[The Final Dakar]

Not believing in Liberal conspiracy theories constitutes living in a Utopian Fantasy?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by the final dakar 

believing in liberals constitutes living in a utopian fantasy?

fixed.

[besson3c]

Oh the drama! Oh the conspiracy! Liberals are about to destroy all of America leading us to soup kitchens! Socialism! This country as we know it is ending! Better load up on guns! Our free market society is sooo powerful, yet so fragile! Our Democracy is on the brink of collapse! Socialism/Marxism/Facism/Communism is nearly upon us! Government insurance programs will be forced on us all!


You guys really aren't taking too well to not being in power, huh? I'll keep this in mind the next time a Republican is elected president and you call a Liberal a whiner.

The sooner you come to realize that smart people do not take this sort of crap seriously (and therefore, you seriously), the better off we will all be. Many of us long to actually talk about issues intelligently without this emotionally loaded dramatic drivel.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Y3a 

fixed.

Guh, "fixed", the last bastion of the desperate.

Not believing in Liberal conspiracy theories ≠ believing in liberals

Let's see you mess this one up.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Not believing ≠ believing

FIXEDallcaps

[The Final Dakar]

Dick move!!!

[BadKosh]

Dumping on gun owners is about as shallow as it gets. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU???

[olePigeon]

You got a visit from R. Kelly?

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Dumping on gun owners is about as shallow as it gets. IS THAT CLEAR ENOUGH FOR YOU???

No, you've managed to make things even less clear. But you didn't fix my post, so I guess I got my point across.

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The sooner you come to realize that smart people do not take this sort of crap seriously

Just listen to yourself.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

Just listen to yourself.

Find me any sort of academic mind babbling on about socialism and other such nonsense.

The most vocal Obama opponents these days seem to be far more about their feelings than about any rational thought.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The most vocal Obama opponents these days seem to be far more about their feelings than about any rational thought.

Apparently, since "learning from the past" is being dismissed as "irrational gut feeling"...

-t

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Apparently, since "learning from the past" is being dismissed as "irrational gut feeling"...

-t

How have we learned from the past WRT health care, overseeing the financial industry, dealing with climate change, gay rights, etc.?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

How have we learned from the past WRT health care, overseeing the financial industry, dealing with climate change, gay rights, etc.?

You don't make any sense.

If the current administration wasn't so narrow minded and agreed to be learning form other countries, that made the same mistakes before, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

-t

[sek929]

While I say this every couple of months I'll reiterate...

If you actually, truthfully, believe this country is going to be ruined because some new dude is in office you are mentally deficient.

Remember those whackjobs comparing Bush to Hitler? You people ARE NOW THEM, CONGRATULATIONS!!!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

You don't make any sense.

If the current administration wasn't so narrow minded and agreed to be learning form other countries, that made the same mistakes before, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

-t

Specifics, please.

[BadKosh]

I guess the Veterans Hospitals and the entire government run system they endure is OK with you? Being forced onto this system by the liberal AH's that are ruining our country at every level doesn't seem to bother you either. I guess you like the sleazy way Pelosi et al are handling things too? Why are they trying to ram the Pelosicare bill through the house so fast? Where is that 'care' they promised in producing the bill? Why are they ignoring the majority who don't want their health care and insurance tampered with by politicians? Is it because they know they will be a small minority in 2011, and in worse shape than the Repubs are now?

[BadKosh]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Find me any sort of academic mind(assuming you know what one is...) babbling on about socialism and other such nonsense.(Opinion stated as fact)

The most vocal Obama opponents these days seem to be far more about their feelings than about any rational thought.(More opinions)

Added for clarification.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

While I say this every couple of months I'll reiterate...

If you actually, truthfully, believe this country is going to be ruined because some new dude is in office you are mentally deficient.

Remember those whackjobs comparing Bush to Hitler? You people ARE NOW THEM, CONGRATULATIONS!!!

I've yet to get a good answer to some basic questions here;

• What would it take for some of you to accept that we are at least headed toward socialist governance? (though I've maintained it's by definition more communist)
• Do you generally favor socialist governance?

I ask because sometimes I'm getting the impression that we're not really debating the crux of an ideal. Let's take the healthcare debate for example. You can cite instances where Obama has openly and clearly advocated a single-payer system even stating that you can't do it overnight, it has to be done judiciously.

• You can show examples of these steps being taken exactly as prescribed in the current bills being debated.
• You can show how similar they are to the insolvent, single-payer systems they are modeled after.
• You can cite single-payer advocacy throughout a host of Administration officials, but somehow this is never enough. There is never enough proof that we are on a slippery slope to a single-payer system.

Instead, the discussion gets mired in debating very specific details of a plan. I get ridiculed by citing "slippery slope" arguments while failing to accept the premise that the proposals are a giant, necessary leap towards having a single-payer system. It gets to the point where the folks I'm debating seem to come off as being similarly opposed to the single-payer ideal only to find out they wholeheartedly support a single-payer plan. It follows they would support the steps necessary to get there.

I get the impression the folks who hate the cry of "socialism" the most are the ones most supportive of the principle.

[BadKosh]

The health care fix really isn't. Torte reform, and capping the rewards lawyers get should have been done first to lower the overall cost of healthcare. The 'uninsured' number needs to more clearly identified. 47 million was offered, but that included 13 million 'un-documented aliens' (Illegals) and people who could afford it but didn't buy it; around 4 million. The big question is the 'pre-existing condition we won't cover' reason the insurance companies use to deny coverage. should the insurance companies all be forced to take a percentage of these folks, or what?

The cost and intrusion of the current Democrat 'solutions' don't need to be considered, as they are trying to throw the baby out with the bath. it's too expensive, and poorly conceived. 2000 pages? It can probably be written in under 400 pages if clear minds were working on it, instead of the political hacks that work for the various congress and senate members.

[sek929]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

• What would it take for some of you to accept that we are at least headed toward socialist governance? (though I've maintained it's by definition more communist)
• Do you generally favor socialist governance?

- I'd need something more concrete than a leap of faith assertion that liberal governments lead to socialist regimes in a capitalist society. I favor limited government spending and the least amount of interference as possible, but I recognize Big Business™ is no better at regulating itself or being fair the American people.

I'd hate to quote Besson here but he's right, how is our country so powerful yet so fragile that a new president can ruin us in 4 years? It's hyperbole and exaggeration at its worst. Worst case scenario is that Obama ****s up our country and gets ousted in favor of a Republican who will take us in another direction and **** that up.

I hated the Bush administration for its obfuscation of the truth and erosion of personal liberties all while maintaining an air of infallibility...yet our country seems to have survived the last 8 years. Miraculous! Maybe no matter who is in power, be it the communist liberals or the warmongering conservatives, it's business as usual? I think so.

-I would say I am in favor of limited socialist governance. It's a necessary evil that must be kept in check, which is why we continue to shift ideologies in the executive branch every 4 to 8 years. I don't think Obama has, or will have the power to bring about these scary radical changes the right keeps accusing him off.

Of course I'm not directing this at you, eBuddy, since I consider you to be a well-informed and level headed chap

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by sek929 

I'd hate to quote Besson here but he's right, how is our country so powerful yet so fragile that a new president can ruin us in 4 years?

I hated the Bush administration for its obfuscation of the truth and erosion of personal liberties all while maintaining an air of infallibility...yet our country seems to have survived the last 8 years.

Well, Obama promised threatened us with CHANGE.

So doing more damage in 4 years than Bush in 8 years is the change I'm afraid of.

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by sek929 

- I'd need something more concrete than a leap of faith assertion that liberal governments lead to socialist regimes in a capitalist society. I favor limited government spending and the least amount of interference as possible, but I recognize Big Business™ is no better at regulating itself or being fair the American people.

It rarely if ever acts without the contribution of the Federal government sek929. The fact of the matter is that Socialism/Communism never happens overnight.

I'd hate to quote Besson here but he's right, how is our country so powerful yet so fragile that a new president can ruin us in 4 years? It's hyperbole and exaggeration at its worst. Worst case scenario is that Obama ****s up our country and gets ousted in favor of a Republican who will take us in another direction and **** that up.

Again, I think this mentality stems from the need to see a night and day difference in governance when this has never happened. For example, I'd be more inclined to agree with you if someone could indicate for me how this President's domestic policy differs from the prior President. Sure, one's an (R) and the other's a (D), but how has their domestic policy differed?

I hated the Bush administration for its obfuscation of the truth and erosion of personal liberties all while maintaining an air of infallibility...yet our country seems to have survived the last 8 years. Miraculous! Maybe no matter who is in power, be it the communist liberals or the warmongering conservatives, it's business as usual? I think so.

All the while Obama's obfuscation of the truth and the continued erosion of personal liberties (wiretapping, torture, etc...) now the attack dog of news outlets and protests is standard fare. Instead of WMDs, now it's OBL... or is it? The goals and exit strategy are even more nebulous in Afghanistan with its mounting death toll, but nary any coverage at all.

-I would say I am in favor of limited socialist governance. It's a necessary evil that must be kept in check, which is why we continue to shift ideologies in the executive branch every 4 to 8 years. I don't think Obama has, or will have the power to bring about these scary radical changes the right keeps accusing him off.

Of course I'm not directing this at you, eBuddy, since I consider you to be a well-informed and level headed chap

I appreciate that sek929, but again- socialism, communism, radicalism, tyranny, etc... never happen overnight, never. It usually occurs in a slow progression of continued erosion of personal liberties while advocates remind you there's nothing to be concerned about. Unless someone can cite for me the number of government programs, agencies, taxes, etc... that have shrunk in the last 50 years.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The fact of the matter is that Socialism/Communism never happens overnight.

On the contrary, communism has never been established thru baby-steps. Examples of Marxist revolutions and rapid socialist reformations (like England) are numerous. "Creeping socialism" is a phony bugbear. Every capitalist nation has implemented welfare systems but industrial nationalization remains rare and in retreat almost everywhere.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

"Creeping socialism" is a phony bugbear. Every capitalist nation has implemented welfare systems but industrial nationalization remains rare and in retreat almost everywhere.

Oh really ?

Exhibit A: Argentina

Argentina increased in prosperity and prominence between 1880 and 1929, while emerging as one of the 10 richest countries in the world

And then ?

During Perón's tenure, wages and working conditions improved appreciably, the number of unionized workers quadrupled, government programs increased and urban development was prioritized over the agrarian sector.[16] Formerly stable prices and exchange rates were disrupted...

Sound familiar ?

Perón's followers, and his policies encouraged investment to make the country self-sufficient in energy and industry, helping reverse a chronic trade deficit for Argentina.

Deja-vu ?

...this new regime continued to encourage domestic development and invested record amounts into public works.

O boy, stimulus anyone ?

This new dictatorship at first brought some stability and built numerous important public works; but their frequent wage freezes and deregulation of finance led to a sharp fall in living standards and record foreign debt. Deindustrialization, the peso's collapse and crushing real interest rates, as well as unprecedented corruption...

I'm scared now...

The previous regime's foreign debt, however, left the Argentine economy saddled by the conditions imposed on it by both its private creditors and the IMF, and priority was given to servicing the foreign debt at the expense of public works and domestic credit. ... Following a 1989 currency crisis that resulted in a sudden and ruinous 15-fold jump in prices

on 2 January 2002. Argentina defaulted on its international debt, and the peso's 11 year-old tie to the U.S. dollar was rescinded, causing a major depreciation of the peso and a spike in inflation. Duhalde, a Peronist with a center-left economic position, had to cope with a financial and socio-economic crisis, with unemployment as high as 25% by late 2002 and the lowest real wages in sixty years.

Anyone who doesn't see the parallels here is blind as a mole.

-t