Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 8
I'm Appalled
Topic Started: Feb 14 2009, 03:13 AM (2,368 Views)
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Larry
Feb 14 2009, 06:35 AM
Quote:
 
Yet another prediction I have to quote, so I can toss it back in your face.


Did he not promise that he would not accept lobbyists for positions in his administration? How many has he hired so far?

Did he not promise to be the most transparent administration in history? Are the media not calling his administration the most secretive in history?

Did he not promise that every bill would be made available for no less than 5 working days before it was voted on? Did they not just ram this one through in one day?

I gather you don't have a problem with having the biggest socialist shift in our history rammed down our throats in the middle of the night?
The biggest socialist shift in history was probably the New Deal ... but second was proposed last October by Hank Paulson and George Bush.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
They knew that if the public had had enough time to learn what is in it, they would have had a fit. But this is how the democrats socialists work - don't concern yourself with what the people want, we know what's best for them more than they do, so if you have to sneak it in through the backdoor to keep them from stopping you, that's what you do.

There isn't a leader in the bunch.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Yeah, you're right Larry. The republicans didn't do this, for example, with Medicare part D.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Which, by the way, was a much, much larger liability than this bill.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
The biggest socialist shift in history was probably the New Deal ... but second was proposed last October by Hank Paulson and George Bush.


The New Deal pales in comparison to this.
Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
The biggest socialist shift in the history of the country was when the Federal Government commandeered the industrial base for war production.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
jon-nyc
Feb 14 2009, 07:03 AM
Yeah, your right Larry. The republicans didn't do this, for example, with Medicare part D.
I thought that was apalling as well. A huge long term increase in non-discretionary spending just to pick up more votes with seniors.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
jon-nyc
Feb 14 2009, 07:08 AM
The biggest socialist shift in the history of the country was when the Federal Government commandeered the industrial base for war production.
I don't see how that could be considered socialism.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
jon-nyc
Feb 14 2009, 07:08 AM
The biggest socialist shift in the history of the country was when the Federal Government commandeered the industrial base for war production.
But they gave it back. I don't think Obama and his cronies are going to do the same.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Whats funny JB is that somehow Bush was able to maintain the image of the president who didn't let polls and politics guide his opinions. And whereas that was true when it came to foreign policy, he completely ceded domestic policy to his political advisors the moment he took office.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
The steel tariff would be another good example.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Larry
Feb 14 2009, 07:09 AM
jon-nyc
Feb 14 2009, 07:08 AM
The biggest socialist shift in the history of the country was when the Federal Government commandeered the industrial base for war production.
I don't see how that could be considered socialism.

I suspect its because you use warped logic. Your logic seems to go like this:

1) Socialism is bad.

2) The US effort in WW-II was good.

3) A substantial part of the US effort in WW-II consisted of commandeering the economy for war production.

4) Therefore, commandeering the economy for war production was not socialism.


In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
I think its similar logic behind the 'its pork, ergo its not stimulative' fallacy. (or 'its a transfer payment, therefore its not stimulative'.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Quidam2
Member
Maybe this needs another thread, but why do many people condemn socialism so strongly? It's like "socialist" is a synonym for "bad and unamerican" and demands no further explanation or elaboration. So I guess I'm just asking for elaboration. I'm currently withholding opinion on the matter. Socialism might very well be a terrible idea, but I don't want to dismiss it as such outright. I'd be interested to know why people hold the opinions that they do on this point.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
jon-nyc
Feb 14 2009, 07:16 AM
Larry
Feb 14 2009, 07:09 AM
jon-nyc
Feb 14 2009, 07:08 AM
The biggest socialist shift in the history of the country was when the Federal Government commandeered the industrial base for war production.
I don't see how that could be considered socialism.

I suspect its because you use warped logic. Your logic seems to go like this:

1) Socialism is bad.

2) The US effort in WW-II was good.

3) A substantial part of the US effort in WW-II consisted of commandeering the economy for war production.

4) Therefore, commandeering the economy for war production was not socialism.


No, you're the one applying warped logic. It is the job of government to protect its citizens. WWII had to be fought. To do it, the government had to commandeer the economy - temporarily. Actually, even that is a misrepresentation of what they did. Piano factories for example, switched to building things made using wood. But the piano factory remained in the hands of its owners.

What Obama and the democrats are doing isn't comparable to what happened during WWII - and it is *not* temporary.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
Quidam2
Feb 14 2009, 07:18 AM
Maybe this needs another thread, but why do many people condemn socialism so strongly? It's like "socialist" is a synonym for "bad and unamerican" and demands no further explanation or elaboration. So I guess I'm just asking for elaboration. I'm currently withholding opinion on the matter. Socialism might very well be a terrible idea, but I don't want to dismiss it as such outright. I'd be interested to know why people hold the opinions that they do on this point.
Nothing is wrong with Socialism per se, but it's not what we as Americans has signed on for in our government. The American system is based on limited capitalism with a democratic form of representation.

Socialism implies not only redistribution of income, so money I make could go directly to support people I don't know (not just for community projects in whose benefit we all share) but also it calls for the public ownership of the means of production--which stifles competition and initiative. Two government run business aren' going to compete like two independently owned businesses.

Socialism also for some reason (as in the USSR, China, Cuba, etc.) leads to a dictatorship of a dictator--not of the people.

Now, if people of some country want that system--that certainly should be their choice, but it's not what we opted for here in the United States.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quidam2
Feb 14 2009, 07:18 AM
Maybe this needs another thread, but why do many people condemn socialism so strongly? It's like "socialist" is a synonym for "bad and unamerican" and demands no further explanation or elaboration. So I guess I'm just asking for elaboration. I'm currently withholding opinion on the matter. Socialism might very well be a terrible idea, but I don't want to dismiss it as such outright. I'd be interested to know why people hold the opinions that they do on this point.
Find a socialist system that has worked.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
jon-nyc
Feb 14 2009, 07:17 AM
I think its similar logic behind the 'its pork, ergo its not stimulative' fallacy. (or 'its a transfer payment, therefore its not stimulative'.
Similar to the fallacy that it spends money so it is stimulative.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Larry
Feb 14 2009, 07:29 AM
jon-nyc
Feb 14 2009, 07:16 AM
Larry
Feb 14 2009, 07:09 AM
jon-nyc
Feb 14 2009, 07:08 AM
The biggest socialist shift in the history of the country was when the Federal Government commandeered the industrial base for war production.
I don't see how that could be considered socialism.

I suspect its because you use warped logic. Your logic seems to go like this:

1) Socialism is bad.

2) The US effort in WW-II was good.

3) A substantial part of the US effort in WW-II consisted of commandeering the economy for war production.

4) Therefore, commandeering the economy for war production was not socialism.


No, you're the one applying warped logic. It is the job of government to protect its citizens. WWII had to be fought. To do it, the government had to commandeer the economy - temporarily. Actually, even that is a misrepresentation of what they did. Piano factories for example, switched to building things made using wood. But the piano factory remained in the hands of its owners.



It was a socialist surge that was later reversed but it was still a socialist surge. The factors of production were more-or-less completely placed under control of the government. That is socialism.

By the way - your argument there about it being necessary - it seems like you're continuing the fallacious reasoning I outlined above.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Jon, I don't mind loaning you my car for a while. But don't come by my house in the middle of the night and take it and keep it.

And if you do, don't try to make me believe that what you did is somehow similar to me loaning it to you for a few hours.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Larry
Feb 14 2009, 07:30 AM
Find a socialist system that has worked.

It would depend on your definition of 'worked'.
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
If taking over the means of production during a war is socialism then why was it reversed when the war ended if it is such a good thing and all.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
jon-nyc
Feb 14 2009, 07:33 AM
It was a socialist surge that was later reversed but it was still a socialist surge. The factors of production were more-or-less completely placed under control of the government. That is socialism.

By the way - your line there about it being 'necessary' - it seems like you're continuing the fallacious reasoning I outlined above.
The factories were placed under the control of the government--but the ownership remained in private hands--in a way what took place in the US during WWII was closer to "national" socialism.

For it to be actual socialism I think the ownership of the business would have to be in public hands.

Quote:
 
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating public or state ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities for all individuals, with a fair or egalitarian method of compensation.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
jon-nyc
Member Avatar
Cheers
Who's arguing that socialism is 'such a good thing and all'?
In my defense, I was left unsupervised.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TomK
HOLY CARP!!!
That guy Quidam 2 :)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 8