| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/20/2010 09:46:01 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by kawesttex:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by kawesttex:
Yup, some people actually work for their money. What a concept!! Some folks from countries cited in that article actually come over here legally and make a fortune. HHHmmmmm. |
Yes, some people do make fortunes...unfortunately on the backs of people just like you and me. Tell me you honestly believe that those people that were bailed out by the US taxpayers actually earned those millions in bonuses. Tell me why it is that is always the sons and daughters of the poor that end up as canon fodder in wars and how it is that the rich get substantially richer when there are wars. Fairness indeed.
Ray |
My family has served many years in the military, well over 120 years, which has maintained the freedom of speech and all other freedoms afforded in this country. I didn't make much while in the military but I wasn't looking to get rich. Socialist ideas are what identified companies to big to fail. If a company fails, whether on the backs of others or not, it should be allowed to fail for bad business practices. It shouldn't survive on government subsidies, do you drive a GM product? How about a Hudson (I don't think they got a bailout) (Auto manufacturers used as an example). If things continue in the direction they are going we will all have to watch what we say. Sounds like something I have heard and read about other societies. |
Sorry Ray, I thought you were actually from this country and had a say. |
|
|
|
06/20/2010 09:47:43 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by dponlyme:
So in your view if a government exists and has any function at all that it is socialist in nature? Obviously not. Where do you draw the line. I draw it way before anything that approaches socialism by my definition. |
No, you don't. Your examples are all collectively owned by the people and administered by the government for the good of all. Sorry. |
What function then does government serve at all that isn't socialist in your view? or are you saying that government by it's very nature is socialist? y
edit to add this comment from the linked article--
The author really needs to define 'socialist' as he labels everything the federal government does as socialist. The real truth is that most federal tasks such as implementing a national road system or waterway systems were done to foster competition and enhance individuals' abilities to compete across state boundaries. The author seems to be letting his personal ideology get in the way of historical facts.
February 28, 2010 |
You may want to re-read that portion of the quote and establish the time frame being alluded to...it has nothing to do with today.
Ray |
|
|
|
06/20/2010 09:51:13 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by kawesttex:
Sorry Ray, I thought you were actually from this country and had a say. |
Viewed in that perspective, I guess I should be rather happy I didn`t follow my brothers who volunteered and served with the USMC in Vietnam... I bet they would be absolutely thrilled to hear the views you have of non-citizens that fought in that war. |
|
|
|
06/20/2010 10:04:52 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by kawesttex:
Sorry Ray, I thought you were actually from this country and had a say. |
Viewed in that perspective, I guess I should be rather happy I didn`t follow my brothers who volunteered and served with the USMC in Vietnam... I bet they would be absolutely thrilled to hear the views you have of non-citizens that fought in that war. |
I was pointing out that you didn't vote for Obama or our current regime. I have full respect for all military, even those that serve for misguided leaders. Some are forced into military servitude, however in the US it is all volunteer and folks from other countries have served valiantly in our military. You brought up the 'cannon fodder' of the military and this thread is not about the military, but I did serve and would do again if they asked. And if need be I will pick up a weapon again to protect my freedom.
Good night. |
|
|
|
06/20/2010 10:07:30 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by kawesttex:
If a company fails, whether on the backs of others or not, it should be allowed to fail for bad business practices. It shouldn't survive on government subsidies... |
The major problem with what you've said is that if those companies failed we would have died with them...yessss died. Dead gone...bye, bye USA. Imagine how many jobs would have been lost...all the fallout from those losses upon losses upon losses. We were at the brink and wouldn't have survived much more. It's unfathomable to imagine companies that employ millions and millions of people collapsing...and taking along their retirement funds, insurance etc.
Keep in mind it was Conservative ideals that made companies that huge to begin with and I agree they should never have been allowed so much power. Also, keep in mind the conservative wing of the Supreme Court just gave corporation the same rights as human beings... so, once again the power of the little guy was steamrolled by those in favor of big business.
Another thing, Ray has as much say what goes down on this planet as anybody else. You might not dig what others have to assert but as long as we do business with other nations...give and take, be prepared to hear plenty more from them in the future. Keep in mind, Iraq is a war on credit and I'm sure the Chinese...our backers (for much of the last 10 years of crappy policy) will have their hands far up our butts for some time to come (drill baby drill ...lolol). Enjoy...but don't blame Obama for that, it's been 30 plus years in the making.
Basically you're blaming the current admin for something Reagan started and Bush helped push to the brink. Blame yourselves... you're responsible as much as anybody else. You're getting exactly what you asked for.
David's OP is just another case of Americans showing their ass and what second rate minds we're harboring...not exactly the same stuff our forefathers had in mind or what made the country strong at one time.
Message edited by author 2010-06-20 23:21:22. |
|
|
|
06/20/2010 10:25:00 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
What function then does government serve at all that isn't socialist in your view? or are you saying that government by it's very nature is socialist? |
Dictatorships and monarchies are not generally socialist. Those are true capitalist systems run for the profit of their rulers. Most other governments, including the U.S., include social elements for the benefit of the peopleĆ¢ schools, libraries, parks, social security, emergency services, defense, roads, communication, and so on. The examples you listed are NOT private enterprises, but public programs collectively owned by the people. |
|
|
|
06/20/2010 10:42:56 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
The real truth is that most federal tasks such as implementing a national road system or waterway systems were done to foster competition and enhance individuals' abilities to compete across state boundaries. |
Wouldn't having a healthy educated populous enhance our ability to compete? |
|
|
|
06/20/2010 11:06:39 PM · #58 |
To the original poster,  David Ey, what exactly were you trying to prove by posting this video? A perfunctory glance demonstrates that it is a bunch of sound bites cobbled together in order to perpetuate a certain viewpoint. It is readily obvious that it is taken out of context in order to "prove" that Obama is a Muslim. And therefore....what?
Certainly you must realize that a video that can be dissected in two minutes is not going to change anyone to your world view who doesn't already share it. So why did you post it?
First, Obama is a Christian, but that really isn't the point, is it? The point I suspect you're trying to make here is that Obama is a Muslim hiding in Christian cloaking, and therefore, dangerous and bad.
But surely you must realize that religious extremism is almost always ugly, whether perpetuated by Christians or Muslims, or really any religion that exposes exclusivity (in other words, the idea that the believer's God, or Allah, or whatever, is the one true source of salvation and therefore all others are inherently wrong.) Whether it's the Crusades, or the Inquisition, or 9-11, or car bombings in the name of, it's ugly.
But the vast majority of those who believe in the Christian faith, the Muslim faith, the Mormon faith, the Amish faith, you name it, aren't extremists. And they deserve respect. As do those who have no faith in a supreme being. And with all due respect, pun intended, the video you posted is both highly disrespectful and, well, frankly ugly.
Did it occur to you by chance that this is an international site with people of many faiths and no faiths? How did you think your video would affect those who do espouse the Muslim faith? It is hurtful, farcical and nasty. Maybe posting something that is inherently hurtful and ugly doesn't bother you, but it does bother me.
Others have posted it, but what is now the United States was founded largely by those who were trying to escape religious persecution. It's supposed to be a place where those of different faiths (or no faith) can believe as they like. You are welcome to believe as you like. I have no interest in pushing my ideals on you, and I don't really want your ideals pushed on me. But one thing I do try to avoid is posting things that might be hurtful or send a hateful message. I wish you would do the same.
Message edited by author 2010-06-20 23:07:08. |
|
|
|
06/20/2010 11:30:44 PM · #59 |
| Just wanted to add that in the current vernacular, it seems a significant contingent of people confuse "socialism" and "fascism." I read a quote not too long ago about "Liberal fascists." I suspect Mussolini would have been a little surprised by the historically revised definition. |
|
|
|
06/21/2010 09:24:36 AM · #60 |
I believe they do so because of the official name of the Nazi party, which led a genuinely fascist regime -- "National Socialist German Worker's Party". Conservative pundits, not being historians of any stripe, think (or pretend) that the "Socialist" portion of that name was genuine, and not the cynical sop to the left that it actually was. Then it's simply a matter of confusing (perhaps deliberately) the two styles of governance, and the "liberal fascist", or more ridiculously, the "socialist fascist" is born.
As usual, people with some kind influence peddle their ignorance (perhaps on purpose), and less educated, less careful, and less intelligent people lower down on the food chain simply have to regurgitate the lie. Voila. Revisionism makes its way into parlance concerning the US government, which is so far from being anything like socialism that Europeans are rolling their eyes so far back in their head they can see China. |
|
|
|
06/21/2010 10:23:01 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by Louis:
...... which is so far from being anything like socialism that Europeans are rolling their eyes so far back in their head they can see China. |
Yep, you got that right!
Message edited by author 2010-06-21 10:47:14. |
|
|
|
06/21/2010 12:51:56 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by Louis:
... it's simply a matter of confusing (perhaps deliberately) the two styles of governance, and the "liberal fascist", or more ridiculously, the "socialist fascist" is born.
As usual, people with some kind influence peddle their ignorance (perhaps on purpose), and less educated, less careful, and less intelligent people lower down on the food chain simply have to regurgitate the lie.... |
Thanks for specifically addressing this. It was what motivated my earlier post. Instead I chose the broader issue.
Message edited by author 2010-06-21 12:52:18. |
|
|
|
06/21/2010 02:18:02 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by Louis:
I demand you write some kind of book. |
Thing is, all I have in me can be said in in a few words. |
|
|
|
06/21/2010 03:56:34 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Thing is, all I have in me can be said in in a few words. |
! |
|
|
|
06/21/2010 04:24:15 PM · #65 |
The OP did exactly what he wanted to do. Which is, namely, to stir the pot and then sit back and chuckle at everyone that responds.
You all gave him exactly what he wanted. Congratulations.
|
|
|
|
06/21/2010 04:34:01 PM · #66 |
While you, in your infinite wisdom, know what the OP thinks and wants etc, other, lesser mortals have to hedge their bets a little.
I know the business of 'ignore him and maybe he'll give up' that is applied to noisy and irritating children and so on, but I think that if somebody spouts foul incitements to hatred, bigotry and the proliferation of already costly and tragic divisions, that just because maybe they want you to is not much of a reason not to call them out.
Message edited by author 2010-06-21 16:34:29. |
|
|
|
06/21/2010 04:37:52 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by raish:
While you, in your infinite wisdom, know what the OP thinks and wants etc, other, lesser mortals have to hedge their bets a little.
I know the business of 'ignore him and maybe he'll give up' that is applied to noisy and irritating children and so on, but I think that if somebody spouts foul incitements to hatred, bigotry and the proliferation of already costly and tragic divisions, that just because maybe they want you to is not much of a reason not to call them out. |
Hatred, bigotry and division only have power if we give them power.
Stop giving them power.
Message edited by author 2010-06-21 16:38:03.
|
|
|
|
06/21/2010 04:40:44 PM · #68 |
| I have to agree with raish to some degree, but a more preferential treatment of the OP would have been if someone responded with "what a load of ignorant horseshit" and left it at that. At least its been called out but its not been given the respect of such a full and rich reply. (Though Ahmad's reply is among the best) |
|
|
|
06/21/2010 04:48:58 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by frisca:
a more preferential treatment of the OP would have been if someone responded with "what a load of ignorant horseshit" and left it at that. |
True, though in this case you wouldn't even have to read the OP. The thread title itself fits that description. |
|
|
|
06/21/2010 07:23:05 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
The OP did exactly what he wanted to do. Which is, namely, to stir the pot and then sit back and chuckle at everyone that responds.
You all gave him exactly what he wanted. Congratulations. |
He also wound up stinking like ass...which I assume wasn't part of his grand plan and sadly dragging the image of our country down one more little notch at a point where we don't have much room further to drop.
We need every friend we can get after a spiraling decline in word view since 9/11, the OP shouldn't go unaddressed. Keep in mind (not to be an alarmist) how many people waved off and were dismissive of the initial threat of the Nazis (the real ones) and what became of that.
Smacking down outright foolishness, is perfectly in order. |
|
|
|
06/21/2010 07:56:32 PM · #71 |
Godwin's Law!
Message edited by author 2010-06-21 19:56:54. |
|
|
|
06/21/2010 09:24:49 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Anyone that dislikes him, all they have to do is look at his policies. He is the worst thing that has happened to this country in the 20th and 21st century. |
Anyone who doesn't dislike him looks at the same policies and could argue that he is the best thing that has happened to this country in the 20th and 21st century.
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
He has not even done half of his term and he has quadrupled our debt. |
"According to the Treasury Department, the current holding of debt on the day President Obama was sworn in, January 20, 2009, was $10.618 trillion and on May 21, 2010, the debt was at $12.978 trillion. This means that in that time the debt has increased by 22.31%. However... Pres. ObamaĆ¢s first budget did not take effect the day he was sworn in. If looking at the debt that Pres. Obama and the Democratic majority are Ć¢responsibleĆ¢ for as Sen. Cornyn suggests, then Oct 1, 2009 is the reasonable start date, when fiscal year 2010 and Pres. ObamaĆ¢s first budget took effect. The debt at that point was $11.920 trillion, meaning the increase from then to May 21 was 8.95%." FWIW, the debt increase under our last administration was 205%.
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Also he is handling the oil spill like a little 5 year old... |
The government doesn't have the expertise or equipment to deal with the leak, and spending taxpayer money on the problem is presumably out of the question given your complaint above. So how would you have handled it? |
this was my favorite part of the thread. when confronted with facts a repeater of talking points chooses not to respond, instead only repeats talking points. it's truly the death of reasonable discussion regarding politics in the US as "the great uniter" has polarized our electorate drastically. i hope not permanently.
as a side note, i've started getting all of my news from the wall street journal. it's really the first news source i've seen that reports without opinion or bias. and i'm a tofu farting tree hugging liberal.
|
|
|
|
06/22/2010 06:10:49 AM · #73 |
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Martin NiemĆĀ¶ller |
|
|
|
06/22/2010 07:29:33 AM · #74 |
Originally posted by raish:
"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.
THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.
THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.
THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Martin NiemĆĀ¶ller |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
We need every friend we can get after a spiraling decline in word view since 9/11, the OP shouldn't go unaddressed. Keep in mind (not to be an alarmist) how many people waved off and were dismissive of the initial threat of the Nazis (the real ones) and what became of that.
Smacking down outright foolishness, is perfectly in order. |
exactly! |
|
|
|
06/22/2010 10:33:32 AM · #75 |
HAHAHAHAHAHA.
Oh man. Fine.
You want to continue to compare the OP with anyone of real import of any kind whatsoever, that's your problem, but WOW.
He's no nazi, that's for sure. Try school-yard bully. The kind that is actually too scared to do any physical harm to anyone. The kind that just makes off-hand insults now and then. Guess what the best way to deal with THEM is? That's right. Walking away and saying nothing. Every time. The more you try and lay the "smack down" on them, the worse they get.
So whatever, have it your way, I'll say no more on the subject.
*shakes head* |
|
