A GOP telemarketer called my house - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

nanofever · 09-17-2004, 07:47 PM

I was getting ready to leave for college (have to be on the road on about 10 hours) when a lovely lady from the GOP called my house and asked if I was voting for Bush. I responded absolutely not, and she asked for an explanation for my vote.

I basically said capitalism is inherently unstable because of wealth inequality. The welfare state causes capitalism to become more stable by re-distributing some wealth and lessening the anger of the poor. A capitalistic state without a welfare component will soon develop a welfare component or will suffer revolutions from the poor's anger about wealth inequality. I pointed out the late 19th century and early 20th century are both good evidence for my arguments. She countered by talking about the horrible conditions in Communist Russia, and she attributed these conditions to the welfare state. I countered that by saying that an active welfare state in Tzarist Russia would have prevented Lenin's revolution and stopped the horrors of Communist Russia. In debater speak, that would be "welfare state link turns Communist Russia DA - prevents biggest impact ever of dehumanization."

She talked about me being an idealistic college student (not for another 16 hours

) and presented gobs of anecdotes from here life as a nurse about how both the welfare state destroys people's work ethic and it prevents workers from buying things they want because it gives them so little. I pointed out that those statements don't logically sync; she present more anedotes from her life. She spent at least ten minutes telling me about Horatio Alger stories from her life about people who have moved to the USA from China/Russia. She also said the are Chinese "much better than American's at math". I thought about being a PC bastard and calling racism, but I pretty much hate people who yell racism and are offended for other people.

I ask why people in Sweden are the happiest people on Earth, and they have a health welfare system. She said that was true, but that their happiness was beginning to shift. She told me that happiness in socialist systems only lasts about ten years. I asked why don't we have socialism for ten years and then have a year or two of pure capitalism on a 12 year rotating cycle. That 12 year cycle of revolution would maximize happiness and would continue to work. She told me it was absurd to have a revolution every 12 years; I told her the people in South America seem to do it quite well.

At this point the debate seemed to be reaching stalemates based on basic ideological beliefs and (more importantly) my laundry was about to finish, and I wanted to end the debate. I fainted agreement on the welfare state issue and by extension taxes and regulation bad. My only final question was "Okay, taxes and regulations are bad - why not vote for the LP canidate since he is the most against taxes and regulations." She responded with the often seen "third parties are good but Kerry will win if you vote LP". I asked why it is better to vote for Republicans than vote LP and send a message which might cause a shift in Republican policy. She linked back into "Kerry will win" and I decided that this debate had basically reached a stalemate. I thanked her for her time and responded that despite her efforts; I was still going to vote for kerry since his welfare state prevents bloody revolution.

This discussion with a call center person gave me a good bit of insight. The first insight is that they REALLY don't have a good pre-written answer why economic conservatives shouldn't vote for the LP candidate. I also noticed that welfare state equals communism was a belief the woman strongly held. I wished that I had brought up Northern Europe more as an example where welfare makes a populace very happy. I'm half tempted to believe the book (I would bet money they are going from) suggests that welfare state equals Communist Russia.

That was my adventure will a GOP call center lady. I want to thank all the posters on this board for helping me keep up will politics and presenting political arguments from all perspective - some of which, I used in the discussion as evidence for my arguments, and some of which, I had to think of answers for if they come up in discussions.

pan6467 · 09-17-2004, 08:06 PM

You did a good job.

Me, I recieved an OHIO voter registration form in the mail, sponsored by the GOP with not Bush's face on it but Reagan's. It also says, "Republican Presidents have brought freedom to thousands's" (not millions, not tens of thousands but simply thousands) "around the globe."

I just want to know how they got my address (as it was addressed to me personally), why they didn't know I'm a registered Democrat, or how they can get away with this as the ad was very, very biased and by sending it in you basically are swearing allegience to the GOP.

The biggest thing I found funny was how they had Reagan not Bush on the ad/ form. Guess the GOP doesn't want people to associate this with Bush may lead to campaign charges.

My problem is I personally do not think ANY party should be sending registration forms in the mail.

Ustwo · 09-17-2004, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nanofever

I ask why people in Sweden are the happiest people on Earth,

Damn you, now I have the MASH theme in my head.

That suicide is painless.
It brings on many changes.
And I can take or leave it if I please.

Quote:

Sweden tends to be held in the highest regard by American socialists for her highly progressive tax structure and universal health care. But according to statistics provided by the World Health Organization and the Center for Disease Control, Swedes are 50% more likely to kill themselves than Americans. Some theorists speculate that this stems from cold winters and/or cultural influences. Yet in Minnesota, (where it gets colder, rains just as much, and is full of Scandinavians) the suicide rate is still 36% lower than that of Mother Sweden. I don’t think it’s coincidental that the Swedish suicide rate is close to that of her socialist sister, Canada. For all the talk of gun violence here in the United States, your average Canadian is more than twice as likely to take his own life as an American cousin is to be murdered by an act of gun violence.

nanofever · 09-17-2004, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ustwo

Damn you, now I have the MASH theme in my head.

That suicide is painless.
It brings on many changes.
And I can take or leave it if I please.

Come on Ustwo, we both know that quotation about Sweden is trash unless you post the source. I'm sure that it will be highly reputable given the elegant writing style.

I'm calling Sweden's suicide rate on Seasonal affective disorder.

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Seasonal affective disorder, or SAD, is a form of mood disorder or depression directly affected by the seasons. Sufferers of SAD find that their emotional state is quite normal during the summer months, but as the days grow shorter, colder and greyer during the autumn and winter, their moods seem to match the seasons. The seriousness of SAD can range from the mild ennui of dysthymia to a serious attack of clinical depression, which can require hospitalization.

It is believed that SAD is related to a lack of serotonin and that exposure to full-spectrum artificial light may improve the condition by stimulating seratonin production. Light therapy appears to be effective in treating SAD, but the exact mechanism of the effect is still unknown.

Full Spectrum bulbs and "sunlight lamps" can be purchased as specialty lighting products for those suffering from SAD.

One recent trial seemed to indicate that shining a bright light behind the sufferers' knees would be beneficial, but when the trial was duplicated on a larger scale, the results were negative."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seasona...ctive_disorder

Sweden and Canade are both at high latitude than the USA. They both have longer periods of winter than Montana.

Ustwo · 09-17-2004, 08:58 PM

Trust me nano I'm just having fun with you. I am well aware of the theories of why the Swedes like to off themselves. I have a number of Swedish friends and they think Sweden is great, but they are now having problems with their socialist system and immigration issues. Most of Europe is feeling this right now. If America tried the Swedish system nationally it would fail because we are not Swedes. While Sweden is a small nation, with a very culturally and genetically similar population, the United States is not.

smooth · 09-17-2004, 09:21 PM

you see, nanofever, it's because the US is ethnically diverse that state-sponsored health care won't work.

That's actually a new one for me--didn't even see that one raised in the "politics of health care" thread.

whocarz · 09-17-2004, 09:33 PM

Communism is a form of socialism.

Ustwo · 09-17-2004, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

you see, nanofever, it's because the US is ethnically diverse that state-sponsored health care won't work.

That's actually a new one for me--didn't even see that one raised in the "politics of health care" thread.

I don't think socialism works all that well in Sweden, and I think it will fail there, though it will fail there last. Germany and France will fail prior. If you don't understand why the concept of welfare is so much different in the US vrs Europe I can't help that. Europe is just begining to see the 'welfare' classes that we have enjoyed in the US for the last 30 years. Imagration of non-contributing people have hurt it as well. While I have been waiting for a major left wing trend in the US, my socialist friends fear a right wring reactionary shift in the socalist powers of Europe as their system is strained and services must be cut.

Look how many people voted for Jean-Marie Le Pen.

pan6467 · 09-17-2004, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whocarz

Communism is a form of socialism.

Can't really compare the 2 though.

HUGE difference between real Communism and what the USSR and China have that we call Communism.

Communism is great in theory: all work to better the state and the state takes care of you.

However, in practice so far it has led to dictatorship and totalitarianism it also by its very nature takes away individuality.

Socialism is great in theory and so far some countries show it works in some forms others show it doesn't depends on the leadership and the populations acceptence of it: Socialism is where the state is partners with industry and together they strive to better society.

Those are just nutshell definitions.

BTW Nano, you could have added the fact that the U.S. is falling behind in infant mortality rates, illiteracy rates, educational rates, standard of living rates, savings account rates, unemployment rates, poverty rates, crime rates and so on. Just some more facts the GOP can't deal with and try to change the subject over.

OpieCunningham · 09-17-2004, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

you see, nanofever, it's because the US is ethnically diverse that state-sponsored health care won't work.

That's actually a new one for me--didn't even see that one raised in the "politics of health care" thread.

I've heard it from conservatives before.

It goes something like this:

Any form of socialism found in European societies is not compatible with American society because America's borders are far more open and this leads to more poor people coming into the country. That results in a superior number of poor people within the society and since we all know that poor people breed like rabbits, this would create a massive destabilization due to the increase in financial requirements of the vastly superior number of poor.

Of course, if you believe all that I got a bridge to sell ya. It's drapped in a big ol' flag, comes with a life-time supply of Bud lite and a pick-up with a shotgun rack.

pan6467 · 09-17-2004, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

I've heard it from conservatives before.

It goes something like this:

Any form of socialism found in European societies is not compatible with American society because America's borders are far more open and this leads to more poor people coming into the country. That results in a superior number of poor people within the society and since we all know that poor people breed like rabbits, this would create a massive destabilization due to the increase in financial requirements of the vastly superior number of poor.

Of course, if you believe all that I got a bridge to sell ya. It's drapped in a big ol' flag, comes with a life-time supply of Bud lite and a pick-up with a shotgun rack.

So you mean the illegals and the Mexicans that Bush granted amnesty to, are the reason the NeoCons hate socialized medicine.

I knew there was a reason that they liked importing Mexican workers so much. Cheap labor is just a ruse.

For a group that thinks their Neocon shit don't stink they sure come up with hypocritical reasoning to everything they don't like.

whocarz · 09-17-2004, 10:30 PM

Quote:

\Com"mu*nism\, n. [F. communisme, fr. commun common.]
A scheme of equalizing the social conditions of life;
specifically, a scheme which contemplates the abolition of
inequalities in the possession of property, as by
distributing all wealth equally to all, or by holding all
wealth in common for the equal use and advantage of all.

Note: At different times, and in different countries, various
schemes pertaining to socialism in government and the
conditions of domestic life, as well as in the
distribution of wealth, have been called communism.

\So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.]
A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a
complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and
equitable distribution of property and labor. In popular
usage, the term is often employed to indicate any lawless,
revolutionary social scheme. See {Communism}, {Fourierism},
{Saint-Simonianism}, forms of socialism.

[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's
theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those
also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however,
is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by
economists and learned critics. The general tendency is
to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by
society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social
reform which disturbs the present system of private
property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is
more and more to ally itself with the most advanced
democracy. --Encyc. Brit.

We certainly want a true history of socialism, meaning
by that a history of every systematic attempt to
provide a new social existence for the mass of the
workers. --F. Harrison.

I understand that what you call "real" communism is different from Soviet Russia and the People's Republic of China. I would actually call those systems real communism, and the idea of communism as pure or ideal communism. Both pure socialism and pure communism are pretty much impossible thanks to human nature. Point out to me any nation that has succeded with either at any point in time. Note I say pure. Socialism either becomes a socialist democracy/republic (Europe), or a socialist dictatorship/totalitarian regime (China/Russia/Cuba etc.). The socialist dictatorships simply call themselves communist.

OpieCunningham · 09-17-2004, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whocarz

Both pure socialism and pure communism are pretty much impossible thanks to human nature. Point out to me any nation that has succeded with either at any point in time. Note I say pure. Socialism either becomes a socialist democracy/republic (Europe), or a socialist dictatorship/totalitarian regime (China/Russia/Cuba etc.). The socialist dictatorships simply call themselves communist.

The U.S. is a socialist democracy.

Point out to me any nation that has succeeded with pure capitalism.

I would say the same aspect of human nature that prevents pure socialism from working effectively also prevents pure capitalism from working effectively. The difference between the two is that capitalism attempts to embrace the flaw in human nature and socialism attempts to remedy it.

America is a form of socialism.

smooth · 09-17-2004, 10:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OpieCunningham

The U.S. is a socialist democracy.

Point out to me any nation that has succeeded with pure capitalism.

I would say the same aspect of human nature that prevents pure socialism from working effectively also prevents pure capitalism from working effectively. The difference between the two is that capitalism attempts to embrace the flaw in human nature and socialism attempts to remedy it.

America is a form of socialism.

thank you for finally stating what is brutally obvious to the rest of us--the same reasons people so often point to as reasons communism will fail should equally apply in capitalism.

If people are lazy and greedy, it stands to reason that some external force must hinder them in their persuit of personal gain at the expense of society.

whocarz · 09-17-2004, 11:22 PM

Actually, the United States is a socialist republic. And no, I'm not bothered by that. I would prefer that it stays socialist lite, however.

edit: After thinking about this, I have decided that I am wrong. We are not a socialist republic, we are a capitalist republic, with some socialist policies.

rukkyg · 09-18-2004, 07:43 AM

Socialism and Communism were designed as forms of economys, not governments, just like Capitalism, Feudalism.

Republics, Democracies, Monarchies, Despotisms are all specifically forms of government that are usually associated with specific forms of economy. Mostly, Republics and Democracies are associated with capitalism.

In China and the USSR, Socialism and to an extent communism were practiced as the economy with a oligarchy or dictatorship as the form of government (basically despots, secular monarchies).

A democracy, or realisticaly, a democratic republic, ruling over a country with a social or social capitalistic economy is what the left wants in the USA.

Further, true communism does not require a government. It is designed to work with "commu"nities in which people do the stuff people do in communism. I think it's possible that with a lot of practice in small communities, it'd be possible for people to learn how to be communists in large communities. Unfortunately, that would require something that destroys most of the world so that small communities would have to grow to large communities, a la Star Trek.

matthew330 · 09-18-2004, 07:08 PM

ahh...Star Trek. And these small communities you practice with...well, when's the last time you were at you're local nudist camp. That's one mac daddy government you're workin on.

09-17-2004, 07:47 PM	#1 (permalink)
nanofever Huzzah for Welcome Week, Much beer shall I imbibe. Location: UCSB	A GOP telemarketer called my house I was getting ready to leave for college (have to be on the road on about 10 hours) when a lovely lady from the GOP called my house and asked if I was voting for Bush. I responded absolutely not, and she asked for an explanation for my vote. I basically said capitalism is inherently unstable because of wealth inequality. The welfare state causes capitalism to become more stable by re-distributing some wealth and lessening the anger of the poor. A capitalistic state without a welfare component will soon develop a welfare component or will suffer revolutions from the poor's anger about wealth inequality. I pointed out the late 19th century and early 20th century are both good evidence for my arguments. She countered by talking about the horrible conditions in Communist Russia, and she attributed these conditions to the welfare state. I countered that by saying that an active welfare state in Tzarist Russia would have prevented Lenin's revolution and stopped the horrors of Communist Russia. In debater speak, that would be "welfare state link turns Communist Russia DA - prevents biggest impact ever of dehumanization." She talked about me being an idealistic college student (not for another 16 hours ) and presented gobs of anecdotes from here life as a nurse about how both the welfare state destroys people's work ethic and it prevents workers from buying things they want because it gives them so little. I pointed out that those statements don't logically sync; she present more anedotes from her life. She spent at least ten minutes telling me about Horatio Alger stories from her life about people who have moved to the USA from China/Russia. She also said the are Chinese "much better than American's at math". I thought about being a PC bastard and calling racism, but I pretty much hate people who yell racism and are offended for other people. I ask why people in Sweden are the happiest people on Earth, and they have a health welfare system. She said that was true, but that their happiness was beginning to shift. She told me that happiness in socialist systems only lasts about ten years. I asked why don't we have socialism for ten years and then have a year or two of pure capitalism on a 12 year rotating cycle. That 12 year cycle of revolution would maximize happiness and would continue to work. She told me it was absurd to have a revolution every 12 years; I told her the people in South America seem to do it quite well. At this point the debate seemed to be reaching stalemates based on basic ideological beliefs and (more importantly) my laundry was about to finish, and I wanted to end the debate. I fainted agreement on the welfare state issue and by extension taxes and regulation bad. My only final question was "Okay, taxes and regulations are bad - why not vote for the LP canidate since he is the most against taxes and regulations." She responded with the often seen "third parties are good but Kerry will win if you vote LP". I asked why it is better to vote for Republicans than vote LP and send a message which might cause a shift in Republican policy. She linked back into "Kerry will win" and I decided that this debate had basically reached a stalemate. I thanked her for her time and responded that despite her efforts; I was still going to vote for kerry since his welfare state prevents bloody revolution. This discussion with a call center person gave me a good bit of insight. The first insight is that they REALLY don't have a good pre-written answer why economic conservatives shouldn't vote for the LP candidate. I also noticed that welfare state equals communism was a belief the woman strongly held. I wished that I had brought up Northern Europe more as an example where welfare makes a populace very happy. I'm half tempted to believe the book (I would bet money they are going from) suggests that welfare state equals Communist Russia. That was my adventure will a GOP call center lady. I want to thank all the posters on this board for helping me keep up will politics and presenting political arguments from all perspective - some of which, I used in the discussion as evidence for my arguments, and some of which, I had to think of answers for if they come up in discussions. __________________ I'm leaving for the University of California: Santa Barbara in 5 hours, give me your best college advice - things I need, good ideas, bad ideas, nooky, ect. Originally Posted by Norseman on another forum: "Yeah, the problem with the world is the stupid people are all cocksure of themselves and the intellectuals are full of doubt."

09-17-2004, 08:06 PM	#2 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	You did a good job. Me, I recieved an OHIO voter registration form in the mail, sponsored by the GOP with not Bush's face on it but Reagan's. It also says, "Republican Presidents have brought freedom to thousands's" (not millions, not tens of thousands but simply thousands) "around the globe." I just want to know how they got my address (as it was addressed to me personally), why they didn't know I'm a registered Democrat, or how they can get away with this as the ad was very, very biased and by sending it in you basically are swearing allegience to the GOP. The biggest thing I found funny was how they had Reagan not Bush on the ad/ form. Guess the GOP doesn't want people to associate this with Bush may lead to campaign charges. My problem is I personally do not think ANY party should be sending registration forms in the mail. __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?"

09-17-2004, 08:58 PM	#5 (permalink)
Ustwo Pissing in the cornflakes	Trust me nano I'm just having fun with you. I am well aware of the theories of why the Swedes like to off themselves. I have a number of Swedish friends and they think Sweden is great, but they are now having problems with their socialist system and immigration issues. Most of Europe is feeling this right now. If America tried the Swedish system nationally it would fail because we are not Swedes. While Sweden is a small nation, with a very culturally and genetically similar population, the United States is not. __________________ Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

09-17-2004, 09:21 PM	#6 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	you see, nanofever, it's because the US is ethnically diverse that state-sponsored health care won't work. That's actually a new one for me--didn't even see that one raised in the "politics of health care" thread. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

09-17-2004, 09:33 PM	#7 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	Communism is a form of socialism. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly

09-17-2004, 11:22 PM	#15 (permalink)
whocarz Jarhead Location: Colorado	Actually, the United States is a socialist republic. And no, I'm not bothered by that. I would prefer that it stays socialist lite, however. edit: After thinking about this, I have decided that I am wrong. We are not a socialist republic, we are a capitalist republic, with some socialist policies. __________________ If there exists anything mightier than destiny, then it is the courage to face destiny unflinchingly. -Geibel Despise not death, but welcome it, for nature wills it like all else. -Marcus Aurelius Come on, you sons of bitches! Do you want to live forever? -GySgt. Daniel J. "Dan" Daly Last edited by whocarz; 09-17-2004 at 11:34 PM..

09-18-2004, 07:43 AM	#16 (permalink)
rukkyg Loser Location: RPI, Troy, NY	Socialism and Communism were designed as forms of economys, not governments, just like Capitalism, Feudalism. Republics, Democracies, Monarchies, Despotisms are all specifically forms of government that are usually associated with specific forms of economy. Mostly, Republics and Democracies are associated with capitalism. In China and the USSR, Socialism and to an extent communism were practiced as the economy with a oligarchy or dictatorship as the form of government (basically despots, secular monarchies). A democracy, or realisticaly, a democratic republic, ruling over a country with a social or social capitalistic economy is what the left wants in the USA. Further, true communism does not require a government. It is designed to work with "commu"nities in which people do the stuff people do in communism. I think it's possible that with a lot of practice in small communities, it'd be possible for people to learn how to be communists in large communities. Unfortunately, that would require something that destroys most of the world so that small communities would have to grow to large communities, a la Star Trek.

09-18-2004, 07:08 PM	#17 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	ahh...Star Trek. And these small communities you practice with...well, when's the last time you were at you're local nudist camp. That's one mac daddy government you're workin on.