Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7776 posts, RR: 22 Posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 858 times:
It bugs the hell out of me when people throw out “the ‘S’ Word” without understanding what it is.
As soon as you hear “Obama is a socialist”, I just cringe. And it’s not just stupid people who say it – supposedly well-educated and supposed ‘expert’ talking heads do it all the time.
Let’s get it straight – Socialism is when you have state ownership of key industries (or all of them). Socialism is when the government says that it is not fair that some people own businesses and others work for them, so they are taking over. This is not what we have with Obama. For all their flaws and arrogance, the bailouts were not intended to result in the government permanently owning the auto or banking industry. Obama is not a socialist. He may privately wish he could go down that route (his background seems to hint at that), but he has not done so publicly.
No, what Obama is producing is still a country where private enterprise and investors still own everything. But, through taxes and regulations, the government is telling private business what it can make, how it can make it, how much it can pay its workers, etc. When the economy is still in private hands but a government dictates to business how they should work and what they should make, that is not socialism. That is Fascism.
Unfortunately when you tell people that, you get blank looks. “Isn’t fascism what you got with Hitler, killing Jews, military dictatorship, warmongering?” No it is not. As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer. The word derives from fasces, the Roman symbol of collectivism and power: a tied bundle of rods with a protruding ax.
In its day (the 1920s and 1930s), fascism was seen as the happy medium between boom-and-bust-prone liberal capitalism, with its alleged class conflict, wasteful competition, and profit-oriented egoism, and revolutionary Marxism, with its violent and socially divisive persecution of the bourgeoisie. It is socialism diluted.
So please guys, stop with the "S" word. It just makes a joke out the very real complaints that we have about this administration. After all, Mussolini's Italy or Peron's Argentina were no beds of roses.
tugger From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 4631 posts, RR: 7 Reply 2, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 859 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): No, what Obama is producing is still a country where private enterprise and investors still own everything. But, through taxes and regulations, the government is telling private business what it can make, how it can make it, how much it can pay its workers, etc. When the economy is still in private hands but a government dictates to business how they should work and what they should make, that is not socialism. That is Fascism.
Well sort of. "The government" in the USA is "the people", you cannot disconnect the two (though many seem to try to). So it is the people, the same people that own and run and work in the businesses in the USA, that make the decisions on how the businesses should work etc.
Based on what you are saying it appears that most of the capitalist economies in the world are actually fascist states. I do not know of any "pure" capitalist or socialist nations, do you?
Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1173 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 861 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): When the economy is still in private hands but a government dictates to business how they should work and what they should make, that is not socialism. That is Fascism.
That's one thing that happened in fascist economies but it doesn't really describe the entire system or concept (neither does diluted socialism, for that matter. I'm happiest myself with "state capitalism" or similar.) There was also a major element of the cult of the state and personality, lending itself rather quite strongly to the warmongering and dictatorship you mention (in fact Mussolini, coiner of the term, was pretty big on war as an integral means of building a state.) And to be quite honest I think you've only got it half right when you say government was dictating to business. That's certainly what happened by the end of fascism but definitely not the beginning, in the rise to power stages Europe was very polarized and certain business leaders felt that the only way to keep the socialist rabble from destroying everything that had been made was to set up strongmen in their opposition.
In other words, you've found a scare term for Obama policies that you think is better than the one currently in use. Because Fascism has even more negative connotations, whereas no one outside the American right has fully explained why shouting "Socialism!" is reason enough to instantly deep-six any idea you disagree with.
Really, when you're talking fascism and Stalin-style communism the modern metrics we have between state control of the economy and private enterprise, limited government versus extreme government, and so on really stop working. Nazi Germany, the USSR, etc.- these were systems that were totalitarian enough that distinctions of how they controlled their countries really stop mattering. Yeah, the Nazis may have been a bit more market-friendly before the onset of World War II, but when war is all but intrinsic to the ideology of such a state, it's a rather academic question.
That's one definition. Traditionally Marxists have viewed the state as an instrument of class power and defined socialism as being the rule by the working class. The state itself can own means of production but it is essential to look at the social relations of production. Marxists, from the time of the Second International on, have put forward a view that without workers' power state ownership of the means of production was state capitalism. The original arguments arose when essential industries like gas power plants failed and were taken into ownership by local government.
Non-Marxist socialists have adopted different views, some arguing that nationalisation and a mixed economy was a step on the road to socialism. In some countries this is referred to a social democracy. At the end of the second world war, even Conservatives in Britain supported nationalisation of certain industries because it was seen as necessary to maintaining British industry in the face of foreign competition. The aim was clearly the maintenance of capitalism, not the ushering in of some socialist society, however much Labour party stalwarts may have claimed it as such. Even the introduction of the National Health Service was by and large supported by Conservatives as it provided, in their words, Capitalism with a human face.
So there are different views on what socialism is, just like there are different views on what fascism is. To people like Trotsky, your description would more closely resemble Bonapartism, although he used the term to describe the USSR under Stalin. In his view, the distinguishing feature of fascism wasn't state ownership but, like the good Marxist he was, its social content. It was, in his opinion and based on the experience of Germany, a mass movement based on the petit bourgeoisie threatened by large scale capitalism on the one hand and trade unions on the other but also attracting sections of the peasantry, unemployed and the "lumpen-proletariat". A significant detail is that it set up parallel and separate organs of state. Hitler and the SA/SS because of the risk of a challenge from the traditional army is one example. Have the Democrats done all that? I thought it was the tea party.
More seriously, is Obama telling people what they can make? There may be regulations governing health and safety in the workplace and product safety, but that does not compel anyone to actually go into business and start producing something. I recall some years ago one industrialist put it this way: "the government can tell me where I am not allowed to build a factory. They can't tell me where to build one." Are you seriously suggesting that Obama now has the power to conscript capital?
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16819 posts, RR: 57 Reply 5, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 860 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): As soon as you hear “Obama is a socialist”, I just cringe. And it’s not just stupid people who say it – supposedly well-educated and supposed ‘expert’ talking heads do it all the time.
I don't have the time to go through A.net and count the number of times you called him that. Wouldn't surprise me if it were over 100.
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): No, what Obama is producing is still a country where private enterprise and investors still own everything. But, through taxes and regulations, the government is telling private business what it can make, how it can make it, how much it can pay its workers, etc. When the economy is still in private hands but a government dictates to business how they should work and what they should make, that is not socialism. That is Fascism.
So wait. Trade regulations are fascism?
Well, perhaps in Dreaddyworld they are.
But in the real world, like the one where Merriam-Webster are the authorities, this is Fascism:
Quote: often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Our government is somewhat centralized. It is not autocratic by any means (this whole bit about Obama needing to strike a bargain over the fiscal cliff, for example), there is not severe economic or social regimentation (Fred Phelps and I are both allowed to exist in the same country and both of us are allowed to express our views), and there is no forcible suppression of opposition (the GOP is still in control of the House, is it not?).
But more importantly, I am RELATED to people who survived fascist AND socialist governments and they would be furious perhaps to the point of violence to hear you calling Obama either of these things. You have *NO* idea what it is like to actually live in fear that the government is going to come to your house and drag you and your family away in the night, rape your wife and your daughter in front of you, and then take you to a camp somewhere. And, fortunately, nor do I.
If you did understand what it was like, you would have been too afraid to write your post.
Let me see if I get this straight: before last Tuesday, you claimed that the President was a socialist. Now that he has been reelected, you have decided that he is a fascist?
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7776 posts, RR: 22 Reply 7, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 860 times:
Quoting seb146 (Reply 1): Like how this administration lets business do what they want without polluting the planet or stealing American's money? How is that bad?
Nobody is calling for anarchy.
Quoting tugger (Reply 2): Based on what you are saying it appears that most of the capitalist economies in the world are actually fascist states. I do not know of any "pure" capitalist or socialist nations, do you?
Again, Anarchy (which is what a "pure" capitalist economy would be) is not the desired outcome. You are right in that it is a very fuzzy border between a functional regulated capitalist economy and a fascist one. It's a matter of degree. Regulations preventing one from dumping waste directly into the river is perfectly rational. Regulations dictating what kind of cars manufacturers may produce and sell (in terms of size, consumption) is not, IMHO. The less intrusive way of producing the desired result (reduce consumption) could be done by raising fuel taxes.
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): I don't have the time to go through A.net and count the number of times you called him that. Wouldn't surprise me if it were over 100.
Quoting cws818 (Reply 6): Let me see if I get this straight: before last Tuesday, you claimed that the President was a socialist.
As I recall, I have not called him a socialist. Certainly his policies have not been socialist, in the sense that he has never called for nationalization, as far as I know. But it is clear from his own writings and what we know of his upbringing that he does look quite favorably upon socialism, but knows that it simply won't fly in the US. UNLESS there is a complete societal meltdown (eg a depression) which would make enough of the people willing to toss out the Constitution and go for a French-style socialism of the 60s and 70s. A cynic would say that is his plan, and why he doesn't seem to mind running our economy so badly - to drive the economy over the deep end and so as to have the opportunity to reinvent it. that is in fact the whole purpose of Alinsky Community Organizing. I'm not entirely convinced of that - I simply think he is incompetent.
I just would like to point out that most of the posts above are thoughtful and respectful around the subject. I appreciate that we can have civil discussions at times.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7776 posts, RR: 22 Reply 8, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 12 hours ago) and read 860 times:
Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5): But more importantly, I am RELATED to people who survived fascist AND socialist governments and they would be furious perhaps to the point of violence to hear you calling Obama either of these things. You have *NO* idea what it is like to actually live in fear that the government is going to come to your house and drag you and your family away in the night, rape your wife and your daughter in front of you, and then take you to a camp somewhere. And, fortunately, nor do I.
Doc, I understand where you are coming from. And in my travels I have also had a number of experience in current and formerly totalitarian countries. I've been to Auschwitz, and several other such places.
My point is that Fascism, in spite of all the baggage that has been heaped on it by History, originated as an economic concept, before it evolved into a political, nationalistic, and finally militaristic concept. I am asking you to look at fascism in its original form. Mussolini wrote:
Quote: The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State....
...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone....
It has nothing to do with military might or racism, which came later. It is a concept born of statism - the idea that the population in general are stupid, and cannot be allowed to decide for themselves, and that an "ethical state" should guide their lives, with the presumption that the state is run by smarter people than we poor plebeians.
Seems that post-election time causes people to sweep up the rampage and clarify some concepts. It would perhaps be sensible to do that before the election craze starts.
Samson was a biblical tough guy, but his dad Samsonite was even more of a hard case.
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1173 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 861 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7): You are right in that it is a very fuzzy border between a functional regulated capitalist economy and a fascist one.
Something about this statement is very amusing to me. And to be fair it might not be its content but the way its expressed. But I'm finding myself thinking "yes, it's a matter of debate as to whether government attempting to cultivate better fuel economy in passenger automobiles is a question of reducing dependence on fluctuating gasoline supplies for consumers, or the Democratic Party trying to remove a competing power base in order to recruit blue-collar workers into its Strength-Through-Joy clubs."
Basically I never thought of the fascist wave arriving through government fuel-economy dictates rather than opportunistic political horse-trading in times of social uncertainty (i.e. the way it arrived in Germany and Italy.)
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 4787 posts, RR: 9 Reply 11, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 859 times:
Things get really muddied in the US with socialism and communism being taboo words impossible to discuss. And not helped by the fact many current socialist parties (including the French ruling one) are really social-democrat, having no problem with capitalism itself. Even the French communist party and the left front want to keep capitalism and the euro, they just want to impose things like a maximum income of 360 000€/year. The small New Anticapitalist Party (formerly known as the Revolutionary Communist League) and Workers Struggle, on the other hand, do want the socialization of the economy, with the workers owning the companies.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7): French-style socialism of the 60s and 70s
The conservatives were in power at that time (De Gaulle and then his former ministers), so it was not really socialism, rather state sponsored capitalism, pretty similar to current China economically (not politically), with more personal freedoms of course (and better health-care). That's how we got things like high speed rail, nuclear plants across the country, high quality motorways, a world leading telecommunications infrastructure, the Minitel...
As for Obama, I believe he admires European style social-democracies and would like the US to be more like that, but in practice he hasn't done much to get there, aside from Obamacare. And even with a Democratic controlled House it would not be an easy task with the level of corporate lobbying in the US.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
Newark727 From United States of America, joined Dec 2009, 1173 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 859 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 8):
My point is that Fascism, in spite of all the baggage that has been heaped on it by History, originated as an economic concept, before it evolved into a political, nationalistic, and finally militaristic concept. I am asking you to look at fascism in its original form. Mussolini wrote:
I think I understand where you're going in terms of the economic policy that fascist states tended to employ hinging on a close cooperation between private industry and state organs, and that in the war years in particular such a policy tended to put the latter on top of the former. But I don't think you can separate the economic origins from the political/nationalistic ones and still call it fascism, considering the other policies that the fascist states used between them and that the "fascist successor" splinter movements still support today. The economic situations you ascribe to fascism are means to the end you describe in your quote of the "ethic" state, which is the goal more so than any economic management which was seen as a stabilizing measure to bring some of the otherwise communist-leaning elements toward the movement. Remember that Mussolini was himself a socialist early in his "career:" the European politics that created the fascist idea aren't really the same ones we can ascribe to people in the United States today.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 13, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 859 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
It bugs the hell out of me when people throw out "the S Word" without understanding what it is.
As soon as you hear "Obama is a socialist", I just cringe. And it's not just stupid people who say it. supposedly well-educated and supposed "expert" talking heads do it all the time.
And where were you (and others) with this comment before the election?
What makes me angry is that so many people on your side of the aisle know good and well that people are mistaking that word and others, but instead of correcting them, you see that it is to your political gain to keep them uninformed. You then fan the flames.
Same thing with "debt" and "deficit," and the silly numbers games people play with unemployment.
Quoting Aesma (Reply 11): Things get really muddied in the US with socialism and communism being taboo words impossible to discuss.
That is the reason they do it! Because low-information voters don't necessarily know what socialism is, but know it's bad, calling a liberal a socialist is a good slander.
DocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 16819 posts, RR: 57 Reply 14, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 859 times:
Much like you claim that the Tea Party has nothing to do with Islamophobia and homophobia because they say they don't, Fascism is not what Mussolini wrote it to be any more than Communism is what Marx wrote it to be. In Communism, the state is supposed to atrophy and be replaced by small communes in which there is no need for money. It's similar to anarchism in many ways.
What someone says it is and what it actually is are two very different things.
OK. List one country other than Somalia that isn't fascist, then.
Ken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7453 posts, RR: 5 Reply 15, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 859 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): No, what Obama is producing is still a country where private enterprise and investors still own everything. But, through taxes and regulations, the government is telling private business what it can make, how it can make it, how much it can pay its workers, etc. When the economy is still in private hands but a government dictates to business how they should work and what they should make, that is not socialism. That is Fascism.
I believe Obama would rather be called a Socialist than a Fascist.
Name a GOP Administration that did not have taxes and regulations? Not one in this century or the last.
Companies (and their consumers) decide what is going to be produced. Taxes might impact those decisions, but then Employer Nanny Care costs also impact those decisions. Now there are laws related to production and sales of a lot of items, from pot to prescription drugs. That's the case in many countries. And regulations? Look at commercial airlines - operating them as well as their suppliers.
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): It just makes a joke out the very real complaints that we have about this administration
As opposed to the very real complaints most Americans have about the previous Administration - including the invasion of another country on some drummed up charge designed to scare Americans?
We live in a pretty free country. (Try growing pot in your front yard and discover that it is not totally free). You do hve various government programs and you do have taxes that pay for those programs. If the system is beyond what you can accept then move. Lots of people have, both at the state level and at the national level.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7776 posts, RR: 22 Reply 16, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 859 times:
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15): I believe Obama would rather be called a Socialist than a Fascist.
Have not called him either one, as far as I can tell.
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15): Name a GOP Administration that did not have taxes and regulations? Not one in this century or the last.
Again, nobody is calling for anarchy. But you tell me - do you think that the number and scope of federal regulations in the US is reasonable? about 250 have been published in the past week. Nearly 6,000 have been published in the past 3 months. Just stop it!
Newly Posted Regulations
Today(2)
Last 3 Days(79)
Last 7 Days(249)
Last 15 Days(750)
Last 30 Days(1,837)
Last 90 Days(5,826)
Quoting Ken777 (Reply 15): As opposed to the very real complaints most Americans have about the previous Administration - including the invasion of another country on some drummed up charge designed to scare Americans?
seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 9822 posts, RR: 17 Reply 17, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 858 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7): UNLESS there is a complete societal meltdown (eg a depression) which would make enough of the people willing to toss out the Constitution and go for a French-style socialism of the 60s and 70s
Huh... so Obama is a socialist or facist, whichever term you are going with today. He wants a total melt down of the economy but he delights in the fact that the economy is growing, however slowly.
Just because something is repeated over and over does not mean it is the truth. Another way to put that: tell a lie often enough and people will believe it as true.
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3260 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 858 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7): . I'm not entirely convinced of that - I simply think he is incompetent.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 7): I just would like to point out that most of the posts above are thoughtful and respectful around the subject. I appreciate that we can have civil discussions at times.
Anyone else find this sequence hilarious?
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): But, through taxes and regulations, the government is telling private business what it can make, how it can make it, how much it can pay its workers, etc. When the economy is still in private hands but a government dictates to business how they should work and what they should make, that is not socialism. That is Fascism.
It is in every Government's interest to regulate and curtail certain activities. I know of tons of folks that would love to start brothels, pot plantations, and meth labs. It also is not ideal to have companies producing massive amounts of fertilizer and dispensing it without care for who wants it .
The US Government however is not in the business of telling Boeing that it must make planes and only planes. It is not in the business of telling Ford that it would be ideal if they stopped making cars since GM is now the state maker of cars.
The US Government is a far cry from Fascism.
The very structure of Fascism rises from a nationalistic need. There is Fervent worship of the leadership structure, and the casting aside of left vs right. Your current models of this, minus the military action , are North Korea and China.
You may not like his policies, but Obama is no socialist or Fascist.
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): As soon as you hear “Obama is a socialist”, I just cringe. And it’s not just stupid people who say it – supposedly well-educated and supposed ‘expert’ talking heads do it all the time.
D L X From United States of America, joined May 1999, 10561 posts, RR: 53 Reply 19, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 860 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16): But you tell me - do you think that the number and scope of federal regulations in the US is reasonable?
Yes.
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16): about 250 have been published in the past week. Nearly 6,000 have been published in the past 3 months.
So?
Do you have reason to believe that does not compare with other places? (And more specifically, places that have as high a value on fairness as the United States does?)
Or, compare the number this week to how many were promulgated in the week of November 14, 1984. Or 2004. Considering that most of these "new" regulations are merely updates of existing regulations, I think this is a particularly poor metric to measure fascism.
StarAC17 From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3213 posts, RR: 9 Reply 20, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 860 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): But, through taxes and regulations, the government is telling private business what it can make
In what case is this being done, the government may give incentives to companies as investments in the forms of tax breaks to produce something but they give that to individuals as well.
My parents got a tax credit in 2009 for upgrading their furnace and air conditioning, I also got a tax rebate for buying a Honda Civic because it was below a given mileage standard.
You could argue that this isn't the governments job but they don't force anyone to do anything.
A company does and should not have the right to freely contaminate things like the air or drinking water. They should be regulated on this, just like you have road standards and building codes. I would argue that the coal and oil industry should even pay to clean up the perfectly legal damage they cause to the environment for mining those material, instead of the rest of us bearing the cost.
There is a case to make the regularity process more efficient so it isn't a burden is something that should be done. If a new development is going to be built, the environmental assessment should be done quickly and thoroughly.
Drop the minimum wage and watch the standard of living in the US skyrocket .
Some of these regulations serve a purpose in the present day the US minimum wage will put someone in poverty or give a person an incentive to live off the dole which further puts the burden on government. Pay every working individual a living wage for the basics and its a good investment to make an economy stronger. Also for all educated people they will make more than the minimum wage so its a non-issue and a company can pay whatever they please.
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter): No, what Obama is producing is still a country where private enterprise and investors still own everything. But, through taxes and regulations, the government is telling private business what it can make, how it can make it, how much it can pay its workers, etc. When the economy is still in private hands but a government dictates to business how they should work and what they should make, that is not socialism. That is Fascism.
Isn't Fascism where corporate interests control the government, which through lobbying sounds exactly like the US now.
DeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 5303 posts, RR: 47 Reply 21, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 859 times:
I actually did a quick search of Dreadnought's posts for the word "socialist" in the past... I obviously didn't look at every post but I found 0 instances of him calling the President a socialist. I love ya Dread, and I respect you, but even I thought you called him socialist a few times. I was wrong!
To be honest, I've heard the term "socialist" thrown out a lot less. It's still out there, but I think people are starting to understand the difference between a social democracy and socialism...
casinterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 3260 posts, RR: 1 Reply 22, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 5 hours ago) and read 859 times:
Quoting casinterest (Reply 18): Secret Service Stretched To Limit Protecting Obama (by StasisLAX Aug 4 2009 in Non Aviation)
Post 67
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 21): but even I thought you called him socialist a few times. I was wrong!
this is as close to it as you get in the above post. Pretty much saying Obama is 100% like a socialist is the same thing to me.
Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
SmittyOne From United States of America, joined Feb 2012, 898 posts, RR: 2 Reply 23, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 858 times:
Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 16): Again, nobody is calling for anarchy. But you tell me - do you think that the number and scope of federal regulations in the US is reasonable? about 250 have been published in the past week. Nearly 6,000 have been published in the past 3 months. Just stop it!
Newly Posted Regulations
Today(2)
Last 3 Days(79)
Last 7 Days(249)
Last 15 Days(750)
Last 30 Days(1,837)
Last 90 Days(5,826)
These regulations are generally developed by the same civil servants that are on the job year after year regardless of who the President is.
Dreadnought From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7776 posts, RR: 22 Reply 24, posted (6 months 1 week 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 858 times:
Quoting SmittyOne (Reply 23): These regulations are generally developed by the same civil servants that are on the job year after year regardless of who the President is.
And they are out of control. They report to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, headed until recently by Cass Sunstein, who in his 2008 book 'Nudge', spoke about how people are generally stupid and must be 'nudged' ti do the right thing by a benevolent government. All new regulations go through his office.
Veni Vidi Castratavi Illegitimos
25 pu: Sure, Obama is not a pure socialist, technically speaking, but...the world has yet to see pure communism in any country, and I think its equally as l
26 Quokkas: Not all of those posts are actually new regulations. Some merely advise of an upcoming meeting of some board or the other while others are invitation
27 something: I was thinking the same thing, actually, reading through this thread. Does it really matter if the right refers to Obama as a fascist, socialist, com
28 Dreadnought: As a member of the TP, I can safely say that you know nothing of what you are talking about. The TP wants to reign in government spending. That's it.
29 pu: Fear of losing what they treasure - money, prominence, advantage, property, lifestyle, image, respect - is a basic identity of the Right versus the L
30 Quokkas: From the Tea Party About Us page: I am not sure if they are ranking these with 1 being the highest and 15 the lowest or the other way around. Either
31 Newark727: They're also leading the social conservative charge. The first or second thing the GOP House did in 2010 was pass another anti-abortion measure. It's
32 StarAC17: I know your opinions about letting the tax cuts expire and actually agree that doing nothing on the fiscal cliff is the best course of action. I say
33 jpetekyxmd80: I can't really find any reason to agree with this supposed correlation between Barack Obama and foundational fascism or whatever you want to call it.
34 Dreadnought: That's Teaparty.org. I consider them an outlyer, and smaller than others, who are, as I said, focused on spending rather than social issues. Like I s
35 Newark727: Some of the smaller ones, such as the United States House of Representatives? I it's time to admit that the fiscal conservative ideas you champion ha
36 jpetekyxmd80: Who are the big ones? I thought the movement was 'decentralized'. Are we talking astroturf like Tea Party express now?
37 tugger: I disagree. I support Tea Party ideals for fiscal responsibility but I am not seeing candidates that leave the social agenda stuff out of it. As a go
38 Newark727: It would be nice. But I'm not so sure that it can. So the GOP and its vassals break off the Christian wing- what are they left with? I'm skeptical th
39 seb146: The far right-wing (read: Tea party, FOX, AM talk radio) are trying to find anything at all to hate Obama. Any reason to hate Obama and anyone even r
40 SmittyOne: OK, great...but you were offering that as evidence the President was a fascist. My point is that these regs would be spewing forth if McCain had been
41 Pyrex: If you hear Marine Le Pen speak you realize her knowledge about basic economics is as limited as that of your average left-wing extremist. Heck, many
42 Dreadnought: No, I never said he was fascist - but I do contend that he is pulling us in that direction. Perhaps, but not if I were President. I would issue a man
43 D L X: How does what you have said before about the Tea Party being a diffuse, non-monolithic group of entities square with these two quotes? I mean, don't y
45 Dreadnought: Teaparty.org simply seems to be a branch of the GOP - a simple exercise of the GOP trying to ride the coattails of the TP movement. The TP, as it was
46 DocLightning: Yes. The Tea Party is what you claim it is and nothing else. We know. Except it ain't necessarily so. See, the problem with being "decentralized" and
47 Dreadnought: Absolute horsecookies. The problem with being decentralized and grassroots is that part of the movement will go one way, and part go another.
48 seb146: Because the evil "democrats" (nice way of disrespecting the party, BTW) actually did research and saw who was funding the tea movement.
49 Dreadnought: How was I disrespecting anyone? You seem to have issues, buddy.
50 casinterest: The problem with the tea party is that it is a one trick pony if all it is concerned about is the economy. it therefore is a vacuum for other issues
51 Dreadnought: That is true enough, which is why it was never considered, even by its own members, as an alternative party. It was a movement created very simply to
52 DeltaMD90: Just like the crazies in the "occupy" movements. Everyone said they were going to change the world, I really didn't buy it. Are they still protesting
53 pu: Whether you call it "hijacked" or pandering or clever coalition-building, really this has been a lurking issue for the Republicans for 30 years or so
54 seb146: I am asking this to anyone, not just Delta: Why is it when any group on the right starts a movement against the government or any federal movement, t
55 casinterest: No they are not, but like I said, the tea party itself wound up getting populated by some very far right "Government is all bad" folks . Look at Cong
56 DeltaMD90: Because that's not true at all. The Occupy movement wasn't seen unanimously as good or bad, and the TP was not seen unanimously good or bad. If you g
57 DocLightning: I dunno, but anyone asking to secede from the US is not a "patriot" in my mind. I do not consider myself a patriot, BTW. I do not blindly love my cou
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 7776 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Jan 2007, 1823 posts, 
From France, joined Nov 2009, 4787 posts, 
From Canada, joined Aug 2003, 3213 posts, 
.
Printer friendly format 
