Wellcome to the USSA

[Lazarus]

How many have we saved?

Literally hundreds, I'm sure.

 

[Durruck]

Care to define that difference?

When people complain that we are turning into a socialist state I automatically equate the socialist we are allegedly becoming to a communist state.

I understand that certain aspects of our nation are very socialized (Medicare, Medicaid, SSI etc.), I don't think that makes us commies though...

If I understand the difference properly, the socialist state still has a democratic-basis and a slight capitalist financial system; there are still open elections, but the society is so heavily entrenched with programs that there is little open market. The people with money retain the money. The poor retain poorness. There essentially becomes no middle class, and there is no way to move from poor to rich, other than to marry in.

By contrast, the communist state is completely government-owned and operated. Every job, every house, every health "plan"... everything... is owned and controlled by the government. There is still a political "party", but the system is autocratic in nature and does have open elections, there is no room for dissent. The only people with money, resources, or power are the people in the party of control.

However, that is a warped view of what communism is. Marx is one of the original minds that defined communism. In its purest form and in Marx's plan, there would be no need for power as the society was designed to be Utopian - everyone has a job, everyone contributes, everyone has a place to live and has food to eat. It essentially is an extreme form of socialism. But it fails when put into practice because inevitably, there are people that do not want to work, and would rather mooch off of the hard work of others. That's where ruling parties and government armies get involved. Every action becomes "for the greater good" and dissidents are normally jailed or executed if they cannot be "reformed".

It's actually way more complicated, but I tried to give a reader's digest version of it, from what I remember in my government class in high school 15 years ago.

 

[Hescominsoon]

Original Authorization for Use of the United States Armed Forces. This was the declaration of war for the Persian Gulf in 1991. The Persian Gulf war ended in a cease fire which is NOT the same thing as an actual end to the war. This is the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 which was passed by Congress to end the cease fire and once again authorize the use of armed forces in Iraq.

Ok for the sake of argument let's say the iraq war IS Constitutional ..i don't think it is..Afghanistan most assuredly is not.

 

[Hescominsoon]

That can be said for his argument as well, and your statement is true for every violent conflict in human history.



The War Powers Act of 1973 says otherwise. The United States hasn't declared war on a country since WWII, yet US troops have gone into Vietnam, Korea, Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. But just because we don't have a declaration of war, doesn't mean the use of force is illegal. Under the War Powers Resolution the President may send troops and notify Congress within 48 hours. He then has 60 days to get his job done and 30 days to withdraw unless Congress grants more time. And, in the case of Iraq, Congress has granted more time in the Iraq Resolution passed in Oct. 2002.

EDIT: Gah.. Elader beat me..

the war powers act is an unconstitutional law that congress illegally tried to abdicate it's control over war funding to the executive.

 

[Patriot]

Literally hundreds, I'm sure.

I assume this is sarcasm (I don't think I've seen a post from you that doesn't include it). The point was that it is unquantifiable.

the war powers act is an unconstitutional law that congress illegally tried to abdicate it's control over war funding to the executive.

Then why was it not contested in the court system? That is why the court exists, to ensure that the laws passed are constitutional. Checks and balances.

 

[Elader Arkon]

the war powers act is an unconstitutional law that congress illegally tried to abdicate it's control over war funding to the executive.

Do your research. What you are thinking of is probably the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution which gave President Johnson the power to use military forces without consulting congress. This was repealed during the Nixon administration and the War Powers Resolution was passed. The War Powers resolution does not give the president any more power than he currently had by the Constitution. In fact it created a limitation on his powers, and the controversy of the Constitutionality of the Resolution is because it may limit the powers of the president too much placing too much control in the hands of Congress.

Afghanistan is covered under the Authorization for Use of Military Forces Against Terrorists. The only controversy over this is Hamden vs Rumsfield, in which the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the Resolution overrode Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. And the Department of Justice using it to partially justify the NSA's warrentless surveillance.

 

[OrryW]

If I understand the difference properly, the socialist state still has a democratic-basis and a slight capitalist financial system; there are still open elections, but the society is so heavily entrenched with programs that there is little open market. The people with money retain the money. The poor retain poorness. There essentially becomes no middle class, and there is no way to move from poor to rich, other than to marry in.

By contrast, the communist state is completely government-owned and operated. Every job, every house, every health "plan"... everything... is owned and controlled by the government. There is still a political "party", but the system is autocratic in nature and does have open elections, there is no room for dissent. The only people with money, resources, or power are the people in the party of control.

However, that is a warped view of what communism is. Marx is one of the original minds that defined communism. In its purest form and in Marx's plan, there would be no need for power as the society was designed to be Utopian - everyone has a job, everyone contributes, everyone has a place to live and has food to eat. It essentially is an extreme form of socialism. But it fails when put into practice because inevitably, there are people that do not want to work, and would rather mooch off of the hard work of others. That's where ruling parties and government armies get involved. Every action becomes "for the greater good" and dissidents are normally jailed or executed if they cannot be "reformed".

It's actually way more complicated, but I tried to give a reader's digest version of it, from what I remember in my government class in high school 15 years ago.

Almost, you got communist and socialist backwards, and communist doesn't necessarily exclude a government, the government would just have to be far more responsible than it is now. So far there have been 0 communist countries, although several socialist ones using the name communist.

 

[XionTawa]

Almost, you got communist and socialist backwards, and communist doesn't necessarily exclude a government, the government would just have to be far more responsible than it is now. So far there have been 0 communist countries, although several socialist ones using the name communist.

???

What I learned in school was exactly what Durrick said...

 

[Odale]

???

What I learned in school was exactly what Durrick said...

Seconded ^^.

Socialism in and of itself is not a bad thing. Too much and too little is bad.

Communism is concentrated socialism.

 

[OrryW]

???

What I learned in school was exactly what Durrick said...

Communism, as defined by Marx, is when the community controls everything, essentially an autonomous government, people make the decisions that are best for the people. So far, no true communist state has existed.


Socialism on the other hand is when the government controls absolutely everything, choosing what is "best" for the society at whole, and in some cases that means eradicating undesirables, like for instance what the National Socialist (Nazi) government did to the Jews in Germany, or the USSR did to anyone caught practising any religion or faith, not necessarily the best for the people, but they claim it is the best for the society.

 

[XionTawa]

Communism, as defined by Marx, is when the community controls everything, essentially an autonomous government, people make the decisions that are best for the people. So far, no true communist state has existed.


Socialism on the other hand is when the government controls absolutely everything, choosing what is "best" for the society at whole, and in some cases that means eradicating undesirables, like for instance what the National Socialist (Nazi) government did to the Jews in Germany, or the USSR did to anyone caught practising any religion or faith, not necessarily the best for the people, but they claim it is the best for the society.

Socialism vs. Communism vs. Marxism

 

[Odale]

Communism, as defined by Marx, is when the community controls everything, essentially an autonomous government, people make the decisions that are best for the people. So far, no true communist state has existed....

Ok. You are talking about the theory and want an example of that theory. You are right, no one state has successfully been a communist state as per that theory.

I am talking about countries that have tried to use communism (to use your words) such as, USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam. They are an example of what actually happens with communism.

The world will never see a communist state as you described it for reasons that Durruck pointed out previously and many others. For all intensive purposes, the states I listed above and the ones HCS listed are communist states because the kind of communist state you described will never exist.

... like for instance what the National Socialist (Nazi) government did to the Jews in Germany, or the USSR did to anyone caught practising any religion or faith, not necessarily the best for the people, but they claim it is the best for the society.

Fascism and Communism are diametrically opposed. This basically means that, politically speaking, they are so far apart they are in fact similar. Where communism wants everyone to be equal, fascism wants everyone to be the same. There is a big difference there.

 

[Keero]

And our current system (if you want to call it that) of Capitalism is better than these how?

 

[Patriot]

And our current system (if you want to call it that) of Capitalism is better than these how?

Capitalism takes into account basic human nature and works off of it. Communism and socialism both expect humans to be better than they truly are (in their unregenerate form). Capitalism is by no means perfect, but it performs far better in the real world than the other two.

 

[Odale]

And our current system (if you want to call it that) of Capitalism is better than these how?

Politically speaking, capitalism is in between communism (which is on the left) and fascism (which is on the right). Capitalism is a mixture of the other two. In some areas of our government, everyone is equal(-ish, we need to work on that). And in other areas people are allowed to express their opinions about others who are not the same as themselves (the KKK specifically, and other extremist/fundamentalist groups). By no means do you need to be a White Christian to be a US citizen, and by no means do you need to be underpaid and drive a Toyota when you can afford a BMW. In the US, you work hard and are rewarded for it, you are also allotted the freedom of expression to be yourself.

 

[Elader Arkon]

And our current system (if you want to call it that) of Capitalism is better than these how?

The capitalist leaning system can be considered better by some and worse by others. It boils down to how people view the world: Should people rise and fall according to their own accord, should people be responsible for other people of whom they have no knowledge? Should there be a limit to how rich a person should be? What about poor?
How should the government function in regards to its own people? Should it set limits on the populace, restrict rights in the name of safety and well being? Should it be responsible for the health and well being of its citizens?

Depending on how you answer these kinds of questions determines the lens through which you view the world. A capitalist says let the free market decide for itself. If something becomes is too expensive for the majority of the people, someone will come along like Henry Ford and make a version that the majority can afford, making both the person coming along and the majority better off overall. The competitors will have to drop their prices or face extinction, leading to even lower prices overall. If a company falls on hard times, it either pulls itself through or goes bankrupt. There is no thought of government intervention here. The government's role in such an economy would be to ensure no monopolistic practices crop up that would squelch any and all competition, because competition is the very lifeblood of a capitalist sytem.
As for society's wellbeing, that is left to the individuals. It is the individuals who create charities, help those in need, and help others recover from disaster.

Now socialism sees things differently. A socialist system is the people letting the government fix the people's problems. If some important commodity (like gas) becomes too expensive, the government will place a cap on it until prices fall. If people or companies fall upon hard times or disaster, the government is there to help them up. The government's role in the economy as well as social life is to make sure everything is fair and proper. The rich are penalized for their excesses through heavy taxation in order to pay for those classified as poor. There should be no need for charities in a socialist system, because all those in need are taken care of by the state.

In short: A capitalist believes not everything in life is fair, make the most with what you've got. A socialist believes everything in life should be fair, and the government is there to make sure that it happens.

Our current system is in no way capitalist. We are called so because we're one of the closest the world's got. I could go on a lengthy rant about that and how different we'd be if we were actually capitalist, but I don't see the point in it.

 

[OrryW]

I am talking about countries that have tried to use communism (to use your words) such as, USSR, Cuba, China, Vietnam. They are an example of what actually happens with communism.

Just because the party calls itself communist doesn't make it so, you mention the USSR, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, were most definitely socialist.

Typically they are led by a "Communist Party" which in America are typically called Communist States, and are actually called Socialist Republics.

Marx theorised that socialism was a stage between capitalism and communism and that it would soon be replaced with communism, however, Lenin believed that a state that adopted communism would wither away, hence the Marxist-Leninist states that are somewhere between socialist and communist, the wealth is shared as per communism, but the government still controls it, as per socialism, pure communism would have no government and pure socialism would just have very high taxes and a lot of public run services, but Marxism-Leninism leans closer to socialism.

 

[RyanB]

As for the wars and the country...we are doing plenty of things that are wrong and unconstitutional. Whether or not we have done so "legally" (and remember legal doesn't always equal right)...there were (nor was there ever any reason to believe) WMDs existed in Iraq. It was completely false, to the point that there was no reason to ever believe that. Even if that wasn't the case, you just don't invade countries on hunches. We can debate whether or not the Iraqi people are "better off" or not (and I really don't have an answer there), but the simple fact remains that the war is on very false premises, and no one even really knows why the heck we're there.

We also torture people. A lot. And we had a lot of doctors working to prefect our torture. I mean, we call it "enhanced interrogation" now, but we sure considered it torture when we prosecuted foreigners for war crimes. After we're done torturing people, we throw them in a hidden prison forever. Can't exactly have them talking, now can we? Our government illegally taps our phones without cause, allows corporations and the federal reserve to run rampant...recently removing restrictions on how much companies can donate to politicians. Oh, and we also decided it's ok to extend peoples' sentences indefinitely, without trial. The list goes on. And they do all this on our tax dollar (or whatever they happen to print up that week).

Guys, you know me...I'm about as conservative as they come, and I do not wear any tin foil hats. But as far as I know (and please tell me if I'm wrong), nothing above is a stretch by any means. This crap is what millions of Americans and patriots have fought and died for.

And the sad part? We have the best political system in the world, period. I base this on the fact that we had checks and balances. Think about it like a large ship, with many ballasts that need to be breached before the thing goes under. Unfortunately, our "leaders" are pumping more water in each day while they take off on the life boats. And the only reason it can happen? Because the majority of Americans are too busy worrying about their next handout to vote out our politicians. They truly believe in "change" (or whatever the latest political slogan) not because God made them stupid; but because their greed and sense of self-entitlement has made them unspeakably ignorant and blind.

Want to fix it? Be salt and light.

 

[Patriot]

recently removing restrictions on how much companies can donate to politicians.

Quite frankly, the fact that labor unions could do this before and companies could not makes no sense to me. Seems to me that the government shouldn't be restricting individuals or organizations or companies from contributing their own money to their desired political figure. If the government is allowed to restrict then I guarantee you they will tend to restrict one side more than the other (doesn't matter which) and that is wrong. Balance is a good thing.

Doesn't matter too much anyway since we are turning more into an oligarchy each year. Find me a handful of politicians that don't have a vast fortune (compared to you or I).

Want to fix it? Be salt and light.

I disagree. Jesus didn't come to establish an earthly kingdom. Nor is the United States going to be His seat of power. We are to be the salt and light to turn individuals to God, not to repair any earthly government.

 

[Elader Arkon]

As for the wars and the country...we are doing plenty of things that are wrong and unconstitutional. Whether or not we have done so "legally" (and remember legal doesn't always equal right)...there were (nor was there ever any reason to believe) WMDs existed in Iraq. It was completely false, to the point that there was no reason to ever believe that.

Tell that to these guys:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998.

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998.

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998.

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others Oct. 9, 1998.

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998.

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999.

"There is no doubt that . Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, Dec, 5, 2001.

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them."
Sen. Carl Levin (d, MI), Sept. 19, 2002.

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002.

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seing and developing weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002.

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002.

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force — if necessary — to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002.

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
Sen. Jay Rockerfeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002,

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do."
Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002.

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction. "[W]ithout question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation. And now he has continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ...
Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003.

And those are just the Dems, most of whom have tried to stick the blame on Bush and the Republicans. There's some tasty quotes from the UN before we went in too. The thing I find most fascinating about the whole Iraq thing is this: either there's a massive international conspiracy involving many nations and their representatives working against the good of their own people, or Saddam pulled one of the best intelligence campaigns in history and managed to bluff nearly everyone involved from many nations and agencies, or he actually had researched them and they 'disappeared'. None of those options is very appealing. And yes, I did pull all those quotes from snopes. I'm too tired right now to do the fifteen minutes of research necessary to create a more diverse list.