One million man march in Madrid to oppose abortion

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Since Zapatero was elected, and won a second term as well, how are the reforms being "shoved down the throats" of the populace? Some people disagree with the reforms, and I'm sure the vast majority of the people now marching didn't vote for Zapatero in the first place.

Its pretty easy really. I am more familiar with American politics, so I will use it as an example. Bush was elected on the premise of being "conservative" and ran as such. However, what we got was anything but a conservative. He doubled the national debt and inacted one of the largest entitlement policies in US history with a war across the pond to boot. In short, he was a statist masked in conservative attire. Of course, the masses still associated him with "conservatism", so they decided they wanted change with Obama. Of course, what they did was elect the same bill of goods with the only difference being he has his foot on the accelerator. Then to top it all off, Obama did not even win the popular vote in his own party. So lets say the masses reject Obama and company next time around. Who are they going to run to? Perhaps another Bush? You see, the party system is in control and they pretty much seem to have teh same objectives. The masses can continue to run from party to party seeking change but none will be found. They will be ruled with the iron fist of the powers that be in both parties.

Originally posted by whodey
Its pretty easy really. I am more familiar with American politics, so I will use it as an example. Bush was elected on the premise of being "conservative" and ran as such. However, what we got was anything but a conservative. He doubled the national debt and inacted one of the largest entitlement policies in US history with a war across the pond to boot. will be found. They will be ruled with the iron fist of the powers that be in both parties.

but what if the great majority of the American people favor statism of some form or another?

1. People in general support large statist programs like Social Security and Medicare. They may worry about how much these programs will be costing in the future, but they don't really want them to be cut very much, if at all. That is why politicians of both parties are very wary about touching them.

2. People who lean to the right generally support having a large military and a strong police force -- which is perhaps statism at it's rawest level. The people who elected Bush generally expected him to act very forcefully against "terrorism" around the world -- even if many of them now question some of the specific strategies and targets Bush used.

3. People who lean to the left generally support having a government that acts strongly on behalf of those who are minorities or are poor, or favor strong policy to protect the environment.

In the 2008 election, the great majority of people continued to vote the way they did in 2004 or 2000 (or 1996 or 1992 for that matter) -- Obama was only a few percentage points better than Gore or Kerry. The idea that the nation made a radical shift away from it's previous position is very much a myth.

You might not like it, but "statism" of some form or another is popular with just about everyone.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
[b]but what if the great majority of the American people favor statism of some form or another?

1. People in general support large statist programs like Social Security and Medicare. They may worry about how much these programs will be costing in the future, but they don't really want them to be cut very much, if at all. That is why politicians of both parties are very wary about touching them.

Well who does not want something that is dubbed "free"? The American public are schizophrenic in that they want these massive entitlements but no increease in taxes. So what happens? You get two yahoos like Bush and Obama who promise to deliver even more massive entitlements without raising taxes on the middle class. However, what you end up with is massive debt which dictates that future administrations substantially raise taxes no matter their preference in doing so. In short, future administraions will be slaves of the decisions the last two administrations have made as will be the American public.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
2. People who lean to the right generally support having a large military and a strong police force -- which is perhaps statism at it's rawest level. The people who elected Bush generally expected him to act very forcefully against "terrorism" around the world -- even if many of them now question some of the specific strategies and targets Bush used.

I take no issue with protecting the American people from criminal activity whether it be domestic or international. Therefore, you need the proper defenses in place in order to "keep the peace". Of course, what becomes blurred in the mix is what is protection and what is seeking to fulfill ones agenda in the name of protecting the people? For example, are they acting to pad the pockets of the defense industries/oil industries thus padding their own or it soley in accordance with protecting the populace? In fact, we have the same issues with the health care legislation. It is done in the name of protecting people, but what about alterior motives and pork hidden in the bill? What about alerior motives of controlling the populace access to health care?

Originally posted by whodey
Its pretty easy really. I am more familiar with American politics, so I will use it as an example. Bush was elected on the premise of being "conservative" and ran as such. However, what we got was anything but a conservative. He doubled the national debt and inacted one of the largest entitlement policies in US history with a war across the pond to boot. ...[text shortened]... will be found. They will be ruled with the iron fist of the powers that be in both parties.

Well, if the Spanish are not happy with Zapatero (considering the dire economic situation in Spain, I wouldn't be surprised), they can always vote for some other guy at the next election.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
3. People who lean to the left generally support having a government that acts strongly on behalf of those who are minorities or are poor, or favor strong policy to protect the environment.

You are correct. Then the statists get in there and use these causes to further enslave us. For example, cap and trade comes to mind. It is nothing more than a blind regerssive tax that proports to aid their cause. In reality, however, it does little and arguably nothing to curb fossil fuels and the US dependence on foriegn oil. As for social programs to help the poor, a great majority of the money goes to government over head as they redistribute the money to the poor. Secondly, it does nothing to releave the core causes of poverty, rather, it only attempts to deal with their short term plight which is where can I get my next meal? So what you are left with is a populace that is increasingly dependent on a meal ticket as more and more people fall into poverty creating cincreasingly more tax dollars flowing into the government to fix the problem. Affirmative action is another example. We let our children attend prison like inner city public schools with graduation rates of about 5% and then throw the remaining surviving graduates a bone and tell them they can be given tax dollars to attent college. Of course, they have been ill prepared to compete at such a level. In fact, they should be given a medal for merely graduating and surviving their ordeals. God forbid we close down these prison schools and get to the root of inequity in this country!! However, to give them a good education would be to empower them. THis is the furthest thing from the statists mind.

Originally posted by Melanerpes
.

In the 2008 election, the great majority of people continued to vote the way they did in 2004 or 2000 (or 1996 or 1992 for that matter) -- Obama was only a few percentage points better than Gore or Kerry. The idea that the nation made a radical shift away from it's previous position is very much a myth.

You might not like it, but "statism" of some form or another is popular with just about everyone.[/b]

Statism and the progressive movement have been adopted by both parties over the last century. The percentage support for the empty suits who take up the banner of statism is therefore irrelavent.

Originally posted by whodey
Statism and the progressive movement have been adopted by both parties over the last century. The percentage support for the empty suits who take up the banner of statism is therefore irrelavent.

The democratic, elected state apparatus is (theoretically) a defender for the common man against the ever encroaching dictatorial, unelected corporatocracy. The problem with the US is that the distinction between the state and the corporate world has been blurred and intermingled to such an extent that the state no longer functions as an independent body. The move to privatize everything under the sun is, in its essence, a move to minimize democratic control over things and maximize corporate control. Just as we maintain a wall of separation between church and state, we need to also maintain a wall of separation between Wall Street and the state.

Originally posted by rwingett
The democratic, elected state apparatus is (theoretically) a defender for the common man against the ever encroaching dictatorial, unelected corporatocracy. The problem with the US is that the distinction between the state and the corporate world has been blurred and intermingled to such an extent that the state no longer functions as an independent body. T ...[text shortened]... urch and state, we need to also maintain a wall of separation between Wall Street and the state.

The line between state and corporate is only one drawn in your mind. Just look at China. It is the goal of the statist to consolodate power both in government and private industry. You are focusing on cenralized government power as being superior than corporate, when the name of the game is centralized power and wealth away from the average Joe in order to increase the number of slaves on their "plantations".

Originally posted by whodey
The line between state and corporate is only one drawn in your mind. Just look at China. It is the goal of the statist to consolodate power both in government and private industry. You are focusing on cenralized government power as being superior than corporate, when the name of the game is centralized power and wealth away from the average Joe in order to increase the number of slaves on their "plantations".

Their government is not democratically elected.

Originally posted by whodey
You are correct. Then the statists get in there and use these causes to further enslave us. For example, cap and trade comes to mind. It is nothing more than a blind regerssive tax that proports to aid their cause. In reality, however, it does little and arguably nothing to curb fossil fuels and the US dependence on foriegn oil. As for social programs to ...[text shortened]... m a good education would be to empower them. THis is the furthest thing from the statists mind.

For example, cap and trade comes to mind. It is nothing more than a blind regerssive tax that proports to aid their cause. In reality, however, it does little and arguably nothing to curb fossil fuels and the US dependence on foriegn oil.

As long as foreign oil is cheap, we're going to keep guzzling it down. The only way to stop the addiction is to make the stuff more expensive. Can you think of any other way? Even an expansion of nuclear power isn't going to happen as long as fossil fuel prices remain as low as they are.

(social prograns) -- it does nothing to releave the core causes of poverty, rather, it only attempts to deal with their short term plight which is where can I get my next meal? So what you are left with is a populace that is increasingly dependent on a meal ticket as more and more people fall into poverty creating cincreasingly more tax dollars flowing into the government to fix the problem.

in the 1990's, some of these issues were addressed by welfare reform legislation. But you're correct in that we need to do more to address the core causes of poverty. But I don't know of any way to really do this that isn't already being done. Do you know of any solutions?

We let our children attend prison like inner city public schools with graduation rates of about 5% and then throw the remaining surviving graduates a bone and tell them they can be given tax dollars to attent college. Of course, they have been ill prepared to compete at such a level. In fact, they should be given a medal for merely graduating and surviving their ordeals. God forbid we close down these prison schools and get to the root of inequity in this country!!

do you have any good ideas for educating the students in these districts? Quackquack has had experience teaching in schools like this, and I asked him if he had any ideas of what might work and he didn't offer much hope. I don't think closing down these schools will solve anything -- the kids will just become some other schools' "unsolvable problem".

Originally posted by whodey
Ronald Reagan was spot on if you ask me. Now the masses are dependent on Medicare/Medicaid and can't imagine living without it. Of course, now the call is to make more dependent, so while you watch government give birth to even more entitlements, and perhaps the entire health care industry, take to heart Reagans warning that was dismissed.

Make no mistak ...[text shortened]... health care this go round, they will eventually do so. We have already started down this path.

Spot on?? LOL Did you even listen to or read his speech on this subject. Let's run down the list one at a time.

1: He claimed if Medicare is passed, Doctors will be told by the government where they can live.

Did this turn out to be true or false?

Edit: And you're also implying that all these people who are on Medicare and Medicaid would naturally otherwise have private insurance. There is absolutely no basis for this, especially considering we have 38 million Americans without insurance - who don't qualify for either program.

Originally posted by rwingett
Their government is not democratically elected.

Corporations can be "democratic" as well since shareholders can vote on issues and for CEO's. Of course, these issues and CEO's are hand picked just like ones that run for office. In fact, Obama didn't even win the popular vote in his own party and won the election. This type of voter participation is only a ruse to make you believe you have a voice.

Originally posted by whodey
Corporations can be "democratic" as well since shareholders can vote on issues and for CEO's. Of course, these issues and CEO's are hand picked just like ones that run for office. In fact, Obama didn't even win the popular vote in his own party and won the election. This type of voter participation is only a ruse to make you believe you have a voice.

Correction, he didn't win the popular vote IF you count the votes in the states where his name wasn't even on the ballot.

Also, primary votes are NOT for government positions at any level. They're to determine who will represent a specific party. None of the 3rd parties even had a vote at all to determine who will represent their party.

Originally posted by USArmyParatrooper
Spot on?? LOL Did you even listen to or read his speech on this subject. Let's run down the list one at a time.

1: He claimed if Medicare is passed, Doctors will be told by the government where they can live.

Did this turn out to be true or false?

Edit: And you're also implying that all these people who are on Medicare and Medicaid would ...[text shortened]... dering we have 38 million Americans without insurance - who don't qualify for either program.

Was that Medicare or socialised health care he was talking about. Medicare is just a step along the way, full blown socialised healthcare does mean the state will dictate where you can or cannot work.

Do you think the guvamint can magically make healthcare 'free', and so what if 38 million are uninsured, you would like to force insurance on them? The problem with collectivised healthcare whether a compulsory government scheme or voluntary insurance is that people who take care of themselves end up paying for those that are reckless. I never insure my vehicles, one stolen car and a couple of spills on the bike I'm still on a winner. It's all about freedom, it's all about living as a human being i.e. being able to assess your OWN values and acting on those choices.

Take a look at what is happening with ACC in New Zealand right now, the culmination of compulsory state insurance. They like to call them premiums, it's just another tax. Don't let the US go down the socialised healthcare route.