Thoughts on Buddhism?

[vsaluki]

I don't know where your fantasies are coming from but from where I sit in China,

Communism is alive and well in China as is Capitalism.

 

I can't help but wonder if you even understand the terms Communism and Capitalism?

I repeat: I can't help but wonder if you even understand the terms Communism and Capitalism?

Some one has been slurping up sugared spoonfed news...

 

Think this: The Government funded the Mass Transit Railway system through the Communist economic system and then made it public on the Stock Exchange through the Capitalist economic system.

Now Hong Kong has a mass transportation railway system that runs every 3 to 5 minuites.

Take a look:

http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/train/intro_index.html

By the way - it carries 2.3 million passengers daily in Hong Kong

18 Million daily in Beijing.

Guess what - No Traffic Jams!

I can ride in air conditioning from one side of Hong Kong through the New Territories to the mainland of China for about 5 US$ - It takes a total of about 45 minuites.

 

Here is a map to help you understand the system:

http://www.hong-kong-travel.org/MTRKCRMap.asp

 

By the way - there is also a bus systen that was funded by the government and later listed on the stock exchange system - the busses run every 9 to 15 minuites - And a mini bus system that is privately owned and operated by the drivers And a taxi system privately owned and operated by the drivers.

 

So what happens if you become dissatisfied with the choices of the Communist party and you want to elect someone else?

[~jK~]

So what happens if you become dissatisfied with the choices of the Communist party and you want to elect someone else?

Remember Bush? What did you do?

 

IF you had read history and you would know what others have done.

I suggest that you begin here:

http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm

 

As one too lazy to read history must ask others - Here is an operative point from the above URL: "The democratic election of a leader who plans to replace a capitalist democracy with a fascist warfare state, for example, is a case in point. Hitler, it is worth remembering, was elected by a democratic vote, and it is surely not irrelevant to ask whether those who voted for him did not suffer from an unacceptable degree of ignorance and lack of political education. "

 

Study the Chinese electoral system and you may understand more.

It is the same "grass roots system that Perot was trying to install."

Edited September 19, 2009 by ~jK~

[Sunya]

if you think China is Communist you obviously have no idea about Politics or Chinese history. China is Socialist with a pseudo Capitalist market system and a pretty Totalitarian political regime. instead of a dictator there are different "branches" and "leaders" but its all one party and people have no control really. Communist would be small gov't not big gov't and there would not be different social classes. Communism never worked because its an artificial attempt at change through external means. Communist will never work until people change and greed/selfishness is eradicated. It has always failed because greed is still in the human mindset therefore causing corruption and failure

 

Remember Bush? What did you do?

 

last time I checked, Bush isn't president anymore.

[~jK~]

if you think China is Communist you obviously have no idea about Politics or Chinese history. China is Socialist with a pseudo Capitalist market system and a pretty Totalitarian political regime. instead of a dictator there are different "branches" and "leaders" but its all one party and people have no control really. Communist would be small gov't not big gov't and there would not be different social classes. Communism never worked because its an artificial attempt at change through external means. Communist will never work until people change and greed/selfishness is eradicated. It has always failed because greed is still in the human mindset therefore causing corruption and failure

last time I checked, Bush isn't president anymore.

 

Was it 12 or 16 years of the Bushites? Either - in my opinion- was too much for the world to be forced to tolerate.

Correction: China was Communist under Mao, began to move toward Socialism under Deng and Nowadays China is moving more toward a Marx/Lennon philosophy. I doubt most in this discussion are able to get into Marxism though - it is quite algebraic.

 

If a "Totalitarian political regime" is anywhere in China - I haven't seen it and i've covered the southern borders from Hong Kong to Burma and the East coast from Hong Kong to Beijing - in a 20 person mini-bus. We stopped in many, many towns to eat, sleep and pee.

 

Although - I did see the Chinese military go into Macau to clean up the gangsters after the Portuguese left but they left once their work was done. I was just in Macau a few months ago and it is still ok.

 

It amazes me how many can chirp up with so little experience.

 

Communism never worked because its an artificial attempt at change through external means. Communist will never work until people change and greed/selfishness is eradicated. It has always failed because greed is still in the human mindset therefore causing corruption and failure

 

~~~Communism did save the 400 Million people that Mao Tse Tung cared about from starving in China And allowed them to recreate the new China that now has enough USA $ to destroy the USA economy ($1.95 trillion at the end of March). Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/...nt_11167852.htm

 

By the way - the Vietnam War was an effort to destroy the southern ricefields of China - and force starve the peoples of China - which is why USA poured Dioxon (code name Agent Orange) all over it before leaving. http://www.vn-agentorange.org/

 

Back to the Totalitarian nonsense - The reality is that the Chinese government takes very Harsh criticism from its people at lending so much to the USA after the history of Vietnam etc ... When Clinton bombed the Chinese embassy - people rioted in the streets accusing the Chinese government of being far too tolerant. I saw it in person in Hong Kong.

 

You think the common people of China don't know who has been extending your credit cards ???

These same people do not accept the luxury of credit cards for themself.

Edited September 19, 2009 by ~jK~

[Apech]

Was it 12 or 16 years of the Bushites? Either - in my opinion- was too much for the world to be forced to tolerate.

Correction: China was Communist under Mao, began to move toward Socialism under Deng and Nowadays China is moving more toward a Marx/Lennon philosophy. I doubt most in this discussion are able to get into Marxism though - it is quite algebraic.

 

 

 

 

Is that John Lennon ...

[Marblehead]

Is that John Lennon ...

 

Yeah. I like John Lennon. We should forget the other Lennon.

 

Peace & Love!

[ralis]

Who cares!? It's the worst in China and abused via China by all other countries.

 

Chinas treatment of Tibet and Falon Gong though a cult, is a horror spectacle! Including possibly 1,000,000 Tibetan deaths since the invasion of Tibet. Supposedly about 1/3rd of the population died. Not to mention the burning of temples and Tibets incredible history of keeping the Indian tantric texts in full, not only Buddhist, but Hindu as well.

 

You will loose this argument. There will be no supporters of the current Communist regime in Tibet and China, which is not really Marxist Communism but Totalitarianism instead.

 

Vajraji,

 

When it comes to the atrocities in Tibet, you express much emotion! However, when I stated in a previous post about the slaughter in Iraq of approximately 1,000,000 (innocent women and children) by the Bush regime, you said, "those Iraqi's" are living out past karma. Are Tibetans somehow different to "those Iraqi's"?

 

ralis

[vsaluki]

Remember Bush? What did you do?

 

IF you had read history and you would know what others have done.

I suggest that you begin here:

http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm

 

As one too lazy to read history must ask others - Here is an operative point from the above URL: "The democratic election of a leader who plans to replace a capitalist democracy with a fascist warfare state, for example, is a case in point. Hitler, it is worth remembering, was elected by a democratic vote, and it is surely not irrelevant to ask whether those who voted for him did not suffer from an unacceptable degree of ignorance and lack of political education. "

 

Study the Chinese electoral system and you may understand more.

It is the same "grass roots system that Perot was trying to install."

 

Okay, so basically you don't believe that people are competent to elect who should lead them. That's good to know.

[vsaluki]

Was it 12 or 16 years of the Bushites? Either - in my opinion- was too much for the world to be forced to tolerate.

 

8 actually. But the beauty of democracy is that you can elect someone else once you become dissatisfied. You can choose a different party with a completely different political philosophy. Obviously that is not the case in China.

 

If a "Totalitarian political regime" is anywhere in China - I haven't seen it and i've covered the southern borders from Hong Kong to Burma and the East coast from Hong Kong to Beijing - in a 20 person mini-bus. We stopped in many, many towns to eat, sleep and pee.

 

You didn't see any signs stating "Run by a totalitarian political regime" from your minibus. So you figured it wasn't the case.

[Encephalon]

Okay, so basically you don't believe that people are competent to elect who should lead them. That's good to know.

 

Well it is certainly a debatable point. Alex Carey, the Australian activist/ historian who was regularly quoted by Chomsky said that the 20th century was characterized by three developments; the rise of democracy, the rise of corporate power, and the rise in the use of propoganda by corporate power in order to contain democracy.

 

That's not my only element of my argument, but yes, vulnerable populations can be conditioned to believe and do almost anything, including voting against their own best interests, especially in an environment of electronic media bombardment. Did anyone ever see or read "Manufacturing Consent?"

Edited September 19, 2009 by Blasto

[林愛偉]

People think what China does is bad. They have no idea why, and the intent of the Chinese Gov.

Nor do they understand the cultural reasons behind their actions.

 

Quick to complain and protest against China, but no one looks at the what American Gov. does just with Western Medicine alone. A total legal killing of people all over the world.

[ralis]

People think what China does is bad. They have no idea why, and the intent of the Chinese Gov.

Nor do they understand the cultural reasons behind their actions.

 

Quick to complain and protest against China, but no one looks at the what American Gov. does just with Western Medicine alone. A total legal killing of people all over the world.

 

Would you elaborate on the cultural reasons?

 

ralis

[Sunya]

Correction: China was Communist under Mao, began to move toward Socialism under Deng and Nowadays China is moving more toward a Marx/Lennon philosophy. I doubt most in this discussion are able to get into Marxism though - it is quite algebraic.

 

If a "Totalitarian political regime" is anywhere in China - I haven't seen it and i've covered the southern borders from Hong Kong to Burma and the East coast from Hong Kong to Beijing - in a 20 person mini-bus. We stopped in many, many towns to eat, sleep and pee.

 

I'm sure you've traveled a lot through China, but really that isn't a valid credential for understanding Chinese politics. China is NOT going towards Marxism. I've lived in China for 5 months at Nanjing University and studied with Political professors who are also members of the Chinese Communist Party. I've learned first hand from the elite what Chinese politics is all about, not some village beggars.

 

It is completely totalitarian. where a small number control the masses according to their agenda. youtube is blocked, facebook is blocked, so many websites are blocked. It is illegal for journalists to criticize the Communist Party and the people do not have a choice over electing a different party. This party claims to be of the people but its actually a small number of leaders that make all the choices. There is a massive propaganda campaign where values and ideas are shoved down peoples throats, no freedom of thought. For example: the whole Dalai lama thing. only the Chinese side is given, not the Dalai Lamas, and i've spoken with many people who view him as the devil. There exists this propaganda effort in the US as well, example being Saddam Hussein. Americans were forced to believe that he was dangerous and had crazy weapons... but due to free speach and freedom of journalism, nowadays most non right-wingers understand that it was all bullshit and the Iraqi war was a mistake. This sort of back pedaling towards the truth does not happen in China. The Tianamen Square massacre is still not talked about. only recently has the Cultural revolution been acknowledged as a mistake.

 

my friend...stopping in towns to eat sleep and pee isn't enough to understand a countries politics..

 

 

 

 

It amazes me how many can chirp up with so little experience.

 

~~~Communism did save the 400 Million people that Mao Tse Tung cared about from starving in China And allowed them to recreate the new China that now has enough USA $ to destroy the USA economy ($1.95 trillion at the end of March). Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-04/...nt_11167852.htm

 

I put your first sentence in italics because I found it really funny, especially after the second part. Did you forget about the Great Leap Forward when people were forced to live in communes under terrible conditions and millions died of starvation? (estimates are between 15 and 40 million deaths) Most Chinese intellectuals view Mao as a failure. the real China began with Deng Xiao Ping and thats because he brought in Capitalism and got rid of Mao's dumb policies.

 

Now i'm not a Capitalist zealot, but I think you have to be fair and view things as they are. and China certainly is not Communist.

 

by the way... there's no way that the Chinese will "destroy the USA economy" lol. China's economy is dependent upon Americas. who do you think buys all their shitty products? (lol, just kidding. their production is getting better but i'd still trust Japan over China any day for a product)

Edited September 19, 2009 by mikaelz

[Lucky7Strikes]

I don't know where your fantasies are coming from but from where I sit in China,

Communism is alive and well in China as is Capitalism.

 

I can't help but wonder if you even understand the terms Communism and Capitalism?

I repeat: I can't help but wonder if you even understand the terms Communism and Capitalism?

Some one has been slurping up sugared spoonfed news...

 

Think this: The Government funded the Mass Transit Railway system through the Communist economic system and then made it public on the Stock Exchange through the Capitalist economic system.

Now Hong Kong has a mass transportation railway system that runs every 3 to 5 minuites.

Take a look:

http://www.mtr.com.hk/eng/train/intro_index.html

By the way - it carries 2.3 million passengers daily in Hong Kong

18 Million daily in Beijing.

Guess what - No Traffic Jams!

I can ride in air conditioning from one side of Hong Kong through the New Territories to the mainland of China for about 5 US$ - It takes a total of about 45 minuites.

 

Here is a map to help you understand the system:

http://www.hong-kong-travel.org/MTRKCRMap.asp

 

By the way - there is also a bus systen that was funded by the government and later listed on the stock exchange system - the busses run every 9 to 15 minuites - And a mini bus system that is privately owned and operated by the drivers And a taxi system privately owned and operated by the drivers.

 

Child labor, amounting class divisions, persecution of minority groups, unsanitary living, economic pollution, over population all just swing by your head because...

 

WE HAVE BUSES NOW!!!

 

Communism saved 400 million Chinese? .

 

Chinese don't use credit cards, don't drink liquor, all are sooo happy to be under the PRC...

 

Good luck with your "Lennon" philosophy.

Edited September 19, 2009 by Lucky7Strikes

[vsaluki]

Well it is certainly a debatable point. Alex Carey, the Australian activist/ historian who was regularly quoted by Chomsky said that the 20th century was characterized by three developments; the rise of democracy, the rise of corporate power, and the rise in the use of propoganda by corporate power in order to contain democracy.

 

Hmm. I don't so much see propaganda by corporate powers as I do propaganda by government that is designed to manufacture consent. For example, the recent adds that have been run by the government to sell us socialized health care sound like they are pushing the best thing since sliced bread. The promises are borderline absurd and the problems are completely ignored. The demonization of the health care industry by the government because they, god forbid, want to earn a profit, is another case of government propaganda gone extreme. So, no, I don't agree with Alex Carey or Noam Chomsky. At least not in total. I do however agree with you in part. It seems like government is continuously manufacturing emergencies with end of the world scenarios. And then it uses those manufactured emergencies to increase it's power and control of the individual. You can already see the fallout from healthcare. The claim is that government pays for your healthcare, and so government has a right to regulate your lifestyle in a way that will minimize healthcare costs. Fattening food taxes are already being talked about. I'm sure that there is much more in the pipeline. So yes, the manufacturing of consent is something that the government constantly does to expand both it's size and control over our lives. And it seems that they are successful, because the propagada that they diseminate eventually convinces the voters.

 

As far as corporate power goes, yes it exists. But it's scope and threat are way overblown and used as a boogie man to scare people by those like Chomsky. Half of America makes a very good living working for corporations and the government is happy to soak up hundreds of billions in taxes from the coorporations that it abuses. In fact, without the taxes from corporations and corporate employees the government wouldn't come close to having the money for all of the lavish spending programs in which it engages.

 

Did anyone ever see or read "Manufacturing Consent?"

 

It seems to me that Chomsky loves to talk about the manufacturing of consent were it goes against his agenda. But he ignores the much more prevalent manufacturing of consent where is suits his agenda. I mean, where has propaganda ever been more heavily exploited than in the countries that tried Communism?

 

In any case, trusting people to select those that will govern them may have it's problems, but I have yet to see a solution that is better, or one that even comes close to being as good.

Edited September 19, 2009 by vsaluki

[Sunya]

Chinese don't use credit cards, don't drink liquor, all are sooo happy to be under the PRC...

 

I guess I was just dreaming when every store I went to accepted credit cards. Visa too, except most didn't take foreign credit cards because they don't like dealing with exchange rates. even Walmart wouldn't take my Visa.. lol

 

and I also must've been dreaming when I was invited to a dinner party with a business owner and his employees and everyone got wasted off bai jiu (literally white wine but tasted like vodka), every 5 seconds someone was doing a toast and its customary to drink. they need these rituals to loosen up and open up because being spontaneous and free isn't customary. so many chinese drink to loosen up and let go of these social restrictions

 

Hmm. I don't so much see propaganda by corporate powers as I do propaganda by government that is designed to manufacture consent. For example, the recent adds that have been run by the government to sell us socialized health care sound like they are pushing the best thing since sliced bread. The promises are borderline absurd and the problems are completely ignored. The demonization of the health care industry by the government because they, god forbid, want to earn a profit, is another case of government propaganda gone extreme.

 

it's a little more complicated than that. the issue isn't with private health care, its with the millions that can't afford it, and therefore are unable to receive medical treatment. the Gov't is only providing a public option, people are getting way too crazy about this because of all the misinformation spread by the health care companies. nobody is forcing anyone to get gov't health care, its just an option. and btw theres nothing wrong with earning a profit but when it comes to receiving medical treatment it shouldn't be an issue.

 

people especially in America are sooo misinformed, look at this big march that happened recently infront of the White house protesting the reforms. people are comparing Obama to Hitler, they are scared of "big government" but really.... will anything change? we already have a huge government... the US is not Capitalist at all, way too much government intervention to be pure capitalist (and I view that as a good thing). I think people are deathly scared of Socialism because of all the Capitalist propoganda spread by corporations and people with money "look at all these nice things you have.. you want them don't you? you NEED THEM DONT YOU?".. they are scared of losing money and cry about "freedom" but really it all comes down to profit. they use examples like: well the Nazis tried it!

 

look at the UK, look at France, they do OK with socialized health care. the issue isn't with Socialism or big gov't. its with proper spread of information and allowing real participation of the people in gov't actions. this is not the case in China, but it is so in the UK where its a nice blend of socialism and capitalism and there are many parties to choose from.

 

people in the US think we are so grand and elite and have all this freedom but thats complete BS. we are slaves to the corporate economy, pawns in the machine. , well you have to grow up and get a good education and get a good job and buy nice things and have kids yes! yes yes! that is the LIFE! how is that freedom?

Edited September 19, 2009 by mikaelz

[Encephalon]

Hmm. I don't so much see propaganda by corporate powers as I do propaganda by government that is designed to manufacture consent. For example, the recent adds that have been run by the government to sell us socialized health care sound like they are pushing the best thing since sliced bread. The promises are borderline absurd and the problems are completely ignored. The demonization of the health care industry by the government because they, god forbid, want to earn a profit, is another case of government propaganda gone extreme. So, no, I don't agree with Alex Carey or Noam Chomsky. At least not in total. I do however agree with you in part. It seems like government is continuously manufacturing emergencies with end of the world scenarios. And then it uses those manufactured emergencies to increase it's power and control of the individual. You can already see the fallout from healthcare. The claim is that government pays for your healthcare, and so government has a right to regulate your lifestyle in a way that will minimize healthcare costs. Fattening food taxes are already being talked about. I'm sure that there is much more in the pipeline. So yes, the manufacturing of consent is something that the government constantly does to expand both it's size and control over our lives. And it seems that they are successful, because the propagada that they diseminate eventually convinces the voters.

 

As far as corporate power goes, yes it exists. But it's scope and threat are way overblown and used as a boogie man to scare people by those like Chomsky. Half of America makes a very good living working for corporations and the government is happy to soak up hundreds of billions in taxes from the coorporations that it abuses. In fact, without the taxes from corporations and corporate employees the government wouldn't come close to having the money for all of the lavish spending programs in which it engages.

It seems to me that Chomsky loves to talk about the manufacturing of consent were it goes against his agenda. But he ignores the much more prevalent manufacturing of consent where is suits his agenda. I mean, where has propaganda ever been more heavily exploited than in the countries that tried Communism?

 

In any case, trusting people to select those that will govern them may have it's problems, but I have yet to see a solution that is better, or one that even comes close to being as good.

 

 

"The promises are borderline absurd and the problems are completely ignored. The demonization of the health care industry by the government because they, god forbid, want to earn a profit, is another case of government propaganda gone extreme."

 

Yes, in every other industrialized democracy health care is considered a human right, not a commodity. And it's not about preserving the right of the American health care industry to make a profit; the debate is whether the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry should continue to enjoy the ability to siphon off wealth for what is a rather weak creative contribution to the problem of health care. This is just the latest episode in an industry that has outlived its utility and is now screaming that the world will end if they lose the right to pick our pockets. Maybe you'll remember the conflict between ditch diggers who were thrown out of work when steam shovel technology came on line.

 

The whole theory of propoganda has completely bounced off your forehead. Propoganda in authoritarian societies doesn't have to be sophisticated or even effective when you've got state power to bludgeon the population. In relatively open societies, where state power is less authoritarian, it becomes more important to control what people think, and to carefully craft the background assumptions that exist in a culture, i.e., more sophisticated forms of controlling public opinion.

 

You might also want to consider replacing the idea that government and corporations are insomehow having contentious relations with the more defendable scenario that corporate power and government power are becoming conjoined. It's called fascism, and just because you've got a handful of liberal politicians holding elective office doesn't mean that corporate culture doesn't wield inordinate power over governmental institutions. I suppose you think corporations are legal people and that they have the right to unlimited campaign contributions,right? Well, stay tuned. It's coming.

 

You're a little young to be such a rightwing twit, aren't you?

Edited September 19, 2009 by Blasto

[vsaluki]

it's a little more complicated than that. the issue isn't with private health care, its with the millions that can't afford it, and therefore are unable to receive medical treatment.

 

Now you are changing the subject from manufacturing consent to manufacturing consent is okay if it suits your agenda.

 

the Gov't is only providing a public option, people are getting way too crazy about this because of all the misinformation spread by the health care companies.

 

What misinformation would that be? Please be specific. For example, give me a commercial that was funded my a healthcare company that disemenates misinformation.

 

The government is only selling a public option because they know that they cannot sell socialized medicine outright. But there is no doubt that is where they want to go. When have you ever seen government programs shrink. The trajectory is always bigger and more control.

 

nobody is forcing anyone to get gov't health care,

 

But they are forcing you to get heath care if you want it or not. I believe that it is my choice if I want to play Russian Roulette with my health. And I don't hold the government responsible if I loose the bet. As I said before, my values are radical individualism and freedom. I don't believe that humans can be fullfilled operating as members of a hive. It's one of the things that appeals to me about Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu. I see them as radical individualists as well.

 

and btw theres nothing wrong with earning a profit but when it comes to receiving medical treatment it shouldn't be an issue.

 

If it's not an issue, then the people providing it have no motivation to do it well.

 

we already have a huge government...

 

So you see no problem with it getting even more huge. Tell me, do you think there is such a thing as government being too big. If so, where is that point. Do you think that professional politicians will ever think that government is too big?

 

Do you think that there is such a thing as being too socialist. And if so, where is that point.

 

I think people are deathly scared of Socialism because of all the Capitalist propoganda spread by corporations and people with money

 

No, I'm scared of it because I'm not an Ant or a Bee and I don't want to be a member of a hive.

 

"look at all these nice things you have.. you want them don't you? you NEED THEM DONT YOU?"

 

Yes, I see corporations trying to sell their products. I don't see them selling politics much. It doesn't bother me in the least. I can and do ignore them. I don't have that option with the government. There propagada turns into mandated programs that are then forced upon me.

 

but c'mon look at the UK, look at France, they do OK.

 

Interestingly, I recently had an instructor from the UK that was teaching a group of us about their software design product (Kennedy Carter). You should have heard him rail against their national healthcare system. He claimed that the only people that were stuck with it were people that couldn't afford private health care. And I've heard a slew of complaints against the Canadian health care system. Of course all of socialized medicine takes advantage of the fact that the US produces 70% of the new drugs. They are happy to use the products of those greedy drug companies as long as their work is paid for by the American consumer instead of them.

Edited September 19, 2009 by vsaluki

[Sunya]

You should have heard him rail against their national healthcare system. He claimed that the only people that were stuck with it were people that couldn't afford private health care.

 

yes..

 

just because you don't want to have health care doesn't mean others feel the same. there was a recent study at Harvard that 45,000 die a year because of lack of coverage. http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/200...-deaths-a-year/

 

you remind me of the kid from Into the Wild that got fed up with society and hitchhiked up to Alaska and died. you should try that if you hate society so much. most of us like the hive. we're all interconnected, Laozi and Chuangzi weren't radical individualists, they recognized that there is no concrete individual self and only lived as hermits to cultivate the awareness of the Tao, not because of disdain for society and a need for the augmentation of the self.

Edited September 19, 2009 by mikaelz

[Sunya]

What misinformation would that be? Please be specific. For example, give me a commercial that was funded my a healthcare company that disemenates misinformation.

 

specifically, the whole death panel bullshit. broadly, the lie that you keep repeating about Obama wanting to get rid of all private companies and have Government control everything and everyone and we'll have 1984 on our hands. your predominant emotion is fear, be aware of that.

 

If it's not an issue, then the people providing it have no motivation to do it well.

 

do what well? treat people? that's what the Doctors do not health insurance companies. and Doctors should have a more compassionate selfless motivation than just money. which brings me to my next point

 

 

So you see no problem with it getting even more huge. Tell me, do you think there is such a thing as government being too big.

No. because the problem isn't with big government or small government or corporations.. its with people, and our selfish greedy mentality. it's not the proper motivation. Laissez faire doesn't work, that was proved pretty well in the early 1900s when children worked for 12 hours in factories under terrible conditions. and people still hold on to that view... that pure capitalism actually works. greed as the motivator will never produce a utopia, and that is what we all want. so government is getting bigger to keep corporations in check, rules were nessary, government intervention was necessary. this is a natural reaction to what was happening, and still is. but the prime essential factor is not really changing all that much: the human need for the acquisition of wealth at the expense of others. sure we are more ethical, more moral,theres no longer slave labor or child labor and the living standards are much better.... but theres now rampant materialism and greed is still a factor. so until the human condition evolves, than it won't really matter if there is big or small government. and your freedom that your cherish so much, my friend, is bullshit. you have no freedom. you will suffer and die like everyone else. Edited September 19, 2009 by mikaelz

[林愛偉]

I guess I was just dreaming when every store I went to accepted credit cards. Visa too, except most didn't take foreign credit cards because they don't like dealing with exchange rates. even Walmart wouldn't take my Visa.. lol

 

and I also must've been dreaming when I was invited to a dinner party with a business owner and his employees and everyone got wasted off bai jiu (literally white wine but tasted like vodka), every 5 seconds someone was doing a toast and its customary to drink. they need these rituals to loosen up and open up because being spontaneous and free isn't customary. so many chinese drink to loosen up and let go of these social restrictions

it's a little more complicated than that. the issue isn't with private health care, its with the millions that can't afford it, and therefore are unable to receive medical treatment. the Gov't is only providing a public option, people are getting way too crazy about this because of all the misinformation spread by the health care companies. nobody is forcing anyone to get gov't health care, its just an option. and btw theres nothing wrong with earning a profit but when it comes to receiving medical treatment it shouldn't be an issue.

 

people especially in America are sooo misinformed, look at this big march that happened recently infront of the White house protesting the reforms. people are comparing Obama to Hitler, they are scared of "big government" but really.... will anything change? we already have a huge government... the US is not Capitalist at all, way too much government intervention to be pure capitalist (and I view that as a good thing). I think people are deathly scared of Socialism because of all the Capitalist propoganda spread by corporations and people with money "look at all these nice things you have.. you want them don't you? you NEED THEM DONT YOU?".. they are scared of losing money and cry about "freedom" but really it all comes down to profit. they use examples like: well the Nazis tried it!

 

look at the UK, look at France, they do OK with socialized health care. the issue isn't with Socialism or big gov't. its with proper spread of information and allowing real participation of the people in gov't actions. this is not the case in China, but it is so in the UK where its a nice blend of socialism and capitalism and there are many parties to choose from.

 

people in the US think we are so grand and elite and have all this freedom but thats complete BS. we are slaves to the corporate economy, pawns in the machine. , well you have to grow up and get a good education and get a good job and buy nice things and have kids yes! yes yes! that is the LIFE! how is that freedom?

 

 

Its part of the culture to drink wine. They drink during business because one's real thoughts come out when they are drunk.

All to remove the "face" of deceit....

[vsaluki]

Yes, in every other industrialized democracy health care is considered a human right, not a commodity.

 

I've always wondered what it means when someone says "people have the right to ...." Is there a big book of human rights that was created by a divine being? Since anyone can make such a satement about practically anything, is there a way of emperically verifying that the statement is true? Or are rights simply the domain of some people that consider themselves to be elevated enough to create them through declaration? I tend to get suspicious when someone says that person A has some right and that they have the right to force person B to supply the means for giving person A that right.

 

And it's not about preserving the right of the American health care industry to make a profit; the debate is whether the health insurance and pharmaceutical industry should continue to enjoy the ability to siphon off wealth for what is a rather weak creative contribution to the problem of health care.

 

If you don't like health care companies, then let's leave health care to contracts between individuals and their doctors. And let's keep prices down by making health care very competitive. Send more people to medical school and have doctors advertise their prices at the front door.

 

If you think that our pharmaceutical industry is making a weak creative contribution, then why are they producing 70% of the worlds new drugs? And why are the socialized medicine countries producing so pitifully few?

 

This is just the latest episode in an industry that has outlived its utility and is now screaming that the world will end if they lose the right to pick our pockets.

 

I would rather have the pharmaceutical companies pick my pocket than have the government pick my pocket. At least I feel like I'm getting something I want from the picking.

 

Maybe you'll remember the conflict between ditch diggers who were thrown out of work when steam shovel technology came on line.

 

And you feel that government is the new and superior technology. LOL.

 

The whole theory of propoganda has completely bounced off your forehead.

 

Maybe that's because it's full of hot air.

 

Propoganda in authoritarian societies doesn't have to be sophisticated or even effective when you've got state power to bludgeon the population. In relatively open societies, where state power is less authoritarian, it becomes more important to control what people think, and to carefully craft the background assumptions that exist in a culture, i.e., more sophisticated forms of controlling public opinion.

 

Yes, and the government is now much more sophisticated about how they control public opinion. What is your point?

 

You might also want to consider replacing the idea that government and corporations are insomehow having contentious relations with the more defendable scenario that corporate power and government power are becoming conjoined.

 

They are only becoming conjoined in that government is taking much more control of previously private institutions.

 

It's called fascism,

 

True. It's also called socialism. Most people think that the concepts are opposites. But if you look at the definitions, they intertwine very nicely. I like to call it socialism-fascism.

 

and just because you've got a handful of liberal politicians holding elective office

 

Handful?

 

doesn't mean that corporate culture doesn't wield inordinate power over governmental institutions.

 

Oh, oh, there's that scary boogie man hiding under the bed again.

 

I suppose you think corporations are legal people and that they have the right to unlimited campaign contributions,right?

 

No, I don't think that. I also don't think that unions or law firms should make unlimited campaign contributions. I prefer that campaign contributions be the domain of individuals.

 

You're a little young to be such a rightwing twit, aren't you?

 

I knew that it wouldn't be long before I was exposed to the true meaning of tolerance.

Edited September 19, 2009 by vsaluki

[vsaluki]

just because you don't want to have health care doesn't mean others feel the same.

 

I didn't say that I didn't want health care. I said that I wanted it to be my choice. Not the choice of the government.

 

there was a recent study at Harvard that 45,000 die a year because of lack of coverage.

 

Hard to believe, since anyone can walk into many emergency rooms and get health care. Covered or not.

 

you remind me of the kid from Into the Wild that got fed up with society and hitchhiked up to Alaska and died. you should try that if you hate society so much.

 

I never said that I hated society. What I hate is the concept of sacrificing individualism and individual freedom for the so called benefit of society. That was essentially the communist experiment. And it led to a society of miserable individuals. The reason is that people are not ants or bees and their social interactions are not hive interactions. And I find that the people that advertise the most loudly for social sacrifice are the people who want to determine what those sacrifices will be. The more equal pigs.

 

most of us like the hive.

 

That was the point made by the Grand Inquisitor in The Brothers Karamazov. Check it out.

 

Laozi and Chuangzi weren't radical individualists,

 

I maintain that they were. But that is a long debate best left for another time.

[Vajrahridaya]

Vajraji,

 

When it comes to the atrocities in Tibet, you express much emotion! However, when I stated in a previous post about the slaughter in Iraq of approximately 1,000,000 (innocent women and children) by the Bush regime, you said, "those Iraqi's" are living out past karma. Are Tibetans somehow different to "those Iraqi's"?

 

ralis

 

Nope, they are too. But both are atrocities. That doesn't excuse the fact because karma can be nullified by compassion.

 

p.s. If I actually did say "those Iraqi's" in the tone that you're suggesting, then shame on me.

Edited September 20, 2009 by Vajrahridaya

[Encephalon]

I've always wondered what it means when someone says "people have the right to ...." Is there a big book of human rights that was created by a divine being? Since anyone can make such a satement about practically anything, is there a way of emperically verifying that the statement is true? Or are rights simply the domain of some people that consider themselves to be elevated enough to create them through declaration? I tend to get suspicious when someone says that person A has some right and that they have the right to force person B to supply the means for giving person A that right.

If you don't like health care companies, then let's leave health care to contracts between individuals and their doctors. And let's keep prices down by making health care very competitive. Send more people to medical school and have doctors advertise their prices at the front door.

 

If you think that our pharmaceutical industry is making a weak creative contribution, then why are they producing 70% of the worlds new drugs? And why are the socialized medicine countries producing so pitifully few?

I would rather have the pharmaceutical companies pick my pocket than have the government pick my pocket. At least I feel like I'm getting something I want from the picking.

And you feel that government is the new and superior technology. LOL.

Maybe that's because it's full of hot air.

Yes, and the government is now much more sophisticated about how they control public opinion. What is your point?

They are only becoming conjoined in that government is taking much more control of previously private institutions.

True. It's also called socialism. Most people think that the concepts are opposites. But if you look at the definitions, they intertwine very nicely. I like to call it socialism-fascism.

Handful?

Oh, oh, there's that scary boogie man hiding under the bed again.

No, I don't think that. I also don't think that unions or law firms should make unlimited campaign contributions. I prefer that campaign contributions be the domain of individuals.

I knew that it wouldn't be long before I was exposed to the true meaning of tolerance.

 

 

Spare me the victim shit about tolerance. You started it when you showed up a couple days ago and started spreading your patronizing and presumptuous chicken shit.

 

I can understand how right-wingers come to deify their beloved 'market principles,' as if they were anything other than the social constructs they are. What I will never grasp, perhaps because of my own conceptual straightjacket, is how the principles of non-duality, interdependency, mutual causality, dependent co-arising, etc., that are the essence of Buddhism and Taoism, can even be realized in a world of us vs them, which has characterized conservative thought since Edmund Burke.

 

But I guess anything is possible if you listen to Glen Beck and come to believe that socialism is the same as fascism, and that Obama is a Marxist and a fascist, a socialist and Hitler all rolled into one.

 

The right to health care was a consensus written into the UN Charter of Human Rights after WWII, when we were forced to confront our indignity to each other and somehow came up with the idea that awarding the means to a dignified life for every human being, instead a select few, might lessen the animosity in the world. I'm not saying the idea worked, but of course, it was never taken seriously anyway.