Democratic House candidate Matt Varilek makes a strong case against Rep. Kristi Noem when he points out that she has repeatedly voted to end Medicare as we know it. The South Dakota GOP tries to change the subject, but Noem enablers never address the facts: the Paul Ryan plan that Noem eyes and ayes would smash Medicare into voucherized bits that lots of seniors could not afford.
The Medicare-over-millionaires argument can have legs for Varilek, quite simply because there are a lot more folks counting on Medicare than there are millionaires who can afford to opt out of it. Noem and the Medicare privatizers try to dodge the bullet by saying they won't change Medicare for folks currently 55 and older. That's clever politics (old folks vote the most), but it's shortsighted policy. As technology increases increases, we may need fewer workers. As the chart here shows, the U.S. economy is currently putting just 68.5% of those between the ages of 16 to 54 to work, a low not seen since just after the recessions of the early 1980s. That employment rate dropped and stayed lower after the 2001 recession throughout the Bush Administration; the 2008 recession may have brought another hard reset to an economy that can meet consumer needs with fewer workers.
And if the economy can do without over 30% of workers in their prime, those shed workers are going to be a lot more nervous about a Congresswoman telling them to save up to pay for their own health care when they reach age 65. They will need a guaranteed safety net, not a long old age still at swim in a private market that already is telling them, "We don't want you."
Keep beating that Medicare drum, Matt: today's nervous workers will hear it.
One thing that you don't point out is that it may be difficult to purchase health care insurance with that aforementioned voucher when Nome, Ryan and company, repeal Obamacare and you no longer can buy medical insurance because of preexisting conditions. But then not many social security recipients will have any preexisting or chronic conditions will they? No elderly people are diabetic or have ever had cancer or heart issues, do they?
Medicaid recipients would not receive that benefit if they did not have a condition so they are done, no insurance just a voucher or nothing. The Ryan plan puts people out on the street to die. The true "Death Panel", Nome and Ryan. At least with the savings and some more borrowed money they can give their friends some tax cuts.
Jeff, you have an excellent point to make.
I suggest you drop the ironic sarcasm approach and instead take the time and space nail it in no uncertain terms.
It's far too important to just be cute about.
Especially if you're a candidate.
I'm sure Cory wouldn't mind if you took up considerable space here to make more than a snarky, drive-by comment about this.
What you fools don't understand is that we are heading for death panels and both parties are doing it.
Quick, someone grab the fire extinguisher. Sibby just set his hair on fire.
"I’m sure Cory wouldn’t mind if you took up considerable space here to make more than a snarky, drive-by comment about this."
And Fleming can talk the talk, but can't walk the walk:
"Quick, someone grab the fire extinguisher. Sibby just set his hair on fire."
Of course I can, Sibby. The whole "death panel" meme is bullshit. First I called Barth on it, now I'm calling you on it. There is no sense discussing this important issue in those terms. And so I won't.
Currently, the health insurance business can do exactly as it wants: deny people with preexisting conditions (which is, sooner or later, everyone); deny coverage as it wills (40 years ago I worked at Prudential insurance as a claims typist - I quit because during my time there they NEVER paid a claim); change coverage as it wills; and, of course, opt out of markets entirely (how many health insurance companies actually offer individual coverage in South Dakota?). The Ryan plan gives the insurance industry exactly what it wants: all power, no change, fewer risks. And the Ryan plan gives the general public exactly what it cannot afford: an unchanged health care system in which the health insurance companies decide what care/coverage those of us who are aging, or are very ill, or have serious accidents, or have preexisting conditions, or all of the above, can have. Death panels? Not at all. It's all based on money. If you have the money, the United States does indeed have the best health care system in the world, and the health insurance industry is irrelevant. If you do not have the money... Well, the Ryan budget tells me that Paul Ryan is indeed a follower of Ayn Rand: no pity, no charity, no help, no nothing. You are on your own.
More on Mr. Sibson's christian identity movement, its war against multiculturalism and ACA: SPCL.
Freedom to be fat? Lowering obesity rates in the chemical toilet would help save $550B. At current rates 42% of US will be obese within a decade. Source.
"The Ryan plan gives the insurance industry exactly what it wants: all power, no change, fewer risks."
ObamaCare/RomneyCare/RoundsCare gives insurance industry what they want...more customers paid for by the taxpayers and/or future generations via debt. Once the debt crushes America (like it is Europe) we will all be confronted with death panels.
Larry, I reject replacement theology. It is the Clintons and the Bushes and the rest of teh New World Order crowd who foster British anglo-saxon elitism. And your link is not Biblically correct. The Babylonian exile did not scatter the Jews. I believe it was Titus in 70AD.
Pseudomenon, Steve: your beliefs are based on lies as are those of the christian identity movement.
Larry, the New Age Theology is based on lies...from Satan.
and jesus said: even the most obese among you deserves affordable health care even though you did it to yourselves.
Through past farm bills the US is complicit, if not culpable, for the health of its citizens, Steve: we the people are responsible for the health of us the people.
"even the most obese among you deserves affordable health care "
So tell Ceasar to print a bunch of money to pay for it and pass it on to your children as debt. Make it affordable to you, but not your children.
And Larry, I favor eliminating the Dept of Ag, along with the DOE, the EPA, the FDA and others.
Oh, shit, Steve: you favor eliminating Earth.
Mr. Sibson, all you ever tell us is what you'd eliminate, which appears to be everything that government does. In this you and Karl Marx are in total agreement: I have a feeling that you also agree with Mr. Marx in that the results of said elimination will be a perfect world, in which everyone will be without hatred, class, envy, greed, etc. Granted, Marx said that they would fully cooperate with one another, and you apparently believe that everyone would fully leave each other alone, in an orgy of self-sufficiency and mutual respect. In any case, you are both wrong. Historically, the reduction of government to a nullity has been tried, repeatedly, in every age, and almost every culture, and it has never worked. It has been tried, because people always want to break all the rules and/or have total freedom (without any precise definition thereof) and/or create a perfect society. It has failed, because people can only take so much chaos, and because government provides what no one individual can provide: civilization.
Mr. Barth valuably highlights the fatal flaw of the Noem-Ryan plan: the private insurers don't want old folks on their rosters, vouchers or not. We created Medicare to address exactly this failure of the marketplace. Until the GOP surrenders, I'm willing to entertain beating them over the head with their own "death panels" meme... although we don't need to. We just have to emphasize this unavoidable market failure that makes a public health care safety net for seniors and others indispensible.
And Steve, no, we are not headed toward death panels unddr the Dems. Numerous other nations have moved much further toward real socialized (read civilizd) health care, and none of them are writhing in the grip of anything like Steve's fantasy.
You keep using that word. I still do not think it means what I think it means.
Not socialized; I know what that means. And its bad. And I'm an old folk.
Cory, do you think Barth really doesn't know how to spell Kristi Noem's name? I really do wish he'd take another shot at making his point here. It's not good when the people a candidate is addressing are more articulate than the candidate himself is.
Grudz: socialized health care. Universal single-payer health insurance. Medicare for Everyone. The Dennis Kucinich plan. Which terms would make clearest what I advocate?
Bill: one typo doesn't raise my radar. Two may be worth questioning. (And if you catch me misspelling Noem, let me know!)
Me-me means socialized health care? I guess that kinda makes sense.
Darn that spellcheck!
"Me-me"? I think you're describing the private for-profit system that won't cover seniors or anyone else who undermines profits. My preferred policy, like that of Canada, U.K., France, or Sweden, is us-us.
Mr. Barth, don't trust spellcheck! :-)
Us-us is probably the best way I've ever heard socialism described. Social medicine, like all socialism, Grudz, is not about reaping the benefits of other peoples' hard work. It's about embracing the fact that we're a society. One person's success is everyone's success. One person's failure is everyone's failure. When millions live in poverty, it's not good for anyone.
If you're a company, and there are millions of people in poverty, those people are not going to be buying your products. If they are, they won't be buying very many of them. Capitalism, as we have it, is detrimental to society, to individuals, and to corporations. It only benefits the individuals leading the company, who do it explicitly at the cost of others.
And how does everyone not deserve health care? Why should money buy health? People don't seem too upset that Jonas Salk gave the polio vaccine to everyone, regardless of income. Why should other things not be given, as well?
Socialism is so often depicted as the lazy leeching off the productive, but guess what. Ayn Rand was wrong. Milton Friedman admitted he was wrong. Most of the most successful countries today (Sweden, Norway, Luxemburg, etc.) are very socialist. We're increasingly becoming more capitalist, and we're seeing more people fall into poverty. Maybe we should change that. Healthcare is a good place to start. At least then people would live to see a brighter tomorrow, instead of dying first.
And, as a side note, I really hope Steve someday writes a book discussing New Age Theology and Pagan Sex Worship. I would buy six copies.
Steve, if you write that book, I promise that I will buy six copies.
Please, Carter, don't encourage Sibby! Or if you must, and if Sibby is to write that book, then he has to promise us to take some old writing advice and not talk at all about what he's writing until the book is done. Good writers know that telling people what you are writing will let the story out and kill your storytelling urge.
What you fools don’t understand is that we are heading for death panels and both parties are doing it. -- Sibby
Aloha! We already have them. Virtual death panels, in the form of the paradigm 'Have money will live. Lack money will die.'
In my opinion, the best solution is socialized medicine, paid for by a dedicated, well-administered value-added tax (VAT), provided that the notion can pass muster in the form of a preliminary analysis.
In other blants I've railed against the VAT (and will continue to rail against it) if it's proposed as a mere supplement to the existing revenue machine, without a clear applarcation (application demarcation).
If a VAT of, say, 10 percent or less could fully finance "Medicare for All" (KucinichCare or equivalent), and if that VAT were dedicated to medical care only (by law, maybe even by Constitutional amendment), then I'd be okay with it.
No more insurance companies. No more premiums that get out of control. No more wondering which lawyer to call when you get sick. Except for maybe a $100 deductible per doctor visit, you can get on with your life and not worry about losing everything you've ever worked for just because some idiot smashed into your car while texting, or some bacteria happened to go down the wrong throat when you were drinking your Diet Mountain Dew.
Everyone would pay the tax, even illegal immigrants. So, by extension, even illegal immigrants could see a doctor when they get sick. They are human beings, in case no one has noticed (Dios mio! Did you read that right?)
There's only so much medical care to go around, so some sort of rationing will occur in any system. That's the ugly truth, the truth no one (except a few pundits who get crucified every time they say it) dares utter.
For my part, I have a life to live, and if that means everything I buy will cost ten percent more, so be it. But again, that VAT would have to be dedicated to health care and nothing else, and it would have to be properly administered so as to avoid "donut-hole scenarios" in which certain professions get hammered by irresponsible application of the VAT to income as well as consumption.
Of course, if I were to say what I just said as a candidate for Congress, I'd get almost no votes in a state like this. I would probably get defeated even in Massachusetts or Vermont or Hawai'i.
It's sort of fun to be a Radical Republican, actually. A bit like a cosmic lobotomy. But I can't talk on the phone and work a computer mouse at the same time, either. You have to live on that sort of planet to know what it's like, you know, blue sun, red sky.
We've had other Radical Republicans from time to time throughout history, so I guess. Usually they got killed.
Usually they could spell their own last names right, too.
"all you ever tell us is what you’d eliminate, which appears to be everything that government does."
No Eve, I would leave the Constitution and the first 12 Amendments. That way the minority can retain its God-given rights with a government that will not implement mob rule, the true social Darwinism.
"Numerous other nations have moved much further toward real socialized (read civilizd) health care, and none of them are writhing in the grip of anything like Steve’s fantasy."
A little history lesson for you Cory:
Adolf Hitler didn’t launch national socialist health care in Germany. It began in the latter part of the 19th century under Otto von Bismarck, ironically as part of his “anti-socialist†legislation. Bismarck, like many of today’s U.S. politicians, believed introducing a form of what I call “socialism lite†would stave off the more virulent forms of the disease.
The Weimar Republic that preceded the Nazi takeover had already witnessed the transformation of the German health-care system from one focused on individual practitioners and individual patients to one more concerned with general public health. Prevention became the watchword. Doctors became more like state functionaries concerned with the nation’s general health than individuals accountable to patients for health care.
When a worldwide economic crisis hit in 1929, government expenditures for health care were slashed as were those for public housing, welfare payments and creation programs. The government health-care system began to apply cost-efficiency calculations to medical treatments.
The first victims were those considered weak and “unproductive†to the interests of the state. The eugenicist ideas of Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, a hero of today’s collectivists promoting socialized medicine, were studied and adopted by the Germans. Charles Darwin’s notions about “survival of the fittest†were applied to social engineering policies.
Before Hitler ever came to power, Germans were already euthanizing or sterilizing large numbers of the mentally ill and the mentally retarded.
Just as today’s American Medical Association embraces socialized medicine, so did its German counterpart support the Nazi expansion of state manipulation of medical care for state purposes.
One of the first Nazi-era laws was the “Law for the Prevention of Progeny of Hereditary Disease,†which prohibited reproduction by those deemed “genetically inferior.†With it came the institution of a “Genetic Health Court†of judges and doctors which determined who should be forcibly sterilized based on the state’s extremely limited knowledge of genetics.
By 1935, Nazi Germany was performing forced abortions up to the sixth month of pregnancy. Thousands of handicapped children were killed by pediatricians under the direction of Ernst Wentzler at the German Children’s Hospital in Berlin. Other medical researchers, including the infamous Josef Mengele, used the children in their own gruesome and torturous experiments.
Ultimately, of course, all this desensitization to state-approved and state-conducted murder and mayhem led directly to genocide – the attempted systematic destruction of the Jews in Europe.
http://www.wnd.com/2009/10/111973/
[CAH: Wow: three fallacies combined! Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Nazi Holocaust followed socialized medicine, therefore...), hasty generalization (it happened once, so it will happen always), and slippery slope (cooperative non-profit health care leads to Holocaust and World War II. Such conclusions are the entire reason for bringing up this "history lesson," right?]
jesus and hippocampal atrophy: Duke University study.
Sibby, as usual you have the story pretty much right, but draw the wrong conclusions. The Nazi regime and the precursor you outline were the effects of a forced austerity program, not unlike ones being proposed in Europe (and the US) in today's economy. Dehumanize the people who are going to be doing all the suffering and tighten the national purse strings to protect the wealth and status of the ruling class.
Mengele linked to Roswell saucer incident: Fresh Air.
Bill, can you please explain what "conclusion" is wrong?
As usual, Mr. Sibson has his facts wrong, and in the wrong order on top of that. "All this desensitization to state-approved and state-conducted murder and mayhem led directly to genocide – the attempted systematic destruction of the Jews in Europe." No, the anti-Semitism in Germany (and France) - visceral, filthy, violent - led to the state-approved and state-conducted murder. The German people approved the slaughter of Jews because they had been taught and believed for over a thousand years that the Jews were not just inferior, but were literally not human. It wasn't socialism that led to the Holocaust - it was racism. Also, the Nazis WERE NOT SOCIALISTS - while they called themselves "National Socialists", it was just a name they used in order to win elections, hearkening back to the 'good old days' of Bismarck. The Nazis were antisemitic, racist, fascists - and there is a huge difference. I suggest you read up on it.
Larry, based on your link, this seems to fit you:
There is - under the guise of combining universal principles of all faiths - a goal to create a singular religion for which there will be one leader or "pope".
Now, there is nothing wrong with developing harmony between people and working for a peaceful world, but to authorize a "new way in a new age" and condemn the Abrahamic Faiths as "mere dogmas" and 'fundamentalist ideologies" is quite dangerous. The elite are using the new age and environmental movements to brainwash people into believing that the earth, or gaia, is our mother and that we should love (worship) it and stop CO2 emmissions (which, by the way, is what plants breath in).
Even some of the religious communities are jumping on the environmentalist bandwagon and "praying for the revival of the earth's energy". Celebrities like Oprah Winfrey are promoting new age gurus and their philosohpies on how all of us are "gods" and how we can "perform miracles".
http://jawediqbal.hubpages.com/hub/New-World-Order-and-2012
And Larry, by performing the activity of breathing we are causing global warming and are a danger to Mother Earth. So how many people need to stop breathing in order to prevent global warming?
By the way, Bill, you're right on the money. The great tragedy of human history is the continual dehumanization of everyone who stands in the way of what someone thinks is history. That's how you end up with Buchenwald et al.
Kadir beneath Mo Moteh. Shaka, when the walls fell.
"It wasn’t socialism that led to the Holocaust – it was racism."
Eve, did you know Darwin was a racist?
And fascism (National Socialism) is a form of socialism, if not, then stop calling it National "Socialism". The fascist and the communist had a common goal...rule of the entire world. That why we had World Wars and we perhaps have yet one more to come. This time there is a third player making a comback...Islam, who lost in WWI (see Ottoman Empire).
And Eve, here is more on your racist angle:
The foundation for modern day secret organizations was laid by a man named Cecil Rhodes, a British imperialist in South Africa, who advocated a one world government led by Anglo-Saxons. In his view, the British empire had the right to rule Africa, parts of Asia and the orient, and the colonies of Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
Rhodes was a freemason and establised a Rhodesian secret society to further his goal for Anglo-Saxon rule. This secret society spawned the Round Table Group and ultimately, the CFR (Council on Foreign Relations) which is known to be the architect of most of the policies of the U.S government. Majority of CFR memebrs are also into masonry.
The powerful elites at the helm of these groups desire nothing short of total control of this planet and it's people. There is a global cartel of financial institutions that is able to dominate the political system of each country and it's economy, thereby influencing governments and their policies
http://jawediqbal.hubpages.com/hub/New-World-Order-and-2012
The Economic Development Corps are the domestic arm of the CFR. They are running the SDGOP and Pierre with there economic development policies including ObamaCare and the globalists education system for the global economy. That is what HB1234 is all about. The marching orders are coming from the National Governors Assocaiton and the Council of State Governments. Are those connected to the CFR?
Mr. Sibson, two points - I don't call the Nazi's "National Socialists", they called themselves that in order to delude the public. What part of that don't you understand? Or do you believe every name you hear to be an accurate description of business practices and policies?
Secondly, you say you would keep the Constitution and the first 12 amendments. So, you're in favor of slavery? (13th Amendment) Of women not having the vote? (19th Amendment) Of minorities being denied the vote? (15th Amendment) You're against due process, etc.? (15th Amendment)
You're right - under your regime, there would indeed be a privileged minority. At least Darwin didn't believe in slavery.
"Or do you believe every name you hear to be an accurate description of business practices and policies?"
No I don't, democracy is another one of those deceptive words. It is a form os socialism too. A Constitutional Republic would support all minority rights without the 13th, 15th, and 19th amendments.
[CAH: Democracy is socialism—bookmark that one, folks! If Mike Vehle were worried that his primary against Sibby were at all close, I would encourage him to send out flyers quoting his opponent. Call democracy socialism, and see how many votes you get. Even if it's true—and you know, I think there is overlap—the voters won't know what the heck Sibby is talking about, and they probably won't stick around to listen. Carry on losing, Sibby.]
The bible is slavery: past and present.
Steve,
1) Don't cite proof of your beliefs by linking to a blog post. I could tell everyone they should stop global warming by weaving their underarm hair into ponchos, and I could probably find a blog post expressing that same idea. Just because other people have the same idea doesn't make it right (or less crazy).
2) We don't call the Nazis "National Socialists". We call them "Nazis". Generally, we only call them "National Socialists" when we're discussing what they called themselves.
3) Fasicsm is absolutely not a form of socialism. To say so exposes either an unintentional ignorance that completely undermines anything correct you may have said, or a wanton ignorance put forth to try to twist people into sharing your views by spreading misinformation. A distinctly Goebbels-esque thing to do.
4) The Nazis did not perform sterilization because of social medicine. They performed sterilization and "encouraged" particular breeding because of a very well-accepted theory at the time known as eugenics, which was also a popular viewpoint held in the United States.
Also, Eve is right in mention the thousands of years of antisemitism in Europe. It was really only after World War II that most places began accepting Jews. Many places still don't.
5) Darwin was a man of his times. Bill mentioned this a few days ago when I mentioned that Ghandi was a racist. Isaac Newton was a lunatic. Thomas Jefferson was a terrible misogynist. George Washington was probably the worst general to ever be a general. But do we ignore what they achieved because they were wrong about something else? Of course not. That's stupid and ridiculous, and anyone who thinks we should ignore someone's achievements because they were not 100% right about everything in life is stupid and ridiculous.
Also, Social Darwinism was not Darwin's thing. It's just a dumb thing for dumb people.
6) Congratulations on understanding that plants breathe CO2. But as you so often do, you take a single fact out of context and parade it around like you just destroyed a whole argument with your Sherlock Holmes style deduction.
Plants can only absorb a certain amount of CO2 each, much like humans can only breath a certain amount of air. In times past (up until the 20th century, really), we create all the CO2 we wanted and have no problems. However, as our population increases and our CO2 output increases, we're putting millions of times more CO2 into the atmosphere than we were a hundred years ago. This, coupled with the fact that we're constantly removing the main plant that fixes our pollution (trees), leads to the the fact that we've significantly outpaced the CO2->O2 ability of plants.
It's doesn't even have to be about living in harmony with the Earth (though I don't know why you're so against that. Other animals are alive, too, so shouldn't they get a chance?). It can just as easily be about the idea that we're light years (at least) from any other habitable planet, and that (assuming we find a habitable planet that is hypothetically reachable) it would take just as long, or loner, to terraform a planet (with pollution) as it would to move to a new one means that we need to take care of the planet for our own sake, or we'll all die in not too many generations.
7) No one is attacking religion (except religious people attacking other religions, but that's not new). There's no reason people can't be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, or any other religion while simultaneously trying to work for the good of the world.
I'm going to risk provoking the ire of quite of few of the posters saying this, but let's assume you're right. The governments of the world are trying to replace Christianity with earth-worship. Does it not make more sense to worship the planet that supports our life than it does to worship an invisible, contradiction-filled man in the sky and the guy who claimed he was that guy's son (a guy for which there is absolutely no record of ever having existed?). Better to have governments promoting living in harmony than promoting murdering people of other religions, I think, which is what other religions have done constantly throughout history.
But in the end, here's the thing: No one is trying to get rid of religion. Religion is disappearing because many of the beliefs they teach in church are out-dated, to young people's minds today. It's stubbornness and fear of change that are killing religion, not some mysterious cult of leaders with a hidden agenda (most of whom are very religious, themselves).
Did I miss any of your points in my rebuttal? I'll discuss them, too. Point them out!
Way to go, Carter!
Nice work, Carter. No ire here, just applause.
So Carter, you have your two Kool Aid drinkers.
"Don’t cite proof of your beliefs by linking to a blog post. "
So everything you said after that is your opinion, call it Carterism, another form of socialism, written on a comment in a blog post.
"known as eugenics" or social Darwinism.
"Religion is disappearing because many of the beliefs they teach in church are out-dated, to young people’s minds today."
That is because the New Age Theology is being indoctrinated in science textbooks used by so-called educators. And as research shows, the "New Age" is actually very ancient pagan religion, BC (before Christ) stuff. That makes true Bible believing Christians for more enlightened than those practicing ancient paganism and their earth gods and godesses.
2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party
3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Jews_in_Germany
5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton%27s_religious_views#The_Bible
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin
6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming#Greenhouse_gases
7) Correction: Jesus may have existed as a person. Still, no evidence to support "god-like powers" or anything like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
Kiazi's children, their faces wet.
"Fasicsm is absolutely not a form of socialism. To say so exposes either an unintentional ignorance that completely undermines anything correct you may have said, or a wanton ignorance put forth to try to twist people into sharing your views by spreading misinformation."
I am not buying that plank of Carterism. This is why:
It is obvious what the fraudulent issue of fascism versus communism accomplishes: it sets up, as opposites, two variants of the same political system; it eliminates the possibility of considering capitalism; it switches the choice of “Freedom or dictatorship?†into “Which kind of dictatorship?â€â€”thus establishing dictatorship as an inevitable fact and offering only a choice of rulers. The choice—according to the proponents of that fraud—is: a dictatorship of the rich (fascism) or a dictatorship of the poor (communism).
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/fascism_and_communism-socialism.html
Note: I've posted a list of Wikipedia articles. However, it's awaiting Cory's moderation (presumably because of the high link:text ratio)
Again, Social Darwinism is not a real thing. It's certainly not Darwin's thing. It's something of a straw man argument.
Science is not New Age Theology. Science is fact. It consists of physical observations backed up with use of the scientific method. Religion is the belief in something despite a lack of proof, or even despite proof of the opposite.
Science is not New Age Theology. You can claim the Earth doesn't revolve around the sun because the Bible tells you so. And yet it moves.
Iran's theocracy works so well for them even without sanctions from the West, right, Sibby? Under a President Romney, the vision of a polygamous heaven will appear in every textbook. Women are merely brood mares to the Sibsonites.
Ayn Rand was wrong. She's been proven wrong rather successfully, I might add, by the actual distribution of socialism and capitalism vs. productivity.
If you want to get technical, fascism does not specifically exclude socialism, nor capitalism. The Nazis had perhaps one socialist policy (social welfare for pure Aryans, I believe), but they were, for the most part, vehemently against socialism (as was Italy and Spain, also Chile).
If it's wrong to say the fascism is not Communism, it's equally or more wrong to say Communism is fascism.
It's important to remember that before those amendments were adopted (also during and still), genocide was being perpetrated upon the indigenous populations of North America.
Steve makes no apologies for wiping out 25 million people in what is now the United States.
Steve,
Rand and Christianity are mutually exclusive. You're going to have to choose one or the other. Even Ayn said so
http://thedisplacedplainsman.blogspot.com/2011/06/why-do-christians-vote-for-randians.html
Pretty good related read here: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/defending-the-undefendable/201202/ayn-rand-was-wrong
The thing I always enjoyed about Rand's stories is that after she defines the problem, her solution is always for people to go on strike. She's basically a union organizer. LOL.
Now I have to defend every premise Ayn Rand pushed just because I used a lexicon to show how Big Government to make the poor winners sets up the Big Govenment that makes the rich winners. And anyway you look at Big Government (fascism/socialist/communism) it ends in tyranny and oppression.
As I've said before, the main solution to big government is the same as the main solution to big business. Regulation. Regulate every government action and every business action. The problem with your idea of anarchy, Steve, is that as we've seen many times, people will not work together, or make things better. People will just try to trample everyone else down so they can be the winners.
If the government that regulates is itself heavily regulated (especially to remove money and excessive individual power from the equation), then many of the problems with big government are fixed, and those that aren't have achievable solutions.
"Science is not New Age Theology. Science is fact."
Science and New age are based on man's knowledge reaching the point where man is like god. And if science is fact, then show me when science turned a monkey into a man, let alone create a single living cell. Explain how that happens.
And then social Darwinism:
Whereas Darwin had argued that only those species which adapted and evolved in response to their environmental circumstances would survive, the Social Darwinists argued that human life itself should be seen as an unavoidable struggle for survival.
.
In the Social Darwinist view nations’ foreign policies should also be determined on the assumption that entire nations are locked in inevitable rivalry. As the historian William Carr expresses it, “Natural selection applied to relations between states as much as to animal kingdoms: the struggle for markets and raw materials and the urge to expand overseas were interpreted as outward signs of a deep uneasy struggle “red in tooth and claw†where the right of the strongest was law. In this age of “national mission†Germany was well to the fore determined to play a role overseas commensurate with her economic and military might. As Bernhard von Bulow
[German Imperial Chancellor 1990-1909] observed in a speech in 1897: “we do not want to put anyone in the shade but we do demand our place in the sun.â€
Social Darwinist theories coalesced with theories of scientific racism and with the development of the Eugenics movement and with theories of so-called scientific racism.
http://www.earlhamsociologypages.co.uk/Germany.doc
"People will just try to trample everyone else down so they can be the winners."
Those people are not Christians, so now we know requirement one for a free competitive market system. Kicking the Bible out of school was where the wheels fell off. So yes, Ayn Rand does not know how to do it either.
So Larry, we are screwed until Jesus comes back.
Do you feel oppressed, Sibby?
Major reasons for the decline of religion today?
(1) It's not declining; there have always been atheists, agnostics, and people who just don't care. In the old days, when church-going was mandatory, they went to church on Sundays so as not to pay the fine or go to jail.
(2) Televangelists. Jimmy Swaggart, Tammy Faye, Oral Roberts, Pat Robertson, and their ilk linked Christianity to greed, because all they really wanted was our money.
(3) People who claim that science and religion don't mix; that the Bible trumps science. The same people who will take aspirin or antibiotics or chemotherapy, will drive a car, watch the internet, and TV, will wear nylon, polyester, or rayon, but then they scream against science when it comes to global warming, evolution, or anything that doesn't suit their particular closet. The only conflict between science and religion is in someone's wacked-out mind.
(4) People who say that we should live exactly the way the Bible tells us to, and then cherry pick what they actually practice. I notice that most of these are 100% behind what they believe to be the Bible's dictum on sexual sins, but none are in favor of practicing the Bible's dictum on monetary sins, for example, giving up getting paid interest on money (i.e., CDs and stocks and bonds).
(5) People who Bible-thump and do not show compassion, pity, charity, love, peace, respect, or grace not only to anyone who disagrees with them, or is different from them, but, even worse, to anyone who is worse off than them. There is no such thing as an Ayn Rand Christian. She, along with Nietzsche (who she ripped off big-time) despised Jesus, Christianity and all it stood for, and made no bones about it.
All of these turn people off and away from religion, not some "new age conspiracy" claptrap.
"People will just try to trample everyone else down so they can be the winners."
Sounds a lot like politics and what what is going on in Big Government nowadays.
Sibby, here's your synthetic cell: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762
Eve, there is ton of religion, it is called humanism, man is above God. And much of what you just described is religious humanism. That is not true Christianity.
From Fleming's link:
The researchers constructed a bacterium's "genetic software" and transplanted it into a host cell.
Still needed a host cell. Who created that Bill?
Yes, Sibby. If we force everyone to be Christians, there will be no more bad people. Because Christianity spread through peaceful means and not through people like Charlemagne and Olaf massacring anyone who wouldn't proclaim Jesus as their savior. Also, the Crusades didn't happen.
No, Steve. A requirement for anarchy is empathy, which unfortunately many people lack.
Religion is fundamentally a fear management system. At one time it was essential to our species' survival. To some degree, it still is.
Steve, your views on science are precisely what's holding the world back. Please return to elementary school and try again. In case you didn't know, the Bible was written by a bunch of guys over thousands of years. Maybe you should read it with the same critical eye you obviously read scientific articles.
You don't have to be a Christian to say fascism and socialism both are based on Big Government. Then we have a social Darwinist struggle where the rich are always stronger than the poor. When are you Marxist socialist going to understand the poor need more of you, not a bigger government.
"Steve, your views on science are precisely what’s holding the world back."
Sorry I couldn't stop science from creating the nuclear bomb.
Steve, once again, the problem is a lack of empathy. If I had so much money that I could give it out to the poor so they all had healthcare and food, I would do so. Unfortunately, I don't. Neither does Cory, nor Bill, nor Eve, nor anyone else here, or anywhere.
Only by everyone getting together and pitching in can we help everyone who needs help, and most people (especially, it seems, the people with the most to give) do not have the empathy to give of their own volition, and so we need government to do it for them.
Marxism is based on the same idea as you have, Steve, regarding anarchy. The authoritarian communist state mold would eventually be chipped away to leave a utopian communist anarchy. In real life, people are just too selfish for this to happen.
Neither could Oppenheimer, and he regretted it until the end of his days. I'm not saying everything done with science has been good, but more good has been done with science than could ever be done with faith alone.
God didn't cure polio, Steve. God didn't keep AIDs in check. God didn't invent chemotherapy. God didn't give us penicillin.
How old are you, Steve? I'm guessing older than 35. Without science, you would have died years, if not decades, ago. You also wouldn't be typing at your computer. Eve summed it up pretty well a little while ago.
Mr. Sibson, true Christianity is "that we should believe on the name of His Son Jesus Christ and love one another, as He gave us commandment" (1 john 3: 23). Not only is there nothing against science in that, but, since God created atoms and electrons, dark matter and viruses, bacteria and brains, I think He enjoys our discoveries, as a father enjoys his children's discoveries.
It's interesting that you believe that if everyone was a Christian you'd have a "free competitive market system"; Acts 4 was the best Christians ever did, and it was socialist. Also, Carter's right: forcing people to be Christian just ends up with lip-service. People lie. And even real Christians can be jerks: look at all the fights in the early churches that Paul kept trying to sort out.
As I said, Mr. Sibson, you and Karl Marx both believe that if you could just get rid of the oppressive government, people would magically live in this peaceful wonderful world. Hasn't happened yet. A little problem of original sin.
"God didn’t cure polio, Steve. God didn’t keep AIDs in check. God didn’t invent chemotherapy. God didn’t give us penicillin."
And those things are allowed because of Satan's rebellion, which was go ahead Eve, eat from the tree of knowledge and become like God. Such is the case for science and New Age Theology. I agree, man cannot rule himself. We are sinners in need of Jesus Christ.
"As I said, Mr. Sibson, you and Karl Marx both believe that if you could just get rid of the oppressive government, people would magically live in this peaceful wonderful world. Hasn’t happened yet. A little problem of original sin."
Eve, as my previous comments states, we cannot rule ourselves. We are sinners in need of Jesus Christ, not Karl Marx.
Eve, Carter, and others:
Thanks for the conversation. I again learn that the left do care about the poor, as I do. I am in agreement that the GOP's "Big Business is our Savior" is wrong, and it needs Big Government to operate and oppress the people. For me the solution is doing more ourselves and stop thinking the government needs to do more. It only plays into the hands of the fascists.
Then why doesn't God fix them, Steve? Why does he allow us to suffer, and insist that we find cures ourselves? Why does he sit back and watch while millions of children starve to death all over the world? Because one woman ate a fruit one time? Sounds like he's kind of a dick.
Even if that's true, Steve, should we not do the best with what we have? Jesus said he'd return in the apostle's lifetime. Didn't happen. Hasn't happened for 2000 years. Are we to just sob in a corner waiting for him, or stand up and do something about it?
Why concern yourself so much with God, when it's humans that need help? Jesus hasn't personally helped anyone for thousands of years. I think it's time we stop saying "Jesus will help you" and start looking for a solution here on Earth. I don't care if you're a Christian or not. You can look to Jesus' teachings for guidance all you want, he taught a lot of good things. But stop expecting him to some riding to the rescue like a knight on a steed. Humans need to work together for the good of other humans, or else we're all doomed to nothing but bad happening to us.
As a note to all the Christians posting here: I'm sorry if that comes across as anti-religious. I have no problems with you believing whatever you want to believe. It's Steve's "Jesus is the only path to peach, ignore everything else" ideology that I have a problem with.
Steve, I'm glad we see eye-to-eye on some things. I agree with you, by the way, about the problems with big government. I really very much wish that anarchy was possible, but humans are simply too selfish. I'm very much in favor of a very strong democracy with very strong regulations to keep the government in check. The lack of that is what's leading out country on the road to fascism. When the government can act however it chooses without care for the people or their will, and when individual politicians can act with impunity towards more wealth and power at the expense of everyone else, we are doomed to failure. Government is, unfortunately, a necessity, but it absolutely must be regulated by incredibly firm, thorough regulations.
Carter, I too am happy that we agree on things that are most important. I don't know why God has allowed Satan to continue his rebellion, but the point is that it is Satan's rebellion and we should not participate in it.
As far as Jesus pomise to return during the Apostle's life, that is not correct. Jesus said he did not know when he would return, nor do the angels. Only the Father knows when. You said:
"Humans need to work together for the good of other humans, or else we’re all doomed to nothing but bad happening to us."
We need to work together even when bad things happen. We don't work together when we allow government to get too big and we fight over the power to control all of that money. Yes I know, anarchy is not the answer neither.
Carter, yes. Ours is a system of checks and balances that has become out of balance. We need to correct it. (i.e it has become corrupt.)
Well then, Steve, at the heart of it we agree. Government abusing the people and people being too greedy are two of the core problems out there. I'm sure there's a solution out there that helps everyone without allowing for abuse of wealth and power. The trick is to find one that actually works.
I'm rather partial to my idea (obviously), although I wouldn't claim that I could come up with the regulations themselves. I'm no lawyer.
First step is to draw a line in the sand between "money" and "free speech." They are not equivalent. Second, as per Obama, "Corporations aren't people, people are people." Let's get back to that.
Beyond those, I think Larry Sabato has some good ideas. He says it's time to revise the Constitution. So does, Sibby. So do I. Let's get the conversation started.
http://amoreperfectconstitution.com/23_proposals.htm
If we would have keep things more local and not let the centralization occur in DC and the UN, we would have had better luck at keeping corruption in check.
As an ordained Lutheran pastor, I can tell you, Carter, that I am not offended in the least by what you have said about Christians. We are simply people like anyone else, susceptible to the same struggles as anyone else. We mess up big time like anyone else.
What others have described here as leading to Christianity's woes is accurate. Thinking like Sibson's if a big part of the problem. Greedy tv preacher/politicians like Dobson, Copeland, Osteen, and others already mentioned are the scribes and pharisees of our time.
"Selective literalism" is the study method of choice for such folks. That means they pick out certain parts of the Bible to claim perfect adherence to, while ignoring the uncomfortable parts. It's the other guy that's bad, not them.
Churches, clergy, and religious charlatans need to have their feet held directly in the fire. Good work here folks. Keep it up!