Re: CORONAVIRUS [was: League Watch 2020]

426
BluesSK wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:11 pm
bradleygt89 wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 10:44 am So you think that Canada will not 'cede these liberties' back? (Not commenting on the Philippines as they are a different story, as Duterte is an authoritative jackoff)

But for Canada:

"No gatherings of more than "x" number of people depending where you live.
No church services.
No schooling.
International border closures.
Provincial border closures.
Having your business determined to be essential or not and if it isn't. You're closed."

what would be the benefit to the Canadian government to not cede those liberties back? Just not following the logic of your fear.
Oh, they will cede those ones back but it will just make it all the easier the next time a "crisis" happens and as we all know once laws are implemented they never seem to be repealed. i.e.; The Patriot Act, FISA courts

You also didn't take into consideration the second part of my initial comments;
There's also a lot of people who have been psychologically manipulated into willingly giving up those liberties and being fine with it as long as they feel the government keeps them safe.
This is what's happening in China. A totalitarian government that has given a billion people a middle class lifestyle. As long as they don't rock the boat and are fat and happy big brother will look after them while they impose rights violation upon rights violation on prisoners, ethnic minorities, human rights advocates and on and on.

This could easily happen anywhere and we must do everything we can to guarantee the individual liberties and human rights of people.

Americans argue about the Constitution endlessly but they don't realize how lucky they are to have it.

And that's how I feel.
So question, since I have time to play;

1. You don't think this is an actual crisis? Just asking since you are calling a 'crisis'.
2. Yes, authoratarian governments suck. And yes, as flawed as it may be in modern terms, the living breathing document we have in the USA called the Constitution is a beautiful thing.
3. Here's a thought for all libertarian minded folk (which I used to claim, until it shifted to the far-right): The need for government, laws, police, military...the need for them suck. Unfortunately, people suck, therefore we need less sucky government to protect the masses from the ultra-sucky.

Think about it. IF everyone practiced good hygiene, stayed home when sick (and could afford too because their employers gave them realistic sick time), and followed basic 'social distancing' guidelines during a pandemic...there wouldn't be a fucking pandemic. All the assholes who continue to go to church, hang out at the beaches, bars, and in large groups...blame them for the governments having to take action. We saw it here in FL and up in Mo: People flooding the beaches and state parks and not maintaining social distancing, so like a parent to a child, there goes that privilege.

Our species is highly ironic; we bitch about far reaching laws, but it is our own stupidity why we have these laws to being with. You shouldn't need to be told to drive at a safe speed for the road conditions. There shouldn't have to be a sign over a 100' gorge saying not to lean over because you may die. There shouldn't have to be regulations to keep industries from polluting the waters. But we have them because people are not just stupid, they are selfish and short-sighted.

TLDR: WE created this. no one else. we only have ourselves to blame for the actions that the government takes to protect the masses from ourselves because we are too dumb to do it on our own.
"Do Only Good Everyday"

Re: CORONAVIRUS [was: League Watch 2020]

429
bradleygt89 wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 9:22 pm
BluesSK wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 6:11 pm
bradleygt89 wrote: Thu Apr 02, 2020 10:44 am So you think that Canada will not 'cede these liberties' back? (Not commenting on the Philippines as they are a different story, as Duterte is an authoritative jackoff)

But for Canada:

"No gatherings of more than "x" number of people depending where you live.
No church services.
No schooling.
International border closures.
Provincial border closures.
Having your business determined to be essential or not and if it isn't. You're closed."

what would be the benefit to the Canadian government to not cede those liberties back? Just not following the logic of your fear.
Oh, they will cede those ones back but it will just make it all the easier the next time a "crisis" happens and as we all know once laws are implemented they never seem to be repealed. i.e.; The Patriot Act, FISA courts

You also didn't take into consideration the second part of my initial comments;
There's also a lot of people who have been psychologically manipulated into willingly giving up those liberties and being fine with it as long as they feel the government keeps them safe.
This is what's happening in China. A totalitarian government that has given a billion people a middle class lifestyle. As long as they don't rock the boat and are fat and happy big brother will look after them while they impose rights violation upon rights violation on prisoners, ethnic minorities, human rights advocates and on and on.

This could easily happen anywhere and we must do everything we can to guarantee the individual liberties and human rights of people.

Americans argue about the Constitution endlessly but they don't realize how lucky they are to have it.

And that's how I feel.
So question, since I have time to play;

1. You don't think this is an actual crisis? Just asking since you are calling a 'crisis'.
2. Yes, authoratarian governments suck. And yes, as flawed as it may be in modern terms, the living breathing document we have in the USA called the Constitution is a beautiful thing.
3. Here's a thought for all libertarian minded folk (which I used to claim, until it shifted to the far-right): The need for government, laws, police, military...the need for them suck. Unfortunately, people suck, therefore we need less sucky government to protect the masses from the ultra-sucky.

Think about it. IF everyone practiced good hygiene, stayed home when sick (and could afford too because their employers gave them realistic sick time), and followed basic 'social distancing' guidelines during a pandemic...there wouldn't be a fucking pandemic. All the assholes who continue to go to church, hang out at the beaches, bars, and in large groups...blame them for the governments having to take action. We saw it here in FL and up in Mo: People flooding the beaches and state parks and not maintaining social distancing, so like a parent to a child, there goes that privilege.

Our species is highly ironic; we bitch about far reaching laws, but it is our own stupidity why we have these laws to being with. You shouldn't need to be told to drive at a safe speed for the road conditions. There shouldn't have to be a sign over a 100' gorge saying not to lean over because you may die. There shouldn't have to be regulations to keep industries from polluting the waters. But we have them because people are not just stupid, they are selfish and short-sighted.

TLDR: WE created this. no one else. we only have ourselves to blame for the actions that the government takes to protect the masses from ourselves because we are too dumb to do it on our own.
I love topics like this... thinking about how society in general started, a group of people basically started living together together to help each other live a little easier. It was easier for humans to exist by living in a group and having certain roles to help the group as a whole. Over time those groups grew. Then they grew so large, that it was easier for a smaller group to make decisions for the group as a whole (government). Those decisions sometimes limited the freedom of the group to make life a little easier for the whole. Of course this is a super stripped down version of what has happen over thousands of years, but you get the point.
Now, fast forward those thousands of years and you have super complex governments, rules, taxes, a global economy, etc. You also have a country that is made up of a conglomerate of different races, ages, economic status, gender, sexuality, and political view points. Because of these complexities, I feel like there will never ever be a government group that has a high approval rating. There are just way too many varying opinions. Way too many varying expectations on what the government should provide for the group. Couple that with the fact that all of these group basically only get two choices every 4 years (Democrat or Republican), and you are primed for division and unrest.
This brings me to the point. I personally feel like that is what the government wants from us: division. United we stand, divided we fall. When the country is divided, we cannot stand up to the people in power, hence those people keep their power. And those people in power are the Democrats and Republicans. If Biden or Trump lose this election coming up, does it really matter? Nope. Because both parties will have another shot in 4 years. Those two parties run our country. They have all the power. They influence the masses with bullshit topics that divide us. They make everyday people argue with each other over political discussions that they ultimately have zero control over other than casting one vote for president every 4 years. They influence news channels that then influence our thinking.
For these reasons, I see where SK is coming from. Anytime I feel like the government is overreaching, it makes me shake my head. But in reality, what does it matter? I can't stop it. I don't want the virus, and I sure as hell don't want to give it to my parents, etc. I have my own thoughts about the origins and purpose of the virus. I won't share them because you guys will probably think I am nuts :lol: But, the virus is real and that can't be denied. So I will follow the guidelines as closely as possible to get through this.
KA-KAW!

Re: CORONAVIRUS [was: League Watch 2020]

431
Good news the govt is going to reimburse hospitals for uninsured COVID patients.

Funny though how we need socialism to bail us out every ten years or so. But I bet the party of “ rugged individualism” will be railing against it as usual come autumn. The irony is not lost. At least this time the crisis wasn’t of their own creation unlike 2008.

Re: CORONAVIRUS [was: League Watch 2020]

435
ratonmono wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:18 pm Good news the govt is going to reimburse hospitals for uninsured COVID patients.

Funny though how we need socialism to bail us out every ten years or so. But I bet the party of “ rugged individualism” will be railing against it as usual come autumn. The irony is not lost. At least this time the crisis wasn’t of their own creation unlike 2008.
The government helping out an industry that is vital to civilization in a time of crisis isn't socialism.
KA-KAW!

Re: CORONAVIRUS [was: League Watch 2020]

436
Follow the money, doesn't anyone find it odd that Bill Gates just built 7 labs to make vaccines? Or... how our illustrious Dr.Fauci and Dr.Birx happens to be on Bill's boards of directors. Now let's go back to 2017 when Dr.Nostradamas Fauci predicted that in the next 3 years there will be a pandemic. Couple all that in a neat bow then explain to me how 6225 Drs., worldwide say that there go to is hydroxychloroqine but Nostradamus says no. I don't believe in coincidences, I've lived to long to not see through how much money is at stake here.

Re: CORONAVIRUS [was: League Watch 2020]

437
BlueinNy wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:46 am Follow the money, doesn't anyone find it odd that Bill Gates just built 7 labs to make vaccines? Or... how our illustrious Dr.Fauci and Dr.Birx happens to be on Bill's boards of directors. Now let's go back to 2017 when Dr.Nostradamas Fauci predicted that in the next 3 years there will be a pandemic. Couple all that in a neat bow then explain to me how 6225 Drs., worldwide say that there go to is hydroxychloroqine but Nostradamus says no. I don't believe in coincidences, I've lived to long to not see through how much money is at stake here.
Absolutely correct.
Also, check this out:

http://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/event201/

Bill Gates literally just held and "exercise" on global pandemics in October. His foundation has also done a ton of research on implantable microchips that could be used to track peoples vaccinations and exposures to viruses.

All of this shit just screams conspiracy.
KA-KAW!

Re: CORONAVIRUS [was: League Watch 2020]

440
MattyIce wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:07 am
ratonmono wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:18 pm Good news the govt is going to reimburse hospitals for uninsured COVID patients.

Funny though how we need socialism to bail us out every ten years or so. But I bet the party of “ rugged individualism” will be railing against it as usual come autumn. The irony is not lost. At least this time the crisis wasn’t of their own creation unlike 2008.
The government helping out an industry that is vital to civilization in a time of crisis isn't socialism.
It absolutely is by definition socialism. I'm all for it. We should apply it more often. :D

Re: CORONAVIRUS [was: League Watch 2020]

441
ratonmono wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:28 pm
MattyIce wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:07 am
ratonmono wrote: Fri Apr 03, 2020 8:18 pm Good news the govt is going to reimburse hospitals for uninsured COVID patients.

Funny though how we need socialism to bail us out every ten years or so. But I bet the party of “ rugged individualism” will be railing against it as usual come autumn. The irony is not lost. At least this time the crisis wasn’t of their own creation unlike 2008.
The government helping out an industry that is vital to civilization in a time of crisis isn't socialism.
It absolutely is by definition socialism. I'm all for it. We should apply it more often. :D
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide
In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.



This was taken right from Merriam-Webster. It is not socialism. Socialism focuses on evenly distributing income, services, or goods to society. Bailing out a hospitals so they can continue to run is not socialism. Also, hospitals have never been able to refuse patients with serious conditions based on having insurance. This isn't new to COVID and still isn't socialism.
You have the right to have your own opinion, but no one will ever make me believe that socialism is the correct path for this country. And after reading the definition above, that has only solidified that opinion in my mind. And no, I'm not a gun owning cowboy wannabe. I'm just a guy that has worked hard for what he has - AKA the "American Dream"
KA-KAW!

Re: CORONAVIRUS [was: League Watch 2020]

442
MattyIce wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:46 pm
ratonmono wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:28 pm
MattyIce wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 9:07 am

The government helping out an industry that is vital to civilization in a time of crisis isn't socialism.
It absolutely is by definition socialism. I'm all for it. We should apply it more often. :D
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide
In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.



This was taken right from Merriam-Webster. It is not socialism. Socialism focuses on evenly distributing income, services, or goods to society. Bailing out a hospitals so they can continue to run is not socialism. Also, hospitals have never been able to refuse patients with serious conditions based on having insurance. This isn't new to COVID and still isn't socialism.
You have the right to have your own opinion, but no one will ever make me believe that socialism is the correct path for this country. And after reading the definition above, that has only solidified that opinion in my mind. And no, I'm not a gun owning cowboy wannabe. I'm just a guy that has worked hard for what he has - AKA the "American Dream"
You are confusing socialism as a nation's economic system vs social programs designed to protect a nation's citizens. Social projects and government assistance and programs of any type that are funded by the citizens of that state ARE forms of socialism. There has never been a true socialist nation, just like there has never been a true capitalist or libertarian nation. Most nation-states vary from one end of the spectrum to another.

Social Security for example: "...because the American government plays such a dominant role in the U.S. Social Security system—deciding how much and when employees and employers pay into the system, how much individuals receive in benefits when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out—it seems fair to call the Social Security program a form of socialism. The program requires workers and their employers, along with self-employed individuals, to pay into the system throughout their working years. The government controls the money they contribute and decides when and how much they get back after—and if—they reach retirement age."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/r ... ialism.asp

Labels like 'socialism' are always fun, because they can be used for either a negative or a positive. And just because someone labels something someway, doesn't mean it is true. The following sounds like a very freedom loving place, that must have democratic elections and is a Republic, just the USA is, right? "The People's Democratic Republic of Korea". If you didn't know better, you may guess it was South Korea. But no, it is one of the most isolated, and authoritarian governments in the world, North Korea. Not a democratic republic at all is it, at least not as we in the USA or other western nations would define it.

So you can call it whatever you like, but anytime you and I and others pay taxes (or don't pay taxes as is seen with subsidies, government incentives, etc.) and those funds go towards anything that benefits others in our nation based on how the Government sees fit, that is a form of socialism. Look at it this way; China and Russia are known authoritarian socialist government. Yet, there is private ownership and most workers get paid funds that they can use as they see fit within the limited free market they have there. That is a form of capitalism. So if we can agree that the Chinese and Russia have various forms of capitalism in their economic policies, we should be able to agree that the USA has various forms of socialism in it's own economic policies.
"Do Only Good Everyday"

Re: CORONAVIRUS [was: League Watch 2020]

443
bradleygt89 wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 4:15 pm
MattyIce wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:46 pm
ratonmono wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 1:28 pm

It absolutely is by definition socialism. I'm all for it. We should apply it more often. :D
Definition of socialism
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

Socialism vs. Social Democracy: Usage Guide
In the many years since socialism entered English around 1830, it has acquired several different meanings. It refers to a system of social organization in which private property and the distribution of income are subject to social control, but the conception of that control has varied, and the term has been interpreted in widely diverging ways, ranging from statist to libertarian, from Marxist to liberal. In the modern era, "pure" socialism has been seen only rarely and usually briefly in a few Communist regimes. Far more common are systems of social democracy, now often referred to as democratic socialism, in which extensive state regulation, with limited state ownership, has been employed by democratically elected governments (as in Sweden and Denmark) in the belief that it produces a fair distribution of income without impairing economic growth.



This was taken right from Merriam-Webster. It is not socialism. Socialism focuses on evenly distributing income, services, or goods to society. Bailing out a hospitals so they can continue to run is not socialism. Also, hospitals have never been able to refuse patients with serious conditions based on having insurance. This isn't new to COVID and still isn't socialism.
You have the right to have your own opinion, but no one will ever make me believe that socialism is the correct path for this country. And after reading the definition above, that has only solidified that opinion in my mind. And no, I'm not a gun owning cowboy wannabe. I'm just a guy that has worked hard for what he has - AKA the "American Dream"
You are confusing socialism as a nation's economic system vs social programs designed to protect a nation's citizens. Social projects and government assistance and programs of any type that are funded by the citizens of that state ARE forms of socialism. There has never been a true socialist nation, just like there has never been a true capitalist or libertarian nation. Most nation-states vary from one end of the spectrum to another.

Social Security for example: "...because the American government plays such a dominant role in the U.S. Social Security system—deciding how much and when employees and employers pay into the system, how much individuals receive in benefits when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out—it seems fair to call the Social Security program a form of socialism. The program requires workers and their employers, along with self-employed individuals, to pay into the system throughout their working years. The government controls the money they contribute and decides when and how much they get back after—and if—they reach retirement age."

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/r ... ialism.asp

Labels like 'socialism' are always fun, because they can be used for either a negative or a positive. And just because someone labels something someway, doesn't mean it is true. The following sounds like a very freedom loving place, that must have democratic elections and is a Republic, just the USA is, right? "The People's Democratic Republic of Korea". If you didn't know better, you may guess it was South Korea. But no, it is one of the most isolated, and authoritarian governments in the world, North Korea. Not a democratic republic at all is it, at least not as we in the USA or other western nations would define it.

So you can call it whatever you like, but anytime you and I and others pay taxes (or don't pay taxes as is seen with subsidies, government incentives, etc.) and those funds go towards anything that benefits others in our nation based on how the Government sees fit, that is a form of socialism. Look at it this way; China and Russia are known authoritarian socialist government. Yet, there is private ownership and most workers get paid funds that they can use as they see fit within the limited free market they have there. That is a form of capitalism. So if we can agree that the Chinese and Russia have various forms of capitalism in their economic policies, we should be able to agree that the USA has various forms of socialism in it's own economic policies.
Obviously I realize that nothing is black and white. I guess what sort of irked me was that the original post seemed to hint at wanting more socialistic programs in this country. Which was then admitted in the next post. To which I still completely disagree with. But your response was a good one and well thought out.
KA-KAW!

Re: CORONAVIRUS [was: League Watch 2020]

446
ratonmono wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:57 pm
Turk Sanderson wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 5:06 pm Is Corporate Welfare socialism???
Yep. We already have some socialism here in the states just not for everybody. It would just be nice to have a single payer health system in place. I’m not advocating the feds running general commerce.
We've been drifting into a Monarchy/Oligarchy.... and some people think that that's great.

Re: CORONAVIRUS [was: League Watch 2020]

447
Turk Sanderson wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:12 pm
ratonmono wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:57 pm
Turk Sanderson wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 5:06 pm Is Corporate Welfare socialism???
Yep. We already have some socialism here in the states just not for everybody. It would just be nice to have a single payer health system in place. I’m not advocating the feds running general commerce.
We've been drifting into a Monarchy/Oligarchy.... and some people think that that's great.
I'm more of a fan of Veronica than archy.

Re: CORONAVIRUS [was: League Watch 2020]

448
JMC-STL wrote: Tue Apr 07, 2020 7:15 am
Turk Sanderson wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 7:12 pm
ratonmono wrote: Mon Apr 06, 2020 6:57 pm
Yep. We already have some socialism here in the states just not for everybody. It would just be nice to have a single payer health system in place. I’m not advocating the feds running general commerce.
We've been drifting into a Monarchy/Oligarchy.... and some people think that that's great.
I'm more of a fan of Veronica than archy.


Veronica Lodge.jpg
If cartoons give you a stiffy, your soul is lost.