Jon Stewart Silences Congress

[BIGUN 1,053]

Admittedly, I don't always agree with Mr. Stewart, but when a man speaks with this much logic and conviction - keep your mouth shut and listen. Which is exactly what congress did. 

 

[SkyDekker 1,123]

Agreed! Very powerful speech.

[DJL 232]

6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Admittedly, I don't always agree with Mr. Stewart, but when a man speaks with this much logic and conviction - keep your mouth shut and listen. Which is exactly what congress did. 

Right after this (9/11) happened I was talking with a coworker, an immigrant from China.  He said that the US would never forget about this and it would always shape what we do.  What congress needs to do is not listen but do.

Edited June 12, 2019 by DJL

[turtlespeed 212]

Damn Keith - Great Post

I like John.

Do you think he'd be open to run for office?

[BIGUN 1,053]

1 hour ago, turtlespeed said:

I like John.

Do you think he'd be open to run for office?

Unfortunately, Mr. Stewart identifies with being a socialist.  I'd have to pass. 

[turtlespeed 212]

9 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Unfortunately, Mr. Stewart identifies with being a socialist.  I'd have to pass. 

I would pass as well - but he has the talent for it.

[Faicon9493 114]

11 hours ago, BIGUN said:

Admittedly, I don't always agree with Mr. Stewart, but when a man speaks with this much logic and conviction - keep your mouth shut and listen. Which is exactly what congress did. 

 

If shaming Congress is what it takes, so be it.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

1 hour ago, Faicon9493 said:

If shaming Congress is what it takes, so be it.

Hi Faicon,

Agree 100%.

However, I seriously doubt that they will fund it all the way thru to 2090.

Something about a bridge for sale in the Sahara,

Jerry Baumchen

[CygnusX-1 42]

On 6/12/2019 at 2:57 PM, BIGUN said:

Unfortunately, Mr. Stewart identifies with being a socialist.  I'd have to pass. 

I completely agree. Healthcare for first responders is such a socialist idea. If those people can't afford healthcare in the private sector, fuck them! Let them die. We don't need any socialist ideas and/or programs given to them by the government.

[Rick 67]

1 hour ago, CygnusX-1 said:

I completely agree. Healthcare for first responders is such a socialist idea. If those people can't afford healthcare in the private sector, fuck them! Let them die. We don't need any socialist ideas and/or programs given to them by the government.

yeah that's exactly what BIGUN said 

really? he would not vote for Jon Stewart because he doesn't agree with his politics so he must want first responders to die  smh

[jakee 1,255]

39 minutes ago, Rick said:

yeah that's exactly what BIGUN said 

really? he would not vote for Jon Stewart because he doesn't agree with his politics so he must want first responders to die  smh

But it's not that he doesn't agree with his politics - he doesn't agree with a word. 'Socialist' covers a monumental amount of ground, and you can't know what someone's politics are on any particular issue (though you can make good guesses on a few) just because they use that word. 

 

Of course the irony in this case is that Bigun is criticising Stewart for identifying as socialist, in the thread Bigun started to praise Stewart for going to Congress and trying to drum up support for a purely socialist policy. Because that's what this is - government funded healthcare is socialist, even when it's for national heroes.

 

So where are we at, he supports the socialist policy pushed by a socialist, even though he couldn't possibly support the socialist himself simply because he said he was a socialist?

[turtlespeed 212]

55 minutes ago, jakee said:

But it's not that he doesn't agree with his politics - he doesn't agree with a word. 'Socialist' covers a monumental amount of ground, and you can't know what someone's politics are on any particular issue (though you can make good guesses on a few) just because they use that word. 

 

Of course the irony in this case is that Bigun is criticising Stewart for identifying as socialist, in the thread Bigun started to praise Stewart for going to Congress and trying to drum up support for a purely socialist policy. Because that's what this is - government funded healthcare is socialist, even when it's for national heroes.

 

So where are we at, he supports the socialist policy pushed by a socialist, even though he couldn't possibly support the socialist himself simply because he said he was a socialist?

I would be willing to wager several months salary that it isn't the healthcare for first responders.

I am almost positive that they are considered like the military and endanger lives for the benefit of others in this country (And elsewhere) So they should be taken care of by government funds.

[SkyDekker 1,123]

44 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I am almost positive that they are considered like the military and endanger lives for the benefit of others in this country (And elsewhere) So they should be taken care of by government funds.

That would be pretty close to the definition of socialism. People work for the benefit of the whole and then get taken care of by the whole.

You just think that should only apply to the military and first responders, but it is still socialist.

[billvon 2,400]

2 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I am almost positive that they are considered like the military and endanger lives for the benefit of others in this country (And elsewhere) So they should be taken care of by government funds.

So we should have a socialist system that supports them.  Which Bigun supports.  But he doesn't support socialism.

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Pffft.

 

"Socialism" has turned into a conservative buzzword that means "I can't define this word, but it means stuff I don't like".

[ryoder 1,384]

29 minutes ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Pffft.

 

"Socialism" has turned into a conservative buzzword that means "I can't define this word, but it means stuff I don't like".

The problem is that in the past, "socialism" really has referred to a command economy:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

The liberal side of the table is now using it to mean social programs, and the conservative side of the table is still using the traditional meaning.

Edited June 19, 2019 by ryoder

[jakee 1,255]

8 hours ago, turtlespeed said:

I would be willing to wager several months salary that it isn't the healthcare for first responders.

What isn't?

Quote

I am almost positive that they are considered like the military and endanger lives for the benefit of others in this country (And elsewhere) So they should be taken care of by government funds.

Which is a socialist position. People who work for the benefit of the state being taken care of by the state... what else could it be?

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

13 hours ago, ryoder said:

The problem is that in the past, "socialism" really has referred to a command economy:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

The liberal side of the table is now using it to mean social programs, and the conservative side of the table is still using the traditional meaning.

Yes and no.

 

The conservative side uses it at their convenience.

Health care?
Welfare?
Education (especially advanced education at public expense)? 

 

That's all socialism. It's EVIL!!!! It leads to things like communism, liberalism, and dirty hippies.

 

But stuff like Social Security (welfare for old people)?
Medicare (socialized medicine for old people)? 

Federally funded highways and Air Traffic Control (socialization of transportation*)?

Nooooooooo.

THOSE aren't socialism. 
Mainly because the conservatives don't want to admit that they are.

* - The US transportation system is probably the most successful 'socialist' program in the world. Everyone's taxes are used. Some of it is paid for by fuel taxes, registration fees or similar 'user' fees. Much of it isn't. 
It's free to use (for the most part) and available to everyone. It doesn't matter if you are driving a fully loaded semi truck or a motorcycle. It doesn't matter if you are driving a brand new Rolls or a beat up Chevy pickup. 
And when it's suggested that actual 'user fees' (toll roads) be implemented, it's usually the conservatives who scream the loudest. 
Same thing goes for air travel. ATC is available to all. Doesn't matter if you are an airliner or a Piper Cub. The US has the biggest and most active General Aviation community in the world. Due in large part to the 'free' ATC. 

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

But stuff like Social Security (welfare for old people)?
Medicare (socialized medicine for old people)? 

Federally funded highways and Air Traffic Control (socialization of transportation*)?

Nooooooooo.

THOSE aren't socialism. 
Mainly because the conservatives don't want to admit that they are.

I think it's mainly because they want their bennies.  Look at Ron; adamant that social security and medicare aren't socialism because he's _entitled_ to them.  He worked hard!

One of my favorite quotes from a conservative concerning socialism came at the height of the tea party phenomenon.  From the NYT:

In follow-up interviews, Tea Party supporters said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security — the biggest domestic programs, suggesting instead a focus on “waste.”

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

Yup. You've used that quote a number of times.

It's exactly what I meant. 

The hypocrisy of some folks is pretty ridiculous.

 

 

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

4 hours ago, billvon said:

One of my favorite quotes from a conservative concerning socialism 

Hi Bill,

My favorite is the (R) midwestern CongressCritter who railed against ObamaCare & how it was going to be the ruin of this country.

When quizzed, he said he & his family used the ACA, not ObamaCare.

At times, I think that there is little hope for this country.

Jerry Baumchen

[BIGUN 1,053]

 

On 6/18/2019 at 1:05 PM, CygnusX-1 said:

Healthcare for first responders is such a socialist idea. If those people can't afford healthcare in the private sector, fuck them! Let them die. We don't need any socialist ideas and/or programs given to them by the government.

Good to know that so many think they can speak AND interpret for me. Let me educate you a little bit; cause those from Canada, Britain and some here in the US seem to think they know what they're talking about - when they don't. . What Mr. Stewart was arguing for wasn't pay, wasn't healthcare. It was about the disability fund for those first responders. If you are injured or get a disease in the service of your country there is a fund set up to ensure you remain whole.  If you get too sick or your injuries begin to affect the way you can perform which jeopardizes your ability to work; it can have an effect on you and your family's livelihood. 

Firefighters, police officers, and some other vocations cannot purchase long-term disability like those in other jobs because their jobs are too dangerous and there is an exclusion clause. Try being a professional skydiver and try to get long-term disability insurance. Heck, try to get life insurance. Not going to happen.  And, social security - even after paying 100% of the committed amount for it for years and receiving $2,000/mo is not going to pay the rent or groceries in New York City.

Remember that the U.S. got the idea for a social-security system from 19th century Germany. That very capitalist monarchy launched an old-age social insurance program in 1889 at the behest of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, partly to stave off radical socialist ideas being floated at the time. The original social security was actually an anti-socialist maneuver by a conservative government.

Again, it's not about Pay or Healthcare; it's about extending a disability fund specific for those heroes. It's not a socialist program. But, I'm sure some very educated people and foreigners will be here shortly to attempt to correct me or throw out some one-liners.  

[billvon 2,400]

1 minute ago, BIGUN said:

Again, it's not about Pay or Healthcare; it's about extending a disability fund specific for those heroes. It's not a socialist program. 

Of course it is. 

The strict definition of socialism is government control over the means of production and distribution.  A government program to provide disability insurance/funding to a group of people (heroes or not) is pretty much the definition of socialism.

If you want to start such a fund on your own, great - go for it.  I applaud your efforts.  But if you are arguing that the government should use taxpayer money for a program to provide a product (disability funding) to a group of people - you are arguing for socialism.  You _like_ this sort of socialism; not like that bad kind of socialism where the government uses taxpayer money for a program to provide a different product, like TANF (welfare.)  But they are both socialist programs.

[JerryBaumchen 1,048]

13 minutes ago, billvon said:

But they are both socialist programs.

Hi Bill,

^^^^^^^ This.

IMO anyone who thinks this type of thing is not a socialist program simply does understand the definition of the word.

Jerry Baumchen

[turtlespeed 212]

On 6/18/2019 at 7:09 PM, ryoder said:

The problem is that in the past, "socialism" really has referred to a command economy:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

The liberal side of the table is now using it to mean social programs, and the conservative side of the table is still using the traditional meaning.

Imagine that - Words mean shit and the liberals want to use a word differently.

YUGE surprise!!