It would be interesting to see what would happen of the EBT cards all declined at the same time.

I looked up the first source.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles...lq_105.pdf

Here is how they define quality:

"Good quality means providing patients with appropriate services in a technically competent manner, with good communication, shared decision making, and cultural sensitivity."

Already, we know the entire report is trash because they use definitions and premises that have nothing to do with medicine. Cultural sensitivity? Shared decision making? Wtf?



I've got way better things to do than dissect liberal trash. I promise you every other source you listed suffers from similar flaws.

Every time you see a report talking about how awful American healthcare is, there is a near-100% guarantee it was written by a left-wing socialist who thinks a single-payer system will solve all problems.

I see your point about "cultural sensitivity", but (other than the obvious that not all 20 articles cited measured that) shared decision making is not some kind of hippie bullshit. It's the simple realization that people are more likely to improve their lifestyle habits (stop smoking, reduce salt intake, eat less, walk more, don't avoid vaccines or check-ups, etc) when they are included in those decisions rather than just being told what to do. While it's certainly not enough to stop the obesity behemoth, it's not what your first impression was.

Source: experience in tranalstion and editing of various medical studies

Quote: (10-03-2013 04:16 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Every time you see a report talking about how awful American healthcare is, there is a near-100% guarantee it was written by a left-wing socialist who thinks a single-payer system will solve all problems.

All the while ignoring that the countries with socialist healthcare are on the verge of bankruptcy. Oh, and the little fact that most healthcare innovation comes from countries without socialist healthcare, a large chunk of that being the USA and this will all but disappear. Oh, and the little fact that the wealthy in these feminist socialist hellholes go to the USA to get good healthcare coverage.

[quote='Samseau' pid='546905' dateline='1380784173']
[quote='iknowexactly' pid='546879' dateline='1380779440']
1) Everything you hear, you hear because your owners want you to hear it. [quote]

I doubt anyone here watches TV. [/quote]

There is a lot of ways to get faulty information besides just through television, and IKE did not say anything about TV… well not that I know about. Some of the big media in a variety of ways infiltrate the information that we receive… and thereafter, big media which is frequently a tool of owning class tends to influence the ways that people talk and think.

Certainly, I believe that on RVF, a lot of the guys are ready, willing and able to challenge mainstream thinking and the paradigms and to cut through some of the bullshit about a variety of topics, and through my limited time reading and contributing to the RVF, I have seen a lot of real good independent thinking that challenges mainstream paradigm thinking. Nonetheless, even very critical thinkers can frequently get mislead by the bullshit, and sometimes get caught up in some of the bullshit and even spew some of it as if it were their own thinking. I am NOT naming any names here because I think that any and all of us are susceptible to this to getting our thinking influenced and it is not easy to keep up your guard and to be a critical thinker and a critical reader… you can be critical of ideas without criticizing the people for having the ideas.


Sam, I recognize that generally you and several posters on this thread believe that less government is better for Americans, and I don’t have a problem with people having those kinds of beliefs and arguing for those kinds of systems to be proponents of their beliefs. But sometimes, there also seems to be a tendency that some of the posts in this thread (and other places) reflect the same kind of baloney philosophies that are spewed by Fox and other corporate elites… that are trying to get regular people to vote against their interest and to carry the ball of the .1% who are trying to steal money from the people (well, not trying to steal but have been stealing money on an ongoing basis). Maybe that is just a coincidence that some of the RVF posters will reflect or seem to support some of this ideology in their posts, but IMHO, at this time, we are going to screw ourselves over, if we sabotage the credibility of the US government and its system because of trying to fight too many things at once in order to get to some shrinkage of the government and make the govt ineffective agenda or to shut it down.

Surely, many of the guys on this forum are right-wing in their views, and I don’t disagree with many of those right-wing ideas – at least when it comes to gaming ideas and trying to get the most bang without spending bucks or to increase my opportunities for getting bangs in order that I am choosing whether I want to bang the 6 that I just met that is a sure thing or to work on going after the 7 that is not a sure thing. Anyhow, sometimes we work within systems that are there in order to get what we want, and I do not have problems with ideologies for guys to accomplish these kinds of things.

Nonetheless, I do find some of the right-wing views to be problematic when people think that we can completely do away with govt. in order to solve modern guy problems… that thinking, IMHO, is way too simplistic – and it especially irritates me when people who have vested interest in maintaining the status quo, such as the well-to-do, think that it is in their best interests to screw up the whole system that is going to screw it up for a lot of people to have chaos. Anyhow, the BS about “we built this”… does not exist because many well to do people, or those who have become well to do, have been advantaged and have become rich off of various govt infrastructures that are in place or have been in place, and after they become rich, they try to act as if they got rich on their own and without the govt and without infrastructure… which I call BS… Frequently, the rich got rich off of the exploitation of the US people or the use of various infrastructure that was created by the taxpayers (and I do not have problems with some people profiting from the system and taking advantage of people because it is the way of capitalism and the American way and all of that, but sometimes the extreme robberies and pilfering of the treasury can bother any of us because it is contrary to the interests of the whole system to go to such extremes).







[quote='Samseau' pid='546905' dateline='1380784173']
[quote='iknowexactly' pid='546879' dateline='1380779440']

2) Most of what you think, you think it because your owners want you to think that. [quote]

Says the guy who repeats 60's slogans.
[/quote]

I don’t really know what the 60’s slogans mean, except to maybe say that was a time of feminism, but it may be the case that IKE is also referring to Marxist type ideology. Does RVF have an official policy against Marxism? Because in essence Marx and some of his successors were saying that inevitably capitalists control workers in material ways, and Antonio Gramsci (who I think was a Marxist successor), talked about how this control goes into the controlling of the consciousness of people. Those guys (Marx and Gramsci) were more about criticizing classism and exploitation within capitalism… and I suppose their theories are also used by feminists to perpetuate feminist agendas, but so what? I would NOT think that agreeing with Marxists and/or Gramsci and criticizing some of the negatives of capitalism would lead someone to necessarily being a feminist or being called a feminist. There is a difference in my opinion.



[quote='Samseau' pid='546905' dateline='1380784173']
[quote='iknowexactly' pid='546879' dateline='1380779440']

3) The trick is that they are so smart you think YOU ever so originally came up with your Horatio Alger, bootstrapping, fable belief and anti-societal ("Soshulist") "defiance". [quote]

No one cares about bootstrapping. What we care about is not being toyed with, fucked with, and oppressed by a manical government with a terrible social agenda. [/quote]



Sam: IMO - Guys can be conservative or liberal, and still agree with you on your statement that we don't wanna be fucked with. I actually do not necessarily see a bone of contention in this section between you and IKE, unless I am missing something, because when IKE refers to bootstrapping, I believe he is referring to the myth that all Americans can work hard and get ahead, and surely that can be true that working hard will lead a guy to get ahead, but in a lot of situations the myth remains a myth and frequently we, the working guy, are getting fucked by those creating the system (and that is not just the govt that is screwing us) with when we are supposed to believe that working hard will cause us to get ahead – especially if we work our asses of for 20, 30, 40 or more years, and then Viola, shit happens, and the system is not what you thought.. hard work does not always pay off. Actually, in my work, which required interviewing people about problems that they have, through the years, I have seen a lot of examples of dreams crushed by the passage of time and the fact that the myth was not true and that people will get screwed in a variety of ways, but a frequent screwer of people will be large companies in the workplace.. but there are a lot of other examples of people getting screwed by the system and that working hard to get ahead does not cause the expected results. We all struggle somewhat to figure out what to do and where to put our resources (and some people have more resources than others), and sometimes, we may not get ahead in life, and sometimes that is our own fault and sometimes, we are mislead by some various myths and sometimes we have bad luck. There is a lot of variation, yet likely more examples in recent times that social mobility and even prosperity has been disappearing in America… and I can look up and provide sources if this is disputed.

[quote='Samseau' pid='546905' dateline='1380784173']
No one here thinks government policy will make us rich. Only liberals believe in such fairytales. [quote]


There is a lot of variation on people’s opinions about the role and purpose of govt in their lives and/or even a stake in the govt based on personal circumstances, and as we get older we may have come to rely on certain govt systems that are in place continuing to be there. Nonetheless, I will concede that there still may be need to be reform some of govt. systems or even to get rid of some govt systems…… and to quickly get rid of some of these govt systems may well turn the USA into a banana republic… which may work for some people.. but would really bother me.. since I have invested in a certain direction already.

Anyhow, not only liberals have various stakes in govt. systems.

Sam: You may be correct that Obamacare results in everyone having to pay more for less; however, that Obamacare (AKA – Affordable Healthcare Act) was passed three years ago.. and whiners keep bringing up the topic… and are screwing the US people in the process of continuing to bring up the topic and shutting down the govt. in order to attempt to get some kind of concession or to otherwise screw people by shutting down the govt… Maybe they don’t even care about Obamacare, and they just want a reason to shut down the govt.?

Even though this thread was supposed to be about questions related to shutting down the government, we have been co-opted into having these extensive discussions about Obamacare, which is all valid to have the discussion at an appropriate time and even ongoing discussions would be fine. Anyhow, many of us likely remain frustrated by the context of this discussion of AHCA.

Actually, it appears to me that IKE was making a general statement about our paying more for less… which is true in a lot of contexts.. and a criticism of capitalism or certain mechanisms of capitalism. Sometimes, IMO the government is needed in various places to protect people from the exploitations of capitalism.. where we as people may get gouged in various ways. We can come up with a lot of examples that cut many different ways. Probably, IKE was referring to insurance companies gouging, and then you, Sam, turn it around to say that the govt is gouging through Obamacare. O.k. fine… possible differences of opinions about what entity is causing what gouging.

Quote: (10-03-2013 02:09 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

[quote='iknowexactly' pid='546879' dateline='1380779440']
4) Another trick is to get you to pay more but get less.

That's exactly what Obamacare is.
[quote]

Quote: (10-03-2013 02:09 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote: (10-03-2013 12:50 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

Gee, the below stats are pretty, bad the Soshulist countries are beating us, I WONDER WHERE ALL THE MONEY WE SPEND GOES? hahhahhahah. Suckers.

Now I know no one wants to know facts, but here is an article from the Journal of The American Medical Association admitting our health care is worse, but more expensive than other developed countries.

http://www.drug-education.info/documents/iatrogenic.pdf

Here's an excerpt. JAMA is about the most mainstream, legit medical journal I know of.

Those stats have no cited sources nor a listed methodology. They are meaningless. Also, I bet you if you looked at the US white healthcare stats, they are just as good if not better than any European country. Compare what is comparable.

Sam: Maybe IKE could have found better articles to cite; however, JAMA is a very credible source. Just as HCE has also pointed out in his post. I do not know whether the JAMA article is correct, but it shows a point of view and studies and support for the studies. Also, this JAMA article is not an aberration because there are numerous sources that will show that the American health system in its pre-Obamacare status is considerably screwed up. Whether Obamacare is going to help the American medical healthcare system is still a question in front of us. I don’t really like some of the aspects of Obamacare, either, especially the fact that it seems to enrich insurance companies that currently are already screwing up the whole health care system by taking too many profits and taking discretion away from doctors concerning standards of care treatment and for what the doctor can get reimbursed.. Well, in any event, there are a lot of articles that would show how other countries have more efficient medical health systems than the USA, and the article that IKE cited was from 2000, and any of us could do some research into showing more recent studies that show that US health care is inefficient in providing health care to people. Maybe you want us to do that research, but that is not even the central topic of the thread. Anyhow, Sam, there may be some studies that splice up the American health care system in order to show that whites have great healthcare; however, we have a mixed group of people in the USA, and anyway you slice it, our healthcare system is suffering troubles when it comes to servicing the whole of society and even US businesses are having trouble affording healthcare in the US of A.

Quote: (10-03-2013 02:09 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Politically, you may be one of the worst posters on the board. I'm 99% sure that you are a feminist.

Everything you say comes straight from your college days. You have no mind of your own. Thus there is no reason to believe you aren't a feminist.

I have only been a RVF member for two months and I have only been reading RVF posts for about three months, so I don’t really know about any of the history regarding IKE’s prior posts, so probably I should not really get too involved regarding any history that may exist.

Nonetheless, in my opinion and view of IKE’s post above, I would like to say that it seems to me that a guy could still be pro-government without being a feminist. If the topic of this thread is supposed to be about the fed govt shutting down, which had caused us in this forum (and even nation-wide) to get finagled into some discussion about whether Obamacare is good in assisting the American health care system or whether Obamacare is good for America, and even if we believe that Obamacare is good, that should not make someone a feminist either…

I personally support Obamacare, even though I am not very excited about aspects of it, yet in spite of my reservations, I have a sense that Obamacare generally helps America in a variety of ways, including lessening the likelihood that people will go bankrupt because of an illness or an accident… Certainly, we should be able to have differing opinions about these kinds of topics without being called names, and I personally don't think that having those kinds of opinions makes someone a feminist… There may be other reasons, but not support of govt and not support of obamacare.

Anyhow, I don’t really know about any IKE posting history (because I have not studied into the topic to review his posts) that would potentially cause a comment or conclusion about him or his posts being feminist in nature, and really, I do not see feminist tendencies emanating from this particular posting from IKE – in part because I agree with much of what he stated and for reasons that I believe are not feminist.

Quote: (10-03-2013 03:34 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

Calling people feminists might look good in general when you're coming from a strong position with a lot of arguments, but not when you're just throwing blanket statements around. There are both sources and methodology here, including names like Lancet and British Medical Journal. Look them up.

Liberalism = feminism and feminism = liberalism.

Liberalism cannot survive without feminism. Most men are strong and smart enough to make it on their own and not need govt. to provide for them. Thus without feminism liberalism cannot survive.

So if a poster is calling for liberalism, there is a good chance they are a feminist.

IIMT – Your comment seems a bit too strong for the engagement in civil discussion about this topic, and really seems like a means to label and to engage in mere name calling in order to avoid having a meaningful exchange of ideas about the topics in front of us.

Quote: (10-03-2013 04:16 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

Every time you see a report talking about how awful American healthcare is, there is a near-100% guarantee it was written by a left-wing socialist who thinks a single-payer system will solve all problems.

Are people not allowed to have opinions without being called names – such as left-wing socialist… again back to Marx.. so what? And again back to feminism… these kinds of thoughts do not make guys feminists. Whatever health care we have in the US is a result of various legislative compromises… and possibly some fiat, and possibly single-payer would be much better than what we currently have and also better than Obamacare. Anyhow, we do not currently have singlepayer, yet I do not see why potentially having it would necessarily be a bad thing if it were to better serve the whole American health care system in a better way.

Quote: (10-03-2013 04:35 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

All the while ignoring that the countries with socialist healthcare are on the verge of bankruptcy. Oh, and the little fact that most healthcare innovation comes from countries without socialist healthcare, a large chunk of that being the USA and this will all but disappear. Oh, and the little fact that the wealthy in these feminist socialist hellholes go to the USA to get good healthcare coverage.

IIMT: Yes, you are making a bunch of bare assertions that are talking points in opposition to Obamacare and opposition to single payer. In other words, your points are not substantiated.

Quote:Quote:

IIMT: Yes, you are making a bunch of bare assertions that are talking points in opposition to Obamacare and opposition to single payer. In other words, your points are not substantiated.

Fact - Most health innovations come from the USA.

Fact - Wealthy elites from socialist hellhole bankrupt countries come to the USA for healthcare as they can afford the best and want the best.

Quote: (10-03-2013 05:07 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

IIMT: Yes, you are making a bunch of bare assertions that are talking points in opposition to Obamacare and opposition to single payer. In other words, your points are not substantiated.

Fact - Most health innovations come from the USA.

Fact - Wealthy elites from socialist hellhole bankrupt countries come to the USA for healthcare as they can afford the best and want the best.

Actually, I am o.k with those two descriptions of facts; however, you are trying to make further conclusions from those facts about US number one in healthcare.. or something like that or that singlepayer will screw this up... or that obamacare will screw this up... or imply that somehow America has the best system b/c very rich people can get the best treatment.

So do regular Americans deserve some access to that supposed best health care or is it better that regular americans just die in the streets? increasing numbers of americans are dying or being put into the streets, these days in part due to expensive health care.

Quote: (10-03-2013 05:07 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

IIMT: Yes, you are making a bunch of bare assertions that are talking points in opposition to Obamacare and opposition to single payer. In other words, your points are not substantiated.

Fact - Most health innovations come from the USA.

Fact - Wealthy elites from socialist hellhole bankrupt countries come to the USA for healthcare as they can afford the best and want the best.

But you are not supposed to base the health of your country's citizens (disclaimer: assuming that a country wants healthy citizens, I don't see why it wouldn't) on the fact that the few elites can afford excellent health care. The point is to have all citizens be able to afford decent health care, otherwise your society will end up with some healthy elites and a sick majority, bringing everything down.

At this forum, we constantly rage about the enormous (and growing) Alpha/Beta divide in how sex is distributed in our modern western society, especially in the USA, and virtually everyone here acknowledges that our civilization will end if such huge levels of inequality are not somehow fixed. Inmalafide (or Captain Capitalism, not sure) has once written that government intervention in the sexual market to reduce these disparities might perhaps be the only kind of socialism that is not allowed today, even though its reasons and benefits are exactly the same as for progressive taxes, health care, food stamps and so on.

Yet, as soon as the discussion steers to the topic of health care, inequality somehow becomes a positive thing. Why? Where's the logic in that?

Quote: (10-03-2013 05:25 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

This is just divide and conquer speech to get us to fight against each other over crumbs. It's distracting from the overall benefits of Obamacare and attempts to pit classes of people against each other.

Anyhow, he is a little bit funny, if it were not so tragic that people will buy into this divide and conquer crap and then believe it. Ultimately, he sounds a bit bitter... about stuff that does not matter too much... if there are some bugs in Obamacare, then yes, those bugs are going to need to be worked out.

Quote:Quote:

At this forum, we constantly rage about the enormous (and growing) Alpha/Beta divide in how sex is distributed in our modern western society, especially in the USA, and virtually everyone here acknowledges that our civilization will end if such huge levels of inequality are not somehow fixed. Inmalafide (or Captain Capitalism, not sure) has once written that government intervention in the sexual market to reduce these disparities might perhaps be the only kind of socialism that is not allowed today, even though its reasons and benefits are exactly the same as for progressive taxes, health care, food stamps and so on.

Yet, as soon as the discussion steers to the topic of health care, inequality somehow becomes a positive thing. Why? Where's the logic in that?

The above statements have been explained and refuted in at least 1000 different places in the manosphere, but I'll give you the distilled version of the facts:

- Socialism and welfare takes away a man's power of the purse
- Beta males cannot compete with big alpha government
- Thus leftism destroys any chances for provider beta males to get laid/have a family.

The entire reason this forum, and game culture, exists is because the left-wing state created you, yet the average leftist is just too blind to see it.

I'm really getting tired of arguing with leftists, because no matter how many times I refute them they are incapable of admitting when they are wrong.

Social inequality is good for men because we're naturally superior to women. Get it? Use socialism to remove the natural advantages men have, and you're left with a society where women can slut it up with zero consequences.

Socialism is bad for men, always has been, always will be.

Quote: (10-03-2013 05:37 AM)JayJuanGee Wrote:  

Quote: (10-03-2013 05:25 AM)Pacesetter20 Wrote:  

This is just divide and conquer speech to get us to fight against each other over crumbs. It's distracting from the overall benefits of Obamacare and attempts to pit classes of people against each other.

Anyhow, he is a little bit funny, if it were not so tragic that people will buy into this divide and conquer crap and then believe it. Ultimately, he sounds a bit bitter... about stuff that does not matter too much... if there are some bugs in Obamacare, then yes, those bugs are going to need to be worked out.

So you believe in paying for women you don't know, and have never done anything for you? What kind of a man are you?

Oh, that's right, you're the same man who refuses to take a girl out of a dance hall on the same night because you don't think it will work even though you've never tried it.

No offense dude, but your white knighting is getting old.

But social inequality doesn't mean all men on top and all women on the bottom. It means a tiny slice (of men) at the top, and then a mix of everyone way down below. If you're not in that tiny top of men, well good luck. We guys at the forum sure know how to elevate our positions through red-pill thinking and game, but it's still a very malleable position that incites a lot of strife with the disenfranchised masses. I don't think it's sustainable.

Quote:Samseau Wrote:

- Socialism and welfare takes away a man's power of the purse
- Beta males cannot compete with big alpha government
- Thus leftism destroys any chances for provider beta males to get laid/have a family.

I agree with that principle (alpha government destroys beta males), but look which things have been the most venomous to men so far: no-fault divorce, discrimination against men in the legal system (alimony, child custody, domestic violence and rape laws), subsidization of single mothers and general you-go-girlism, white knighting and female confidence being artificially inflated. Most of these don't have much to do with socialism and redistribution; they are cultural attitudes that are also strongly entrenched among conservatives. The alpha government uses force primarily to ensure that a woman is always right in any conflict with a man. It does it through cultural attitudes and threat of violence, not through making women not dependent on male income. That part had come long before any sort of social security check: when women got the right to employment.

I can't even remotely accept the claim that women will need more game if everyone has cheaper health care. Even in the old times, I have never heard of a woman of my grandmother's age being attracted to her beta provider husband because of fear that she would otherwise not be able to get an expensive surgery.

Quote:Quote:

no-fault divorce, discrimination against men in the legal system (alimony, child custody, domestic violence and rape laws), subsidization of single mothers and general you-go-girlism, white knighting and female confidence being artificially inflated. Most of these don't have much to do with socialism and redistribution; they are cultural attitudes that are also strongly entrenched among conservatives.

No, these are socialist/liberal policies. Just because the less socialist/less liberal Republican party goes along with it, doesn't make it conservative. None of those things would exist without big brother govt. taking money from men and giving it to women. The Democrats are just more on board with it than even Republicans.

We don't have a true conservative party in the USA. We have the feminist N.O.W. party of Democrats and the quasi feminist party of Republicans.

Libertarians are more on board with the MRA and PUA's. Get the govt. the hell out of our road and women will naturally depend upon men again. At the same time, rather than regulations and taxes punishing middle class men, it gets the govt. the hell out of their road so they can make their own fortune.

Quote: (10-03-2013 06:18 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

But social inequality doesn't mean all men on top and all women on the bottom. It means a tiny slice (of men) at the top, and then a mix of everyone way down below. If you're not in that tiny top of men, well good luck. We guys at the forum sure know how to elevate our positions through red-pill thinking and game, but it's still a very malleable position that incites a lot of strife with the disenfranchised masses. I don't think it's sustainable.

Quote:Samseau Wrote:

- Socialism and welfare takes away a man's power of the purse
- Beta males cannot compete with big alpha government
- Thus leftism destroys any chances for provider beta males to get laid/have a family.

I agree with that principle (alpha government destroys beta males), but look which things have been the most venomous to men so far: no-fault divorce, discrimination against men in the legal system (alimony, child custody, domestic violence and rape laws), subsidization of single mothers and general you-go-girlism, white knighting and female confidence being artificially inflated. Most of these don't have much to do with socialism and redistribution; they are cultural attitudes that are also strongly entrenched among conservatives. The alpha government uses force primarily to ensure that a woman is always right in any conflict with a man. It does it through cultural attitudes and threat of violence, not through making women not dependent on male income. That part had come long before any sort of social security check: when women got the right to employment.

I can't even remotely accept the claim that women will need more game if everyone has cheaper health care. Even in the old times, I have never heard of a woman of my grandmother's age being attracted to her beta provider husband because of fear that she would otherwise not be able to get an expensive surgery.

Let's start with your last paragraph. Women will never vocalize what they subconsciously do. So although they may not have said they were shacking up with a beta provider, that's exactly what they were doing. Thus Obamacare will mean sluttier women, just as the welfare state has caused sluttier women. Just ask the Black community how their women are.

Next,

Quote:Quote:

no-fault divorce, discrimination against men in the legal system (alimony, child custody, domestic violence and rape laws),

All left-wing policies promoted and enforced by the feminist regime. Soviet union had no-fault divorce as well, but didn't suffer as many social problems due to the severe man-shortage caused by WW2.

Quote:Quote:

they are cultural attitudes that are also strongly entrenched among conservatives.

Conservatives, traditionally, have been huge fucking pussies with girls... but the young conservatives today are waking up. It's no accident that most of the manosphere are young conservatives.

Quote:Quote:

The alpha government uses force primarily to ensure that a woman is always right in any conflict with a man.

Another left-wing policy. The left uses both force and welfare to achieve it's ends.

Conversely, the right was against woman's sufferage, it was against woman's liberation, it was against feminist, it was against no-fault divorce, it was against welfare for single-moms, it was against every single social ill that plagues us today. None of this is debatable.

Quote:Quote:

But social inequality doesn't mean all men on top and all women on the bottom. It means a tiny slice (of men) at the top, and then a mix of everyone way down below. If you're not in that tiny top of men, well good luck. We guys at the forum sure know how to elevate our positions through red-pill thinking and game, but it's still a very malleable position that incites a lot of strife with the disenfranchised masses. I don't think it's sustainable.

It's not sustainable? What are you talking about? It was the norm for all of human history, and family formation worked out just fine. In fact, it still is the norm. Every country today has vast wealth inequality.

Fact is, social inequality means more advantages for men. Just a fact of life. Sure, some men lose. Who cares? A small price to pay for having a healthy society where strong men are rewarded with loyal loving wives.

Quote: (10-03-2013 05:40 AM)Samseau Wrote:  

The above statements have been explained and refuted in at least 1000 different places in the manosphere, but I'll give you the distilled version of the facts:

- Socialism and welfare takes away a man's power of the purse
- Beta males cannot compete with big alpha government
- Thus leftism destroys any chances for provider beta males to get laid/have a family.

The entire reason this forum, and game culture, exists is because the left-wing state created you, yet the average leftist is just too blind to see it.

I'm really getting tired of arguing with leftists, because no matter how many times I refute them they are incapable of admitting when they are wrong.

Social inequality is good for men because we're naturally superior to women. Get it? Use socialism to remove the natural advantages men have, and you're left with a society where women can slut it up with zero consequences.

Socialism is bad for men, always has been, always will be.

Thanks for the synopsis Sam, and I do not necessarily disagree with any of those ideas as being social dynamics in the modern world; however, also, I do not necessarily know how we get from where we are at to some place in which there is a lot less government without becoming bitter. or in a quick way rather than a slower transition.

Now, we have a govt shutdown and that was the topic of this thread.

Seems too simple to say, let's just keep the govt closed forever b/c we do not like what it symbolizes and the various services that it offers... At the moment, that seems pie in the sky, to me.

In the end, what's gonna be our transition from where we are to some better state of affairs? Maybe some guys have already prepared for this kind of a transition or thought it through (or created a world for yourself that is completely detached from govt), but a future that gets rid of govt completely sounds like a dog eat dog world that is not the world that I live in at the moment. Maybe it is back to a kind of Ron Paul talk, but he did not win the presidency or even come close?

So we gonna complain and be bitter b/c at the moment we have govt everywhere, and I have not been thinking of govt as the bad guy... and really, I don't think that makes me beta or a feminist... ... . but maybe i need to rethink some of my views a little bit?

I'm open to ideas, but I also have a lot of opinions about rich people screwing regular people through the govt... which seems to be a slightly different view from you.

In the mean time, various guys on this forum, have their hands in the pockets of various govt programs.... and I am not sure if that makes them more beta... and as we get older, there may be more services that we will use... I mean we have roads and airwaves and things like that too... and we are using the internet... If we did not have govt, we may not have access to these kinds of things...

In your earlier posts in this thread (106 and 109), you had already provided RVF members with a list of several negative contributions in your thinking regarding govt, and personally, I have not been considering your earlier list as negatives in my life... but maybe I will have to reconsider some of my thoughts on these kinds of topics?

At this point, i really cannot see going very quickly to a world of low or no govt, from where we are at. Such a vision seems too incomplete and simple in the current world that we have.

Which are all these alleged "socialist" countries people are referring to? I suspect people are getting sloppy with their definitions.

Quote: (10-03-2013 08:00 AM)Vicious Wrote:  

Which are all these alleged "socialist" countries people are referring to? I suspect people are getting sloppy with their definitions.

Any of them. Western Europe. I wouldn't want to have to go through their medical system. Unless I was unemployed and broke, and then it might be better than I would get in the USA if I was unemployed and broke.

The point about the man-shortage in the post-WW2 Soviet Union balancing their feminist policies is a good one. While both of these facts are generally accepted, I have never looked at how they interacted with each other.

Quote:Samseau Wrote:

It's not sustainable? What are you talking about? It was the norm for all of human history, and family formation worked out just fine. In fact, it still is the norm. Every country today has vast wealth inequality.

How is it sustainable? Power (both sexual and monetary) gets concentrated in too few hands, despotism follows sooner or later. Members of the society slowly become overcome by hopelessness, stop being productive and working towards their common good, birth rates and economy collapse, the society regresses into a failed state or is conquered by another that has been under better management. The fall of the Roman Empire is frequently brought up as a good example. Others, such as most kingdoms and empires, had their leaders squeezing the people too much and being assassinated or otherwise violently removed, leading to civil wars. None of the countries that existed 2000 years ago exist now. Some from 1000 years ago do, but have effectively merged with others. There is a constant cycle of birth and failure of civilizations at work. That surely can't be called "sustainable".

Now, we could debate that civilizations have no innate value and that it is thus all ok if they constantly undergo this cycle because humanity will always survive in some form (at least I hope so), but that is a whole another can of worms.

Quote:Quote:

Conversely, the right was against woman's sufferage, it was against woman's liberation, it was against feminist, it was against no-fault divorce, it was against welfare for single-moms, it was against every single social ill that plagues us today. None of this is debatable.

Yes, it was, and that's admirable. But today it's not. I don't see that as proof that right-wing policy, which supposedly stands for "small government" inherently leads to either or both prevention of feminism and better government (or lack of) and better lives for people. Most people would not call China feminist or liberal, despite it being openly communist and having a large government influence.

Quote:Quote:

It's no accident that most of the manosphere are young conservatives.

I disagree. I recall a poll that had 80% of forum members favoring Obama over Romney.

Some of our views are considered conservative because the current climate is so drenched in feminism (which is considered left-wing despite being strong everywhere), but I don't think the manosphere is or has to be conservative on all counts. Most of our members don't seem to be especially conservative other than when women and feminism are concerned. And even that is not universal - most members here seem to support birth control, abortion rights, legalization of pot and prostitution and many other points that are traditionally considered "liberal". You can't generalize like that.

Look, I'm not out to convince you that liberalism is some kind of universal solution or even that it's inherently positive. I don't even call myself a leftist or identify with any "left" government policy other than economic regulation. I'd be all in for reducing many government regulations, enabling the death penalty and similar "right-wing" stuff, but that doesn't mean I have to be against universal healthcare. You are making good points about why socialism is bad, but I'm not even a supporter of socialism per se. One also doesn't have to be a card-carrying feminist to think that universal health care is a good idea. And even if it were demonstrably a bad idea, I have yet to be shown how no government intervention at all anywhere would provide a better solution.

Quote:Quote:

I disagree. I recall a poll that had 80% of forum members favoring Obama over Romney.

If this is true, it is pathetic. Young men voting for a feminist yet claim they are red pill. These are not red pill males.

That poll number is inaccurate.

Samseau, you're killing it.

iknowexactly, you're bragging about California?

California is in the shitter and going down further and further. It's socialist policies have led it to this point.

People are moving from California to Texas due to what California has become.

It used to be a great state. It's still a beautiful one. But it sucks to live in the current state of Communifornia, and the rest of America is following that current path.

Obamacare doesn't make any sense.

Where are the doctors being conjured from? Who's going to assume the doctors want to be paid less?

And the most important point:

After almost $7 trillion in debt since the Obama Administration has gone into office, where is the money coming from for this bill?

It's not. Our infrastructures is still shit and our culture is worse than shit.

The bubble is getting bigger and bigger my friends. It's going to be one HELL of a POP.

Quote:Quote:

Any of them. Western Europe

Exactly what I meant by sloppy definitions.