t count as work ethic to you. I guess earning a higher salary doesn't count as work ethic to you either. Many people work minimum wage jobs and are still a drain on the system because they qualify for and receive government assistance.

For Hispanics there are other things that could affect their college graduation rates, such as having to learn the English language first etc.
Yes, I know that regarding the minimum wage jobs, and the workers for minimum wage shouldn't and if they were frugal they wouldn't depend on the government instead they would be patient and wait and work for what they want. Note: this might only work for childless responsible people.

That is not how AA works. I don’t know how many times I have to tell you. Businesses are not forced to hire unqualified or less qualified people.

I don’t know what this has to do with anything we’re talking about.

Does it really hurt a white male that much to hire an equally qualified minority? Gee!

I understand now that supposedly AA doesn't require businesses to higher unqualified people, but my main point is that AA forces businesses to higher anyone at all. I don't care who it is. It is not the government's job to control private businesses.

That’s called sexism, not racism; but men are still overrepresented in high-level positions even though there are more than enough females with college degrees out there and men usually make more money for the same positions.

Here it is again, you don't fight sexism with sexism or racism with racism in the opposite direction. Leveling the field only leads to socialism. The "overrepresentation" is due to history and tradition; there's nothing wrong with that. Granted things change with the times in society, but we don't need government to violate other's rights (private businesses) to change things or get things up to speed.

Even though it doesn’t exactly prove discrimination, one of those articles refers to 1,500 cases of discrimination against veterans that were investigated in one year. Combining those complaints with the comments many veterans make online, many of them do believe they face discrimination. The veterans who are just coming home from Iraq or Afghanistan have a higher than average unemployment rate. The only way one can find out why employers aren’t hiring them is to ask them. That’s the point of the survey.

That's understood, but I don't think I believe those surveys.
Regardless, discrimination is something that stems from an attitude, and because I believe everyone has a right to their opinion/attitude, I am not going to force businesses to higher someone.
If America is kept free and Americans have freedom under the law everyone has the same chances.
It's illogical to think that you can level the playing field for everyone when everyone is unique and different with different experiences and different needs.
It's just impossible to do.
That's why we should guard against leveling the playing field because all it does is shifts and centralizes the power into someone else's hands.

What law guarantees an American a job? Why do you continue to exaggerate on almost everything?

Again, this is not socialism. The playing field is being leveled for equally qualified people. Employers are not being forced to give jobs to unqualified people, everyone is not guaranteed a job, and employers aren’t forced to pay the same wage for different level positions.

Sorry if I repeated anything Mrs. B said. I was typing this up as she posted.

Again yes, I believe it is socialism. When social programs are implemented to where you can't fail, with unemployment money benefits, food stamps, welfare, healthcare, etc. its a cradle to grave society where you are taken care of, guaranteed a living which is a job, and the government has full say over your life and the decisions you make.
One final note socialism is only a stepping stone away from communism.

[quasarvs]

This is the greatest forum on the net as far as I am concerned.
Lets not sully it with our divisive language.

I do not have any intention of doing so, and I appreciate hearing everyone's views on things.
My opinion is that this is more of a discussion rather than a harsh debate and I believe Americans need to be having these discussions in order to preserve what we do actually have in common which is our values of freedom under law, and a desire to have justice and good government.

[ShotoJuku]

This is the greatest forum on the net as far as I am concerned.
Lets not sully it with our divisive language.

Agreed....