Republican Plot to Make Obama Look Like a Socialist: (blogs.law.harvard.edu/)
Yesterday’s New York Times: “the government is the nation’s biggest lender, insurer, automaker and guarantor against risk for investors large and small. … government spending accounts for a bigger share of the nation’s economy — 26 percent — than at any time since World War II. The government is financing 9 out of 10 new mortgages in the United States. … To Mr. Obama’s critics, thousands of whom took to the streets of Washington this weekend to protest a new era of big government, all these efforts are part of a plan to dismantle free-market capitalism.”
Who decided to print trillions of dollars and give them to banks? The Bush Administration. Who decided to print hundreds of billions of dollars and give them to AIG? The Bush Administration. Who decided not to tell General Motors and Chrysler to work out their problems in bankruptcy court like any other company not smart enough to recognize the implications of pension and health care guarantees (see While America Aged)? The Bush Administration started with the Detroit bailout.
A theory consistent with the facts is that King Bush II knew that the next president would be a Democrat, due to the endless depressing Iraq/Afghanistan war. He therefore intentionally wrecked the economy and then took over much of it in order to make the next administration look like socialists.
Going by the numbers and facts, an economic historian would have little choice but to classify the U.S. circa 2009 as a socialist nation. Government at all levels spends a greater percentage of GDP than does China’s (source), for example, and the government either directly owns or assumes financial risks for a lot of our largest enterprises. How did we get here? It was a Republican plot to make Obama look like a socialist, by the clever strategy of converting the U.S. into a fully socialist economy prior to January 20, 2009.
–Philip Greenspun (philg@mit.edu)
I believe our country is becoming too Socialistic. Of course there is some socialistic aspects of our government but is it being taken to far? For those struggling to understand the definition of socialism I found this definition which sums it up pretty well: “Socialism is any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.”
Now, is this not beginning to sound more and more like our country’s new government? The government has enough power. The government’s taking over industry means that we the people will not be able to flourish on our own. Do you like coco puffs? Eat them while you can because if socialism takes anymore steps forward in overcoming our government. You will not have a choice in which cereal you buy: we will all be eating cheerios (or some type of regulated sugar free cereal).
The government should not be allowed to tell people what they can and cannot do with their own hard earned money. If I want to buy a gas guzzling hummer instead of a Prius then that’s my choice, not the government’s.
What do you think? I want everyone who read this to give their opinion.
–Wes Weber
September 16th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
There have always been socialist elements of government. However I do disagree with Obama’s health care plan just to name one of my disagreements. we should be able to choose what we do with our money, wes, and yes, I will hoarde multiple boxes of lucky charms in a wherehouse somewhere in southern Kentucky. You can add your cocoa puffs if you wish.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
First of all, let me point out to any poor people forced to read this article that your quote from Harvard blatantly contradicts the thesis of your article. Please, be more careful when choosing which ridiculous rant by Rush Limbaugh you choose to spotlight, and, furthermore, PLEASE don’t choose a contradictory quote next time. I understand that this is supposed to be a forum, but you should at least substantiate your claims.
Second, I hope that you realize you clearly hold two definitions for “socialism.” First, you define Socialism as a system in which production and distribution is owned by a collective or by the government. Next, you say that a socialist government will prohibit you from eating the type of cereal that you want? It just doesn’t make sense! Owning the producers and manufacturers of goods does NOT in ANY way mean that the United States will stop production of Cocoa Puffs.
Third, how is Socialism overcoming our government? You provide no substantial proof for this, only saying that “The government’s taking over industry means that…” Not only is this an irrelevant claim (the government has taken over any industry; don’t even get me started on a debate over the auto-industry), but also, it is blatantly false. Even if the government were able, willing, or going to take over anything, one of two things would happen: either the American people will vote it down (as we do live in a Democracy) or the government would complete a successful takeover. Even in the last scenario, they quite clearly would neither simply prohibit you from doing things for no reason, nor have the ability to anyway. Controlling the management of production does NOT mean that they randomly ban things. The only reason that the government would stop you from buying a Hummer would be to SAVE the economy, AND the environment. Again, if you honestly don’t believe in global warming, then you have some more serious issues that spur an entirely different debate.
Finally, don’t you dare try to pin this on Obama or the Democrats. If you have an issue with the government taking over companies like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae and attempting to save big companies, just keep this in mind: the original TARP stimulus was Bush’s idea. And no, deposing dishonest, manipulative, sick people from the position of CEO of a company that the entire economy depends on does not mean that Obama is staging a radical coup of industry and production as we know it. These ridiculous fears are put forward by idiots who broadcast from their basements with their own agenda to push, and propagated by ignorant, bandwagon, conservative media-whores.
Stop the stupidity now, please.
September 16th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
And alphabravo, please, don’t talk about healthcare if you haven’t read any of the bill, or anything ABOUT the bill. If you knew anything about the healthcare plan, you would know that the government is not forcing you to choose the public option. In fact, the public option is meant to COMPETE with private coverage, and you will ALWAYS have the right to choose your own healthcare provider.
See my above statement about basement-broadcasters and conservative media-whores.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:54 pm
I agree with alphabravo on the healthcare for the most part, and I dont think Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are companies? So please use real things in your arguments.
September 16th, 2009 at 9:55 pm
Whoa, cam, the article choice was my decision because i think it offered another view: this is a forum, not an opinion page. But thanks for the heat
peace
p.s. this harvard/mit guy is no rush limbaugh, but nice responses otherwise
September 16th, 2009 at 10:00 pm
Nate: I understand that, but I will not stand for people propagating ridiculous misunderstandings of an administration that they have no understanding of.
Brett: I don’t understand how you can agree with alphabravo with no understanding of the bill whatsoever. Try reading it, then having an opinion on it. And Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae (The Federal National Mortgage Association and the Federal Home Mortgage Corporation) were huge objects in the news a few months ago. Note the “Corporation” and “Association” affixed to the end of each name. So please do some research before criticizing me.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Nate Again: Phil Greenspun contradicts Wes’ point. He says that the Bush Administration purposely set Obama up to look like a socialist. So I don’t really see the relevance of your comment. I was referring to Rush Limbaugh in the sense of “basement broadcaster” that propagates ridiculous things like this.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:20 pm
thanks for the clarification, cam, i wouldn’t want to be “propagating ridiculous misunderstandings,” um, nice rhetoric
peace
September 16th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
Not sure if that was sarcastic or not.
If not: No problem, glad to help.
If so: Sorry you had an issue with it.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
@cam: hey just would like to point out that I did not talk about the healthcare bill at all except that i don’t agree wirh it. I wasn’t spreading the too often heard hate smear about this bill. I believe everyone deserves a chance to change the world. This is Obama’s chance (one of many). if the American people don’t like it they will definately be heard.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:41 pm
Alphabravo: Alright, cool. I was just trying to point out that people will, indeed, have a choice between the public and private options. The way you put it, it seemed like you were attempting to assert that the government was forcing the public towards the public option. Which they are not. I fully agree with you though: the American people will be heard.
September 16th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Power to the people!!!!
September 16th, 2009 at 10:51 pm
Amen.
September 19th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I like reading weird statistics, and I kind of liked this one (although it has little to do with the article):
Cameron’s article on subjectivism/relativsm: 290 words long
Cameron’s first comment on this article: 451 words long
No offense meant anywhere (and knowing Cameron, he probably won’t take any), but I thought that was pretty cool. Make what you will out of it.
September 25th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Cam-
Your criticizing of those who “didn’t read the bill” is aggravating to me because im 99% sure you haven’t read it, and the only reasearch you’ve does is most likely googling “what is good about Obama’s healthcare plan” or “democrat’s view of Obama’s healthcare plan”. Try viewing some bipartisan articles and get an actual opinion other than your parents’ instead of just looking up things that were written by far left liberals.
September 26th, 2009 at 9:14 am
Optimus, Optimus. Tisk tisk tisk. You of all people should know the importance of nationalized health care. Were your injuries not healed after an unfortunate run-in with the Decepticons? Seeing this most recent movie of yours takes place in the near future, this can only be credited to the new health care system that would have been put in place by then. And, seeing so many “credible” sources say that it will cover illegal aliens, an interstellar lifeform like yourself could be easily cured! Hoo-ray!
P.S. Kill Michael Bay before he makes another unbearable film, preferably with lasers.
October 12th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
OptimusPrime12 –
What is it with you people? You tell me that I’m the one who hasn’t read the bill. I’m the one QUOTING the text of the bill. Sure, I didn’t read an entire 1,000 word bill, but I read the parts that are relevant to our discussion. The discussion involved whether people would be forced to choose the public option or not. I reminded alphabravo that the public option was just that, a public option. Why don’t you do some research on the bill. I’ve spent 20-50 hours a week researching Obama’s agenda. That’s anywhere from 3-7 hours a day researching and talking about various political issues. Try doing some research of your own my friend. I don’t understand how reminding anyone that the public option means that people will still have the opportunity to choose a private healthcare provider indicates that I Googled “what is good about Obama’s healthcare plan,” or “democrat’s view of Obama’s healthcare plan.” My parents are republicans, and I’ve read more bipartisan articles on healthcare than you’ve read about anything in your entire life. Get a clue, and pick your fights more carefully.
George –
Observant child. I enjoy criticizing people more than being criticized. Selfish, maybe. Fun, very. Productive…. Eh.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Um, cam, take it easy dude! just argue your points and try not to make everything personal. Besides, its a fallacy to indight an idea based on the voice behind that idea, and in the same way, your peronsal hours spent benevolently reading moderate political literature is not exactly a persuasive thing to point out. Oh, by the way, where do you quote the bill? Why didn’t you just answer optimusprime12 with a quote and just leave it.
optimusprime12 – asserting that cam hasn’t read the bill is an interesting way of approaching your argument. I guess the question is this: who has the burden of quoting the bill? Its too long to quote one part and use that quote as the justification for the absense of such broad an idea as socialism but at the same time, all governments are fundementally socialist to some small degree becuase they have regulation, right? So quoting a ’socialist policy’ would not really warrant the entire government becomeing more socialist either. Maybe the better question is: who can quote the bill? And is there only one now? I thought there were five last time I checked. If each is 1000 pages long, how must a citizen be protected through their own understanding of policy?
The ‘quote the bill’! ‘Read the bill’! rhetoric is a useless way to argue points. Argue with ideas, use the a bill if you want, but, to everyone, don’t try to dismantle another’s argument with burdens of legislative proof for an idea that spans the entire funciton of a government: much more than just a few 1000 pages of mystery.
October 13th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Wait! Wait! Wait!
Ah ha! I am actually, yes: wrong. The Senate just approved the $0.83 Trillion health care bill: I guess there’s only one now (as oppossed to the 5 i wrote of earlier this evening)! Yippee! Um, I still have no idea what is in it and my points above are still valid becuase most of the concerned comments were written before today, being the 10th of October. But hey, now that there’s only one bill and it is arguably one of the largest, and most influential, legislations of the history of our country, I guess you could make a precedent argument with the bill itself. That is, one could say that the principles which the bill reinforces set a precedent for future operations of the government: be they socialist or otherwise.
just a thought
thanks chumps,
peace
October 13th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Nate –
I don’t take it personally until someone insults me. Which (check out the other articles) happened several times before I posted this comment. And I’m arguing my points. I’m simply pointing out that he has not done sufficient research on the Healthcare bill. My other argument was that it was a public OPTION. He said that he didn’t support the healthcare bill because we shouldn’t be forced to pick our own healthcare. I pointed out that it was a public option. Albeit, not a direct quote, but a quote of the bill nonetheless.
To answer your myriad of questions:
Optimusprime should be the one substantiating his claims in the first place. He didn’t, so I proposed my own argument, “quoting” the bill as evidence.
It’s not too long to quote, because I just did. Likewise, I’m applying the very powerful idea behind my “quote” (I use quotation marks to display that it’s not really a quote, but more of a general observation, though still gleaned through the literature), which is that it is an option, not a brute-force shift to one healthcare system. It’s not a socialist policy, and people need to stop calling it one.
Sure, all governments have an element of socialism in them. That doesn’t mean that they are totally socialist.
Anybody who has read a substantial amount of the bill can quote the bill.
“The bill” is a term that I apply to the wide variety of healthcare bills, because they all encompass the element that we’re debating, that of a public option.
A citizen can be protected through their understanding of policy, regardless of how long the policy is. One does not need to read every clause of the bill to understand a specific part of the bill, or even the general idea of the bill.
Anyway,
We’re talking about the one healthcare bill that just passed through the Senate finance committee. That’s the one we’ve been talking about since the beginning. Regardless of what bill we were talking about, all bills that had a possibility of going through the Senate had a public option, which was what optimusprime was indicting. And the “read the bill” statement is not “rhetoric,” it’s a suggestion, as I’m not arguing through the statement of “READ THE BILL,” I’m arguing through my knowledge gleaned from reading some of, and about the bill. Also, please note that just because the bill has passed the Senate Finance Committee, it will still have to pass Congress, which is an iffy-at-best situation.
What I’m pointing out is that optimusprime argued that we would not have an option, that we would be forced to switch to the public healthcare system. I refuted that claim by pointing out that the public option was an option for a reason, and that one should read more literature on the bill before making the much-publicized (however false it is) assumption that Obama was turning the country into a socialist country by forcing everyone to submit to his healthcare system. That’s a ridiculous claim, and people need to understand my final point, which is
PEOPLE CAN STILL CHOOSE THEIR HEALTHCARE PROVIDER. A PUBLIC OPTION iS SIMPLY AN OPTION. YOU WILL NOT BE FORCED TO SUBSCRIBE TO IT.
October 15th, 2009 at 11:19 pm
substaining my claims? i make no claims. did you read what i posted? nowhere do i indicate my reading of the bill (although i have read some of it). i dont even indicate that i have researched the bill. my comment is directed TO YOU saying that YOU should open your mind, because there is no way you can have as completely a cemented view on politics as you would have us believe unless you were a TOTAL poser, which you may be. i would advise you get what many would call “a life”. being a teenager isn’t about doing 50 hours of research so that you can parade your intellect around a small, local website. you are going to get older and wish you had done more than one thing in your short miserable life. you tell yourself that you love doing things like this, but you only do them for the self interpreted erudition. you have never tasted anything but this and i bet you would be lost without it, but i encourage you to try something different for at least a few weeks, because doing what you do all day is, frankly, a waste of a very fugacious life
October 16th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Hehe. “Substaining” is not a word.
Anyway. Yes. I read what you posted. I referred to your claims of
“im 99% sure you haven’t read it, and the only reasearch you’ve does is most likely googling “what is good about Obama’s healthcare plan” or “democrat’s view of Obama’s healthcare plan”. Try viewing some bipartisan articles and get an actual opinion other than your parents’ instead of just looking up things that were written by far left liberals.”
I SUBSTANTIATED my claims by quoting the bill, rather than just an ad hominem attack on my opinions and knowledge. Your comment being directed TO ME really only proves the fact that you’re attacking me ad hominem, because you don’t really cite any logical reason as to why anybody else is more correct than I am except for the claim that I don’t have an original opinion because I don’t jump on the bandwagon with everyone else (oh, wait, that doesn’t make sense… oh well). I really don’t see how “im 99% sure you haven’t read it, and the only reasearch you’ve does is most likely googling “what is good about Obama’s healthcare plan” or “democrat’s view of Obama’s healthcare plan” is suggesting that I “open my mind.”
I’m not sure what your point here is. I think what you’re trying to articulate is that either I’m a loser, or a fake. Sure, I’m what today’s society would call a loser. I’m really, honestly not ashamed to admit that, because it’s really not something to be ashamed of. I do research because I actually have some desire to learn about things that aren’t forced on me, and to try to understand the world around me. I don’t educate myself to parade my knowledge around a website (which, by the way, was created, in part, by myself for the purpose of opening up an intellectual forum within which one could hold an educated conversation and argue their points), I educate myself so I’m better at the activity I dedicate myself to. Yes, I do actually have something to do with my “short miserable life,” and it’s doing what I love the most: arguing. I debate, and that debate carries itself out of the round and into my every day life. I’m genuinely interested in learning things, and I find it more appropriate to spend time increasing my knowledge of the world around me (mind you, among friends) rather than standing on a street corner aimlessly. Sure, I go to the occasional football game, and I spend a great deal of time just hanging out with my friends, but that doesn’t mean that I can’t research things that genuinely interest me, too.
Also, who the hell do you think you are to decide what being a teenager is about? Has the Man in the Sky (solid movie) enlightened you, and you alone? Because it seems to me like there are an awful lot of people praying to their gods, exploring the mind, and educating themselves to find out exactly what the hell being human IS about. Unlike you, I don’t really want to live the average life of an average human (I’m no way implying that average means mediocre; here, it’s just a broad term to describe the majority of Americans’ day-to-day lives). It might seem crazy, but I’d actually like to be homeless. Just to try it the fuck out. I’d like to go barefoot in the winter (which I actually tried for an entire year) just for the hell of it. I’ve tried out a lot of things, my friend, probably more than you. Believe it or not, I’ve actually lived for nearly 16 years. My entire life hasn’t exactly been a muddle of research. In fact, I was completely uninterested in debate until my first year in high school. Now that I’ve tried some things, and found something that I like, I find myself happier than I was before. And I’m not so insecure that I need to post attacks on the value of peoples’ lives in a forum meant for argumentation (cough, cough). Don’t so quickly make assumptions about people that you don’t even know outside of a certain forum. In particular, don’t classify people as ignorant, selfish, or argumentative, based off of an impression that you got inside a forum for ARGUING.
For now, I’ll ignore that you’ve apparently appointed yourself God and decided whose lives hold value and whose are a waste. And please, refrain from insulting a person directly on this site, or I’ll be forced to ban you. Ad Hominem fallacies are not at all in the spirit of a healthy debate.
October 19th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
You people are like three-year-olds fighting over a piece of playdo (http://www.playdo.com/)
Grow up.
(um, to all the three-year-olds who are avid West Side Review members, sorry, keep playing with playdo and don’t be offended)
October 19th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
Ah! my bad- spelled playdough wrong and here’s the better website
http://babyparenting.about.com/cs/activities/a/playdough.htm
October 27th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Cam, if I may correct you on this, the healthcare plan would be proved ineffective if put into place. Far too many outside forces acting upon it. I suggest you study philosophy a bit before you start posting. MY Great Grandfather, who has an associates’ degree in philosophy from Cuyahoga Community College, read this article and objected to this whole thing immediately. He claims you know nothing about philosophy.
October 27th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
AHHHHH!!!! appeal to an authority…. fallacy!!!!
You’re grandfather may be a philosophical jock but you still gotta explain what exactly he had problems with and why, if you want to convince us of ur pnt.
thanks
peace
November 21st, 2009 at 9:20 pm
“…(as we do live in a Democracy) or the government would complete a successful takeover.”
No, we live in a constitutional republic. What is a ‘takeover’ cam? I believe it has a pretty broad definition, “the act of seizing, appropriating, or arrogating authority, control, management, etc.” I hope you will agree with that so far, but the main point is the governments exercise of “control” and “arrogating authority.” Government’s rarely, if ever, outright runs and operates an institution. Law is control and authority. This means that every law governing any function of society ( millions if not billions of laws) is in effect a takeover of said function.
“Third, how is Socialism overcoming ..//.. auto-industry), but also, it is blatantly false.”
- Can you clarify that statement? I don’t understand what you are saying here.
“Even in the last scenario, they quite clearly would neither simply prohibit you from doing things for no reason, nor have the ability to anyway.”
Prohibition of alcohol, prohibiting gun ownership, prohibiting demonstrations and rallies, prohibiting same sex marriage, prohibiting air travel, prohibiting chemical use, prohibiting drug use, prohibiting human rights, prohibiting the right to a trial by jury, prohibiting property ownership, etc. The government prohibits thousands of things every day, with new prohibitions being added into law almost every new day. Next, they do have the ability in order to do every prohibition that is mandated, because they are the functioning authority ( both in structure and in physical manifestation.) Any activity that is not fully controlled will be self controlled through selective enforcement.
“The only reason that the government would stop you from buying a Hummer would be to SAVE the economy, AND the environment. Again, if you honestly don’t believe in global warming, then you have some more serious issues that spur an entirely different debate.”
Is the the only reason? Isn’t it in a governments interests to save ITS economy and environment? What grants a politician unwavering moral righteousness that deviates from a normal human behavior. All governments are entities, living and breathing, survival and sustainability come before all other activities. You make is sound if a career politician’s highest priority is to improve the grass on my lawn, and I have trouble grasping that. Sure I believe in global warming, and global cooling, ( hell I think my dog even understands the seasons ) but what do Hummers have to do with the ice caps on mars receding or the sun’s magnetic field? Fill the cap for me please!?
“…don’t you dare try to pin this on Obama or the Democrats.”
I’ll dare.
Fan&Fred (government sponsored enterprise) issue started under the Carter administration, and continued under all the rest of the administrations ( including Clinton. ) Plus, it was Larry Summers, ( one of Clinton and Obama’s masters ) who effectually immunized derivatives from being audited. There are hundreds of other instances where I can place the blame on democrats. I won’t though, because the political party they have allegiance to doesn’t really matter. The financial & monetary system are both parties fault.
“And no, deposing dishonest, manipulative, sick people from the position of CEO of a company that the entire economy depends on does not mean that Obama is staging a radical coup..”
It means he is doing something illegal though. A court & trial is the only thing that can do that.
“These ridiculous fears are put forward by idiots who broadcast from their basements with their own agenda to push, ”
It isn’t a fear when private companies are being internally mandated to cooperate with retroactive illegal laws, it’s called reality. These facts are being put forward by journalists who are reporting on whats going on. Most AP reporters who jot down a fact and put it on the web or in a paper do not have an agenda to push.
“Stop the stupidity now, please. ”
Ok
November 24th, 2009 at 11:21 pm
“No, we live in a constitutional republic.”
You’re an idiot. Have you looked up the definition of the word “democracy,” or even heard of it? I suggest you do. Second, don’t talk about political models that you don’t fully understand. Local governments can, questionably, be called constitutional republics, as they are republics under constitutions, in which people vote on laws (issues). However, the United States federal government is unquestionably a democracy. A constitutional republic, defined basically by Plato, is distinctly different from a democracy, as in a republic, citizens are not only participatory in electing legislative representatives, but also in the legislative process themselves. Without actually deciding the laws for ourselves, something our elected representatives do, we are undoubtedly a democratic nation. Furthermore, how does that even remotely support any semblance of a point that you’re making? Neither specifically is defined as having more control over said citizens.
“What is a ‘takeover’ cam?”
To get into one’s possession by force, skill, or artifice
“Government’s [sic] rarely, if ever, outright runs and operates an institution.”
Government organizations.
“Law is control and authority.”
So?
“This means that every law governing any function of society (millions if not billions of laws) is in effect a takeover of said function.”
Not necessarily. We’re talking about governing minute things here. Sure, the government might exercise excessive control, but that’s been proven to self-correct (prohibition, etc.). The argument using is fallacious, in that you’re indicting every law that provides control over any facet of life (in essence, every law, as law is “control and authority,” as inevitably leading to loss of freedom.
“Can you clarify that statement?”
Yes. Representatives acting as a governmental body are not going to magically change the US into a Socialist state.
“Prohibition”
Fantastic. There were justifiable reasons for each of these. Give me any one, I’ll defend it. Prohibition on the scale of drug abuse is clearly different between prohibition of brands of cereal. There’s no justifiable reason for the representatives in our government to prohibit you from making choices. That’s my argument. Proving that things have been prohibited in the past means nothing.
“Any activity that is not fully controlled will be self controlled through selective enforcement.”
Really? When?
“Is the the [sic] only reason?”
Yes
“Isn’t it in a governments [sic] interests to save ITS economy and environment?”
As the government is not some autonomous actor, but is made up of people that represent more people (i.e. Congressmen, Senators, Justices, the President, etc.), and those people share our economy and environment, then yes.
“All governments are entities…”
False. What is a government?
“You make is [sic] sound if [sic] a career politician’s highest priority is to improve the grass on my lawn, and I have trouble grasping that.”
That’s unfortunate. I’m not sure how hard it is to grasp that a politician might be concerned with the fact that our planet is at risk. I’m not sure what your grass has to do with it, and I’m sure your local politician couldn’t give a crap about it. That doesn’t mean that your local politician isn’t concerned about the status of the environment as a whole.
“Sure I believe in global warming, and global cooling, (hell I think my dog even understands the seasons) but what do Hummers have to do with the ice caps on mars receding or the sun’s magnetic field?”
I’m not sure if that was an awful attempt at wit or not. In any case, that was dumb. First of all, solar magnetic fields and martian ice receding has nothing to do with global warming. Second, we’re not talking about seasons, we’re talking about the global temperature trend, and its drastic increase caused by increasing fossil fuel emissions, upon other things.
“Fill the cap for me please!?”
What?
“I’ll dare.”
Fantastic. You made yourself look like even more of an idiot.
“Fan & Fred…”
Oh, no way, I totally didn’t know that Fan and Fred had problems! Who caused the collapse (Bush) is not the issue. It’s the fact that we saved the entire economy from collapsing by saving two huge factors of it through government policy that matters. I’m not blaming anything on the republicans, and I’m not saying that the democrats had to clean up their mistake; I’m only saying that the fact that somebody did something about it is a good thing, and doesn’t display an inherent trend towards a Socialist administration.
“It means he is doing something illegal though. A court & trial is the only thing that can do that.”
Two words: Executive order.
“It isn’t a fear when private companies are being internally mandated to cooperate with retroactive illegal laws, it’s called reality.”
Let’s start with the obvious: companies being internally mandated aren’t being mandated by outside laws; that’s external mandation. Second, there’s no proof of these laws being retroactive. Third, legality is defined by laws, thus it is impossible for laws to be illegal. Fourth, companies being forced to comply with laws creates a panic, inducing a fear of Socialism; it does not cause socialism. Thus, it is a fear, not a reality, that the US is becoming a socialist nation.
“These facts are being put forward by journalists who are reporting whats [sic] going on.”
What facts?
“Most AP reporters who jot down a fact and put it on the web or in a paper do not have an agenda to push.”
First, that’s not true; many reporters are loyal to parties. Second, “The United States is becoming a Socialist nation” is neither a fact, nor jotted down as such by an AP reporter. Third, most things put on the web or in a paper are not only influenced by author bias but also unsupported by fact. Fourth, who the hell are journalists to decide if we’re changing the foundation of the political sphere, anyway?
“Ok”
See response to “I’ll dare.”
November 27th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
“You’re an idiot. ”
-Good one. Showing your true colors ( and age. )
“definition of the word “democracy,” or even heard of it?”
-There is no definition of democracy in political theory, whatever you are looking to is their interpretation of it.
“citizens are not only participatory in electing legislative representatives, but also in the legislative process themselves.”
-We do, especially at the local level.
“Without actually deciding the laws for ourselves, something our elected representatives do,”
- Representatives are citizens. We do decide laws. The furthest you could stretch this point would be that representatives are catalysts from the people to the government. Its still us making the laws.
“Sure, the government might exercise excessive control, but that’s been proven to self-correct”
- Only in explosive circumstances does this self-correct, ie rarely.
“Yes. Representatives acting as a governmental body are not going to magically change the US into a Socialist state.”
- Not magically, but through laws and executive enforcement. Nowadays the executive runs the legislative ( when it should have been the other way around. )
“There’s no justifiable reason for the representatives in our government to prohibit you from making choices. That’s my argument.”
– ? A cereal maker could lobby the representatives to remove other cereal makers from business (competition) by many methods ( laws, regulations, taxing techniques, selective enforcement. ) This happens daily actually ( even with cereal companies. ) Corporatism – we have a loottttttt of it.
“…(i.e. Congressmen, Senators, Justices, the President, etc.), and those people share our economy and environment, then yes.”
- Almost everyone you listed there does not share our economy and environment. Economies and environments change as you move along a socioeconomic line. Also, most of them do not care for their own E&E because they have enough wealth/power to be perfectly fine if indeed the economy and environment around them falls.
“That’s unfortunate. I’m not sure how hard it is to grasp that a politician might be concerned with the fact that our planet is at risk.”
- It’s not hard for me, I can tell who is concerned and who isn’t.
“I’m not sure if that was an awful attempt at wit or not. In any case, that was dumb.”
Lol I think you read too much into it, anyway –
“we’re talking about the global temperature trend, and its drastic increase caused by increasing fossil fuel emissions, upon other things.”
-No, it’s actually decreasing currently, and that’s because there have been no solar flares.
“Fantastic. You made yourself look like even more of an idiot.”
- I’ll let you bury yourself.
“It’s the fact that we saved the entire economy from collapsing by saving two huge factors of it through government policy that matters.”
- That’s actually one of the biggest intellectual and economic frauds ever conceived. I would highly suggest you not parrot that idea.
“doesn’t display an inherent trend towards a Socialist administration.”
- Correct, but it does move away from capitalism & free markets towards centralization ( some make the mistake of calling this socialism, but socialism would be much nicer than what is taking place. )
“Two words: Executive order.”
- PDD’s don’t supersede the constitution.
“..companies being internally mandated aren’t being mandated by outside laws; that’s external mandation.”
- Semantics sure, you got me, but I was referring to structure of a company being controlled.
“Second, there’s no proof of these laws being retroactive”
- mmmm yes, TARP funds
“Third, legality is defined by laws, thus it is impossible for laws to be illegal.”
- Wrong, laws that are written which are illegal under a more powerful law. A local government can write into law that they can take everyone’s firearms, but the constitution supersedes that law.
“Fourth, companies being forced to comply with laws creates a panic, inducing a fear of Socialism; it does not cause socialism”
- Lets take out the word Socialism here with something that means “away from capitalism and the free market.” So, companies being forced to comply with some laws that reach beyond the governments actual power IS the manifestation of “away from capitalism and the free market.”
“What facts?”
- Like a reporter going to a crime scene and reporting on what the police chief is saying in his speech… could be anything, I’m speaking in a general sense.
“First, that’s not true; many reporters are loyal to parties.”
- I’m talking about basic information that gets put through the news feeds, not big articles written for a newspaper or anything – merely reporters relaying facts.
“Second, “The United States is becoming a Socialist nation” is neither a fact, nor jotted down as such by an AP reporter.”
- I wasn’t referring to this article, I didn’t even read this article because I know whoever wrote it doesn’t know what they’re talking about. Just as I know you don’t really know what you are talking about. You might be able to rant against a person, but doing so with your arrogant asshole demeanor sets up any of your reasonable responses to crumble into themselves. Anyone experienced or mature is going to skip over your responses because of your immaturity. I don’t claim to write anything of merit, but I do recognize things for what they are. I also know what people smarter than me are thinking when they analyze something. You are very smart and critical about these issues in a world that seems the opposite, but you are starting off on the wrong base of understanding and arguing with a terrible attitude.
I’m going to go, prolly wont be back – but I would advise you to lighten up, and to excavate yourself from some of your entrenched ideas that are the opposite of truth. This country along with others are moving away from freedom and towards a centralized global corporate state, whether you understand it now or later ( because you will.)
January 20th, 2010 at 1:11 am
“Good one.”
-What can I say, I speak the truth.
“There is no definition of democracy…”
-I’m not quite sure I understand. I don’t want to insult you for something that I didn’t understand fully, so I won’t, but if you actually mean that there is no literal definition of “democracy,” then it only stands that there is no definition of anything in political theory, and that, in fact, the political structure that I’ve created in my head where my stuffed animals are all subservient to me is a democracy.
“We do, especially at the local level.”
-Well gee, that’s fantastic, you can decide whether you’d like to have casinos in your state or not. But when was the last time you’ve taken a vote on whether you’d like a national healthcare system or not (the poll you took on foxnews.com doesn’t count)? In order to qualify as a constitutional republic, the majority of the citizens in the nation would have to directly participate in the legislative process, i.e. taking a vote.
“Representatives are citizens. We do decide laws. The furthest you could stretch this point would be that representatives are catalysts from the people to the government. Its still us making the laws.”
-Again, when was the last time you’ve taken a vote on national healthcare? Do you think that every Democrat in Massachusetts thought that they were making the laws tonight when they realized that healthcare was just blocked (or impeded, at the very least)? Clearly, every citizen doesn’t have a direct effect on the imposition and legislation of laws in Congress. Sure, 400-some do, but that excludes the other few-dozen-million. Even if you extend the argument by saying that representatives are catalysts, that’s leaving out every non-voter, independent, and over half of the voting population.
“Only in explosive circumstances…”
-i.e. Socialism
“Not magically, but through laws and executive enforcement.”
-”Magically” was a figure of speech. I meant that the country isn’t just going to change into a Socialist state. It’s infeasible. (also see below)
“Nowadays the executive runs the legislative (when it should have been the other way around)”
-First, your competence in the realm of world affairs is startling, as is your ability to take into account the subject matter discussed. Clearly, as Obama has spent the last year attempting to get the legislation of our country to pass healthcare and failed, the Executive does not run the Legislative. Second, what the hell do you mean “when it should have been the other way around.” You defend Democracy as a system of checks and balances, but then state that whatever the Legislative wants is right. That sounds pretty much like Communism, a government of the people, and only the people, doesn’t it?
“A cereal make could lobby the representatives to remove other…”
-That’s all well and good. First of all, there’s no empirical evidence of something so trivial as a cereal maker removing other cereal makers from the public sphere by lobbying. Second, even if there were one instance, don’t make a hasty generalization: why the hell would Congress care about cereal choices, absent legal infringements.
“This happens daily…”
-No, it doesn’t.
“Corporatism…”
-Apparently. That still doesn’t support the idea that we’d have restricted cereal choices. Especially since if this were the case, GM would be the only car allowed in America at this point.
“Almost everyone you listed there does not share our economy and environment.”
-I’m pretty sure that they do. Despite their social standing, they’re still affected by things like cataclysmic effects of global warming, and the decreased popularity they draw by wrecking the economy. There are links, and, though indirect, they are still links.
“It’s not hard for me, I can tell who is concerned and who isn’t.”
-Really? Enlighten me. Which politician wouldn’t care if we all died?
“No, it’s actually decreasing currently, and that’s because there have been no solar flares.”
-If you’d read any scientific data in the past couple decades, you’d see differently. Even the raw, unedited data still shows upward trends, and catastrophic implications. Solar flares have never been proven to have a direct, lasting effect on the global climate.
“That’s actually one of the biggest intellectual and economic frauds ever conceived.”
-Great, I’m glad that you concede that the policies enacted by Bush enforced a one-industry economy, and that that’s bad. It still saved the economy from utterly crashing.
“Correct, but it does move away from capitalism…”
-How? If you’re still allowed to pick your healthcare provider, and other people who can’t finally get a chance, what tenet of Capitalism does that infringe?
“PDD’s don’t supersede the constitution.”
-Great, so this either means that Obama can’t enforce unjust, Socialist policies (assuming that he’d create them), or that they, in fact, do.
“I was referring to structure of a company being controlled.”
-Yes, a very few corrupt leaders were taken out of power in order to save the economy. This either means that its good because supporting the one-industry economy is good, or because we’re letting the free market do its thing unimpeded by greed.
“TARP funds”
-Retroaction? No specific example.
“Laws that are written which are illegal under a more powerful law… the constitution supersedes that law.”
-You still haven’t proven that TARP funds are unconstitutional. Either they’re unconstitutional, and Socialism should have already happened under Bush, or one infringement of Constitutionality doesn’t matter.
“Companies being forced to comply…”
-You’re still not understanding: “Free Market” does not mean “do whatever the hell you want.” There’s a distinction that you’re failing to make between Anarchy and Capitalism.
“Like a reporter going to a crime scene…”
-Again, what a police chief is saying is no tangible fact. And I’d be really impressed if the police found the dead body of Capitalism.
“Basic information… not big articles…”
-FOX News.
“I wasn’t referring to this article…”
-I made that title up for the sake of example.
“You are starting off on the wrong base of understanding and arguing with a terrible attitude.”
-See your above comments: It’s the facts that count. I don’t care if people skip over my article, they can choose what they’d like to believe. I’d rather be an ass and be honest about it than pretending to care about changing other people (because it’s impossible to change their minds once set).
“I’m going to go, prolly won’t be back…”
-Sorry to see you go. I enjoyed this.
“This country along with other are moving away from freedom and towards a centralized global corporate state…”
-And Google’s taking over the world.
No, really: [http://googleworlddomination.com/]