|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
The Northern Iowa Tea Party has put up a billboard in Mason City comparing President Obama to Hitler and Lenin (see the AP story, which includes a photo, here). "RADICAL LEADERS PREY ON THE FEARFUL & NAIVE," the billboard reads, below photos of the three alleged radicals. Without getting into the merits of such comparisons (the group's co-founder to the AP that the billboard supports an argument for Obama's socialism), here's a knee-jerk reaction: the meme of Obama/Hitler comparison is more fully embraced by Tea Party activists than some in the movement would like to believe, or would like everyone else to believe, or would like to be the honest truth. Tea Party organizers will tell you that the most offensive and/or aggressive signs seen at their rallies were, to their own suspicions, planted by liberals. The Obama-as-Nazi signs don't express the true sentiments of the (albeit totally disparate) movement, they say, and not only should they be ferreted out by self-policing Tea Partiers and fail to survive the movement's vicious Darwinism, but some of them are probably held up by liberal posers seeking to discredit the movement. Multiple leaders at high levels of Tea Party organizing groups have said this. But in Northern Iowa, evidently, there is institutional support for comparing Obama to Hitler, whether or not other leaders agree with it. LINK
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
The question is, HOW is Obama being compared to Hitler? I certainly see that Obama wants complete power at almost any cost to the American people...he's proven it. but, I doubt he wants to gas all of us.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 8,015 |
Classic! 
Somewhere, the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are racking their brains trying to figure out how to turn the racism card here............
***Gordon, I really didn't think you could be this stOOpid, but you exceeded my expectations. Wussy.
Manziel, see Josh Gordon. Dumbass.***
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
The question is, HOW is Obama being compared to Hitler? I certainly see that Obama wants complete power at almost any cost to the American people...he's proven it. but, I doubt he wants to gas all of us.
So you seriously consider Obama to be a far right, far left dictator?
Or, a fascist, communist dictator? (like a theocratic atheist - or better yet by the phrasing "Up is Down and Down Is Up Yet Both Are Sideways?")
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Doesn't matter what I consider him to be.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
I honestly feel these Tea Party folks could've been onto something ... but they mucked it up with stupidity.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,855
Legend
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 42,855 |
Quote:
I honestly feel these Tea Party folks could've been onto something ... but they mucked it up with stupidity.
I don't care how you slice it... american poliitical Extremists are no better than Muslem Extremists..
Extreme Left and Extreme Right included.
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
If I click to see the link (the pic is too big to post here but to participate in the debate you really should see it).. but this is the article inside from the Associated Press and not from the blogger... Quote:
(AP) —A billboard created by an Iowa tea party group comparing President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin is being condemned by other tea party activists.
The North Iowa Tea Party began displaying the sign in Mason City last week.
The sign includes photos of Obama, Nazi leader Hitler and communist leader Lenin with the statement: “Radical leaders prey on the fearful & naive.”
North Iowa Tea Party co-founder Bob Johnson says the sign highlights what the group argues is Obama’s support for socialism. He says the pictures might be overwhelming the intended message.
Shelby Blakely, a spokeswoman for the national Tea Party Patriots, says the sign isn’t appropriate. She says her group opposes any comparisons of Obama to Hitler or Lenin.
The White House declined to comment.
This is what I see from that article.. not all tea party folks think or act alike as some tea party folks are condeming the use of the images... so contrary to what mac and Charlie say.. we do think, we do have different opinions... Even the guy that put it up now thinks that the harshness of the symbolism might be overwhelming the message, which is totally valid.. again, thinking, reasoning, using logic.
Now, if we could just get ONE democrat to vote against the administration on something.. ANYTHING... or if mac or Charlie could just admit that Obama has been less than perfect.. I might be able to come to the conlusion that democrats are capable of the same kind of dissenting opinions, the same kind of logic, the same kind of reasoning... but so far I haven't seen it.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Now, if Charlie could just admit that Obama has been less than perfect.. I might be able to come to the conlusion that democrats are capable of the same kind of dissenting opinions, the same kind of logic, the same kind of reasoning... but so far I haven't seen it.
I'm not a Democrat. Nor a Libertarian. Nor a Right-Winger.
So, yea, Obama is not perfect. He isn't far enough left for my tastes.
What I am angry about is the fact that these right wingers (I use Right-Winger to classify everyone further right on the political spectrum, Libertarians, Republicans, and even further to the right, the TEA Partiers). These right wingers are angry because nothing is getting done, yet they are happy that their fellow right wingers in Congress are voting "No" on everything, thus creating a standstill.
There is one word to describe the right-wingers in Congress: Nihilist.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767 |
So basically you're exactly what you hate just coming from the opposite direction...Because if him and his cronies are'nt far enough left that'd make you an extremist!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
What I am angry about is the fact that these right wingers (I use Right-Winger to classify everyone further right on the political spectrum, Libertarians, Republicans, and even further to the right, the TEA Partiers). These right wingers are angry because nothing is getting done, yet they are happy that their fellow right wingers in Congress are voting "No" on everything, thus creating a standstill.
[sarcasm]Right........because it is better to do something STUPID than to do nothing. It is better to jump over the cliff than to apply the brakes when they won't let you turn the wheel...[/sarcasm] 
If you truly want a socialist country...there are several out there to choose from. I suggest you choose one and join them. Because the United States of America was built upon principles of Individual Freedoms and the concept that an individual can succeed OR FAIL on his or her own merits. That does not jive with what you have been talking about nor with socialist ideals.
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,809
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 13,809 |
NAACP Condemns Tea Party Racism In Resolution
07/13/10
KANSAS CITY, Mo. — Leaders of the country's largest civil rights organization accused tea party activists on Tuesday of tolerating bigotry and approved a resolution condemning racism within the political movement.
The resolution was adopted during the annual convention in Kansas City of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, spokesman Chris Fleming said. Tea party organizers disputed claims of racism and called on the NAACP to withdraw the resolution.
Debate was mostly closed to the public, but the final version "calls on the tea party and all people of good will to repudiate the racist element and activities within the tea party," said Hilary Shelton, director of the NAACP's Washington bureau.
"I hope it will empower the tea party to actually look at itself and see that there are those who are noticing things that I think most tea partiers don't want," he said.
Sarah Palin, a vocal tea party supporter, said in a statement late Tuesday that she was "saddened by the NAACP's claim that patriotic Americans ... are somehow 'racists.'" The former Alaska governor said claims that tea party activists "judge people by the color of their skin" were false and appalling.
The final wording won't be released until the NAACP's national board of directors approves the resolution during its meeting in October. But the original called for the NAACP to "educate its membership and the community that this movement is not just about higher taxes and limited government." It said something could evolve "and become more dangerous for that small percentage of people that really think our country has been taken away from them."
"We felt the time had come to stand up and say, 'It's time for the tea party to be responsible members of this democracy and make sure they don't tolerate bigots or bigotry among their members,'" NAACP President Ben Jealous said ahead of the debate.
"We don't have a problem with the tea party's existence. We have an issue with their acceptance and welcoming of white supremacists into their organizations," he said.
Tea party activist Alex Poulter, who co-founded a Kansas City-area group called Political Chips, also disputed the allegations. He said the movement is made up of a "diverse group of folks who are upset with what is going on with this country."
Poulter said he has seen no evidence of racism within the movement.
"It's unfounded, but people are running with these accusations like they are true," he said.
A group called the St. Louis Tea Party issued its own resolution Tuesday calling on the NAACP to withdraw the proposal.
Though not affiliated with either major political party, tea party activists espouse a political philosophy of less government, a free market, lower taxes, individual rights and political activism.
The group has faced occasional claims of racism, most notably in March near the end of the bitter health care debate. U.S. Reps. John Lewis, Andre Carson and Emanuel Cleaver said some demonstrators, many of them tea party activists, yelled a racial epithet as the black congressmen walked from House office buildings to the Capitol. Cleaver, D-Mo., also said he was spit on.
A white lawmaker said he also heard the epithets, but conservative activists said the lawmakers were lying.
"They are pulling people together and focusing on the negative, and then it's hard to make anything positive out of that," said Anita L. Russell, president of the Kansas City, Mo., branch of the NAACP, which introduced the resolution. "And then these groups, these extremist groups, are looking for something, and they are latching on to this."
web page
FOOTBALL IS NOT BASEBALL
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,086
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,086 |
 That's the best I could do w/ the board limitations on size of pics. SnagIt is the best program ever!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Now, if we could just get ONE democrat to vote against the administration on something.. ANYTHING... or if mac or Charlie could just admit that Obama has been less than perfect.. I might be able to come to the conlusion that democrats are capable of the same kind of dissenting opinions, the same kind of logic, the same kind of reasoning... but so far I haven't seen it.
First and foremost ... I agree with you entirely. It baffles me how folks who had such venom for Bush are advocating and excusing the exact same actions now. For the folks on this board, my guess is that it's just an extreme dislike of anything associated with the term 'right-winger', and thus Obama becomes the default good guy.
But, of course, there's the flip side ... and I already know the answer to the charge -- 'Hey, when Bush did things we didn't like we said so!'. Now, you're one of the more rational heads around here, so I'm not going to lump you in any one group ... however, nearly all Bush complaints in that vein were 'I don't like some things he does, but [my defense of him].
In all honesty, at this juncture of Obama's term, for his supporters to reach the level of Bush supporters in terms of rhetoric on this board, all they would have to say is 'I don't like some of the things he does, but [illogical defense of him].'
I don't believe that either side is any less blind than the other.
Bush spent us into oblivion, enacted all kinds of social spending we can't afford, gave away massive subsidies to corporate interests, and didn't hold the slightest regard for trampling the Constitution ... I remember a lot of folks being angry about that, and a lot of folks defending it.
Thus far, Obama is spending us into oblivion, enacting all kinds of social spending we can't afford, giving away massive subsidies to corporate interests, and doesn't hold the slightest regard for trampling the Constitution ... now the angry folks are the defense and the defense is angry.
And the funniest/saddest part is ... that statement will probably be disputed on here. By both sides. They will feel the need to elevate Bush or Obama above or below the other. Two bumbling crooks, and they feel some innate need to choose/bash one over the other.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
These right wingers are angry because nothing is getting done, yet they are happy that their fellow right wingers in Congress are voting "No" on everything, thus creating a standstill.
Pretty much. I would rather nothing get done than have Obama's big government, anti-citizen agenda get pushed forward.
I honestly don't see where us RWers are mad that nothing is getting done.. I'm a little ticked that nothing is getting done regarding the oil spill since Obama claimed that his administration was in charge of the response.. and the response has been pathetic and the stories out there talking about his lying and deceit and falsification of the effort are scary at best.
As far as not destroying our healthcare system, not allowing substantial tax increases to hit everybody, etc.. heck I'm GLAD nothing is happening because the stuff that would be happening is all bad.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
So basically you're exactly what you hate just coming from the opposite direction...Because if him and his cronies are'nt far enough left that'd make you an extremist!
No, that would make me a radical.
But, in America third parties never win. So, I am stuck between a rock and a hard place. I could never/would never vote for a right-winger. So, I have to do something all people must do (except for the right-wingers in Congress obviously) and that is compromise.
The only group I could possibly make an argument for (as in vote for) is the Democratic party (not the Democratic party in the 19th century). So, I am willing to let things slide that I normally wouldn't. I'm for universal healthcare, I'm against private property, I am for the elimination of corporations (as in eliminating the role of the CEO's - putting the workers themselves in charge in the form of a union), for a progressive income tax.
So, yea, I am a Socialist. I am an educated Socialist. I know how to recognize people that are like me. So, one can believe me when I say in no way, shape, or form are Obama nor Hitler even the slightest bit Socialists.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,667 |
Quote:
Bush spent us into oblivion, enacted all kinds of social spending we can't afford, gave away massive subsidies to corporate interests, and didn't hold the slightest regard for trampling the Constitution ... I remember a lot of folks being angry about that, and a lot of folks defending it.
Thus far, Obama is spending us into oblivion, enacting all kinds of social spending we can't afford, giving away massive subsidies to corporate interests, and doesn't hold the slightest regard for trampling the Constitution
I agree....obviously the differences are -which corporate interests - what social spending and and - what Constitutional sections are being trampled...LOL
I thought I was wrong once....but I was mistaken...
What's the use of wearing your lucky rocketship underpants if nobody wants to see them????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 8,767 |
Quote:
Quote:
So basically you're exactly what you hate just coming from the opposite direction...Because if him and his cronies are'nt far enough left that'd make you an extremist!
No, that would make me a radical.
But, in America third parties never win. So, I am stuck between a rock and a hard place. I could never/would never vote for a right-winger. So, I have to do something all people must do (except for the right-wingers in Congress obviously) and that is compromise.
The only group I could possibly make an argument for (as in vote for) is the Democratic party (not the Democratic party in the 19th century). So, I am willing to let things slide that I normally wouldn't. I'm for universal healthcare, I'm against private property, I am for the elimination of corporations (as in eliminating the role of the CEO's - putting the workers themselves in charge in the form of a union), for a progressive income tax.
So, yea, I am a Socialist. I am an educated Socialist. I know how to recognize people that are like me. So, one can believe me when I say in no way, shape, or form are Obama nor Hitler even the slightest bit Socialists.
Ok. Hey, I don't hate you or think you're some insidious guy taking over the country, we just think different! A Browns game, a snack,a few pops and we'd be fine! We're light years away in beliefs but that's ok!
Actually, I admire your honesty!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
Quote:
I'm against private property
Let me ask this....in your ideal world, where would we all live?
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Charlie it sounds like you know what you believe in, which puts you head and shoulders above many who don't really know what they believe it... But I will say that if you view people on the right as radicals and you are not, then we just have a different definition of radicals.. I am curious about one thing though... Quote:
So, I have to do something all people must do (except for the right-wingers in Congress obviously) and that is compromise.
Can you point out the big compromises the democrats have made? Can you show me the consideration they have give the republican proposals? Can you show me the number of dissenting votes in congress on democrat proposed initiatives that shows me they are actually capable of thinking for themselves? Thanks in advance. 
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
The only group I could possibly make an argument for (as in vote for) is the Democratic party (not the Democratic party in the 19th century).
I don't understand the Dem party of the 19th century comment? Can you elaborate on that one?
Quote:
I'm for universal healthcare,
I have no problem with the idea of Universal Health care, I have a problem with the realistic implementation of it, especially the Obama plan, which does nothing to control costs, just forces everyone to have healthcare. Which means YOU are now forced to buy it yourself if your employer doesn't provide it. How is that a good thing?
And forcing everyone to have it makes it a mandate, not a "right" as you claimed health care is in another post.
Quote:
I'm against private property,
So who owns it, the government, who then can tell you when and where to live? Who will maintain it then, if the roof needs fixing or the A/C goes out, oh hold on, if the government owns it we probably won't be allowed to have AC or heat because it costs to much to run.
quote]I am for the elimination of corporations (as in eliminating the role of the CEO's - putting the workers themselves in charge in the form of a union)
I don't want many of my co-workers having a say in how the company is run, I've heard many of their ideas and like most, they only see the incoming dollars, and have no idea what it costs to maintain and grow company.
Quote:
for a progressive income tax.
Why? 20% of 100k is still more $ than 20% of 10k
I'd rather have a fixed system, with exemptions and deductions for those under a certain income, and by under a certain income I mean the poorest like under 25k.
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 11,465 |
Quote:
Quote:
Bush spent us into oblivion, enacted all kinds of social spending we can't afford, gave away massive subsidies to corporate interests, and didn't hold the slightest regard for trampling the Constitution ... I remember a lot of folks being angry about that, and a lot of folks defending it.
Thus far, Obama is spending us into oblivion, enacting all kinds of social spending we can't afford, giving away massive subsidies to corporate interests, and doesn't hold the slightest regard for trampling the Constitution
I agree....obviously the differences are -which corporate interests - what social spending and and - what Constitutional sections are being trampled...LOL
General Electric seems to make out no matter who the president is. The bigger weapons manufacturers generally benefit under any president. Any bigger entity in the area of a crafty swing representative can count on a lot regardless of the commander-in-chief (see Robert Byrd). The health insurance and pharm industries have done well the last few administrations ... Airline industries, to an extent. Don't get me started on banks ... The military industrial complex thrives no matter who's in the chair ...
The major players may shift and squirm in the money grab, but the game stays the same.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
I don't understand the Dem party of the 19th century comment? Can you elaborate on that one?
Sure thing. In the 19th century the Democratic party was primarily in the American South. They supported the Plantation Owners and thus encouraged Slavery. The new Republican Party at the time was against slavery and sided with the common man over the wealthy landowners. In the 20th century, the Republican party of the 18th century failed to exist. It disbanded and a new Republican Party came to prominence in the 1930s. This party was made up of Strom Thurmond and individuals like him. Basically what happened is the parties switched (Even though the modern Republican party is the GOP in name only).
Quote:
I have no problem with the idea of Universal Health care, I have a problem with the realistic implementation of it, especially the Obama plan, which does nothing to control costs, just forces everyone to have healthcare. Which means YOU are now forced to buy it yourself if your employer doesn't provide it. How is that a good thing? And forcing everyone to have it makes it a mandate, not a "right" as you claimed health care is in another post.
It is a step in the right direction. It is not perfect. But it is an improvement on what their is. I am more in favor of universal healthcare provided by the US government in which the US government controls the costs and to encourage doctors the government pays them themselves. Healthcare is a right because everyone gets sick. Everyone gets hurt. The correct action is to actually take action. If you see someone sick, the humane thing is not to ignore tham and keep walking by. The humane thing is to help the person.
Quote:
So who owns it, the government, who then can tell you when and where to live? Who will maintain it then, if the roof needs fixing or the A/C goes out, oh hold on, if the government owns it we probably won't be allowed to have AC or heat because it costs to much to run.
Yes, the government owns it and distributes it to the people. Everyone should ahve a place to live. Private property is another form in which the wealthy impose their rule over the common man. The common man is content to live in a home of a few rooms whereas the wealthy are not content unless they live in a home with a few hundred rooms. Why must the wealthy live in palaces? If a common man is content to live in a home with a few rooms the wealthy should as well.
Quote:
I don't want many of my co-workers having a say in how the company is run, I've heard many of their ideas and like most, they only see the incoming dollars, and have no idea what it costs to maintain and grow company.
Workers in an industry generally have the same grievances. Steel workers all look for better working conditions. To say that Steel Workers do not know how to work Steel is quite incorrect. The problem is where the incoming dollars go. The dollars go to the CEO or his board of directors and then (to borrow Reagan's term) trickle down. With each socio-economic class that it goes through less and less money go to the bottom. Those at the top, get the most money. Then their sycophants get money. So on and so forth. The actually money that gets down to the level of the average worker is very little. So, by eliminating the upper layers of that pyramid that leaves more money to be distributed among the workers.
Quote:
Why? 20% of 100k is still more $ than 20% of 10k
I'd rather have a fixed system, with exemptions and deductions for those under a certain income, and by under a certain income I mean the poorest like under 25k.
The problem is that even if you use percentages there is a point where the percent is too much for a person or a family. Yes, exemptions try to be merciful to the poorest of the poor. But, the common man themselves are still required to pay a large ammount of taxes. Progressive income taxes allow those that actually have money to pay the taxes. The poor make their fair (in the sense of their socio-economic status) payment and the wealthiest (those who do not need to hoard their money) pay their fair ammount.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Charlie it sounds like you know what you believe in, which puts you head and shoulders above many who don't really know what they believe it...
But I will say that if you view people on the right as radicals and you are not, then we just have a different definition of radicals..
Radicals are individuals who agree to more anarchistic views about government and are the ultra-left wing on the political spectrum. Supremacists are the utltra-right wing.
Quote:
Can you point out the big compromises the democrats have made? Can you show me the consideration they have give the republican proposals? Can you show me the number of dissenting votes in congress on democrat proposed initiatives that shows me they are actually capable of thinking for themselves? Thanks in advance.
There are several instances. For instance, the public option (or the universal healthcare) promised by Obama. Because of right-wingers dislike of that particular idea, it was dropped from the healthcare bill. That is a concession to the right-wing to try and get them to vote. Of course, though, even though that concession was made, right-wingers continued to vote against it.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 72
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 72 |
Charlie,
Do you live the way you believe? Do you own property, a house, land? If so, why don't you get rid of it and go rent instead? You want the wealthy to pay the majority of the taxes simply because they have more money correct? Well when you come across a person on the streets with less than you, do you give them at least 20% of your earnings? It would only make sense in your world since you are wealthy compared to the person who has less than you.
Sorry Charlie but the USA was built as a capitalist society and with capitalism comes different classes of income, but you also have the opportunity to go as high as you want if your willing to put the work in. The beauty of it is that America isn't like Cuba where you are trapped. Those that want the socialist life have the opportunity to go to Canada, France, or where ever your dreams may come true.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Ok. Hey, I don't hate you or think you're some insidious guy taking over the country, we just think different! A Browns game, a snack,a few pops and we'd be fine! We're light years away in beliefs but that's ok!
Actually, I admire your honesty!
I feel the same. I dislike talking politics in general because that is one way to start a fight. I have strong feelings one way and other have strong feelings another. I am generally quite fine with politics up untill the mudslinging starts. The labeling of people as Socialist (as though that is a bad thing) when they are not. That is when I draw the line.
That is one major misconceptions with right-wing politics though. As you yourself stated:
"I don't hate you or think you're some insidious guy taking over the country"
That is the misconception. That Communists or Socialists are insidious. They are not. To quote Karl Marx himself in the final lines of the Communist Manifesto:
"The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win."
That is not insidious. Those that are Marxist, Communist, or Socialist openly state what they are. They have nothing to hide. So, to be insidious is against Marx's teaching. So, hypothetically, if Obama was a Marxist/Communist/Socialist he would openly state that he was. Glenn Beck and the other talking heads at FOX try to make everything into a conspiracy theory in which Communists/Socialists/Marxists are insidious. Van Jones did not hide that he was a Marxist. He openly stated as such, so no conspiracy there.
That is how Communists/Socialists/Marxists are. They openly state their beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
AWESOME.... a hard core socialist on DawgTalkers.... This will get interesting!!!!
I'll look forward to reading your contributions Charlie!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418 |
Charlie ...... I have a question ......
Is food a right?
Is transportation a right?
Is a job a right?
Is having spending money a right?
Is having a house a right?
Is it a right to have electricity and gas?
Is it a right to have gas in your car?
Is it a right to have an air conditioner if it's hot?
Is it a right to get to go on vacation?
Are any of these things rights?
No, they aren't. Neither is health insurance.
People have rights. These rights are inalienable. They cannot be taken away. People have a right to life. They have a right to liberty. They have a right to freedom. They have a right to assemble. They have a right to speak their mind.
These are rights. They are rights to be able to do things ..... not tangible things that you can hold in your hands. They are not given one at the expense of another.
Life.
Liberty.
The Pursuit of Happiness.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights ...... "
This is not a guarantee of equal results. It is the promise of an equal playing field with regards to basic human rights. It is the promise that each man be treated fairly before the law.
These are rights. They are ideals. They transcend physical things.
If the founders felt that "things" were rights, then we would have had clauses like:
"All men have the right to have 2 cows".
There is no such right .... and there can be no such right. What happens if 1 cow dies? If each man has 2 cows, then where do we get the replacement cow from?
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Ideals, that no one can take away under the Constitution. The right to assemble. The right to speak your mind. The right to vote. The right to hold office. The right to bear and keep arms. The right to practice the religion of your choosing, or none at all. The right to be secure in your own home. The right to a speedy trial. The right to hold and keep personal property.
Rights do not, and cannot negatively impact any other person. Rights are not given to one at the expense of another. Rights cost nothing, yet are more valuable than any material or financial holding.
How does health care fit into this broad scope of rights?
It doesn't. It is not a right. It cannot be given to one without taking something from another. It must be paid for. Rights are not paid for with dollars.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
Charlie,
Do you live the way you believe? Do you own property, a house, land? If so, why don't you get rid of it and go rent instead? You want the wealthy to pay the majority of the taxes simply because they have more money correct? Well when you come across a person on the streets with less than you, do you give them at least 20% of your earnings? It would only make sense in your world since you are wealthy compared to the person who has less than you.
Sorry Charlie but the USA was built as a capitalist society and with capitalism comes different classes of income, but you also have the opportunity to go as high as you want if your willing to put the work in. The beauty of it is that America isn't like Cuba where you are trapped. Those that want the socialist life have the opportunity to go to Canada, France, or where ever your dreams may come true.
A) Canada is not socialist. We are more socialist than the States but many countries are.
B) It would be damn near impossible to live strictly in a communist or socialist lifestyle in a system that doesn't accommodate it. It doesn't make him a hypocrite...it makes him realistic. He can still push for change he feels is right for his country. As an American citizen, he has every right to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
How does health care fit into this broad scope of rights?
Just as a point of conversation, couldn;t one say that health care is the act of protecting a person's right to life?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 50,418 |
Canada has also benefitted greatly from having an absolutely secure southern border, and little need for heavy military investment.
Micah 6:8; He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the Lord require of you? To act justly and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.
John 14:19 Jesus said: Because I live, you also will live.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Errrr...how does that answer the question?
The US has benefitted greatly at having a secure northern border and a lifeline of natural resources.... but that's not what we were talking about is it?
And actually, just as a point of interest, Canada is actually in the process of a dramatic investment into our navy to protect the country's arctic interests. Not pertinent to the conversation but just an FYI for interests sake.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Charlie,
Do you live the way you believe? Do you own property, a house, land?
No, I am a dependent at the moment as I complete my college education. But once I do get a home of my own I am intent on renting an apartment or a simple home (just the minimum I need - bedroom, bathroom, kitchen, entertainment room). So, a 3-4 room home.
Quote:
If so, why don't you get rid of it and go rent instead?
I thought I was pretty clear the first time in regards to homes. Simple homes I have no problem with. Even homes with a dozen rooms (especially if a nuclear family lives there - father, mother, children or an extended family father, mother, children, grandparents, etc...) Form is determined by Purpose. If there are numerous individuals living in a home it needs multiple rooms. However, if 2-3 people live in a home they do not need 20+ rooms. Now, if 12 people lived in a home, 20+ rooms are necessary.
Quote:
You want the wealthy to pay the majority of the taxes simply because they have more money correct? Well when you come across a person on the streets with less than you, do you give them at least 20% of your earnings?
No, because I do not have much money. I personally live below what is considered the poverty line in America. My family is middle class and extended family lives with us. We live in a home with a dozen rooms. My family consists of myself, my parents, our animals (3 dogs, 1 cat) and my nephews (2). So, again, purpose determines form. If it was just me, this house is too large. I would either invite others in to rent (roomates, start a family, etc...) or move out.
Quote:
Sorry Charlie but the USA was built as a capitalist society and with capitalism comes different classes of income, but you also have the opportunity to go as high as you want if your willing to put the work in.
Capitalism and Socialism are ideals as old as time. Simple societies (tribalism) is closer in form to Socialism. Marx, himself, tracked Capitalism to its roots. Pleb vs Patrician, Lord vs Subject, etc... Capitalism is a continuation of Feudalism. Instead of goods being given to the Lords, the exchange is completed with money. The Capitalists (businessmen) have control of capital (money) and they determine how much favor you get (determined by role in workforce). With Feudalism the reason it continued was because the masses were held in place by the church, which encouraged the status quo by proclaiming the lords to be "god-annointed".
The same allies are in play today. The church, along with business, thrives in the capitalist system. Church encourages the citizenry (replaces "subject") by claiming that the good person will be rewarded by their hard work. Just as the peasants were promised that their hard work for their lords would be awarded in the afterlife.
The modern person continues to work with the "idea" that they have upward mobility. That is, that the worker (peasant), if they work hard enough, will eventually become the boss (lord). So in effect, it is a perpetual system. The system, in Marx's theory, will continue in motion untill the worker realizes this and essentually throws a cog in the machine. Stands up against the perpetual machine.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 72
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 72 |
Quote:
Capitalism and Socialism are ideals as old as time. Simple societies (tribalism) is closer in form to Socialism. Marx, himself, tracked Capitalism to its roots. Pleb vs Patrician, Lord vs Subject, etc... Capitalism is a continuation of Feudalism. Instead of goods being given to the Lords, the exchange is completed with money. The Capitalists (businessmen) have control of capital (money) and they determine how much favor you get (determined by role in workforce). With Feudalism the reason it continued was because the masses were held in place by the church, which encouraged the status quo by proclaiming the lords to be "god-annointed".
The same allies are in play today. The church, along with business, thrives in the capitalist system. Church encourages the citizenry (replaces "subject") by claiming that the good person will be rewarded by their hard work. Just as the peasants were promised that their hard work for their lords would be awarded in the afterlife.
The modern person continues to work with the "idea" that they have upward mobility. That is, that the worker (peasant), if they work hard enough, will eventually become the boss (lord). So in effect, it is a perpetual system. The system, in Marx's theory, will continue in motion untill the worker realizes this and essentually throws a cog in the machine. Stands up against the perpetual machine.
Most definately a college student. I remember being in college too and my Sociology professor attempting to fill my head with that garbage. We vehemetly disagreed and I would argue with him for a lot of the class. At the end of the day we did have a mutual respect for each other and he gave me a very high grade. My point being is that most/not all colleges teach the line of thinking that you are putting out here, especially regarding the lack of upward mobility. I have to say that it is not true. If it was true then there would be no wealthy people. In my own little world, I could have excepted that I could never succeed and start believing all those theories they teach. I chose to believe my own ideas that I can do well with hard work and creating my own avenues of income. No I am not rich but I do just fine and am continuing to find ways to make my financial life improve.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,089 |
Quote:
Most definately a college student. I remember being in college too and my Sociology professor attempting to fill my head with that garbage.
So counter his points with legitimate arguments rather than just write him off because he's a college student.
Last edited by CanadaDawg; 07/14/10 12:55 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Charlie ...... I have a question ......
Is food a right?
Yes, I would say it is. Everyone is entitled to eat, drink untill they are content. Too many people go hungry and it is a humanist right that the hungry should not go hungry while so many gorge themselves.
Quote:
Is transportation a right?
No, it is a privelege. The Medieval individual did not venture more than a few miles from their home. In time, people traveled further from their homes. Everyone can travel as they please.
Quote:
Is a job a right?
No, but it provides a service to society. If nobody worked, society would collapse.
Quote:
Is having spending money a right?
Money is a tool as long as it has worth (promised worth as it is a form of fiat money). The dollar itself is worthless, but we are promised that it is a dollar. If we did not have money, we would have a barter system.
Quote:
Is having a house a right?
No.
Quote:
Is it a right to have electricity and gas?
No, people can survive without electricity and natural gas. But having electricity and gas is convenient.
Quote:
Is it a right to have gas in your car?
No, but if one lives in a large city it is a necessity (if there is no public transportation system).
Quote:
Is it a right to have an air conditioner if it's hot?
No, but a family will not live long if they cannot cool off.
Quote:
Is it a right to get to go on vacation?
Is it a right for you to breath air? No, but it is necessary. Is it a right for you to sleep? No, but if you are to survive you must.
Quote:
Neither is health insurance.
If you are sick. What do you do? You should go to somebody who practices medicine. If you choose not to, it is your funeral. Yes, it is a choice whether you want to live or not. But, living is a right. You have a right to live. Ergo, continuing to live is a right. You do not get the choice of "ending it all" aside from suicide. So, there is no real "choice" in the matter. You HAVE to see a doctor. Just as you HAVE to breath air. So, yes, healthcare is a right as life is a right as it states in the Constitution:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
Quote:
People have rights. These rights are inalienable. They cannot be taken away. People have a right to life.
You say it, yet it seems you do not believe it. People have a right to life.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 40,399 |
Quote:
Those that are Marxist, Communist, or Socialist openly state what they are.
You act as if there is a dividing line with black on one side and white on the other.. it's not like that. The vast majority of people believe that some limitations on government and some free enterprise is necessary.. how much of each is where the debate begins. Very few people believe that an unencumbered capitalist system is the best thing and very few people believe that an omni-powerful government is the best thing... so while some people may admit to being socialist, I don't doubt for a second that there are people way closer to being socialist who will not admit it that they are close to being full blown socialists, in fact I bet that many of them don't even realize it.
So I'm curious. In your government managed utopia.. do the president and the political leaders also have to live in 6 room houses, use the public medical system, eat food only when it is available, etc? Or do they get to continue to live high on the hog?
My second question is, what is your success model to prove that your system will work? Has it worked before? Does it continue to work? If not, what do we need to change in the times that it has been tried and failed? I believe it was known socialist actor Ed Asner who said, when asked why socialist experiments in the past had always ended badly, "It just hasn't been tried by the right people yet." So I'm curious how you feel about that.
yebat' Putin
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230
Dawg Talker
|
|
OP
Dawg Talker
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,230 |
Quote:
Most definately a college student. I remember being in college too and my Sociology professor attempting to fill my head with that garbage.
No, incorrect.
I am a Socialist because those are what I believe. I became a Socialist when I first became political as a teenager. My family is made up of radicals as far back as can be remembered.
My father is a radical, my grandfather was a radical, his father was a radical. My ancestors left Italy because fo their political beliefs. They came here and continued their beliefs up to the present day. Even on my mother's side of the family there are radicals that died (and others lived) at Ludlow.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 72
Rookie
|
|
Rookie
Joined: Jun 2010
Posts: 72 |
My way of counter arguing is different than his. Sorry that I related my life experience to my argument rather than regurgitating what I heard from a professor or read in a text book. Yes I did make a point that upward mobility is a very real option in America. Sorry I don't have time at this moment to get some text book reading on why upward mobility is alive and well. I do appreciate your concern over mine and Charlies discussion though.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,550
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 39,550 |
Quote:
People have a right to life.
At least you are against abortion.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. GM Strong ![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/small-gator-chomp.gif)
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Right Wingers at it again
|
|
![[Linked Image from i45.tinypic.com]](http://i45.tinypic.com/adhq2o.gif)
