Joy Behar Coming Unhinged

i_luv_miley wrote:As a liberal, I would agree with that. The problem is, beginning with Reagan, the word "liberal" was demonized and given false connotations (i.e. bleeding heart, tree hugger, weak on defense, lazy, hates America, etc). Unfortunately the media (doing what they always do), played along with it - thereby making the misrepresentation even more misrepresentative... But painting us like that is bull-plop! The fact is, like conservatives, there is a lot of room under the "liberal" umbrella. As for me, my "liberalness" mostly comes from social issues. I have no problem saying that, when people need (legitimate) help, there should be a way for them to get it... That's different from being an economic liberal though. Sure, things (i.e. social programs) cost money, but that doesn't mean all of us (liberals) want to raise your taxes to 90 percent. We're happy to look for other ways of finding the funds. But just because we may want to cut defense spending by 90 percent, doesn't mean we hate America. We certainly don't. We just want our fair share of the pie.

Can't really disagree with you. There's different levels of liberalism here in America as there are different levels of conservatism. For instance, I don't give a hoot about gay rights, meaning I don't fall for the evil gay stereotype. I feel that they're as equal under the law as I am. I also have disdain for those who preach the evils of abortion. I fall in the states rights category on that instead of it being a "constitutional" right. I feel like pot should be legalized and taxed like everything else and that it should have the same laws that states have regarding DUI, etc.

The liberalism I disagree with is the usual banter you all hear from me. The continuous taxing of things that the fed has no business doing. The continuous eradication of certain rights. These certain rights I speak of are numerous and plentiful. Many aren't even on the radar, so people don't realize that certain things are gone till they actually encounter it. I oppose liberals in politics that try to force certain legislation upon the American people (like the HC bill) when it was already unpopular to begin with.

I could go on but I won't... to your satisfaction.

BecMacFeegle wrote:Oooh I know. Obama is a socialist? Yah, right. And I'm an anarchist. Although...the misuse of the word 'fascist' is up there too. Person A presses for political change that person B doesn't like, so person A is labelled a fascist. Grr. As for the meanings of words changing...sure, fine. With in reason. Words can't just mean something completely different because a group of people decided to hijack them. Liberalism is a well defined concept - it can't just mean something completely different because people think it should and have been using the word wrongly for a long time. Pick a new word! Gah!

Reminds me of some of the same stuff said about George Bush. The people here that didn't like him called him fascist and other nasty shit.

What comes around, goes around.

Btw, not one person here has ever heard me call Obama a socialist, fascist or any other name that some right wingers like to attach to him.

BecMacFeegle wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

BecMacFeegle wrote:WTF was that? I have no idea what I just sat through. Who are those ghastly people?

Those ghastly people, my dear Bec, are what we call liberals here in America... quite the tolerant bunch, eh? Three of the four people on that panel are Democrats, the other says she is a Republican (the pretty young blond thing), but she is a Republican in name only, or what we call a RINO.

Welcome to my world...

I was talking to Matt about this yesterday, and, lemme get the words right - he says that nowhere else in the world uses the term Liberal in the way Americans do. He said the American phrase is used to described something which is part fantasy, part exaggeration and total misrepresentation of what Liberalism actually is.

I'd call myself a liberal (small 'l' perhaps?) and I don't think I'm like those harpies. I'm a left of centre liberal, I suppose. Though every time I do one of those political quizzes it tells me I'm more liberal than Gandhi and more libertarian too.

Yes, Matt is right, liberal has a completely different meaning in America from the rest of the world (though I would take exception at the characterization of it being part fiction and exaggeration). In point of fact, I would be defined as a classical liberal, if one were using the original meaning of this word. But that is not how the word is understood here. Liberal is pretty much synonymous with socialist in this country (as is Democrat). And by socialist, we mean one who supports state control (but not ownership) of the private sector, and the redistribution of wealth through the tax system.

dblboggie wrote:Liberal is pretty much synonymous with socialist in this country (as is Democrat). And by socialist, we mean one who supports state control (but not ownership) of the private sector, and the redistribution of wealth through the tax system.

Actually that is the hard-right, ultra-neo-conservative, gun-totin', bible-thumpin', "Obama is a socialist" "definition" of liberal. The real defintion is quite different.

i_luv_miley wrote:Actually that is the hard-right, ultra-neo-conservative, gun-totin', bible-thumpin', "Obama is a socialist" "definition" of liberal. The real defintion is quite different.

So, explain how that is, please.

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:Actually that is the hard-right, ultra-neo-conservative, gun-totin', bible-thumpin', "Obama is a socialist" "definition" of liberal. The real defintion is quite different.

So, explain how that is, please.

I already did. See above. And you seemed to generally agree with what I said. Where my problem with dblboggie's view is, is that he has called Obama a socialist. And it's just not true any more so than his post above. He has Republican "talking points" down pat. But nothing else. It's all rhetoric. Liberal/Democrat is no more related to "socialist" than Conservative/Republican is related to "fascist". There are degrees to all of it. My objection is that he's basing his opinion on something that just isn't true.

i_luv_miley wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:Actually that is the hard-right, ultra-neo-conservative, gun-totin', bible-thumpin', "Obama is a socialist" "definition" of liberal. The real defintion is quite different.

So, explain how that is, please.

I already did. See above. And you seemed to generally agree with what I said. Where my problem with dblboggie's view is, is that he has called Obama a socialist. And it's just not true any more so than his post above. He has Republican "talking points" down pat. But nothing else. It's all rhetoric. Liberal/Democrat is no more related to "socialist" than Conservative/Republican is related to "fascist". There are degrees to all of it. My objection is that he's basing his opinion on something that just isn't true.

That is because Obama IS a socialist. Obama would love nothing more than complete government control (though not necessarily ownership) of the means of production in this country, and he is doing his very best to ensure that this comes about through his key legislative measures, particularly "cap-and-trade." Hell, the Worker's World Daily fully supports Obama. He is praised by people like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. What the hell else does a person need? What, he should wear a sign or something? You think he's gonna come out and say "Hey America, I think socialism is a great idea!" Does it need to be THAT blatant for you to acknowledge the truth of Obama's infatuation with socialism, and his attempts to move America in that direction?

As for your characterization of that as the "hard-right, ultra-neo-conservative, gun-totin', bible-thumpin', 'Obama is a socialist' 'definition' of liberal" I would submit that I did not say he was a liberal, I said he was a SOCIALIST... there is a difference, as you yourself have acknowledged.

dblboggie wrote:That is because Obama IS a socialist.

You base everything you say on that one point. But that point just isn't true and you know it! So quit acting as if it were. It's rhetoric.

And you wonder why Joy and others become "unhinged" sometimes.

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:That is because Obama IS a socialist.

You base everything you say on that one point. But that point just isn't true and you know it! So quit acting as if it were. It's rhetoric.

And you wonder why Joy and others become "unhinged" sometimes.

But it IS true. Tell me exactly how it is NOT true.

dblboggie wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:That is because Obama IS a socialist.

You base everything you say on that one point. But that point just isn't true and you know it! So quit acting as if it were. It's rhetoric.

And you wonder why Joy and others become "unhinged" sometimes.

But it IS true. Tell me exactly how it is NOT true.

Here we go again.

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:That is because Obama IS a socialist.

You base everything you say on that one point. But that point just isn't true and you know it! So quit acting as if it were. It's rhetoric.

And you wonder why Joy and others become "unhinged" sometimes.

But it IS true. Tell me exactly how it is NOT true.

Here we go again.

I'm sorry kiddo, but Obama is what he is. His upbringing (parents were socialists), his associations (his childhood mentor was a socialist), his university associations (in his own words radicals, Marxists and socialists), his "community organizer" work and his support of Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals), another socialist, his friendship with the likes of Bill Ayers (domestic terrorist and socialist) and Rev Wright (black liberation theologist - based on Marxist principles), and much of his Cabinet (self-identified radicals and socialists), ALL of these things, added to his own written and spoken record, not to mention his legislative agenda SCREAM socialist.

I don't know what I'm supposed to say here. This isn't empty rhetoric, these are simple facts, easily verifiable by anyone with the intellectual honesty to actually look for them.

I don't say these things to be contrary, rather I say these things in respect of the truth. And I mean this most sincerely. You might think I am saying these things to irritate you or to be controversial or some such thing, but nothing could be further from the truth. Obama's record could not be clearer. He IS a socialist; on this point there can be no doubt.

i_luv_miley wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Liberal is pretty much synonymous with socialist in this country (as is Democrat). And by socialist, we mean one who supports state control (but not ownership) of the private sector, and the redistribution of wealth through the tax system.

Actually that is the hard-right, ultra-neo-conservative, gun-totin', bible-thumpin', "Obama is a socialist" "definition" of liberal. The real defintion is quite different.

I agree with that.
Saying those things are synonimous with 'Socialist' is like saying 'Conservative' is synonimous with Ultra-Nationalists or Religious extremists.

dblboggie wrote:Yes, Matt is right, liberal has a completely different meaning in America from the rest of the world (though I would take exception at the characterization of it being part fiction and exaggeration).

Why? When Rush Limbaugh defines it, it is hardly going to be the most thoughtful and considered response. I've seen it myself with creationists. They disbelieve in evolution but they are not interested in what evolution says, they make up their own version, make it seem ridiculous so that it is easy to destroy as an argument. That, my friend, is what we call a "straw man" and it goes something like this:

1oldminer/oracle71/moviefan2k4/WesMordine/picturepaws/RickS (delete as applicable): I don't believe in evolution. It all seems to ridiculous!
Me: What do you mean ridiculous?
1oldminer/oracle71/moviefan2k4/WesMordine/picturepaws/RickS (delete as applicable): Well, nobody has even seen a chimpanzee give birth to a human, or a crocodile transform into a cat.
Me: Don't be stupid. That isn't what evolution says, >GO HERE< for a proper definition.
1oldminer/oracle71/moviefan2k4/WesMordine/picturepaws/RickS (delete as applicable): Either *ABANDONS THREAD* or... Yes I've read that but I still don't believe it.
Me: Why?
1oldminer/oracle71/moviefan2k4/WesMordine/picturepaws/RickS (delete as applicable): Well, nobody has even seen a chimpanzee give birth to a human, or a crocodile transform into a cat.

dblboggie wrote:In point of fact, I would be defined as a classical liberal, if one were using the original meaning of this word.

And I would define myself as a social liberal yet I do not recognise your definition of a Liberal as being somebody that hates America and wants state control/ownership of everything.

dblboggie wrote:But that is not how the word is understood here. Liberal is pretty much synonymous with socialist in this country (as is Democrat).

Then it is your definition (wherever you get it from) that is at fault, not the rest of the English speaking world.

dblboggie wrote:And by socialist, we mean one who supports state control (but not ownership) of the private sector, and the redistribution of wealth through the tax system.

No, Socialism is state ownership of certain industries. Please define what you mean by "control" rather than "ownership".

dblboggie wrote:That is because Obama IS a socialist.

No he isn't. Repeat a lie often enough and people might believe it, but it doesn't make it true. So what if he has read Marx? Maybe you ought to give it a try so that you might better understand what it is you disagree with and get the ideas right from the horse's mouth.

Perhaps you ought to read this article from a Socialist entitled "Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301899.html

First and foremost I should reiterate that I find the suggestion that Obama is a Socialist ridiculous.

But, for the sake of the argument dbl, lets look at your reasons for Obama being a Socialist:

That is because Obama IS a socialist. Obama would love nothing more than complete government control (though not necessarily ownership) of the means of production in this country, and he is doing his very best to ensure that this comes about through his key legislative measures, particularly "cap-and-trade."

Well - for him to be a Socialist, it would need to be complete government ownership - anything less, is not Socialism. As for Obama wanting complete government control - I see no evidence of that.

Hell, the Worker's World Daily fully supports Obama.

That's not evidence of him being a Socialist though. If the Pope praises a group of anti-abortion protesters, does that make them Catholic? No. It means they agree on ONE issue - nothing more.

He is praised by people like Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.

See above.

What the hell else does a person need? What, he should wear a sign or something? You think he's gonna come out and say "Hey America, I think socialism is a great idea!" Does it need to be THAT blatant for you to acknowledge the truth of Obama's infatuation with socialism, and his attempts to move America in that direction?

Well, failing an open declaration of being a socialist, for a person to be categorised as such then they would need to show signs of being a socialist in their political beliefs and actions. I'm not seeing any...

I'm sorry kiddo, but Obama is what he is. His upbringing (parents were socialists),

Doesn't make him a socialist.

his associations (his childhood mentor was a socialist)

See above.

his university associations (in his own words radicals, Marxists and socialists)

See above. And it's worth noting that a lot of people go through an idealistic phase at university.

his "community organizer" work

That was his work promoting social change at a grass roots level? That makes him a socialist, how?

and his support of Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals)

I can see where this is going. Associating with 'socialists' does not make a person a socialist, having some sympathy or even sharing some ideas with socialists does not make a person a socialist.

another socialist, his friendship with the likes of Bill Ayers (domestic terrorist and socialist) and Rev Wright (black liberation theologist - based on Marxist principles)

It doesn't mean Obama is one.

and much of his Cabinet (self-identified radicals and socialists)

If they're 'socialists' by the same standards you've applied to Obama - then that doesn't mean anything either.

ALL of these things, added to his own written and spoken record, not to mention his legislative agenda SCREAM socialist.

I have yet to see one thing that screams Socialist.

I don't know what I'm supposed to say here. This isn't empty rhetoric, these are simple facts, easily verifiable by anyone with the intellectual honesty to actually look for them.

The problem is - they don't support your assertion that Obama is a Socialist. Socialists laugh at the suggestion that he is one of them - and they should know.

dblboggie wrote:I'm sorry kiddo, but Obama is what he is. His upbringing (parents were socialists),

Ummm, yeah. My father is a working class Tory voter. That doesn't make me one. I am more to the left than my father, more libertarian and more educated. He is also a salesman, does that make me one?

dblboggie wrote:his associations (his childhood mentor was a socialist), his university associations (in his own words radicals, Marxists and socialists), his "community organizer" work and his support of Saul Alinsky (Rules for Radicals), another socialist, his friendship with the likes of Bill Ayers (domestic terrorist and socialist) and Rev Wright (black liberation theologist - based on Marxist principles), and much of his Cabinet (self-identified radicals and socialists), ALL of these things, added to his own written and spoken record, not to mention his legislative agenda SCREAM socialist.

Great, so he is associated with a lot of people who were socialists. When I was younger I associated with a lot of Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims but I am not one, nor did I ever feel the need to become one. So what, he joined a Socialist group while at University?! Do people on your side of the pond not mellow later in life? Do they not develop and change their views about certain things? For goodness sake he's 49 years old and graduated University in 1991 - nearly 20 years ago!

dblboggie wrote:I don't know what I'm supposed to say here. This isn't empty rhetoric, these are simple facts, easily verifiable by anyone with the intellectual honesty to actually look for them.

Yeah, about our climate change debates...

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Yes, Matt is right, liberal has a completely different meaning in America from the rest of the world (though I would take exception at the characterization of it being part fiction and exaggeration).

Why? When Rush Limbaugh defines it, it is hardly going to be the most thoughtful and considered response. I've seen it myself with creationists. They disbelieve in evolution but they are not interested in what evolution says, they make up their own version, make it seem ridiculous so that it is easy to destroy as an argument. That, my friend, is what we call a "straw man" and it goes something like this:

1oldminer/oracle71/moviefan2k4/WesMordine/picturepaws/RickS (delete as applicable): I don't believe in evolution. It all seems to ridiculous!
Me: What do you mean ridiculous?
1oldminer/oracle71/moviefan2k4/WesMordine/picturepaws/RickS (delete as applicable): Well, nobody has even seen a chimpanzee give birth to a human, or a crocodile transform into a cat.
Me: Don't be stupid. That isn't what evolution says, >GO HERE< for a proper definition.
1oldminer/oracle71/moviefan2k4/WesMordine/picturepaws/RickS (delete as applicable): Either *ABANDONS THREAD* or... Yes I've read that but I still don't believe it.
Me: Why?
1oldminer/oracle71/moviefan2k4/WesMordine/picturepaws/RickS (delete as applicable): Well, nobody has even seen a chimpanzee give birth to a human, or a crocodile transform into a cat.

Why is it that when addressing conservatives, liberals feel the need to evoke the name of “Rush Limbaugh?” Rush has nothing to do with this and neither do “creationists.” I am not Rush Limbaugh and I am not a creationist. Is this not just the same trick of rhetoric against which you protest above?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:In point of fact, I would be defined as a classical liberal, if one were using the original meaning of this word.

And I would define myself as a social liberal yet I do not recognise your definition of a Liberal as being somebody that hates America and wants state control/ownership of everything.

First of all, this is not my definition of a liberal, this would be yours (or an exaggerated version of American definition of a liberal). A liberal, in America mind you, is someone who leans decidedly more left than your typical Democrat. In fact, there are fiscally conservative Democrats, there are socially conservative Democrats, and there are Democrats who are neither, but who still do not self-identify as a liberal, but there are also Democrats who do also self-identify as liberal. Those who self-identify simply as a liberal, on the other hand, do lean heavily left as a rule (there are no absolutes of course, so this is, of necessity, a bit of a generalization, but one with a basis in statistical fact).

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:But that is not how the word is understood here. Liberal is pretty much synonymous with socialist in this country (as is Democrat).

Then it is your definition (wherever you get it from) that is at fault, not the rest of the English speaking world.

Quite clearly, but that’s the way it is in America. As for where it comes from, I’m at a loss. But I’ll bet there’s some Wiki entry that explores the evolving etymology of the word here in America. Actually, I just checked it out and there is, but I can already tell that it is biased from this little bit:

Some American liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, neoliberals, or libertarians, support fundamental liberal ideals but disagree with modern liberalism, holding that economic freedom is more important than equality of opportunity, and that promoting the general welfare of society exceeds the legitimate role of government.

I would call myself a classical liberal, as well as a libertarian, though I use the word conservative as understood here in America. There is something I can tell you with absolute certainty; there is no “classical liberal,” libertarian, or “conservative” who thinks “economic freedom” is “more important that equality of opportunity.” That is a purposeful mischaracterization of a classical liberal/libertarian/conservative position on that issue. Our constitution guarantees an “equality of opportunity” for all Americans! Anyone, from what ever socioeconomic background, what ever race, religion, ethnicity or gender, has the same opportunities to succeed. What we DO object to is the federal government trying to create an “equality of OUTCOMES” through federal laws that take from some to give to others in an attempt to create that “equality of outcomes.”

And as for the “promoting the general welfare of society,” again, this is a blatant lie. This phrase found in the preamble of our Constitution. What classical liberals/libertarians/conservatives object to is the unconstitutional theft of other people’s money for the “welfare” of some – we call it the redistribution of wealth – and it was not supported by our founders, or our constitution.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:And by socialist, we mean one who supports state control (but not ownership) of the private sector, and the redistribution of wealth through the tax system.

No, Socialism is state ownership of certain industries. Please define what you mean by "control" rather than "ownership".

Actually, in doing some additional research on this etymology of this word, I have concluded that it has become pretty much hopelessly perverted from whatever original meaning it was meant to have.

But for the sake of argument, we can pretty safely say that the state ownership of the means of production could be said to be a socialist objective for society.

Since Obama entered office, the federal government has taken ownership of one car company, directed the ownership of another (majority ownership to unions), taken over a major insurer (AIG), a number of banks, and the two largest home lending institutions in the country (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). He has spearheaded the passage of the so-called “health care reform” bill (ironically named the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”), which is step one on his march toward single-payer government health care, see below:



You see, just because he hasn’t gone whole hog socialist on us at the moment, doesn’t mean that isn’t his ultimate objective. He has already told a number of blatant lies on this issue, one cannot believe a word that comes out of this guys mouth when he is addressing the American people at large (and not a union gathering somewhere).

He is taking a gradual road toward ownership in some cases; that is what cap-and-trade is all about. This bill would give the federal government and unelected bureaucrats unprecedented control over private sector businesses under the guise of controlling CO2 emissions. Since nearly EVERYTHING a company does produces CO2, the level of federal control over businesses would be MASSIVE, not to mention completely unconstitutional, but hey, Obama would never let a little thing like his oath of office to stand in the way of his agenda.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:That is because Obama IS a socialist.

No he isn't. Repeat a lie often enough and people might believe it, but it doesn't make it true. So what if he has read Marx? Maybe you ought to give it a try so that you might better understand what it is you disagree with and get the ideas right from the horse's mouth.

Perhaps you ought to read this article from a Socialist entitled "Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301899.html

Well I hate to put a card-carrying socialist in his place, but Billy here has it all wrong. Just because Obama has not jumped with both feet into the task of transforming America into a socialist utopia, doesn't mean he would not love to, or that he, himself, is not a socialist.

There is a very good reason Obama is not pursuing the full-blown socialist agenda that Billy wants, there is not a chance in hell American's would put up with it. Just look at the outrage that Obamacare gave rise to - and that is just step one in Obama's agenda (which DOES look very much like what Billy WOULD love to see).

See the video in my post above. That's the good old socialist talk that Billy would approve of.

Fortunately, American's would not tolerate such a blatantly obvious move toward socialism. So Obama has to take what I am sure he sees as baby steps (but which most Americans see as massive overreaching). He will go for "cap-and-trade" and further extend government controls over businesses. He will go for "card check" and work to create ever larger "industrial armies" (step 8 from the Communist Manifesto) making unionization by intimidation the order of the day. And lets not forget the "financial reform" bill which has nothing to do with reform and everything to do with more federal control of the financial sector (leaving out the now federally-owned Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, which a lack of federal regulation actually allowed these institutions to crash our home and financial markets).

So yeah, Obama's no socialist. And I'm the Queen of England.

dblboggie wrote:Why is it that when addressing conservatives, liberals feel the need to evoke the name of “Rush Limbaugh?” Rush has nothing to do with this and neither do “creationists.” I am not Rush Limbaugh and I am not a creationist. Is this not just the same trick of rhetoric against which you protest above?

Well no. I know you listen to him and your definition of what a socialist is - and what a liberal is, and all of your unsupported climate change rhetoric often sounds as if it comes straight out of his mouth.

dblboggie wrote:First of all, this is not my definition of a liberal, this would be yours (or an exaggerated version of American definition of a liberal). A liberal, in America mind you, is someone who leans decidedly more left than your typical Democrat. In fact, there are fiscally conservative Democrats, there are socially conservative Democrats, and there are Democrats who are neither, but who still do not self-identify as a liberal, but there are also Democrats who do also self-identify as liberal. Those who self-identify simply as a liberal, on the other hand, do lean heavily left as a rule (there are no absolutes of course, so this is, of necessity, a bit of a generalization, but one with a basis in statistical fact).

Yeah, so what? I agree with that. Liberals are slightly further to the left than your clearly right of centre government. What you have no support for are your claims that "Liberals are just socialist" and "Liberals hate America".

dblboggie wrote:Quite clearly, but that’s the way it is in America. As for where it comes from, I’m at a loss. But I’ll bet there’s some Wiki entry that explores the evolving etymology of the word here in America. Actually, I just checked it out and there is, but I can already tell that it is biased from this little bit:

Some American liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, neoliberals, or libertarians, support fundamental liberal ideals but disagree with modern liberalism, holding that economic freedom is more important than equality of opportunity, and that promoting the general welfare of society exceeds the legitimate role of government.

What is wrong with that definition? Because it doesn't fit the 49% parody, 49% fantasy and 2% reality strawman that conservatives such as yourself has invented? Refer back to the point on "questionable classification" and while you're at it, look up "straw man".

dblboggie wrote:But for the sake of argument, we can pretty safely say that the state ownership of the means of production could be said to be a socialist objective for society.

Not everything, because that would be communism where the state owns everything. Even our socialist governments of the early 20th century didn't seek to sieze everything. Labour in those early days wanted state ownership of the utilities and national services such as water supply, energy and railways.

dblboggie wrote:Since Obama entered office, the federal government has taken ownership of one car company, directed the ownership of another (majority ownership to unions), taken over a major insurer (AIG), a number of banks, and the two largest home lending institutions in the country (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). He has spearheaded the passage of the so-called “health care reform” bill (ironically named the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”), which is step one on his march toward single-payer government health care, see below:

I know all about that but having bought a controlling share in a couple of failing industries (which will probably be sold on at some point in the near future btw) doesn't make it socialist. I can't imagine it was ever the intention to buy up these industries if they were not failing.

dblboggie wrote:You see, just because he hasn’t gone whole hog socialist on us at the moment, doesn’t mean that isn’t his ultimate objective.

Seeing as you think he only has two more years in the job, with no hope of a second term, I would say he's leaving it a bit late.

dblboggie wrote:He has already told a number of blatant lies on this issue, one cannot believe a word that comes out of this guys mouth when he is addressing the American people at large (and not a union gathering somewhere).

Surely not! Politicians don't lie!

dblboggie wrote:He is taking a gradual road toward ownership in some cases; that is what cap-and-trade is all about. This bill would give the federal government and unelected bureaucrats unprecedented control over private sector businesses under the guise of controlling CO2 emissions. Since nearly EVERYTHING a company does produces CO2, the level of federal control over businesses would be MASSIVE, not to mention completely unconstitutional, but hey, Obama would never let a little thing like his oath of office to stand in the way of his agenda.

I refuse to debate anything to do with climate change on here until you address the other posts and actually read some papers. Until you can get over the science there is no point discussing the politics of climate change.

dblboggie wrote:So yeah, Obama's no socialist. And I'm the Queen of England.

Michael Foot, former Labour leader who died in March, was a socialist. Obama doesn't even compare.

dblboggie wrote:Well I hate to put a card-carrying socialist in his place, but Billy here has it all wrong. Just because Obama has not jumped with both feet into the task of transforming America into a socialist utopia, doesn't mean he would not love to, or that he, himself, is not a socialist.

Pray tell, what industries has Obama even attempted to fully nationalise when becoming president? Why isn't he pursuing any policies that will ensure greater equality, why isn't even on the agenda? Why is he as far as the REST OF THE WORLD is concerned, he is at most a centrist or centre-right politician?

Your argument appears to be based upon that Obama is increasing the powers of government and pushing the boundaries of what is constitutional to the limit - the very same could be said about almost every US president, including Bush - but I really don't think anyone could say he was a socialist (or even "liberal") with a straight face.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-followers-are-not-conservatives.html

The nearest to any US president being a socialist is Harry S. Truman for attempting to nationalise the steel industries just before the Korean war, but even then the reason wasn't economic, ideological or social - but pragmatic as he needed steel at a low price as soon as possible with the union strikes out the way.

There is a very good reason Obama is not pursuing the full-blown socialist agenda that Billy wants, there is not a chance in hell American's would put up with it. Just look at the outrage that Obamacare gave rise to - and that is just step one in Obama's agenda (which DOES look very much like what Billy WOULD love to see).

The argument suspicious looks like what the crazier elements of the Tea Party have been saying about Obama's religion: the reason he is always evoking Christianity in his speeches and public declarations is because he is hiding a secret Muslim agenda that no one (but they) could suspect!

Also, I have an immediate distrust of "boiling frog" / "slipper slope" arguments (as someone who studied philosophy, I thought you would known better!) people should judge laws, bills, moral actions, ideas by their own merits and not second-guess where it might eventually lead to. After-all, people have been evoking the same "argument" against everything from IVF treatment, to nuclear energy and the introduction of calculators in maths classes! None of these many dire predictions ever come true.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Why is it that when addressing conservatives, liberals feel the need to evoke the name of “Rush Limbaugh?” Rush has nothing to do with this and neither do “creationists.” I am not Rush Limbaugh and I am not a creationist. Is this not just the same trick of rhetoric against which you protest above?

Well no. I know you listen to him and your definition of what a socialist is - and what a liberal is, and all of your unsupported climate change rhetoric often sounds as if it comes straight out of his mouth.

And you listen to Rush Limbaugh so you are the expert on how he defines a socialist? You listen so much to the man that you can identify the similarities between my rhetoric and his?

Is that your story and are you sticking to it?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:First of all, this is not my definition of a liberal, this would be yours (or an exaggerated version of American definition of a liberal). A liberal, in America mind you, is someone who leans decidedly more left than your typical Democrat. In fact, there are fiscally conservative Democrats, there are socially conservative Democrats, and there are Democrats who are neither, but who still do not self-identify as a liberal, but there are also Democrats who do also self-identify as liberal. Those who self-identify simply as a liberal, on the other hand, do lean heavily left as a rule (there are no absolutes of course, so this is, of necessity, a bit of a generalization, but one with a basis in statistical fact).

Yeah, so what? I agree with that. Liberals are slightly further to the left than your clearly right of centre government. What you have no support for are your claims that "Liberals are just socialist" and "Liberals hate America".

Where have I said all liberals are socialists and hate America?

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Quite clearly, but that’s the way it is in America. As for where it comes from, I’m at a loss. But I’ll bet there’s some Wiki entry that explores the evolving etymology of the word here in America. Actually, I just checked it out and there is, but I can already tell that it is biased from this little bit:

Some American liberals, who call themselves classical liberals, neoliberals, or libertarians, support fundamental liberal ideals but disagree with modern liberalism, holding that economic freedom is more important than equality of opportunity, and that promoting the general welfare of society exceeds the legitimate role of government.

What is wrong with that definition? Because it doesn't fit the 49% parody, 49% fantasy and 2% reality strawman that conservatives such as yourself has invented? Refer back to the point on "questionable classification" and while you're at it, look up "straw man".

No, rather I object to it because it IS the 49%parody, 49% fantasy and 2% strawman concoction that liberals in this country rely on when attempting to characterize those of us on the right.

But of course if you hadn’t ignored my response to that definition, you would have known that. Here’s the part where I address what is wrong with the “definition”:

dblboggie wrote:I would call myself a classical liberal, as well as a libertarian, though I use the word conservative as understood here in America. There is something I can tell you with absolute certainty; there is no “classical liberal,” libertarian, or “conservative” who thinks “economic freedom” is “more important that equality of opportunity.” That is a purposeful mischaracterization of a classical liberal/libertarian/conservative position on that issue. Our constitution guarantees an “equality of opportunity” for all Americans! Anyone, from what ever socioeconomic background, what ever race, religion, ethnicity or gender, has the same opportunities to succeed. What we DO object to is the federal government trying to create an “equality of OUTCOMES” through federal laws that take from some to give to others in an attempt to create that “equality of outcomes.”

And as for the “promoting the general welfare of society,” again, this is a blatant lie. This phrase found in the preamble of our Constitution. What classical liberals/libertarians/conservatives object to is the unconstitutional theft of other people’s money for the “welfare” of some – we call it the redistribution of wealth – and it was not supported by our founders, or our constitution.

As you can see, the author of this Wiki hit piece simply took what is the right’s well known objection to the lefts incessant push for an “equality of outcomes” (redistribution of wealth) and falsely characterized it as an objection to “an equality of opportunities.”

And attempt to parody the right as heartless beasts that care only about money.

[quote="The_Amber_Spyglass"]

dblboggie wrote:Since Obama entered office, the federal government has taken ownership of one car company, directed the ownership of another (majority ownership to unions), taken over a major insurer (AIG), a number of banks, and the two largest home lending institutions in the country (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac). He has spearheaded the passage of the so-called “health care reform” bill (ironically named the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act”), which is step one on his march toward single-payer government health care, see below:

I know all about that but having bought a controlling share in a couple of failing industries (which will probably be sold on at some point in the near future btw) doesn't make it socialist. I can't imagine it was ever the intention to buy up these industries if they were not failing.

Perhaps, but we own them nonetheless.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:You see, just because he hasn’t gone whole hog socialist on us at the moment, doesn’t mean that isn’t his ultimate objective.

Seeing as you think he only has two more years in the job, with no hope of a second term, I would say he's leaving it a bit late.

All he is doing is setting the ground work, as much of it as he can. That is why he wasted an entire year trying to get the health care bill jammed through. He KNOWS that this will ultimately lead to single payer (his true objective). If he can jam through cap-and-trade and card-check, he will have significantly advanced the agenda of defeating capitalism as we had known it in America.

Rome wasn’t built in a day. This has been an ongoing process since the turn of the last century. It’s one step at a time.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:He has already told a number of blatant lies on this issue, one cannot believe a word that comes out of this guys mouth when he is addressing the American people at large (and not a union gathering somewhere).

Surely not! Politicians don't lie!

Well now you have video evidence, side by side, of Obama telling one audience he is not pushing for single payer, and another that he is. You may shrug this off as inconsequential, I do not see it that way.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:

dblboggie wrote:He is taking a gradual road toward ownership in some cases; that is what cap-and-trade is all about. This bill would give the federal government and unelected bureaucrats unprecedented control over private sector businesses under the guise of controlling CO2 emissions. Since nearly EVERYTHING a company does produces CO2, the level of federal control over businesses would be MASSIVE, not to mention completely unconstitutional, but hey, Obama would never let a little thing like his oath of office to stand in the way of his agenda.

I refuse to debate anything to do with climate change on here until you address the other posts and actually read some papers. Until you can get over the science there is no point discussing the politics of climate change.

Cap-and-trade has nothing whatsoever to do with climate change. It is an excuse to seize massive new powers over the means of production in this country and nothing more.

According to one of the articles you posted on CO2 and ocean acidification by Ken Caldeira, he says that “we are now emitting carbon dioxide at rate that exceeds the natural emission rate by a factor of early 100, so that even a 98% reduction in our emissions will more than double he natural carbon dioxide emission rate.” This he says could have unknown disastrous effects on organisms that build their shells and skeletons from calcium carbonate, possibly the extinction of all corals in the oceans.

A 98% reduction is STILL too much CO2. What is someone supposed to do with something like that?

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Well I hate to put a card-carrying socialist in his place, but Billy here has it all wrong. Just because Obama has not jumped with both feet into the task of transforming America into a socialist utopia, doesn't mean he would not love to, or that he, himself, is not a socialist.

Pray tell, what industries has Obama even attempted to fully nationalise when becoming president? Why isn't he pursuing any policies that will ensure greater equality, why isn't even on the agenda? Why is he as far as the REST OF THE WORLD is concerned, he is at most a centrist or centre-right politician?

Your argument appears to be based upon that Obama is increasing the powers of government and pushing the boundaries of what is constitutional to the limit - the very same could be said about almost every US president, including Bush - but I really don't think anyone could say he was a socialist (or even "liberal") with a straight face.

http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/01/bush-followers-are-not-conservatives.html

The nearest to any US president being a socialist is Harry S. Truman for attempting to nationalise the steel industries just before the Korean war, but even then the reason wasn't economic, ideological or social - but pragmatic as he needed steel at a low price as soon as possible with the union strikes out the way.

Then you are certainly not up on your history. Woodrow Wilson and FDR were our Presidents who most identified with the ideals of socialism. Wilson gave us the progressive income tax! Truman is a piker in comparison.

And yes, Obama is attempting to lay ever more groundwork to advance the ever-on-the-march socialist agenda. Why does the rest of the world see him as centrist or center-right (now there is a joke if ever I heard one), I would submit that those that do see him this way live in countries that are largely socialist countries and see nothing wrong with it!

You see, America is vastly different from the UK (and the “rest of the world”). For one, we have a written constitution that CLEARLY delineates the permissible powers of the federal government. Obama isn’t “pushing the boundaries of what is constitutional,” he is completely ignoring what the constitution has to say and HAS already passed one bill that is now being challenged in federal court because it IS so blatantly unconstitutional.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

There is a very good reason Obama is not pursuing the full-blown socialist agenda that Billy wants, there is not a chance in hell American's would put up with it. Just look at the outrage that Obamacare gave rise to - and that is just step one in Obama's agenda (which DOES look very much like what Billy WOULD love to see).

The argument suspicious looks like what the crazier elements of the Tea Party have been saying about Obama's religion: the reason he is always evoking Christianity in his speeches and public declarations is because he is hiding a secret Muslim agenda that no one (but they) could suspect!

Also, I have an immediate distrust of "boiling frog" / "slipper slope" arguments (as someone who studied philosophy, I thought you would known better!) people should judge laws, bills, moral actions, ideas by their own merits and not second-guess where it might eventually lead to. After-all, people have been evoking the same "argument" against everything from IVF treatment, to nuclear energy and the introduction of calculators in maths classes! None of these many dire predictions ever come true.

And I am accused of throwing up strawman arguments. Sheesh.

Yeah, Obama’s a Muslim.

And that last bit, “people should judge laws, bills, moral actions, ideas by their own merits and not second-guess where it might eventually lead to.”

It is insanity to say that one should not look at a piece of legislation and not attempt to discern the unintended consequences of enacting it! That is exactly what we did on the passage of the CRA, and look where that got us; the collapse of our housing and financial markets.

dblboggie wrote:Then you are certainly not up on your history. Woodrow Wilson and FDR were our Presidents who most identified with the ideals of socialism.

FDR was president during a recession, and he felt his measures was going to be temporary only. Nothing prior to taking the office of US President did he give any indication he had any socialistic leanings. Socialism is the nationalisation of industries, progressive taxation isn't "socialism" the same way that allowing MacDonalds open a francise in the middle of Red Square don't make you a capitalist overnight.

And yes, Obama is attempting to lay ever more groundwork to advance the ever-on-the-march socialist agenda.

Right, the same way that the Patriot Act was Bush the Republican Party's attempt putting down the foundations of an oil-backed fascist Christian totalitarian government? I guess groundless paranoia goes both ways, don't it?

Why does the rest of the world see him as centrist or center-right (now there is a joke if ever I heard one), I would submit that those that do see him this way live in countries that are largely socialist countries and see nothing wrong with it!

If even what you say is true (not that it is, it's nonsense), whose opinion do you think would matter more: people who you say actually understand socialism or you?

So what other metric do you propose? Socialism is an ideology, conservatism is a feeling. A socialist from France, the US, Israel or Russia have more in common then opposed, a conservative from the same countries would have too little in common. Compared with ANY western power, Obama is positively centrist. Sorry, but the definition of a socialist does not really differ from country to country - not even in the US.

You see, America is vastly different from the UK (and the “rest of the world”). For one, we have a written constitution that CLEARLY delineates the permissible powers of the federal government.

Every other European power some form of written constitution (and socialists in power!), I'm not entirely sure what's the point here.

Obama isn’t “pushing the boundaries of what is constitutional,” he is completely ignoring what the constitution has to say and HAS already passed one bill that is now being challenged in federal court because it IS so blatantly unconstitutional.

So my point... stands. Either case he is testing the limits of the powers of his office, like almost EVERYONE else who had been in the same office.

And I am accused of throwing up strawman arguments. Sheesh.

I doubt you could actually POINT to where I have misrepresented you, but please do try. Talks of "secret socialist agenda" is no different from talks of the no less foolish nonsense about "secret Islamic agenda", and just as groundless AFAIC. I'm not too sure you know what socialism is, so I suggest you do some research before you point your finger and call anyone it.

It is insanity to say that one should not look at a piece of legislation and not attempt to discern the unintended consequences of enacting it! That is exactly what we did on the passage of the CRA, and look where that got us; the collapse of our housing and financial markets.

A) Community Reinvestment Act did no such thing (it's not a point even worth arguing - the CRA regulated loans that were deemed "safe" and gave a return, the clear majority of subprime excesses came those not AT ALL regulated by the CRA).

B) If there was a fault caused by the law, it was because the law itself was faulty, not because of what it logically entails. What you are arguing is transitive, "Obamacare" isn't socialism itself but leads to socialism; what those who (partially) blame the CRA is not transitive.

C) Laws of consequences are often too difficult to determine the actual result. If we took every prediction seriously, we would have banned "science" as an activity because it would have lead to overpopulation and weapons of mass destruction.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Then you are certainly not up on your history. Woodrow Wilson and FDR were our Presidents who most identified with the ideals of socialism.

FDR was president during a recession, and he felt his measures was going to be temporary only. Nothing prior to taking the office of US President did he give any indication he had any socialistic leanings. Socialism is the nationalisation of industries, progressive taxation isn't "socialism" the same way that allowing MacDonalds open a francise in the middle of Red Square don't make you a capitalist overnight.

FDR was the President during the Great Depression. Of course, it was his policies that actually made the depression a Great Depression, and actually extended the depression for far longer than it would have lasted had he not interfered so ham-fistedly in the economy with his New Deal and Second New Deal (many components of which remain with us today – just laying that groundwork). FDR was a huge admirer of Stalin, and his government was shot through with paid Soviet spies. One very much socialist inspired program of FDR’s was the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) which created the Agricultural Adjustment Administration (AAA), which was, in essence, central federal control over the agricultural industry (something a majority of the public opposed back then I might add). The Supreme Court ultimately declared the AAA to be unconstitutional, stating that "a statutory plan to regulate and control agricultural production, [is] a matter beyond the powers delegated to the federal government..."

And if you read FDR’s “Second Bill of Rights” you would see just how much he leaned toward socialist concepts of economic and social “justice” and away from the Constitution and free-market capitalism. The only way to implement his “Second Bill of Rights” would be to completely and utterly scrap our constitution and give government massive new powers to create the “equality of outcomes” that this “Second Bill of Rights” calls for.

As for “progressive taxation” – this is the second plank from Marx/Engels “Communist Manifesto” – the second of 10 steps necessary to move a free-market capitalist society toward communism/socialism (pick your poison). Just because a progressive tax system doesn’t entail state ownership of industries, doesn’t mean it has nothing to do with socialism or socialist concepts. And I would further submit that the current tax system is being used to exert significant and unconstitutional controls over how businesses operate and what they can and cannot do.

You seem, apparently, to think that for one to be labeled a socialist, that they must openly declare their support for the nationalization of industry, but nothing could be further from the truth. If you watched the Obama video above, you’d realize that in his case, while he wants very much to nationalize the health care industry, he cannot state so openly before the whole nation because American’s, as fat and happy as we have gotten, still wildly oppose such move toward socialism (however slight you might perceive this to be). We are not the UK or Europe, we have widely divergent views on things like this, and that is just how it is.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

And yes, Obama is attempting to lay ever more groundwork to advance the ever-on-the-march socialist agenda.

Right, the same way that the Patriot Act was Bush the Republican Party's attempt putting down the foundations of an oil-backed fascist Christian totalitarian government? I guess groundless paranoia goes both ways, don't it?

Groundless paranoia? Really? Watch the Obama video again. THAT tells you everything you need to know about his agenda; that, and the fact that he has appointed to his Cabinet persons who self describe as socialists, Marxists and radicals.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

Why does the rest of the world see him as centrist or center-right (now there is a joke if ever I heard one), I would submit that those that do see him this way live in countries that are largely socialist countries and see nothing wrong with it!

If even what you say is true (not that it is, it's nonsense), whose opinion do you think would matter more: people who you say actually understand socialism or you?

So what other metric do you propose? Socialism is an ideology, conservatism is a feeling. A socialist from France, the US, Israel or Russia have more in common then opposed, a conservative from the same countries would have too little in common. Compared with ANY western power, Obama is positively centrist. Sorry, but the definition of a socialist does not really differ from country to country - not even in the US.

Conservatism is not a “feeling” sport. In this country, it is very much a political ideology. And Obama is no more “centrist” than I am Superman.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

You see, America is vastly different from the UK (and the “rest of the world”). For one, we have a written constitution that CLEARLY delineates the permissible powers of the federal government.

Every other European power some form of written constitution (and socialists in power!), I'm not entirely sure what's the point here.

It goes with the paragraph you separated it from below.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

Obama isn’t “pushing the boundaries of what is constitutional,” he is completely ignoring what the constitution has to say and HAS already passed one bill that is now being challenged in federal court because it IS so blatantly unconstitutional.

So my point... stands. Either case he is testing the limits of the powers of his office, like almost EVERYONE else who had been in the same office.

No, he is not “testing the limits of the powers of his office, like almost every one else...” This is nonsense. These are some piddling exercises in Executive Authority he is engaging in. He is IGNORING the constitution on a level not seen since FDR in an attempt to forward an agenda that is decidedly far left, and is socialist in intent. For instance, he knows that the current “health care reform” bill now passed, will lead to the destruction of the private-sector health insurance industry. He has said that it would – watch the video!

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

And I am accused of throwing up strawman arguments. Sheesh.

I doubt you could actually POINT to where I have misrepresented you, but please do try. Talks of "secret socialist agenda" is no different from talks of the no less foolish nonsense about "secret Islamic agenda", and just as groundless AFAIC. I'm not too sure you know what socialism is, so I suggest you do some research before you point your finger and call anyone it.

First of all, IF YOU’D WATCH THE VIDEO, you’d see that Obama’s socialist agenda is hardly a “secret.” To a group of doctors, he says its nonsense that the “health care reform” bill is a “Trojan Horse” meant to bring about single-payer. Then, before a union group, he states what he REALLY wants to do, and acknowledges that it will take a transitory step to get there – but he wants to get there by the end of his first term in office. Nationalizing our health care system, could I think in all fairness, be called a socialist agenda! Please, oh please, tell me how this is not so.

merkwurdigliebe wrote:

It is insanity to say that one should not look at a piece of legislation and not attempt to discern the unintended consequences of enacting it! That is exactly what we did on the passage of the CRA, and look where that got us; the collapse of our housing and financial markets.

A) Community Reinvestment Act did no such thing (it's not a point even worth arguing - the CRA regulated loans that were deemed "safe" and gave a return, the clear majority of subprime excesses came those not AT ALL regulated by the CRA).

B) If there was a fault caused by the law, it was because the law itself was faulty, not because of what it logically entails. What you are arguing is transitive, "Obamacare" isn't socialism itself but leads to socialism; what those who (partially) blame the CRA is not transitive.

C) Laws of consequences are often too difficult to determine the actual result. If we took every prediction seriously, we would have banned "science" as an activity because it would have lead to overpopulation and weapons of mass destruction.

You clearly know NOTHING about the CRA. The CRA was a measure that FORCED banks to make home loans that they NEVER would have made left to their own devices. A sane lending institution does NOT make loans to people who are very poor credit risks. But that is what the CRA, and subsequent legislation to expand this practice to ever more risky classes of borrowers. It got so insane, that banks were told that they MUST consider things like unemployment checks, welfare checks and the like, as valid forms of income to be considered when making home loans!!!! How INSANE can one get?!?!?

The CRA had NOTHING to do with regulating loans that were “deemed safe” and gave a return. I don’t know where you are getting this fiction, but it is just not true.

And what was “faulty” about this law was asking lenders to ignore common economic sense and then FORCING them on pain of punishment to make loans that no sane lender would otherwise have made. And to make things even worse, the federal government require the GSE’s Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy up these crappy loans, which they then bundled and sold to financial institutions who were told they were perfectly safe investments and the shit just rolled downhill from there. People bought these things thinking that Fanny and Freddie had federal government backing should things go south. And to add insult to injury, Democrats on the Hill repeatedly filibustered any attempted reforms in the government oversight of these two massive GSE’s that could have prevented the massive meltdown we finally experienced when Fannie and Freddie went tits-up.

And your point in C) above is just hyperbole, and not a serious argument against a thorough examination of all legislation for potential negative impacts if enacted. In fact, there were MANY economists who predicted what would come to pass should Obamacare be enacted, and those consequences are already rearing their ugly heads well before the Obama Administration’s wishes.

And it’s not like this is even rocket science! Make a thing cheap and easy to get, and it will result in the increased consumption of that thing; soon, demand outstrips supply, and this ultimately leads to rationing. We KNOW this very basic economic truth. It is why we can very easily predict forced government rationing of health care in our future.