Socialist Party Meets in Kern Park
Can anyone articulate for me how this platform is substantially different than the Democrats’ platform?
The antidote to both, Moore maintains, is to put the Socialist Party in power, so it can go about ending the Iraq war, implementing national health care and guaranteeing work — and at least $35,000 a year — for everyone.
Well, maybe not the guranteeing work. The democrats are against that.
Posted by on July 27, 2008 at 1424 hrsThey themselves see quite a bit of difference.
Me, I think they’re as radical as the Libertarian party is. Their philosophy is super naive and their politics is deservedly fringe.
Posted by scott on July 27, 2008 at 1448 hrsWhy only $35K? Why not $75K? Why not $150K? Why not $1 million? Don’t they want to guarantee financial stability for working people?
I’m not sure where the “fringe” is—we had congressmen talking about nationalizing (she started to say “socializing” and caught herself) the oil industry, and we’re watching the cronyism in the mortgage industry turn into socialization. When the government bails out, the government buys. When the government buys, the government controls. When the government controls, the item is socialized.
Posted by prosqtor on July 27, 2008 at 1517 hrsThe Socialists garner more respect from me than the “Don’t call me a Socialist, I’m a Democrat… no, wait-- I’m a Liberal-- I mean, um… Progressive! Yeah, now I’m a Progressive!” crowd that hides from their identities every time they realize how abhorrent their “principles” are.
At least those who wear “Socialist” on their sleeve are proud of their leftist positions. The closet collectivists are the dangerous ones…
-jjg
Posted by J. Gravelle on July 27, 2008 at 1842 hrs
DailyScoff.comI have very little respect for someone who purports to know something about American politics but who cannot articulate the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist.
Posted by scott on July 27, 2008 at 2021 hrsCan you?
Posted by Owen on July 27, 2008 at 2024 hrsI ask that because nobody has answered my question yet.
Posted by Owen on July 27, 2008 at 2024 hrsWell, I want to know the difference between fascism and todays Republican party.
Posted by scott on July 27, 2008 at 2034 hrsAgain, you haven’t answered the question. Look at the platform articulated in the quote and tell me the difference.
Posted by Owen on July 27, 2008 at 2037 hrsOkay, so we have a) ending the war, b) instituting “national” healthcare, and c) guaranteeing a $35k job for “everyone.” At first blush I’d say the last bit was not really on the table for the Democratic party. Am I wrong? As for item b I don’t know what is meant by “national healthcare.” I myself would like to see tax-funded health insurance for every citizen, but that’s not what the Democratic party is advocating, I don’t think. Perhaps it still qualifies as “national healthcare,” I don’t know. As for item a, most Americans want that.
My question to you is: Are these the three issues that define the Socialist party?
Posted by scott on July 27, 2008 at 2046 hrsMy question to Owen:
Is anyone who supports:
a) [Universal] healthcare, or
b) ending the the war in Iraq, or
c) a guaranteed $35,000/yr joba Socialist?
Posted by on July 27, 2008 at 2054 hrsI think the difference between a Socialist and a Democrat is that the Socialist is more conservative.
Posted by Steve Burri on July 27, 2008 at 2103 hrsAccept for the $35,000 part, most of America would be socialist.
Posted by on July 27, 2008 at 2200 hrsMy focus is on WINNING the war - not ending it by running away when it is almost complete in Iraq and frankly just getting heated up again in Afganistan.
Posted by on July 27, 2008 at 2229 hrsScott,
So you agree with (a), parse (b), and bicker with (c). Regarding (c), it’s really just a matter of threshold. Democrats advocate the minimum wage, which is less than $35k right now, but the concept is the same.
Adam,
(a), yes.
(b), no, but that doesn’t change the fact the the socialists and the Democrats have the same position.
(c), yes.
Keith,
Agreed, which is a sad statement on the development of liberty in America.
Posted by Owen on July 27, 2008 at 2229 hrsI love this liberty nonsense which gets thrown around all the time as some kind of means of winning an argument, usually in a vacuous, vapid and sloganizing way.
Is it liberty to have a health care system which drives people into poverty and actually limits choice? Is it liberty to have our resources sucked up by this disaster in Iraq perpetrated by this smash and grab administration.
No one is talking about dashing out of Iraq. Obama’s 16 months—which now McCain seems to favor—is based on conditions on the ground.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 0539 hrsI have very little respect for someone who purports to know something about American politics but who cannot articulate the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist.
No scott you have very little respect for anyone.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 0612 hrs"Liberty nonsense”. That is the essence of all statist philosphies; the idea that you are being enslaved by your betters for your own good.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 0722 hrsThe extremism and radicalism here is so frustrating. Instead of discussing the (actually somewhat narrow) policy differences between the major Democratic and republican candidates we end up arguing over whether Democrats are “socialists,” or whether the concept of progressive taxation is or is not theft. I just sometimes wish the conversation here could be a little more mainstream, and a little more relevant.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2008 at 0813 hrsBy mainstream I assume you mean unquestioned as to legality or constitutionality, both being irrelevant to you evidently.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 0826 hrsBy mainstream I mean discussing the differences of the policies of the major candidates and parties.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2008 at 0830 hrsI must be slipping in my old age. Should have gotten this in at comment #1.
Posted by Jed on July 28, 2008 at 0843 hrs
Meeto jed…
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 0908 hrs This is an easy one.
A socialist is just a democrat who isn’t afraid to be honest and call their philosophy what it is, instead of spinning it and playing word games and disguising the literal truth of their beliefs.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 0945 hrsI don’t think there’s a big movement in the Democratic party to have the government control the means of economic production and distribution of goods and services. If you think my desire for national health care coverage or my support of Social Security or my support of the FDA means I’m a Marxist, then I think you’re a nutcase who needs to double up on his medication.
The political discourse in America is quite narrow when viewed internationally. This graph at politicalcompass.org shows what I mean:
http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008
The idea that Obama (and his party) are Marxist-style socialists is, to be frank, ab-fucking-surd. The differences between your candidate and mine--while very real and very important--are simply not great enough for anyone to be labeling anyone else the second coming of communism, okay?
The fact that you seem to believe this to be the case indicates to me a complete lack of proportion in your political views.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2008 at 0958 hrsThen why are so many democrats advocating mandatory national service, Scott?
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1015 hrsThe idea that Obama (and his party) are Marxist-style socialists is, to be frank, ab-fucking-surd. The differences between your candidate and mine--while very real and very important--are simply not great enough for anyone to be labeling anyone else the second coming of communism, okay?
Look at society today and society pre WWII and we are dramatically and unmistakably more socialist than we were before.
If you look at government spending pre raw-deal (I mean new deal) it represented around 11% of our economic activity. Now government spending is between 40 and 50% of all economic activity. Meaning almost half of what is spend,and on what it is spent, is dictated by government.
If we get socialized healthcare we will be well over half or economic activity being dictated and spent by government. (and this doesn’t even include the money people spend to comply with government regulations)
If almost half of all economic activity being government spending. (meaning its controlled and dictated by people in government) If that’s not socialism, wth is scott???
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1027 hrsFor starters, I don’t know where you’re getting that 50% figure from. I thought government spending as a percent of GDP was closer to 20%.
Incidentally, what do other (presumably non-socialist) nations spend? Have any figures on that? Which governments spend more of their nations GDP and which ones spend less?
Posted by scott on July 28, 2008 at 1039 hrsJust last week Obama spoke of rewarding the labor that creates wealth. The labor theory of wealth creation; refresh my memory as to where that theory comes from. Adam Smith? Keynes maybe? No, wasn’t Keynes. Perhaps it was Friedman.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1042 hrsActually Smith and David Ricardo, historically were often cited in the discussion of the labor theory, but in recent decades has it been associated with Marx. He even states in Critique of the Gotha Program that “labor is not source of all wealth” and was always critical of as he put it, “ascribing a supernatural creative power to labor”. Of course I favor everything up there(maybe no so much guaranteeing work, but having a strong social safety net when people are out of work or in transition) so what do I know. Thanks for posting that compass, scott. I remember on the extra scenes in Sicko how the conservative MP from Norway said he would be considered a Ralph Nader if he was in office here. It is quite telling that a conservative here would be a part of the far right/borderline fascists in parts of Europe.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1213 hrsFascism is a leftist philosophy.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1308 hrsEconomics asside, a lot of it sounds like George W. Bush’s America to me.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2008 at 1313 hrsFor starters, I don’t know where you’re getting that 50% figure from. I thought government spending as a percent of GDP was closer to 20%.
Federal Spending only is 20%
Incidentally, what do other (presumably non-socialist) nations spend? Have any figures on that? Which governments spend more of their nations GDP and which ones spend less?
Whenever I hear this logic, it makes me want to puke.
Seeing the issues and conditions in other contries (as well as their tax burdens) I’m not sure that I’m comfortable using them as benchmarks.
That would intimate that if (or as) they slide further and further into socialism, so long as we aren’t (as bad as them) then its all good.
No thanks.
We are losing our liberty piece by piece. And I’m not ready to say “oh, were still better than france” so no problem here.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1324 hrsThis source doesn’t seem authoritative, but if it’s correct I don’t see anything approaching 50%. What am I missing?
Yeah, you hate when I bring up the rest of the world, I know. But if you’re going to suggest that American Democratic policies amount to a dangerous slide into socialism, then I guess you’ll also have to say that the rest of the world--including just about every first world democracy on earth--are socialists as well. I just want to be clear about the implications of what you’re saying.
I do find it ironic, that you’re so concerned about losing liberty piece by piece, but apparently have no problems with Bush’s NSA wiretapping habits.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2008 at 1331 hrsMarxism, Scott. If you don’t want to be called a Marxist, then don’t espouse Marxist philosophy and endorse political candidates who do.
The world is always in danger of falling into the trap of statist philosophies and the destruction that inevitably accompanies them. Europe has been fond of such nonsense from it’s inception and the US has done well not to follow Europe’s example. Europe’s record is one of endless war and our presence there for the last 65 years is the reason they’re not at it right now.
This country was established precisely to be different from Europe, to be based on liberty, and not on the idea that the State is supreme. Like Phillips said “Eternal Vigilance is the price of Liberty.”
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1346 hrsSo basically I’m a Marxist, Europe is Marxist and the Democratic party is also Marxist.
But your views are not extreme or anything.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2008 at 1349 hrsNo Scott, Obama endorsed the basic premise of Marxist economic philosophy, and did it clearly, plainly and simply in a carefully read speech. If you endorse it as well, then you endorse Marxism. That is an view, and note it is precisely this portion of Obama’s speech the MSM chose to ignore and for good reason.
Europe is a large place with many philosophies. Marxism is only one statist philosophy they have endorsed over the years and to this day. And yes, the view that men should enjoy liberty is extreme, that’s why it has been practiced so little in this world.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1430 hrsObama endorsed the idea that the government should own the means of production? That’s what I always thought the basic premise of Marxism was. But what do I know?
Posted by scott on July 28, 2008 at 1441 hrsFascism is a leftist philosophy.
I’ve seen that said here on more than one occasion, and it’s driving me crazy. It’s not. Even according to Conservapedia, for crying out loud, “Fascism is at the extreme right of the political spectrum.”
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1442 hrsNo, the basic philosphy of Marxist economic thought is the idea that labor is the reason things have value. The rest flows from there.
Fascism is merely socialism as a means to national empire, apc, which is precisely why the real, live actual fascists in the world are usually socialists with a new name tag.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1449 hrsI do find it ironic, that you’re so concerned about losing liberty piece by piece, but apparently have no problems with Bush’s NSA wiretapping habits.
Ok, now you are really desperately trying to find hypocrisy where there is none.
I don’t believe I’ve ever discussed NSA wiretaps on this forum, and clearly you have no knowledge of my position on the issue or you wouldn’t have tossed out that bit of conjecture.
You’re wrong, (on my position) and your desperation is showing thru.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1503 hrsOr it could be that I just conflated you with one of the other dozen conservative whack jobs on here. My mistake.
Posted by scott on July 28, 2008 at 1518 hrsThe belief in life and liberty is called liberalism Scott, liberalism. No amount of attempted usurpation of the word can change that.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1526 hrsActually Bro, nearly all of the concepts of liberty and freedom that the US was founded on were born in Europe, practiced in Europe and thought of by Europeans, and this little thing called Parliament existed several decades before the US Congress, so before you cast that rather arrogant view onto the Europeans, remember who thought of democracy first, besides, at least they remembered that when you talk about freedom you shouldn’t OWN people while doing it.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1549 hrsYour liberties can be taken away from you by more than just government. The only difference between them and government is you get to vote for government.
Power to control your life is power no matter where it resides. The difference is you guys are so focused on what the government is doing that you don’t notice the shearing.
The fact that you can’t tell the difference between socialism and the social democratic programs of the US Democratic party quite frankly isn’t our problem. We can’t help it if Owne just exhibited either his lack of knowledge of American political parties, his desire for a cheap shot or just stirring up his tribe for entertainment value.
Your blind adherence to unrealistic conservative philosophy ala Friedman gives you more in common with the blind adherence to communist philosophy of the Soviets than just about all liberals in this country.
We’re into pragmatic solutions. You guys, to quote Limbaugh, believe in “the way things ought to be.”
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1551 hrsLiberty was not widely practiced in Europe prior to the existence of the USA, and the rare practitoners of it usually found a rope around their neck TheIdealVoice, and of course, the revolution occured precisely because of a european belief in the ownership of people.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1557 hrs"a european belief in the ownership of people.”?????
Didn’t we have something like this going on here?
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1725 hrsOr it could be that I just conflated you with one of the other dozen conservative whack jobs on here.
We love you, too, scott.
You frequently complain about the level of discourse on B&S; it’s a pleasure to see you doing your fair share to keep it nice and civil.
Fascism is a leftist philosophy.
I’ve seen that said here on more than one occasion, and it’s driving me crazy. It’s not.
apc, didja ever notice the full name of your favorite “right-wing” facists, the Nazis? National Socialists? Weird, huh? Of course, maybe they didn’t understand ideological nomenclature as well as you, and totally messed up their own name.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 1826 hrsFascism is acknowledged by essentially all serious political scientists and students of government to be at the extreme right of the political spectrum. I even quoted that to y’all from Conservapedia, which is dedicated to promulgating the conservative party line.
And yes, the Nazis used Socialist as part of their name, because, and I know this will be really hard for some of you to wrap your heads around, the Socialists were really popular back then. To draw people into their movement, they told another big lie.
I know some of y’all would somehow like to tie every single bad thing that ever happened since the dawn of time to leftist thinking. But the contortions that have to be made to turn fascism into a leftist political ideology just boggle my mind.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 2005 hrsSince when did the Nazi’s ever believe in truth in advertising?
Who ever said liberals are socialists unless people who don’t know much about either—and show it.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 2006 hrsPerhaps one should actually examine the policies of the Hitlers and Mussolinis of the world. They immediately adopted nationalization of industry and/or government control of industry. No serious student of fascism considers their economic policy anything other than socialism. Socialism mated to nationalism, that’s fascism. I know you like to focus on the nationalism part, but that big fat socialist elephant in the room isn’t going to go away.
The fascists used socialism in their name because their policies were socialist.
I know you lefties have been conditioned to have a knee jerk reaction to believe everything you’re told, but your unwillingness to think and reason for yourselves is just boggles my mind.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 2013 hrsBVBB said,
I know you lefties have been conditioned to have a knee jerk reaction to believe everything you’re told, but your unwillingness to think and reason for yourselves is just boggles my mind.
Do you genuinely believe this affliction is limited solely to those on the left?
I’ve seen it from all types of people. Watch both parties’ conventions, you’ll see tens of thousands of sufferers.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 2031 hrsWatching both parties conventions would be a fate worse than death.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 2042 hrsI even quoted that to y’all from Conservapedia, which is dedicated to promulgating the conservative party line.
I checked. The citation they use is from George Lavan Weissman, FASCISM What It Is and How To Fight It (http://marx.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm).
Marx.org? Trotsky? Think he might have wanted to frame his arch-rival ideology as right-wing instead of as the fellow-travelers they essentially were?
I don’t know much about Conservapedia, but it’s not something I’m going to rely on.
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 2058 hrsYour liberties can be taken away from you by more than just government. The only difference between them and government is you get to vote for government.
How so Keith?
How are a person’s liberties taken away from you by more than government?
I’d really like to hear your reasoning on this…
Posted by on July 28, 2008 at 2110 hrsCorporate control in forms overt and covert.
But like Louis Armstrong once said, if I have to explain jazz to you’ll never know.
Don’t misconstrue that as being anti-business, just business used wrongly, as much as I am against government used wrongly as we have with the Bush administration.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 0441 hrsOh well, I’ll throw some chum into the shark pool—predatory lending and foreclosures, health care coverage denials, corporate surveillance (Carli Fiorini anyone?), union busting and employee harassment…
As far as Hitler and Mussolini, they had the cooperation of corporations—Krupp, IG Farber, even VW and the churches, you guys shouldn’t get into this argument because not only is history as usual not on your side, but the tired comparison between socialism and liberalism is your private fantasy and as usual working yourselves up needlessly.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 0502 hrsI love the squirming socialists go through to distance themselves from fascism. It’s the same as watching the xenophobic nationalists squirm to distance themselves from fascism, but they cannot. Both are cozy with fascism and a part of it.
Corporations are a grant of the state keith, the state. Dwell on that for a while.
I would also once again suggest researching the actual history of fascism. Mussolini nationalized everything he could. Hitler imposed government control of all sorts of production.
Take a look south to our current shining example of fascism alive in the world; Hugo Chavez. Note that he is a darling of the left.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 0727 hrsI’m sure you have fascinating points to make about fascism and how I am one, but when I go to wikipedia for some background, the first thing I see is this:
Fascism is a term used to describe authoritarian nationalist political ideologies or mass movements that are concerned with notions of cultural decline or decadence and seek to achieve a millenarian national rebirth by exalting the nation or race, and promoting unity, strength and purity
Now to me this sounds a whole lot more like George Bush and his supporters than me. Authoritarian? Check. Nationalistic? Check. Concerned with “cultural decline”? Check. Exalting the nation, promoting unity, etc? Check.
To be fair it does go on to say that additional characteristics include collectivism and economic “planning,” which I guess would qualify as “socialistic.” But reducing the entire phenomenon to these economic factors seems like a pretty weak argument.
Posted by scott on July 29, 2008 at 0839 hrs"Alice laughed: “There’s no use trying,” she said; “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen. “When I was younger, I always did it for half an hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.”No matter how you try and deny it, fascism is an extreme right-wing movement.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 0840 hrsI haven’t reduced fascism to strictly an economic factor, Scott. It’s xenophobia can be described as right wing if you wish, but it’s economics, and that’s half of fascism, is left wing.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 0901 hrsWeak.
Posted by scott on July 29, 2008 at 0907 hrsFact.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 0918 hrsContinuing to insist that nonsense is fact doesn’t make it so.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1001 hrsContinuing to insist that socialism is a right wing philosophy doesn’t make it so.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1004 hrsCorporate control in forms overt and covert.
Oh well, I’ll throw some chum into the shark pool—predatory lending and foreclosures, health care coverage denials, corporate surveillance (Carli Fiorini anyone?), union busting and employee harassment…
Your liberties can be taken away from you by more than just government. The only difference between them and government is you get to vote for government.
Well corporations big and small run on money. When you don’t like it, you can spend your money elsewhere. That’s about as accountable and efficacious as it gets.
When I don’t like the government I get, I vote, but it makes no difference. My vote is but one of millions and more people don’t know fact from fiction and truth from spin and false promises from economics.
At least in the free market I can choose. With government, yeah, I vote, but I’m (lately) becoming more and more just a victim of the greediness and ignorance of the masses.
When companies start doing things I don’t like I take my money elsewhere. IMMEDIATELY.
When government starts doing something I don’t like it doesn’t matter. I comply or I go to jail.
I’ll let my freedom and liberty lie in my hands and my choices I make with my dollars any day over letting my freedom lie in the hands of government who has a police force and an army to force me to do whatever they please if I don’t comply.
And if you think ‘voting’ affords a person the same freedom of choice and opportunity to make the decisions in their life that best fit them as does the free market and the power of me spending my dollar where I see fit at any given moment, any labeling of me as naive pales in comparison to you.
And I say this not as an insult, but seriously… You think voting is as efficacious at bringing you what you need when you need it and as quickly as you need it as the free market and control over your own spending power? WOW…
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1008 hrsIt’s funny that you believe the power of your consumer choices constitute a direct and powerful linkage right to corporate behavior, but voting has no effect on government policy. Don’t you think you may be, you know, overstating the case here a little?
Posted by scott on July 29, 2008 at 1017 hrs” You think voting is as efficacious at bringing you what you need when you need it and as quickly as you need it as the free market and control over your own spending power?”
We can paddle around fascism all you want, though you are completely crazy that it is left wing, but one thing for sure is that much of what gets advocated on this blog is authoritarianism—seeing the world in black and white. In other words, make listening the Charlie Sykes show a regular habit.
And authoritarian just love guys like you. So pliable, so willing, so supine.
By the way pilot, where are you shopping for your electrical service lately?
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1023 hrsThere is no bigger authoritarian on this blog than you, Keith. You are the one forever advocating the imposition of your views and theories on everyone else.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1042 hrsJesus H. Christ, I never said that socialism is a right-wing philosophy. That would be completely and utterly stupid. I said fascism was a right-wing philosophy, which, as I noted above, is accepted as true by every political scientist on the planet.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1151 hrsKeith and Scott.
I’m not here to change your minds. I know thats not possible (and you’d probably say the same to me)
What I do like to do is when I see a comment that I think wreaks of that overly-simplistic bill-clinton-esque falsely logical statement… The kind that seems so simple that people don’t bother to stop and think about it… I like to drop a counter point to that.
And I think your claim that ‘voting’ is as efficacious as the power of choice we have as consumers is rediculous. I think I made my case and I think I made enough of a point so that someone who might have read your little comment would see that on anything but a passing non-analytical level, its rediculous.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1154 hrsBy the way pilot, where are you shopping for your electrical service lately?
Are you serious?
You’re going to use this as an example of our loss of liberty as consumers?
A government infused/regulated utility/government granted monopoly???
Regardless…
Lets see… I can turn off my lights whenever I choose and save a shit-load of money. I can use more natural light in my building. I can put in compact flourescent bulbs. Hell, I could burn candles. I can buy a generator and make my own power.
When government comes asking for my money, I have no choice. I pay them what they want when they want it or I go to jail.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1214 hrsBut pilot, as our great founding fathers argued(and what the men who inspired them concluded) that if you have a problem with that system, you as the owner of the system(that whole We The People thing) have a responsibility and a duty to argue that the system is unjust. You own the army and police force you speak of, so you might as well flex the constitutional power that belongs to We The People. Corporations and states exists at the whim of the people.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1235 hrsI await the opinion of “every political scientist on the planet”, apc.
Corporations exist at the whim of the state and do the bidding of the state, TheIdealVoice, and the agents of the state are more than empowered to deal with them without resorting to the mass extermination of individual rights that philosophies such as socialism espouse.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1240 hrsUntrue. It has been the trumpeting of things like NAFTA and anything else to stop “unfair barriers to business and trade” for years and people bought into that garbage. The same people who called for deregulating the the hell out of this country’s business are the ones who tanked it in the last 10 years. Corporations do the bidding of the state in Fascist systems of government, thats why it is also know by the name corporatist state. Corporations due what they want, other than an antitrust case here and there(AT&T;was broken up in the 80s, but has basically rebuilt itself into nearly the same operating model with a word from the Feds) they fear no one now that can operate beyond the US and Europe, in places with much poorer regulation of business.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1319 hrs"There is no bigger authoritarian on this blog than you, Keith. You are the one forever advocating the imposition of your views and theories on everyone else.”
I dunno pilot. Whose on this blog for hours generating screen feet of polemics so rigid it could hold up the pentagon?
As far as the imposing part, no sane man would regard that as possible on this crowd. They are stubborn to the point of harming themselves, there families and the rest of us because of their viewpoints based a fantasy, fear and rage.
You are amusing.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1327 hrsYou own the army and police force you speak of, so you might as well flex the constitutional power that belongs to We The People. Corporations and states exists at the whim of the people.
Yeah, you try that and see how that works for you.
The government and legislation in this country has proven that its really good and really determined at moving us towards socialism. Taking away our freedoms one at a time. Taking more and more and more of our money and spending it as government see’s fit.
I’m not here saying that the voters no longer have an influence on government. I AM here saying that as parts of our lives are removed from our control and placed in the hands of government, our ability to make the choices that are best for us as individuals are drastically DRASTICALLY diminished. They are diminished because the government has more of our money and/or places restrictions on what we can do. With less money we are less able to fill our own needs and either must struggle harder to fill our needs with the money we have left after government took theirs, or we must rely on government to fill that need in the manner it deems fit.
Not my idea of freedom.
Then with whats left, we have to fill our needs in-spite of the government taking our money and our
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1327 hrsThat’s horrifying and funny at the same time Keith; the idea that anyone not allowing the imposition of your views is harming both themselves and others. It’s precisely that thought that is used as the justification for authoritarianism in the extreme.
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1351 hrsI dunno pilot. Whose on this blog for hours generating screen feet of polemics so rigid it could hold up the pentagon?
As far as the imposing part, no sane man would regard that as possible on this crowd. They are stubborn to the point of harming themselves, there families and the rest of us because of their viewpoints based a fantasy, fear and rage.
Keith:
Step away from the keyboard.
Walk to the medicine cabinet, (being careful to not pick up any sharp objects along the way)
Grab some Xanax, and go lie down for a bit.
Cuz man are you wound tight today!
Posted by on July 29, 2008 at 1428 hrs
Ol' Army
