Apparently, this is the new code word from the lunatic fringe rightwingnuts. I guess their poisoning of the word "liberal" isn't working anymore, since, after the disastrous misgovernance of the neocons, the public is more than ready to embrace anything BUT another republiCON, even the dreaded "L" word.
So, now the new poison word being bandied about to detract from real issues, and attempt to sway people from the miserable failures of the GOP, appears to be "socialist." Of course, none of the fools who're overusing this word currently have a clue what it actually means, but that really doesn't matter. In their feeble minds, all that matters is that it serves its purpose of A) Shutting down actual debate, and B) Causing one or two other feeble-minded fools to brush aside a specific candidate without considering his actual policy positions.
Well, I think we should do just that. If the rabid rightwing loonie toons want to label Obama a "socialist," then I think we should all examine his policy positions, because it appears that he's directly in step with the large majority of this nation, so perhaps we're ALL "socialists," except for the rabid rightwing loonie toons.
Obama quotes on abortion:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Abortion.htm
On the economy:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Budget_+_Economy.htm
On civil rights:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Civil_Rights.htm
on corporations:
On crime:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Crime.htm
On drugs:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Drugs.htm
On education:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Education.htm
On energy:
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Barack_Obama_Energy_+_Oil.htm
On environment:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Environment.htm
On foreign policy:
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Barack_Obama_Foreign_Policy.htm
On free trade:
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Barack_Obama_Free_Trade.htm
On government reform:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Government_Reform.htm
On gun control:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Gun_Control.htm
On healthcare:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Health_Care.htm
On homeland security:
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Barack_Obama_Homeland_Security.htm
On immigration:
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Barack_Obama_Immigration.htm
On jobs:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Barack_Obama_Jobs.htm
On principles and values:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Barack_Obama_Principles_+_Values.htm
On social security:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Social_Security.htm
On tax reform:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Tax_Reform.htm
On technology:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Technology.htm
On war and peace:
http://www.ontheissues.org/International/Barack_Obama_War_+_Peace.htm
On welfare and poverty:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Economic/Barack_Obama_Welfare_+_Poverty.htm
All of these were taken, not from Obama's website, but rather from:
http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/Barack_Obama.htm
They map him as a dead center liberal. I would call him more liberal than McSame and Hillary, but hardly an extremist by any means.
The question for those of you who've chosen to label him as an extremist, is which one or ones of these quotes of his, and/or his specific policy stances do you call "socialist," and how do you see them as out of touch with the majority of America? As I look down the list, read the positions, and read the quotes, I find him to be pretty much in line with mainstream America.
That doesn't necessarily make him not a liberal, nor does it even make him necessarily not a socialist, but it DOES negate the use of those words as derogatory labels when discussing him. If the majority of America is liberal or socialist, because they're in line with Obama's vision, then I hardly see how the use of those terms in the pejorative sense can be accurate or valid in any way.
We know that the American public soundly rejects GOP policies at this point. So, what does that mean? And, what does it mean that the candidate labeled as "liberal" or "socialist" appears to be fully in line with the majority of Americans on virtually every issue of the day?
It'd be really surprising and pleasant if the drooling, rabid, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing, Obama-hating wingnut kooks could refrain from their usual name calling and utter bullshit long enough to actually address my questions.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 74
They will be loud, and too many people simply parrot what they hear rather than check things out for themselves. But it's a ridiculous claim
Hows about "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" how does that pertain only to the rich.
I don't see and credibility to anything a doctor says who believes in creationism. That one knocked it right out of the ballpark.
Explain what this is, and why it is to be universally deemed a negative, unworthy of discussion.
"About every stance he takes smacks of Socialism."
I've asked for specifics. I've provided specific quotes and policy positions. I expect those of you who choose to label him a "socialist" to point out his specific quotes and positions that qualify him as such, and to explain how he is out of line with the majority of America, and why his so-called "socialist" positions should be deemed a negative.
If all you have are weak talking points and name calling, you don't qualify to discuss this. I was very clear in my article as to precisely what I was looking for.
"He has no respect for the Constitution and wants the Government in every aspect of society."
Explain how he has no respect for the constitution, and how he wants the government in "every aspect of society." Specifics, not hair-brained, wild, accusatory generalizations. We get plenty of those from the lunatic fringe rightwing, don't we? Can't we, for once, have an honest discussion without the labeling and the pointless, baseless rhetoric?
"Only one worse is Hillary Clinton. "
We're not talking about Hillary right now, though, once again, you're using nothing but pathetic, rightwing talking points. Why is that, do you suppose? Are you incapable of discussing this in a rational, serious manner, and if so, why?
Three former SEC chair to endorse OBAMA today.
Bush-appointee William Donaldson, Clinton-appointee Arthur Levitt and Reagan-appointee David Ruder plan to announce they're backing Obama Wednesday.
A BUSH, CLINTON, and REAGAN appointee. Do you think YOU Joe Average understand capitalism and our economy more than these guys?
THINK AGAIN!
This illustrates my point. What exactly is meant by attempting to use the word "socialist" as a pejorative to describe Obama, when he appears to have such broad, sweeping, party-crossing support? Either the term itself, in its use to describe Obama, is entirely inaccurate, or the vast majority of America is socialist, and those who are doing the labeling are on the extreme outside fringe looking in.
These are labels employed on daily basis and they become mundane. The majority of people who use them cannot define them. Same thing with liberal. Define liberal and let's go through the issues one by one and see who is a liberal.
That's what the government ought to do with healthcare and that's what they are proposing here. A government service available to all who wish to use it (The post office) and other private services for people who want better care (FEDEX, UPS, DHL). All these services compete, everyone is required to use one, and prices go down by simple virtue of economies of scale and competition.
What's wrong with that
Neither I, nor Senator Obama has ever advocated this. What I don't understand, and I'm apparently in the majority on this, is why you and the rest of the fringe extremists on the rightwing want corporations to run everything, and for there to be absolutely no public oversight or control whatsoever, regardless of how much disastrous harm they cause.
Btw, you've failed to address my questions posed. What SPECIFIC issues is it that Obama is "socialist" on, and why is that to be deemed a negative?
Actually, medicare is a brilliantly run program that provides healthcare to millions of Americans for a tiny fraction of what the failed privatized system costs. Also, the US military is unmatched by any other military in the world, and the part of it which is under government control is a shining model of efficiency. And, before the bushovics took over and destroyed most of what was once effective govenment, the same could be said for pretty much every agency in the government. It worked. Until the bush crime family came along and destroyed it.
"That's what the government ought to do with healthcare and that's what they are proposing here."
I don't believe that we'll ever get a handle on our broken healthcare system until we remove the profit incentive altogether. Insurance companies, pharmaceuticals, and healthcare providers should not be earning a profit on the sickness of society. That's diseased.
Exactly, and, for anyone who takes the time to read through these Obama quotes and positions, the same can be said for the word "Socialist." Define the term, then go through each issue one by one, and let's see who's a socialist, and why that's a pejorative.
It's the only government agency that generates a profit, and has for many years. Also, I can spend a mere .42, and mail a letter half way across the country, to my sister in Brooklyn, and it will arrive in 2-3 days. Let's see YOU or any other carrier do the same for forty-two cents!
"Socialist medicine" is the same kind of "name game" that these neocons used to change the estate tax rules so that the rich could get a tax break. They simply renamed it the "death tax" and all the little ignorant Republican sheep bayed and bayed about how unfair "taxing death" was.....oh, those nasty Democrats - imagine taxing death! What will be next in line?
Hysterical thing was that most of those little fear-filled sheep that snapped up the bait didn't have an ice cube's chance in hell of every making enough money or leaving enough money to qualify for the estate tax as it was.
It takes two to people to complete these hoaxes....the Republicans who come up with the tricks, and the ignorant people who fall for them. So pathetic.
You privatize the mail 100% tomorrow and it will cost us at least a dollar to send mail coast to coast. They will come up with a complicated pricing structures that depends on zip code to zip code. They will start merging and acquisition of other companies. Before you know it, Chinese companies will be handling the US mail.
So now we have some pimply faced customer service...and I use that term loosely....at the insurance company...that is if you have insurance..decide what is in your best interest and how long you should be allowed to stay in the hospital. Its not like you have to have a docterate to answer the phone at BCBS a GED will do just as good.
I don't understand the idea that socialism is inherently evil. It's every bit as silly as the idea that capitalism is inherently evil. The thing that I find scary is the economic ignorance that seems to "inform" a lot of political debate. There has never been a country with a capitalist or socialist economy. They're theoretical concepts and that's all. The US, like every other country has an economy that mixes capitalism, socialism, and some other ingredients.
We might consider substituting a term my daughter picked up from some kids she baby sat. From now on call politicians you don't like "sausage grass heads." It'll be as meaningful as calling them socialists.
Not ironic, though, is that they also ushered in fair, living wages and working conditions, labor unions, a strong middle class, a social safety net, public education, public investment in infrastructure such as communications and power grids, an end to a fascist uprising in 1933, and the civil rights movement, among others. HORRIBLE stuff.
I believe what she's referring to is our involvement in funding and supplying arms to GB prior to 12/7/41. Conservatives were staunchly opposed to becoming involved in fighting back fascism, apparently because they were so strongly in support of it themselves.
I apologize for not saying this on my first comment - thanks for the links.
The Dems stopped being a great party of the people in the 1960's. The War in Vietnam and then the war on drugs were more important than helping people survive. We have to change our attitudes. People need jobs and health care. But we are calling each other names instead of working toward common goals.
Then I'll label McCain a Fascist.
The past 8 years of the Bush administration resembles Fascism.
And since McCain agrees 100% with the current administration, then he too, is a fascist.
Fascists don't just hate the Constitution, they eliminate it.
Torture - Spying - Eavesdropping - Pre-emptive war - Suppression of free speech - Elimination of Habeas Corpus - Constant invoking of "Executive Privilege" - Secret deals - Malfeasance - Propaganda - Control of media - War crimes - Breaking international law - you name it, we got it - sounds like Nazi Germany!
So then, McCain is a Fascist and Obama is a Socialist.
My vote is for the Socialist!
You're not fooling me, Lori....I know you're just admiring those RL shoes of yours.
Then I'll label McCain a Fascist.
The past 8 years of the Bush administration resembles Fascism.
And since McCain agrees 100% with the current administration, then he too, is a fascist.
Fascists don't just hate the Constitution, they eliminate it."
Here, here, Jerry P.!
The "Great society" program to end poverty, and the civil rights movement were birthed in the 60's. Addtionally, the 60's were the period in which the democratic party rejected southern racism, and handed that lofty position off to the GOP.
I guess the fact that none of those who enjoy labeling Obama as a socialist have been able to muster a single specific case to back their claim, nor have they been able to produce a definition of the word itself illustrates my point as succinctly as anything else. This is nothing more than yet another lameass rightwing smear attempt, based in nothing but a reliance upon the laziness and ignorance of those willing to gobble it up.
America has always been a nation with socialistic ideals. If it were not, the constitution would not have included anything to empower the citizenry, there would be no bill of rights, and the preamble would not recognize the need to "provide the general welfare."
Of COURSE, the fascists are opposed to socialistic ideals. Anything that empowers the citizenry is a direct threat to fascism.
Hows about "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" how does that pertain only to the rich."
Shannon what about what Benjamin Franklin said?
"The U.S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself." -- Benjamin Franklin
The government is not there to make you happy but to give you the opportunity of achieving happiness.
"Our greatest happiness does not depend on the condition of life in which chance has placed us, but is always the result of a good conscience, good health, occupation, and freedom in all just pursuits." -- Thomas Jefferson
Freedom in all just pusuits.
"For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"
Some of the reasons for declaring our independence. Sounds like what many of our leaders are doing to us right now.
Check it out here http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
But, only for those who're born into wealth, right? Screw the poor. They don't deserve the same opportunities as the wealthy, right?
"Some of the reasons for declaring our independence. "
Check your facts. The Boston Tea Party was not a response to taxes placed on colonists. It was a response to England relieving corporate taxes on tea sold by the East India company to the colonies. Sounds exactly like what the republiCONs have been ramming down our throats for the past 30 years. Screw the little guy any and every way possible, while you lavish massively unfair benefit to the mega corporate interests. A recipie for revolution, as we've already witnessed.
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/01/331629.shtml
Of course, the fact that the vast majority of America sides directly in line with him on the vast majority of issues means nothing. Just more icky facts. If CONservatism is so wonderful, how come CONservatives are being so soundly rejected by the public, to the point that republiCONs are leaping from the sinking ship en masse?
Hmmmmm????
"impressive research. It must take a lot of neglecting your family to spend all the time you do. "
Still have that tiny little pee pee issue, I see. Too bad. I hear that they have augmentation surgery available now that can fix that. You outta check into it. I could get you some information on it, if you'd like.
Nor should the lawmakers whose pockets they're filling. I'd like to know where the insurance companies came from in the first place...how have they so insidiously inserted themselves between doctors and patients, stealing from both sides, contributing nothing to either and providing major profits for a handful of snickering CEOs? If ever there was an oxymoron, "health insurance" is it.
As for the concept of socialism, seems to me the best-run countries are proudly socialist in nature: the Netherlands and most of Scandinavia, for example. No poverty, no hunger, no lack of health care, excellent education, no ghettos...nothing but a healthy, literate population. Personally, I'd a helluva lot rather have a socialist government than the fascist dictatorship we're endured under the "leadership" of The Shrub. Why is an equitable distribution of wealth anathema to so many people? Do you fools really LIKE the idea that 90+% of America's money is held by 2% of its population?
Should doctors/nurses/caregivers make a decent living helping people get well or taking care of them? You bet. Should hospitals/institutions/insurance companies make obscene profits from the people they're "serving" - sorry, I missed that from the Hypocratic oath. The advantage to the government running it is that it doesn't have to make a profit, so we, by definition, won't be getting reemed to the same degree.
I think doctors who care about making people well should prefer to do so without worrying about who will pay for what (and I know many who do). Those who don't - well, I'm not sure I'd want them treating me anyway.
Precisely. One could stop there.
One of the right wingnuts on Gsather continues to protest that Obama is a "communist", and the evidence for this is that he "attended Islamic schools".
It's as though you believe, if you put every bogeyman into the same lie, surely you will change people's minds.
Where did I mention the Boston Tea Party. Hmm who's putting words in my mouth.
"The government is not there to make you happy but to give you the opportunity of achieving happiness. "
But, only for those who're born into wealth, right? Screw the poor. They don't deserve the same opportunities as the wealthy, right?"
So screw the rich huh? I don't think they all started rich. But you can only make so much money then you're screwing over those who don't have what you have. Is that how it works?
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:"
Some of the reasons for declaring our independence.
If this isn't a reference to the Boston Tea Party uprising, what is it?
"So screw the rich huh?"
No, screw the other 99.9%. The rich should always have all of the opportunity in this country, because, after all, they earned it by being rich. The poor and middle class should just go to hell, die, and rot in the streets. They don't deserve to live.
The rich, and especially those that inherit their wealth tax free, and then multiply it tax free through tax free dividends, are the annointed ones. They, and only they deserve opportunity in America. America is only for the wealthy.
Clark You know you and I agree on the shambles that Dubya Dumbass and his neocon cronies have made of this country these last eight years... but I can tell there's not much in this country that is "tax free" anymore, particularly dividends.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on
the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
Well Clark I'm part of that 99.9% and I don't feel like I'm being screwed by anyone other than our government. And BTW in case you're wondering I'm at the lower end of of the 99.9% . So I'm not even remotely close to being "rich" or even "well off" but yet I'm not pissed because someone makes more than me. I don't feel screwed over but I could just be naive and blind to the "truth" that's out there. But While I would like more I don't feel sad, hopeless or despairing about how I'm going to survive from day to day. I have no illusions about my situation and yet somehow I am able to continue on from day to day without losing it.
But then again maybe I am just off my rocker.
The reason I made this comment is that tax free dividends have perennially been a goal of the voodoo economists, right along with slashing corporate taxes. The ultimate goal appears to be an economic environment in which wealthy parents can pass hundreds of millions of dollars (or billions, for that matter) to their heirs, entirely tax free, and then allow these heirs to exponentially grow that massive wealth, entirely tax free, through investing in dividend-producing stock. An entirely untaxed society of oligarchs is what they're after.
"Unfair taxes were one of the reasons."
The unfair tax situation that they referred to was that they (the colonists) were forced to pay taxes on everything that was imported and everything that they sold, while giant mega-corporations, such as the East India company, were allowed to trade to and frome the colonies, tax-free. It created an unfair advantage for the corporation that simply crushed the colonists and prevented them from even attempting to compete on a level playing field.
"Well Clark I'm part of that 99.9% and I don't feel like I'm being screwed by anyone other than our government."
That's very typical of those who allow themselves to wallow in rightwing talk radio and TV propaganda. This is the same brainwashing that brought some 30+% of TODAY'S Faux "news" viewers to STILL believe that Iraq caused 9/11, fully 6-1/2 years after this falacy was thoroughly disproven.
There's a book written about this phenomenon, called "What's the matter with Kansas," in which the author (Thomas Frank) explains how the rightwing managed to get common, average people to consistently vote against their own best interests.
The problem is that you simply have been misled about what your tax money provides for you. Since 1981, you've been lied into believing that nothing good can ever come from the big, bad government. What the liars failed to tell you is that the big, bad government is you and I. When someone talks about regulation, what they're talking about is public oversight. When they talk about taxes, they're referring to revenue that YOU AND I NEED, in order to see to it that the whole of society is provided for EQUALLY, with safe roadways, safe bridges, safe water, safe sanitation, safe courts and law enforcement, safe fire protection, safe food, safe air, safe air travel, etc.
Without a tax base, none of these things would be provided. You think you're being screwed. How'd you like it if, instead of hopping in your car and driving free of charge (other than gas and oil, of course) to your destination, you had to pay a fee every mile or two, or every time you turned onto another street? That's what would happen, if we didn't have taxes to build roadways.
What if there weren't any regulations over potable water, and you had to either pay for your own sanitation to assure safe delivery of potable water, or you had to pay a price-gouging ENRON to do this for you, and it turned out that they cut corners to increase profits, and you and your entire family got deathly ill as a result? Don't even think about suing them, though, because the laws have been carved out for the corporation's protection, not yours. There simply isn't enough funding to provide protection for anyone who's not willing and able to pay massive campaign donations for it. Sorry.
I could go on and on, of course, but the fact is, you'll either get my point or you won't. It just depends on how heavily you've been brainwashed by the lies of the rightwing over the past few decades. I would strongly recommend you read any one, or multiples of Thom Hartmann's brilliant books on the subject matter, if you're interested in assimilating a true understanding of it.
I could also recommend David Kay Johnston's "Perfectly Legal" if you truly insist upon feeling that it's the government, and not the corporations and mega-wealthy, who're screwing you. That book leaves no shadow of doubt as to who's screwing the bottom 99.9%, and it ain't your government.
"But then again maybe I am just off my rocker."
I'd say probably just blissfully ignorant. Surely though, even someone who's blissfully ignorant must be aware, by this point, that something is definitely amiss in America. The incomes of the middle class have risen by a miniscule $1,000 since 1981, while, during the same period, the incomes of the wealthy have risen hundreds and even thousands of times over (the more wealth one has possessed, the higher the exponential value of their income increase).
That not only isn't right, it's not the least bit healthy for democracy. In fact, large, disproportionate, wildly-out-of-control income gaps is one of the most detrimental things that can happen to a democracy. It virtually assures societal collapse, which in turn, virtually assures the collapse of democracy itself. Hartmann covers this topic brilliantly in his books and articles as well.
Additionally, with reference to Hartmann, he's probably one of the most well-read persons in the country with regard to the history of democracies, and in particular, the history of the US. He's actually written a book about Jefferson, and has studied all of the founding fathers in excrutiating detail, not only to gather what their quotes and positions were on various issues, but to actually delve into and understand what their mindsets were at a given time, on a given issue, based upon their own personal letters and diaries/logs.
You seem a student of history yourself, which is why I mention this. If you truly wish to gain a scope of understanding about American history that I guarantee will broaden your current understanding, visit Mr. Hartmann's website, read some of his articles, read some of his books, and listen in on his radio program now and then. He's truly one of the great political science minds around.
And, of course, there are simply times when we must simply agree to disagree, and it's entirely possible that this may well be one of those times. I've heard Hartmann engage in many aggressive discussions with countless libertarians, neocons, conservatives, and the like, and I can't say as though I've ever heard a time when either convinced the other of the "error" of their ways, regardless of how compelling the arguments from either side. Almost always, they simply end the discussion by agreeing to disagree, and there's nothing wrong with that either. (except that the left IS right, of course!)
Good one Clark lol
Now there are two "catch" words here: governor and regulate.
Our society is very much like a control system.
Our government is a governor, which regulates our economic and social behavior, to insure that things do not get out of hand, to prevent us from self destructing.
We have seen so much deregulation in the past 8 years, that our system is out of control, and is on the verge of self destruction. The disparity between the rich and poor is rising so fast, it is out of bounds.
What is so great about this country is that we have a tug of war between liberals and conservatives. Since the numbers are about equal, they keep each other under control.
Back in the late 70s, our country was out of control with rampant inflation and interest rates, and was getting kicked around by Iran due to a weak foreign policy. At that time, Democrats were largely in control of the government, and the American citizens reacted by voting Republicans into control. I myself, was one of those citizens.
Since 1980, Republicans have largely been control, and America has again reached another crisis point. Things have been deregulated too far, and corporations have become too corrupt. Wealthy people have more control than the government, and that should not be.
I am putting my faith and trust in the people of American to again recognize our current crisis, and join me in voting to put Democrats back into power to undo the damage we have seen. I believe this time we are going to see a group of people I will called the Obama Republicans (similar to the Reagan Democrats of 1980). I personally know several moderate Republicans who are fed up with the direction this country is going, and will vote for Obama.
The three recent house seats held for years and years by Republicans have been picked up by Democrats.
Even Karl Rove recognizes the writing on the wall.
Americans have had enough!
You can't even see through the smokescreen long enough to recognize all the "liberal/conservative" hogwash as the diversionary bullshit that it is. Your stuck in the rut of "my side good/your side evil," which is exactly where the people who are destroying this country want all of us. It doesn't matter which "side" we choose; so long as we play into the game, we have chosen collectivism. Our rulers don't care if the average American has bought into Marxism or fascism; their interests are served either way. So long as we don't wake up and realize that there is a third option -- called Freedom -- they'll remain fat and happy.
The founders were largely collectivists.
What you don't seem to realize, Steve, is that libertarianism is an utterly failed ideology. There has NEVER been a successful libertarian government. Never. There's a very good reason for that. It does not work. You need to come to grips with this reality some day.
There are certainly things worth considering from that ideology, but as a whole it is an utter disaster. That's why libertarianism will never become a mainstream, widely accepted ideology. It will always remain firmly in the fringes, because it simply does not work.
That is the most profoundly assinine, uninformed statement I've ever seen you make.
You either have no idea what collectivism is, or you have been badly misled about what the founding fathers were all about. I could prove the overbearing dominance of individualist thought that is the foundation of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution in a hundred thousand ways, all day and all night for weeks on end. I'd like to see you provide one single shred of evidence that the founders subscribed to even one tenant of collectivism.
"libertarianism is an utterly failed ideology."
What an utterly absurd thing to say. Clearly, statism is an utterly failed ideology.
You are so deeply and terribly indoctrinated that it almost hurts me to have conversations with you, Use your head. How can you say "libertarianism is a failed ideology"? Where did it fail? The Irish Celts lived without a formal state apparatus for a thousand years, until they were finally taken over by the British empire. They lived peacefully and prospered, they were not entangled in wars, they had no established system of organized plunder and large-scale banditry that we know of as "government."
Look at where we are now. Wth every incremental increase in state power for the last hundred years, we are entangled in more wars, our economic life becomes more unstable and our living standards decrease as we are coercively plundered through taxation and inflation. Our cities are practically warzones, our schools are useless, and the moral fabric of our society has atrophied to the point of near death. We are victimized by a banking cartel that uses the power of the state to siphon away our capital and our purchasing power. State and federal bureaucracy is so wrapped up in stifling competition and protecting the interests of a few privileged powerbrokers that they make American manufacturing unable to compete in circumstances where we would otherwise be the among the largest producers. Wage and price controls do nothing but distort vital market signals and lead to malinvestment and more disasterous interventions. Our countries a mess right now, and the fault for it lies absolutely 100% at the feet of government, and more precisely it is the work of the bi-partisan ideology of collectivist statism.
You need to put in more time educating yourself about actual economic principles and unsterilized American history. I know you're too smart to be living in a world of bankrupt and ignorant ideology. There is a definite source to the misery and turmoil we're experiencing and being experienced the world over; and it certainly is not from abundance of the ideology of Liberty.
Making Economic Sense (Murray Rothbard)
That Which is Seen, and That Which is Not Seen (Frederic Bastiat)
Banking, Nation-states, and International Politics: A Sociological Reconstruction of the Present Economic Order (Hans-Hermann Hoppe)
There. Everything you could (or should) possibly need to break free of your cocoon of fallacy and bankrupt ideology, and gain some real understanding; a click of the mouse away.
Now you officially have no excuse for remaining hoodwinked and ignorant; other than that you might wish to remain that way.
I really don't think it's necessary for you to become insulting, but it pretty much encapsulates and crystalizes the fact that you have little upon which to argue rationally, so you're forced to attack those that you disagree with.
That's alright. I recognize it for what it is. You and I disagree profoundly on this. I won't attack you personally over that, regardless of you attacking me personally. I can agree to disagree, and will simply choose to ignore your personal attacks. I realize that it stems from the weakness of your position. The bitter, harsh reality is that libertarianism is an utterly failed ideology that has never, ever produced a successful government. Period. There really is nothing more to be said of it.
Trust me, for every article that you produce that you believe bolsters your position, I can produce at least double that to counter your position. At the end of the day, we can exchange articles for as long as we wish to, but the fact will remain that libertarianism is a failure as an ideology. It's just that simple. Sorry.
Libertarianism produced the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Mankind's tendency to want to satisfy his needs and desires with the least possible exertion, even at the expense of others if he can get away with it, is what produced statism; and this tendency explains the universal establishment of statism throughout human history. The tendency of some to lust for power, and the powerful social forces of habit and custom, take care of the rest.
The United States is the only time, ever, in human history, that a government was attempted to be formed on the principles of Individualism; that all individuals are born equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. The expirement has failed not because Individualism is a failure as an ideology, but because so many people have been indoctrinated into collectivism, and our society has become increasingly collectivistic.
To be sure, this country was never completely adherent to libertarian principles; even in the first 100 years, there was slavery, tariff plunder, central banking legislation and other forms of wealth redistribution through currency manipulation. But since the New Deal, state power has been usurping social power to the point where we are now almost entirely a socialist nation. And the further away we get from Individualism, the closer we get to all-out despotism. We're just a natural disaster or another alleged "terrorist attack" away from being a modern equivalent of Nazi Germany. It is the turn away from the libertarian principles that this nation was founded upon, and towards collectivism, that has put us in this precarious situation.
Its funny watching someone who just name called 5 times in a single sentence turn around and ask others to refrain from name calling.