PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Link: Glenn Becks Communism special


Pages : 1 [2]

banyon
01-31-2010, 10:36 AM
Progrerssives are pro-abortion, pro-eauthanasia, pro-balkanization, pro-centralization....

You can't get any more Third Reich than that.

I'm not pro any of those things, you charlatan. In fact, your third and fourth terms are contradictory.

patteeu
01-31-2010, 10:40 AM
I thought you called it "communism" and "socialism"?

Oh yeah, ALL the same thing. :rolleyes:

No one is really saying that they're the same thing from top to bottom. The complaint is that they all share the same collectivist underpinning which is the essential part that we find objectionable (even before you get to the totalitarian attrocities). Very few of us believe that Obama is going to seize power and become a dictator or open up concentration camps or gulags for political prisoners. It seems to me that democrats and other progressives only object to Soviet style communism or Nazi fascism because of the totalitarian nature of those regimes. They want to redeem socialism with a kinder, gentler version. Conservatives/libertarians are opposed to the collectivism even without the totalitarianism.

banyon
01-31-2010, 10:43 AM
Perhaps since you defend the progressives Reaper16 or Jenson71; you could fully explain what the progressives stand for. Keeping it in Laymen format for someone like myself. I'm curious as to what draws you to these ideals.

What's the Difference Between a Liberal and a Progressive?
Posted October 19, 2005 | 10:54 AM (EST)
Read More: Breaking Politics News


I often get asked what the difference between a "liberal" and a "progressive" is. The questions from the media on this subject are always something like, "Isn't 'progressive' just another name for 'liberal' that people want to use because 'liberal' has become a bad word?"

The answer, in my opinion, is no - there is a fundamental difference when it comes to core economic issues. It seems to me that traditional "liberals" in our current parlance are those who focus on using taxpayer money to help better society. A "progressive" are those who focus on using government power to make large institutions play by a set of rules.

To put it in more concrete terms - a liberal solution to some of our current problems with high energy costs would be to increase funding for programs like the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). A more "progressive" solution would be to increase LIHEAP but also crack down on price gouging and pass laws better-regulating the oil industry's profiteering and market manipulation tactics. A liberal policy towards prescription drugs is one that would throw a lot of taxpayer cash at the pharmaceutical industry to get them to provide medicine to the poor; A progressive prescription drug policy would be one that centered around price regulations and bulk purchasing in order to force down the actual cost of medicine in America (much of which was originally developed with taxpayer R&D money).

Let's be clear - most progressives are also liberals, and liberal goals in better funding America's social safety net are noble and critical. It's the other direction that's the problem. Many of today's liberals are not fully comfortable with progressivism as defined in these terms. Many of today's Democratic politicians, for instance, are simply not comfortable taking a more confrontational posture towards large economic institutions (many of whom fund their campaigns) - institutions that regularly take a confrontational posture towards America's middle-class.

We can see a good example of this hestitation from Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) in his "health care to hybrids" proposal. As the Detroit News reports, Obama is calling "for using government money to relieve Detroit automakers of some of their staggering health care obligations if they commit to improving fuel economy by 3 percent a year for 15 years."

Here's the thing - we all want to see autoworkers' health care preserved, and we all want to see better fuel efficiency standards for cars. But is this really the road we want to go down as a society? I'd say no. The fact is, the auto industry should be forced to produce more fuel efficient cars through higher government fuel efficiency mandates, without taxpayers having to bail out the industry. It's not like those mandates would be asking the industry to do something that doesn't make good business sense - demand for higher fuel-efficiency cars is skyrocketing.

Paying off corporations to do what they already should be doing sets a dangerous precedent - it sends a message to Big Business that they can leverage their irresponsible behavior into government handouts. In this case, the auto industry would be leveraging its refusal to produce more fuel efficient cars and preserve its workers' health care into a giant taxpayer-funded subsidy.

To be sure, Obama has solid motives in pushing his proposal, and it is a creative cross of issues (health care and energy/environment). But the general unwillingness of Democrats to consistently push for more sharp-edged progressive solutions is a big problem right now. The "free market" conservatives have so dominated the political debate over the last two decades that our side seems only comfortable proposing to pay off different economic players, instead of forcing those players to behave themselves. It's time for that to change. The government has a job to play in protecting Americans from being ripped off, and that doesn't mean just handing the economic bullies a bribe. It means pushing back - hard.

Also from Molly Ivins: "Its less about who's getting screwed and more about who's doing the screwing".

banyon
01-31-2010, 10:50 AM
No one is really saying that they're the same thing from top to bottom. The complaint is that they all share the same collectivist underpinning which is the essential part that we find objectionable (even before you get to the totalitarian attrocities). Very few of us believe that Obama is going to seize power and become a dictator or open up concentration camps or gulags for political prisoners. It seems to me that democrats and other progressives only object to Soviet style communism or Nazi fascism because of the totalitarian nature of those regimes. They want to redeem socialism with a kinder, gentler version. Conservatives/libertarians are opposed to the collectivism even without the totalitarianism.

Actually, by failing to set any useful limiting decriptors in defintions of the terms and using them interchangeably, even when it is not merited, yes Taco is saying they are the same thing.

Any government in existence, save pure anarchy shares a "collectivist underpinning", that's what makes it a "government"; it does not, however, serve as a useful way to describe historical forms of government.

patteeu
01-31-2010, 10:58 AM
Actually, by failing to set any useful limiting decriptors in defintions of the terms and using them interchangeably, even when it is not merited, yes Taco is saying they are the same thing.

Any government in existence, save pure anarchy shares a "collectivist underpinning", that's what makes it a "government"; it does not, however, serve as a useful way to describe historical forms of government.

It's true that every government is collective action. Our government under Obama aspires to increase that collectivist action toward the levels of Nazi fascism and Soviet communism. Our government under a Ron Paul would aspire to reduce the level of collectivism away from the levels of those two historical regimes. Our government under another Republican, say Mitt Romney, would fall somewhere in between. I don't want to move in the direction of Nazi fascist collectivism or Soviet communist collectivism.

Why do progressives want to impose their morality on the rest of us?

banyon
01-31-2010, 11:05 AM
It's true that every government is collective action. Our government under Obama aspires to increase that collectivist action toward the levels of Nazi fascism and Soviet communism. Our government under a Ron Paul would aspire to reduce the level of collectivism away from the levels of those two historical regimes. Our government under another Republican, say Mitt Romney, would fall somewhere in between. I don't want to move in the direction of Nazi fascist collectivism or Soviet communist collectivism.

Why do progressives want to impose their morality on the rest of us?

That's silly. So, any movement toward more regulation of anything is painted as a "movement toward Hitler/Stalin". It would make just as much sense for me to say "Ron Paul wants to take us toward Mad Max and the Thunderdome". Painting the political canvas with a sledge hammer dipped in red paint does nothing useful for nuanced discourse.

patteeu
01-31-2010, 11:12 AM
That's silly. So, any movement toward more regulation of anything is painted as a "movement toward Hitler/Stalin". It would make just as much sense for me to say "Ron Paul wants to take us toward Mad Max and the Thunderdome". Painting the political canvas with a sledge hammer dipped in red paint does nothing useful for nuanced discourse.

Yes, that's exactly what Ron Paul wants to do. That's what I want to do to. I don't want to get that far and I'm pretty sure Ron Paul doesn't either, but I damn sure want to move in that direction.

Your unwillingness to admit that Obama wants a significantly greater degree of socialism in this country is disappointing. He's not just tinkering around the edges expanding socialism here and retracting it there. You want to blur distinctions just as much as anyone who compares Obama to Mao.

So why do progressives complain so often about religious conservatives trying to impose their brand of morality on the rest of us when those progressives want to do the very same thing?

The Mad Crapper
01-31-2010, 12:12 PM
I'm not pro any of those things, you charlatan. In fact, your third and fourth terms are contradictory.

Balkanization ie class and racial warfare as dictated by Saul Alinsky; Centralization ie Washington DC usurping states rights.

A Progressive example- SC Judge Sotomayor; she belongs to La Raza (Balkanization) and she advocates legislating from a federal bench (Centralization).

So no, they are not contradictory.

Taco John
01-31-2010, 01:51 PM
That's silly. So, any movement toward more regulation of anything is painted as a "movement toward Hitler/Stalin". It would make just as much sense for me to say "Ron Paul wants to take us toward Mad Max and the Thunderdome". Painting the political canvas with a sledge hammer dipped in red paint does nothing useful for nuanced discourse.



Yeah. Thunderdome. Only Thunderdome with Republican government that binds the hands of the Federal government into intruding on the lives of individuals, and protects individual liberties. So just like Thunderdome.

Taco John
01-31-2010, 01:55 PM
No, they're not my solutions. You have to color them that way though to pigeonhole them into your narrative, which is understandable.

Progressive solutions regarding power involve (1)transparency in government (2)accountability to the public (3)checks on corruption/lobbying (4)independent audits, (5)public access to officials, inter alia.

They also involve the pretty basic acknowledgement that power can grow just as easily through the accumulation of massive sums of wealth in trusts and monopolies or dynastic wealth, which you pretend doesn't exist, despite countless historical examples of such behavior, thus your laissez-faire ideology, which has already failed to check such accumulations on multiple occasions in history, basically just enables those who want to accumulate such power into doing so.


I don't pretend dynastic wealth doesn't exist. I celebrate it. I plan on passing on as much money and assets to my descendants as possible, and do whatever I can to keep the government thieves away from it so that the right people get it and the wrong bureaucrats don't.

banyon
01-31-2010, 03:25 PM
I don't pretend dynastic wealth doesn't exist. I celebrate it. I plan on passing on as much money and assets to my descendants as possible, and do whatever I can to keep the government thieves away from it so that the right people get it and the wrong bureaucrats don't.

Great, you and Coronado can live it up in your utopian plutocracy. I prefer a government where freedom of opportunity actually means something as opposed to the entrenched class structures which marked earlier, more backward civilizations.

banyon
01-31-2010, 03:30 PM
Yeah. Thunderdome. Only Thunderdome with Republican government that binds the hands of the Federal government into intruding on the lives of individuals, and protects individual liberties. So just like Thunderdome.

What powers do you propose this government have?

(Also, you missed the point as it was satire on patteeu's position and not a position I was advocating).

banyon
01-31-2010, 03:31 PM
Yes, that's exactly what Ron Paul wants to do. That's what I want to do to. I don't want to get that far and I'm pretty sure Ron Paul doesn't either, but I damn sure want to move in that direction.

Your unwillingness to admit that Obama wants a significantly greater degree of socialism in this country is disappointing. He's not just tinkering around the edges expanding socialism here and retracting it there. You want to blur distinctions just as much as anyone who compares Obama to Mao.

So why do progressives complain so often about religious conservatives trying to impose their brand of morality on the rest of us when those progressives want to do the very same thing?

What has Obama proposed or passed that is so Mao-like since he has been in office?

JohnnyV13
01-31-2010, 03:32 PM
I don't pretend dynastic wealth doesn't exist. I celebrate it. I plan on passing on as much money and assets to my descendants as possible, and do whatever I can to keep the government thieves away from it so that the right people get it and the wrong bureaucrats don't.

At a certain point, Dynastic wealth becomes a problem.

Around the turn of the century, J.P. Morgan was rich enough that he could bail out the Central Bank of the United States with his personal fortune. While Morgan made a personal choice that benefitted the nation, there's no guarentee that future individuals wouldn't make self interested choices if they achieved such a position.

An unscrupulous mega trillionare could arbitrage international and united states financial circumstances to his own benefit in a way that damages various world economies (including the US).

(For example, what happens if JP Morgan decided US Currency was failing, and that he'd make more money by dumping it on the international market, in wihich case the very act of converting his fortune into another currency would then give him another currency driven profit (due to declining international demand for US currency, he could convert back peicemeal, making a hefty profit at each transaction).

banyon
01-31-2010, 03:39 PM
At a certain point, Dynastic wealth becomes a problem.

Around the turn of the century, J.P. Morgan was rich enough that he could bail out the Central Bank of the United States with his personal fortune. While Morgan made a personal choice that benefitted the nation, there's no guarentee that future individuals wouldn't make self interested choices if they achieved such a position.

An unscrupulous mega trillionare could arbitrage international and united states financial circumstances to his own benefit in a way that damages various world economies (including the US).

(For example, what happens if JP Morgan decided US Currency was failing, and that he'd make more money by dumping it on the international market, in wihich case the very act of converting his fortune into another currency would then give him another currency driven profit (due to declining international demand for US currency, he could convert back peicemeal, making a hefty profit at each transaction).

No, no checks on J.P. Morgan, no regulations. You want it to be like Hitler/Stalin/Dr. Evil! Why are you such a communifascisocialist?

JohnnyV13
01-31-2010, 03:43 PM
No, no checks on J.P. Morgan, no regulations. You want it to be like Hitler/Stalin/Dr. Evil! Why are you such a communifascisocialist?

Don't play innocent! We should tell them about the communifascisocialist club among Kansas Bar members. Just cause my license is inactive, doesn't mean I'm not still active in the CFS club! I saw you there last week.

banyon
01-31-2010, 03:52 PM
Don't play innocent! We should tell them about the communifascisocialist club among Kansas Bar members. Just cause my license is inactive, doesn't mean I'm not still active in the CFS club! I saw you there last week.

Well for god's sake, don't tell them about the secret gang sign where we take our right hand and form it into a sideways "V" and put it with our left hand to two fingers straight up to form the "K" for Keynes.

JohnnyV13
01-31-2010, 03:59 PM
Well for god's sake, don't tell them about the secret gang sign where we take our right hand and form it into a sideways "V" and put it with our left hand to two fingers straight up to form the "K" for Keynes.

Why not? We're so close to the takeover, they can't stop us anyway.

I mean....look at how many lawyers are in congress, the judiciary and even the military? (what do you think JAG is anyway?). All this arguing is just so the TJ's of the world think there's debate. What they don't know is that all those people are CFS members, and soon we'll stop pretending.

We WILL create the utopian rule of lawyers! We're SO close already. What they don't realize is all of us lawyers really think alike, those arguments are just to keep the masses entertained.

Taco John
01-31-2010, 06:47 PM
Great, you and Coronado can live it up in your utopian plutocracy. I prefer a government where freedom of opportunity actually means something as opposed to the entrenched class structures which marked earlier, more backward civilizations.

You prefer a government where "freedom of opportunity" is a buzzphrase for whatever program they're running to try and stimulate the economy that they killed.

Don't talk to me about utopian plutocracy when you worship the utopian plutocracy of centralized government, you dope.

BucEyedPea
01-31-2010, 06:50 PM
Those whose sense of property is communistic are like flies are attracted to fly paper when it comes to threads labeling categories of thought socialist or communist. It's a good way to weed them out.

BucEyedPea
01-31-2010, 06:51 PM
At a certain point, Dynastic wealth becomes a problem.
Someone's affluence does not create anyone elses poverty.

BucEyedPea
01-31-2010, 07:45 PM
How do I hate these? Let me count the ways.
I hate these to the depth and breadth and height
My soul can reach, when feeling out of sight...

The Mad Crapper
01-31-2010, 07:58 PM
http://olbroad.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/obama-marx.gif

JohnnyV13
01-31-2010, 08:00 PM
Someone's affluence does not create anyone elses poverty.

I generally agree with this statement. Wealth actually tends to create more overall wealth. It isn't a finite resource, since there are an infinite number of services and ways to combine materials into new products.

The problem occurs when a private individual can monkey with the money supply by moving his assets around. You obviously don't like it when the fed chairman does it, why is it any better if a private individual is the one doing it?

What we're talking about is just one aspect of a generalized problem: market dominance.

Free market efficiencies don't work well if one organization or individual can achieve long term market dominance. I also speculate that even one clearly dominant economic sector tends to hinder representative government. Freedom comes from the balkanization of economic and political power.

Short term market dominance isnt really a problem. Indeed, its a good thing on balance. High powered entrepenuers and VC's won't even touch an opportunity without any reasonable hope that the venture can achieve temporary market dominance. That temporary market dominance rewards entrepenueral risk with the possiblity of lavish returns. The hope of achieving short term market dominance is the main engine of our economy.

THe problem only occurs where an entrepenuer obtains monopolistic power, and he's no longer rewarded for a superior good or service, but his bully power over a particular market (see standard oil).

An overwhelming large personal fortune (say 5% or 10% of the US GDP) can create similar opportunities for long term financial arbitrage, unconnected to any productive act.

Its actually ok when there are multiple wealthy (but still miniscule vs GDP) arbitragers playing the market, b/c they can cancel one another out. But when you get an uber Warren Buffet (say warren buffet two orders of magnitude richer), that one guy could move markets by sneezing.

Taco John
01-31-2010, 08:03 PM
At a certain point, Dynastic wealth becomes a problem.


Yeah, and I know exactly where that certain point is. It can be found in government.

Someone else's money doesn't bother me until it's being used in the federal system to take away my ability to make my own.

Taco John
01-31-2010, 10:59 PM
Free market efficiencies don't work well if one organization or individual can achieve long term market dominance.



One organization... You mean like the Federal Government?

All this talk about the dangers of consolidating wealth and power from you guys is very amusing. It's like listening to someone with a blindfold lecturing on the dangers of imaginary monsters from a podium inside the ape cage at the zoo.

patteeu
02-01-2010, 08:22 AM
What has Obama proposed or passed that is so Mao-like since he has been in office?

Obama favors a single payer health care system. That he and his allies in Congress have had to retreat from this goal is a testament to how radical the idea is even within the democrat party.

patteeu
02-01-2010, 08:48 AM
Let's move away from the scary territory of Nazis and Soviet/Sino Communists.

Let's consider the ideal government arrangement of a Ron Paul or a Barack Obama. By this, I mean, if Ron Paul had his way about the level of centralized control in government, what would it look like? Likewise, with Barack Obama? [These are both rhetorical questions]

Now, on a scale that runs from the government we had immediately following the ratification of our Constitution (our Founders' America) to Castro's Cuba, where would the Ron Paul ideal and the Obama ideal fall? Would Obama's ideal be closer to Castro's or our Founders'? I believe he'd be closer to Castro's whereas Paul's ideal would be closer to the Founders'.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 09:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnnyV13 View Post
Free market efficiencies don't work well if one organization or individual can achieve long term market dominance.
Who gets to decide who is dominating? Uh hmmm...

Sorry, but this old canard, is a red herring.

So long as entry is not barred into an industry, the threat of competition is always there. It's when an organization uses govt to beat their competition out of business, like with excessive regulations, that this happens. You need additional data to properly evaluate such a cliche. Like who was behind anti-trust legislation. It was often the competitors who were jealous and wanted govt to carve out their market share for them. Besides, monopoly is a creature of govt—not the market.

Now how is it inefficient that one organization dominate? That's not necessarily so either. One large outfit has the benefit of economies of scale and can deliver goods cheaper and more efficiently. If it no longer does so that just invites new players into their area.

The Mad Crapper
02-01-2010, 10:05 AM
Who gets to decide who is dominating? Uh hmmm...

Commissars.

banyon
02-01-2010, 10:08 AM
Obama favors a single payer health care system. That he and his allies in Congress have had to retreat from this goal is a testament to how radical the idea is even within the democrat party.

Single payer health care? Oh, no, the gulags and purges are sure to follow, just like they did in Europe!

Also, if you're going to knock China for something, that's probably not it:

The health-care system dramatically improved the health of the people, as reflected by the remarkable increase in average life expectancy from about thirty-two years in 1950 to sixty-nine years in 1985.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_reform_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Post-1949

banyon
02-01-2010, 10:11 AM
You prefer a government where "freedom of opportunity" is a buzzphrase for whatever program they're running to try and stimulate the economy that they killed.

Don't talk to me about utopian plutocracy when you worship the utopian plutocracy of centralized government, you dope.

your argument resorts to "you're a dope". Predictable, when the intellectual vigor of this doctrine has the consistency of cheap skim milk.

banyon
02-01-2010, 10:12 AM
One organization... You mean like the Federal Government?

All this talk about the dangers of consolidating wealth and power from you guys is very amusing. It's like listening to someone with a blindfold lecturing on the dangers of imaginary monsters from a podium inside the ape cage at the zoo.

Imaginary monsters? That's pretty funny from the people trying to conflate health care with Hitler, Mao, and Atalin all rolled into one.

banyon
02-01-2010, 10:14 AM
Let's move away from the scary territory of Nazis and Soviet/Sino Communists.

Let's consider the ideal government arrangement of a Ron Paul or a Barack Obama. By this, I mean, if Ron Paul had his way about the level of centralized control in government, what would it look like? Likewise, with Barack Obama? [These are both rhetorical questions]

Now, on a scale that runs from the government we had immediately following the ratification of our Constitution (our Founders' America) to Castro's Cuba, where would the Ron Paul ideal and the Obama ideal fall? Would Obama's ideal be closer to Castro's or our Founders'? I believe he'd be closer to Castro's whereas Paul's ideal would be closer to the Founders'.

I agree with this, but i had a problem with your attempts to label a move leftward or rightward on the spectrum as necessarily moving toward the extreme. That's a slippery slope tactic, and thus a fallacy. Plenty of historical governments have moved leftward or rightward without winding up at the extremes of the scale.

The Mad Crapper
02-01-2010, 10:23 AM
http://www.moonbattery.com/marx-engels-lenin-stalin-obama-logo.jpg

patteeu
02-01-2010, 10:30 AM
I agree with this, but i had a problem with your attempts to label a move leftward or rightward on the spectrum as necessarily moving toward the extreme. That's a slippery slope tactic, and thus a fallacy. Plenty of historical governments have moved leftward or rightward without winding up at the extremes of the scale.

No, it was a misunderstanding. "Toward" was intended to indicate direction, not destination.

I think our government is already too socialistic. Almost any movement in the direction of further socialization, i.e. toward more socialism, is a move in the wrong direction for me. We don't have to get all the way to Nazi socialism or Soviet socialism for me to think it's a bad thing. To be honest, I'm not sure how far from the Nazi model we are now (even pre-Obama). I'm obviously not talking politically (because after 1933 Hitler was effectively a dictator) and I'm not talking about anything related to the Nazi round-up of Jews and other "undesireables". I'm just talking about the amount of control our central government has on our business and personal lives.

patteeu
02-01-2010, 10:43 AM
Single payer health care? Oh, no, the gulags and purges are sure to follow, just like they did in Europe!

This has nothing to do with the danger of gulags or purges. Before we get to those and even if we never do, the threat of socialism is that it will sap the energy from the productive segments of society and encourage less productive behavior.

Also, if you're going to knock China for something, that's probably not it:



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthcare_reform_in_the_People's_Republic_of_China#Post-1949

I don't think there's much to base a comparison on there given that your starting point is a war torn, pre-industrialized nation. The US has done quite well without a single-payer health care system. (Not to mention the flaws inherent in trying to use life expectancy as a single measure of merit for quality of health care.)

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 10:44 AM
Fascism does not have to have a racial component like Naziism which was just one particular fascist strain. It can target any groups....like "tea-baggers", right-wingers and even gasp! NeoCons! LOl! I mean I wouldn't put NCs in camps or round them up.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 10:45 AM
Europe lives in slavery. But they like it. I just don't want it here.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 10:46 AM
Anyone see this! It's really well done, imo!

banyon
02-01-2010, 10:47 AM
This has nothing to do with the danger of gulags or purges. Before we get to those and even if we never do, the threat of socialism is that it will sap the energy from the productive segments of society and encourage less productive behavior.

Of course it doesn't have anything to do with those things. That's why mentioning the specter of infamous historical villains is so irrelevant in the first place and the point I was making.



I don't think there's much to base a comparison on there given that your starting point is a war torn, pre-industrialized nation. The US has done quite well without a single-payer health care system. (Not to mention the flaws inherent in trying to use life expectancy as a single measure of merit for quality of health care.)

The U.S. has done well with the safety net of Medicare and Medicaid. Infant mortality rates are still pretty high, though. Take away those Maoist solutions, and I think our rates would likely decline significantly.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 10:47 AM
Commissars.

Comissars, Bureaucrats and Czars! Oh my!
Comissars, Bureaucrats and Czars! Oh my!

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 10:48 AM
Medicare is broke! The US govt is bankrupt but Medicaid and Medicare have worked out well! LMAO at the logic FAIL!

banyon
02-01-2010, 10:49 AM
Europe lives in slavery. But they like it. I just don't want it here.

you should get reincarnated as a real slave, so all your hyperbole will come home to roost.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 10:49 AM
Comissars, Bureaucrats and Czars! Oh my!

banyon
02-01-2010, 10:50 AM
Medicare is broke! The US govt is bankrupt but Medicaid and Medicare have worked out well! LMAO at the logic FAIL!

wait, I thought I was on fake ignore? Should I respond, or does the infantile game continue, since you can't and won't engage me on the facts of the argument if I choose to reply substantively?

Edit: It's obvious you won't reply substantive, so i'll put it out there. Medciare and Medicaid are PAY AS YOU GO systems and always have been. The only way to get to your statement is by extrapolating well into the future and pretending it won't be pay-go in the future as well. Also, costs won't increase at the same rates as the Baby Boomers die off. the Trust Fund is currently solvent until 2017, and could easily be remedied by a couple of solutions that are out there. FACTS FAIL.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 10:51 AM
.Comissars, Bureaucrats and Czars! Oh my!

The Mad Crapper
02-01-2010, 10:51 AM
Comissars, Bureaucrats and Czars! Oh my!

Van Jones. ROFL

The planet has already had a "green revolution"---

Pol Pot's Cambodia.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 10:58 AM
Van Jones. ROFL

The planet has already had a "green revolution"---

Pol Pot's Cambodia.

We're off to see the wizard, the Wonderful Wizards of Kos!

banyon
02-01-2010, 11:00 AM
Van Jones. ROFL

The planet has already had a "green revolution"---

Pol Pot's Cambodia.

Post some more cartoons and ridiculous hyperbole. It's like romper room wherever you go, put the kaibosh on any adult conversations to the contrary.

Taco John
02-01-2010, 11:00 AM
Imaginary monsters? That's pretty funny from the people trying to conflate health care with Hitler, Mao, and Atalin all rolled into one.

I don't believe I've ever made that conflation. Though, it's hard to tell what you're talking about. You don't see the fascism in FORCING people to subscribe to private health insurance policies with industry giants while staring down the barrel of the IRS. It's pretty hard to have a rational discussion with someone so out of touch.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 11:04 AM
It's pretty hard to have a rational discussion with someone so out of touch.

Ayup! But he thinks he King of the Forest!

banyon
02-01-2010, 11:05 AM
I don't believe I've ever made that conflation. Though, it's hard to tell what you're talking about. You don't see the fascism in FORCING people to subscribe to private health insurance policies with industry giants while staring down the barrel of the IRS. It's pretty hard to have a rational discussion with someone so out of touch.

Is Car insurance Hitler?

Oh, and "you're out of touch", can't you refrain from insults in lieu of argument. You were the one touting your logical credentials at the beginning of this thread weren't you?

banyon
02-01-2010, 11:06 AM
Ayup! But he thinks he King of the Forest!

No he don't think that. But he point out BS "like health insurance is fascism" when he see it.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 11:08 AM
Is Car insurance Hitler?
Where does our central govt mandate car insurance?
You're not in the same category of thing now which is a failure of logic.
Further, NOT all states mandate car insurance.

Besides, that's for using a public road—not a private body matter. What the govt funds it controls. We don't want the govt to fund our HC via public taxes so we cannot be controlled but free.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 11:09 AM
No he don't think that. But he point out BS "like health insurance is fascism" when he see it.

You're having difficulty putting topics into the correct category of thing. That's a part of logic. Also using false definitions is another in order to avoid reality.
I say Logic FAIL.

banyon
02-01-2010, 11:10 AM
Where does our central govt mandate car insurance?
You're not in the same category of thing now which is a failure of logic.
Further, NOT all states mandate it car insurance.

Nearly all do. Are they fascist?

Besides, that's for using a public road—not a private body matter. What the govt funds it controls. We don't want the govt to fund our HC via public taxes so we cannot be controlled but free.

Health care is to make up for using public hospitals, emergency rooms, ambulance service, etc.

patteeu
02-01-2010, 11:11 AM
Of course it doesn't have anything to do with those things. That's why mentioning the specter of infamous historical villains is so irrelevant in the first place and the point I was making.

You seem to want to eliminate the word "socialism" from the discussion by imputing that specter any time the word is used even if none of the infamous historical villains are a part of the discussion. I think it should be made clear that there was way more wrong with Soviet communism than gulags. Some of that has been creeping into America for a long time and Obama hopes to accelerate the process.

The U.S. has done well with the safety net of Medicare and Medicaid. Infant mortality rates are still pretty high, though. Take away those Maoist solutions, and I think our rates would likely decline significantly.

Medicare has become as much a social flytrap as it is a social safety net. Even most people who could have funded their own retirement health care in the past are now dependent on government support. And the incentive to try to do otherwise has been removed.

I'd also blame these programs and the huge infusions of government money into the system for good portion of the faster-than-inflation rise in costs in health care. I'd take my chances with less government interference. At most, something more like a true safety net.

The Mad Crapper
02-01-2010, 11:11 AM
Post some more cartoons and ridiculous hyperbole. It's like romper room wherever you go, put the kaibosh on any adult conversations to the contrary.

Don't get all pissy with me just because you can't argue your wacky beliefs.

Taco John
02-01-2010, 11:12 AM
Is Car insurance Hitler?

Oh, and "you're out of touch", can't you refrain from insults in lieu of argument. You were the one touting your logical credentials at the beginning of this thread weren't you?

I'm required by my state to carry insurance to cover THE OTHER GUY. As a libertarian who recognizes that I am responsible for the life, liberty, and property of others that I infringe, I don't see the problem with my state requiring that I carry liability insurance.

I woudn't have to point out so out of touch you were if you weren't so out of touch.

Taco John
02-01-2010, 11:13 AM
No he don't think that. But he point out BS "like health insurance is fascism" when he see it.

It's not the "health insurance" part of it that is fascism, you dope. It's the GOVERNMENT FORCE part of it that is.

The Mad Crapper
02-01-2010, 11:16 AM
I woudn't have to point out so out of touch you were if you weren't so out of touch.

He fancies himself as this worldly, sophisticated great thinker, when in reality he's just an older version of Jenson.

banyon
02-01-2010, 12:00 PM
You're having difficulty putting topics into the correct category of thing. That's a part of logic. Also using false definitions is another in order to avoid reality.
I say Logic FAIL.

Really, which logical fallacy do you think I committed? Be specific (like that will happen).

I didn't even use any definitions in the post you claimed was a "logic fail". That's what they call argumentum ad nihilum, or arguing from nonexistent premises.

banyon
02-01-2010, 12:03 PM
Don't get all pissy with me just because you can't argue your wacky beliefs.

Can't argue? All you've done is post cartoons and yell names, to pretend like you're part of some nuanced discussion now is ridiculous.

banyon
02-01-2010, 12:05 PM
It's not the "health insurance" part of it that is fascism, you dope. It's the GOVERNMENT FORCE part of it that is.

Government force doesn't equal fascism. "You dope".

Ticketed for a stop sign? Fascism!
Asked to pay taxes? Fascism!
Car Insurance? Fascism!
Health Insurance? Fascism!
Any other program of the government (that i don't currently favor)? Fascism!

It's a conflation of the terms like you routinely do, this thread isn't special.

Here, for a laugh: What is fascism, according to you? Define it, with some meaningful parameters.

You won't because it doesn't assist your self-serving position to be able to conflate things you don't like as evil.

banyon
02-01-2010, 12:07 PM
I'm required by my state to carry insurance to cover THE OTHER GUY. As a libertarian who recognizes that I am responsible for the life, liberty, and property of others that I infringe, I don't see the problem with my state requiring that I carry liability insurance.

I woudn't have to point out so out of touch you were if you weren't so out of touch.

You don't think public hospitals, ambulances, etc. infringe "the other guy"?

And out of touch with what exactly? Your need to label everything you don't like as fascist? the vast majority of people who think that health care needs reform?

The Mad Crapper
02-01-2010, 12:28 PM
Can't argue? All you've done is post cartoons and yell names, to pretend like you're part of some nuanced discussion now is ridiculous.

I won't waste my time trying to have a conversation with a dishonest person such as yourself. I think you are a joke.

Taco John
02-01-2010, 12:34 PM
Government force doesn't equal fascism. "You dope".

Ticketed for a stop sign? Fascism!
Asked to pay taxes? Fascism!
Car Insurance? Fascism!
Health Insurance? Fascism!
Any other program of the government (that i don't currently favor)? Fascism!

It's a conflation of the terms like you routinely do, this thread isn't special.

Here, for a laugh: What is fascism, according to you? Define it, with some meaningful parameters.

You won't because it doesn't assist your self-serving position to be able to conflate things you don't like as evil.

I think Wikipedia, which anyone has access to, does a fair job here:

"Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system."


I would strike the buzz word "radical" to get this:

"Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system."

You dope.

Taco John
02-01-2010, 12:36 PM
That pretty well describes the Obama health care proposal.

banyon
02-01-2010, 02:43 PM
I won't waste my time trying to have a conversation with a dishonest person such as yourself. I think you are a joke.

You don't "waste your time" trying to have a conversation with anyone who disagrees with you. It's guilt by association and insults pretty much as a first resort at the drop of a hat. It's what makes you such a lousy poster around here. Don't pretend you're otherwise some kind of magnanimous individual.

banyon
02-01-2010, 02:51 PM
I think Wikipedia, which anyone has access to, does a fair job here:

"Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system."


I would strike the buzz word "radical" to get this:

"Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system."

You dope.

Great.

A. Nothing we've talked about is authoritarian.
B. It's certainly not nationalism
C. It has corporate-friendly elements, but that doesn't mean you have a corporatist economic system.
D. If it were corporatist, then by defintion it would not be socialist.
E. Your two sentences are the same, so i don't know where you deleted thee word "radical" from.

you dope.

HC_Chief
02-01-2010, 03:01 PM
I think Wikipedia, which anyone has access to, does a fair job here:

"Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system."


I would strike the buzz word "radical" to get this:

"Fascism is a political ideology that seeks to combine authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system."

You dope.

Wikipedia = big bag of FAIL with that "definiion". Fascism is certainly an authoritarian/nationalist ideology, but "corporatism" is farthest from the truth. That is, of course, unless you deem "corporatist" as "total dictitorial control of private industry by centralized government."

Fascism and communism are very similar in that aspect: neither respect the rights of the indiviual. "Private" industry is not allowed. In the former, the means of production controlled by the "state" whereas in the latter it is controlled by the "workers" (yeah, right).

The Mad Crapper
02-01-2010, 03:03 PM
You don't "waste your time" trying to have a conversation with anyone who disagrees with you. It's guilt by association and insults pretty much as a first resort at the drop of a hat. It's what makes you such a lousy poster around here. Don't pretend you're otherwise some kind of magnanimous individual.

Okey dokey, Jenson.

Taco John
02-01-2010, 03:10 PM
Wikipedia = big bag of FAIL with that "definiion". Fascism is certainly an authoritarian/nationalist ideology, but "corporatism" is farthest from the truth. That is, of course, unless you deem "corporatist" as "total dictitorial control of private industry by centralized government."

Fascism and communism are very similar in that aspect: neither respect the rights of the indiviual. "Private" industry is not allowed. In the former, the means of production controlled by the "state" whereas in the latter it is controlled by the "workers" (yeah, right).


"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

Benito Mussolini

Taco John
02-01-2010, 03:13 PM
Great.

A. Nothing we've talked about is authoritarian.

Forcing people to carry insurance isn't authoritarian?


B. It's certainly not nationalism

A national mandate to force people to carry health insurance isn't considered "nationalist?"


C. It has corporate-friendly elements, but that doesn't mean you have a corporatist economic system.

Government is forcing citizens to pay a corporation for a nationalistic health care program - that's certainly corporate friendly. Every business should be so lucky.

Nice try, but fail.

banyon
02-01-2010, 03:27 PM
Forcing people to carry insurance isn't authoritarian?

No, it's not.

[QUOTE]Authoritarianism describes a form of government characterized by an emphasis on the authority of state in a republic or union. It is a political system controlled by typically non-elected rulers who usually permit some degree of individual freedom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism#Authoritarianism_and_totalitarianism

A national mandate to force people to carry health insurance isn't considered "nationalist?"

No. It's a different nationalism they are referring to in that definition. (i.e., it doesn't mean "nation-wide")

To wit:

Nationalism is the belief that groups of people are bound together by territorial, cultural and ethnic links. Nationalism was used by their leaders to generate public support in Germany, already a nation where fervent nationalism was prevalent. In Italy, the idea of restoring the Roman Empire was attractive to many Italians. In Japan, nationalism, in the sense of duty and honor, especially to the emperor, had been widespread for centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_World_War_II#Nationalism


Government is forcing citizens to pay a corporation for a nationalistic health care program - that's certainly corporate friendly. Every business should be so lucky.

They didn't, they wanted to offer a public option too, or keep what you have. Tax breaks are corporate friendly. Do you want to start labeling those as fascism too? your criteria are too insubstantial.

Nice try, but fail.

I note here, you essentially ignore my point about socialism being incompatible with your description. "Socialist Health care" is a label that is a lot more plausible. Conflating it with fascism isn't.

patteeu
02-01-2010, 03:49 PM
Obama is definitely not a nationalist. That's probably the biggest distinction between Obamunism and Fascism.

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 04:08 PM
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

Benito Mussolini

Exactly! :D

Rs hate to admit it though!

BucEyedPea
02-01-2010, 04:09 PM
Obama is definitely not a nationalist. That's probably the biggest distinction between Obamunism and Fascism.

National Socialism versus International Socialism
One is today's Rs and conservative Ds; the other the leftists Ds!

Taco John
02-01-2010, 05:03 PM
Forcing people to carry health insurance isn't authoritarian.

Ok.

You just can't have a rational conversation with some of these people. They're too far gone.

Can't see the forest through the trees.

Taco John
02-01-2010, 05:04 PM
I suppose it's "Benevolism."

The Mad Crapper
02-01-2010, 07:06 PM
The top 40% pay 99.9% of federal tax revenue.

The bottome 40% (democratic base) pay NOTHING.

JohnnyV13
02-02-2010, 12:17 AM
Who gets to decide who is dominating? Uh hmmm...



Actually, its a jury.

Jenson71
02-02-2010, 12:20 AM
Actually, its a jury.

I sent you a PM, in case you didn't notice. No rush for a reply. Thanks in advance.

spicygirl
02-02-2010, 02:57 AM
After completing only half of the first day of p90x schedule (http://www.p90xworkoutschedule.me/), Lombardi says he woke up sore and ill. He states that anyone who has done the workout knows what it feels like after the first day. The routine included push-ups after pull-ups in a very demanding way.
The Insanity Workout contains a high-level energy workout plan that will assure you of apparent results in sixty days. It also comes with an insanity workout schedule (http://www.insanityworkoutschedule.org/) that will help you monitor your development as well as Nutritional plan that will help you figure out the food that you need to eat over the course of the regime.

Which Longchamp Bag?
This tends to be my to start withcheap longchamp (http://www.onlinedergi.com/longchampoutlet.html)
. I am going to utilize it for a handbag -- but a roomy purse, for toting about wallet, eyeglasses, sunglasses, guidebook, arrondissement map, small notebook, very small digital camera (now you realize where by I am heading!) I need very long handles, but am torn among the medium and large size luggage. Do not want to receive the big if your medium will suffice. You Longchamp lovers in existence --- any tips?

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 07:24 AM
thanks for the link

You're welcome, It's always a pleasure providing information.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 08:48 AM
Actually, its a jury.

I don't think so. It's more like a judge, jury and executioner here.

HC_Chief
02-02-2010, 10:28 AM
"Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

Benito Mussolini

Key word there is "merger". Coporations under a fascist regime are controlled by the state, not the shareholders, nor by any individual(s) other than the dictator.

Taco John
02-02-2010, 10:54 AM
Key word there is "merger". Coporations under a fascist regime are controlled by the state, not the shareholders, nor by any individual(s) other than the dictator.

We're mincing words at this point. You say the corporations are controlled by the state. It could be that the state is controlled by the corporations. It really just depends on the actors involved and their needs, and the relevance of the actors in the political power system. Obviously, the dictator plays an overbearing role, but I wouldn't minimize the power of his influencers.

BucEyedPea
02-02-2010, 11:26 AM
Key word there is "merger". Coporations under a fascist regime are controlled by the state, not the shareholders, nor by any individual(s) other than the dictator.

Except there can be so many regulations on them for the public good, or public use for egalitarian reasons that they're not really owned in the true sense of the word. Control is ownership. It's certain corps that are in bed with govt too. Ever hear of private/public partnerships and subsidies for public works, gauranteed markets by barring entry ( also done using regulations.). It's just not out front and center in all cases.

banyon
02-02-2010, 11:31 AM
Forcing people to carry health insurance isn't authoritarian.

Ok.

You just can't have a rational conversation with some of these people. They're too far gone.

Can't see the forest through the trees.

Yeah. Like that's all I posted. And like that's a reply on the merits of what I said.

And lo, here we are again, at the point where the inch-thin rubber tires of the internet-libertarian-faith-circle peels off onto the roadway.

banyon
02-02-2010, 11:31 AM
The top 40% pay 99.9% of federal tax revenue.

The bottome 40% (democratic base) pay NOTHING.

What pct of wealth do they hold?

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 11:48 AM
What pct of wealth do they hold?

You already know, why don't you just post it, and make your point.

:rolleyes:

HC_Chief
02-02-2010, 12:58 PM
We're mincing words at this point. You say the corporations are controlled by the state. It could be that the state is controlled by the corporations. It really just depends on the actors involved and their needs, and the relevance of the actors in the political power system. Obviously, the dictator plays an overbearing role, but I wouldn't minimize the power of his influencers.

But not in a fascist state. "Control" is solely owned by the dictator. Opposition is disallowed.

Fascism: a movement, ideology, or attitude that favors dictatorial government, centralized control of private enterprise, repression of all opposition, and extreme nationalism

IMO what you are referring to as "fascism" in relation to corporate interests is the true definition of corporatism.

Corporatism: system of running a state using the power of organizations such as businesses and labor unions that act, or claim to act, for large numbers of people

Taco John
02-02-2010, 01:11 PM
Yeah. Like that's all I posted. And like that's a reply on the merits of what I said.

Banyon, when the first thing you post is that the government forcing people to subscribe to health insurance isn't authoritarian, what in the world would make you think anything else you posted would have any merit whatsoever? You're off the reservation, friend. Far off of it.

banyon
02-02-2010, 01:27 PM
You already know, why don't you just post it, and make your point.

:rolleyes:

Oh, so you already understood that they held a similar pct of wealth that they paid in taxes when you made your post pretending people that weren't rich were deadbeats?

banyon
02-02-2010, 01:33 PM
Banyon, when the first thing you post is that the government forcing people to subscribe to health insurance isn't authoritarian, what in the world would make you think anything else you posted would have any merit whatsoever? You're off the reservation, friend. Far off of it.

Yeah. I'm the one pretending that basically Obama is a step and a half away from Hiltler and Stalin rolled into one, and I'm the one "off the reservation". :rolleyes:

Look, it's cool that your crazy ideology doesn't allow you to understand things in terms of degree or nuance, but no it's absolutely f*cking stupid to say that Sweden, France, Canada, or most of the developed world is "authoritarian" because they have national health care. And if were weren't on an obscure internet message board and instead in a room full of people who understood political science, you'd get laughed out of the room.

Bascially, when your ideology's inflexible (yet perplexingly vague) terminology runs into its invevitable limitations, you have to SHTSPRAYER-style turn to insults to avoid confronting the limitations of the ideology. It's an understandable tendency, but it's not one that speaks to a very rigorous or useful understanding or a practically applicable ideology.

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 01:53 PM
Oh, so you already understood that they held a similar pct of wealth that they paid in taxes when you made your post pretending people that weren't rich were deadbeats?

Wha...?

ROFL

Okey Dokey, Jenson.

The Mad Crapper
02-02-2010, 01:54 PM
Yeah. I'm the one pretending that basically Obama is a step and a half away from Hiltler and Stalin rolled into one

He is. The only thing stopping him at this point is our Constitution, but he's working on destroying it.

Taco John
02-02-2010, 02:26 PM
Yeah. I'm the one pretending that basically Obama is a step and a half away from Hiltler and Stalin rolled into one, and I'm the one "off the reservation". :rolleyes:

I've never called Obama a step and a half away from Hitler or Stalin. You have a bad habit of invalidating your takes in your first sentances.

patteeu
02-02-2010, 02:26 PM
What pct of wealth do they hold?

Do you really think it's good for the country to have 40% of our people (with seemingly constant pressure to make that number larger) paying nothing toward the biggest source of revenue for our Federal government while expanding the group of people at the bottom of our income ladder who are reliant on entitlements and other "freebies"? There's a reason why entitlement reform and fiscal responsibility are so politically deadly. It's a systemic flaw and it's strangling our country. We need to eliminate this political perversion.

Taco John
02-02-2010, 02:30 PM
Banyon, there's no degree of nuance to understand. It's simple political science. When government forces people to do things against their will (such as carry private health insurance) face jail time, that is authoritarian. Quite simple.

If you don't understand this - yes, you are off the reservation. No matter how high you step on your tippy toes to talk down to us.

Jenson71
02-02-2010, 06:55 PM
When government forces people to do things against their will (such as carry private health insurance) face jail time, that is authoritarian. Quite simple.


Can not paying your taxes (though your will might be for not doing so) lead to jail time?

For refusing to show up for your court hearing? For burning your draft card? For exposing your naked body in public?

Maybe those are authoritarian. But I'm not against them. Can't we draw a line somewhere without going into absolutes?

Taco John
02-02-2010, 08:19 PM
If you want to have a discussion about when authoritarianism is good and when it's bad, then let's have that discussion. But let's not pretend that using government force to get citizens to behave how you want them to is not authoritarian. Banyon says that forcing people to participate in a health care scheme is not authoritarian. It clearly is.

Taco John
02-02-2010, 08:20 PM
And yes, Income Taxes are authoritarian. Just another proof of how evil they really are in a so-called "free" society.

The Mad Crapper
02-03-2010, 08:55 AM
To think that we were warned, and this ASSHOLE still was elected:

http://clipmarks.com/clipmark/0549ADF8-51D2-42AD-8AE1-BB58BB61162F/

JohnnyV13
02-03-2010, 01:13 PM
And yes, Income Taxes are authoritarian. Just another proof of how evil they really are in a so-called "free" society.

Taco, in your view, isn't any law authoritarian?

JohnnyV13
02-03-2010, 01:31 PM
Who gets to decide who is dominating? Uh hmmm...

Sorry, but this old canard, is a red herring.

So long as entry is not barred into an industry, the threat of competition is always there. It's when an organization uses govt to beat their competition out of business, like with excessive regulations, that this happens. You need additional data to properly evaluate such a cliche. Like who was behind anti-trust legislation. It was often the competitors who were jealous and wanted govt to carve out their market share for them. Besides, monopoly is a creature of govt—not the market.

Now how is it inefficient that one organization dominate? That's not necessarily so either. One large outfit has the benefit of economies of scale and can deliver goods cheaper and more efficiently. If it no longer does so that just invites new players into their area.


When you add the caveat of, "So long as entry is not barred into an industry", you pretty much validate large portions of anti-trust law. Or do you consider predatory pricing and tactics of that ilk, not a true barrier to entry?

When you say that monopoly is the creature of government, you're correct because anti-trust law prevents private organizations from obtaining monopolistic power without government acquiesence. But, are you arguing that a "pure" free market without government intervention wouldn't have monopolies?

If so, I beg to differ. Lets look at mafia businesses as an example. Mafia dons hold territories where they brutally exclude competitors to hold complete local monopolies. The only reason competing territories exist is because law enforcement agencies prevent mafia organizations from becoming large enough to control large territories.

Then you argue that pure free market monopolies are benevolent and do not damaage the market. Standard Oil made this same argument in their famous anti-trust case, pointing out how heating oil prices actually went down once they ruled the market.

Yet, what about the curb on innovation? Do you think its any accident that phone technology exploded and long distance prices rapidly dropped after the govenment broke up Bell in 1981?

You talk about the "threat" of market entry, but how long does it take in most industries to build a viable competitor to a giant? In the decade it will take in most industries (excluding the rapid growth software sector), you'll have a period of low innovation. Why take risks if you're already making profit off old techology.

You say that opens the door for competition, but I still point out that if you replicate this "growth delay" over many sectors, you'll see a significant drop in innovation and economic growth across the economy.

BucEyedPea
02-03-2010, 02:33 PM
Uh...hmmm

banyon
02-03-2010, 03:19 PM
I've never called Obama a step and a half away from Hitler or Stalin. You have a bad habit of invalidating your takes in your first sentances.

That's what you do when you try to label them Communists or fascists or authoritarians. What other significant historical comparisons do you think those terms bring to mind other than those figures?

banyon
02-03-2010, 03:22 PM
Banyon, there's no degree of nuance to understand. It's simple political science. When government forces people to do things against their will (such as carry private health insurance) face jail time, that is authoritarian. Quite simple.

No it isn't. There's a universe of degrees between a city ordinance requiring you to mow your lawn and living on the Death Star. Lumping it all together as "authoritarian" and trying to jam it into your binary logic doesn't work.

If you don't understand this - yes, you are off the reservation. No matter how high you step on your tippy toes to talk down to us.

On my tippy toes? I might need to look back at this thread. Was I the one calling people dopes and out of touch, or was that you?

Taco John
02-03-2010, 05:08 PM
That's what you do when you try to label them Communists or fascists or authoritarians.

What other significant historical comparisons do you think those terms bring to mind other than those figures?

I can't help it if some of the worst monsters in history shared an ideology that Obama is keen to pursue. But it's that ideology that gave these men such power. This is undeniable.

I take no responsibility for the historical connections you draw when these terms are used. But I understand why you'd be so adamant to try and distance yourself from these words, despite being an advocate of ideological solutions that centralize power.

BucEyedPea
02-03-2010, 05:44 PM
I can't help it if some of the worst monsters in history shared an ideology that Obama is keen to pursue. But it's that ideology that gave these men such power. This is undeniable.

I take no responsibility for the historical connections you draw when these terms are used. But I understand why you'd be so adamant to try and distance yourself from these words, despite being an advocate of ideological solutions that centralize power.

Actually, what's happening here is the recognition of oneself in those authoritarian groups and in order to lessen the harshness of that truth it's a psychological mechanism to lash out at those who touch on the truth in oneself. :) Just sayin'!

Taco John
02-03-2010, 06:07 PM
I find it amusing that he constantly tries to minimize the federal part of this by reverting to "city ordinance" talking points. We're not talking about local government here. This is a discussion about the federal government and what they force onto the entire populace.

Taco John
02-03-2010, 06:19 PM
Taco, in your view, isn't any law authoritarian?

Not necessarily. I wouldn't get too hung up on the authoritarian part except that I thought it was exceedingly dishonest for Banyon to deny the authoritarianism of forcing people to subscribe to health insurance or face jail time as a "tax cheat." To deny that this is authoritarian seems ridiculous to me.

What I would get hung up on is the idea of government as an aggressor of its citizens. I believe unequivocably that government should act non-aggressively towards its citizens until a citizen crosses the line of aggression - at which point the government should act quickly, decisively, and harshly. If I infringe on your life, liberty, and/or property, I should lose my rights to these things. And I believe that government should be held to a similar standard. So to that end, government should no infringe on my right to decide what health insurance options are right for me - including none at all. As an individual, government should protect my right to choose - not force me at the point of a gun to "choose" what they've chosen for me. When government uses force like this, it acts as an aggressor infringing my liberties.

I have no problems with local governments enforcing local laws based on their own constitutions and population make-up (I'd prefer to fight those battles locally, not federally). But it's up to the federal government to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority. This vision has been lost over time as the federal government has centralized more and more power away from the states and into federal hands. The result is a system that makes absolutely no sense and is grid-locked in national partisainship. The only way to solve this partisainship is to decentralize power into the hands of the states and let the solutions be applied regionally, with the best solutions being widely adopted by the will of the people in those regions. Forcing one-size-fits-all federal solutions causes chaos and eventually instability.

Taco John
02-03-2010, 06:25 PM
I'll state it as simply as I can:

We can have a successful government that doesn't aggress on its people.

Taco John
02-03-2010, 06:38 PM
Not only that, we should demand it.

The Mad Crapper
02-18-2010, 11:47 AM
No, they're not my solutions. You have to color them that way though to pigeonhole them into your narrative, which is understandable.

Progressive solutions regarding power involve (1)transparency in government (2)accountability to the public (3)checks on corruption/lobbying (4)independent audits, (5)public access to officials, inter alia.

They also involve the pretty basic acknowledgement that power can grow just as easily through the accumulation of massive sums of wealth in trusts and monopolies or dynastic wealth, which you pretend doesn't exist, despite countless historical examples of such behavior, thus your laissez-faire ideology, which has already failed to check such accumulations on multiple occasions in history, basically just enables those who want to accumulate such power into doing so.

OK, Banyon.

Give me an example where Obama has "solved"

A.transparency in government
B. Accountability to the public
C. Checks on lobbying/corruption
D. Independent Audits
E. Public Access to officials

Feel free to also explain your assumption that these things were worse before Dear Leader took charge.

This should be good.

ROFL

banyon
02-18-2010, 12:51 PM
OK, Banyon.

Give me an example where Obama has "solved"

A.transparency in government
B. Accountability to the public
C. Checks on lobbying/corruption
D. Independent Audits
E. Public Access to officials

Feel free to also explain your assumption that these things were worse before Dear Leader took charge.

This should be good.

ROFL

Why am I obligated to talk about Obama solving these problems? I've said nothing but how he's been a dissapointment as a progressive leader in these areas.

BucEyedPea
02-18-2010, 12:57 PM
I wonder when banyon will be a featured guest speaker on Beck's arguing for the communist side as in it's not really communism etc.

The Mad Crapper
02-18-2010, 01:13 PM
Why am I obligated to talk about Obama solving these problems? I've said nothing but how he's been a dissapointment as a progressive leader in these areas.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

:rolleyes:

The Mad Crapper
02-18-2010, 01:23 PM
I wonder when banyon will be a featured guest speaker on Beck's arguing for the communist side as in it's not really communism etc.

You know what? Banyon should contact Becks show and ask to go on. Or at least call the radio program. Email him? I think Banyon wouldn't have the balls. He'd rather make anonymous attacks on the internet.

banyon
02-18-2010, 02:33 PM
Riiiiiiiiiight.

:rolleyes:

Ok, feel free to show my posts to the contrary. Put up or shut up, if you have more than just hot air.

The Mad Crapper
02-19-2010, 11:47 AM
Ok, feel free to show my posts to the contrary. Put up or shut up, if you have more than just hot air.

Put up or shut up what? You're the one blathering nonsense.

No, they're not my solutions. You have to color them that way though to pigeonhole them into your narrative, which is understandable.

Progressive solutions regarding power involve (1)transparency in government (2)accountability to the public (3)checks on corruption/lobbying (4)independent audits, (5)public access to officials, inter alia.

They also involve the pretty basic acknowledgement that power can grow just as easily through the accumulation of massive sums of wealth in trusts and monopolies or dynastic wealth, which you pretend doesn't exist, despite countless historical examples of such behavior, thus your laissez-faire ideology, which has already failed to check such accumulations on multiple occasions in history, basically just enables those who want to accumulate such power into doing so.

First you say "these are not my solutions" then you go on to list what you think are progressive solutions, then you deny that B.O. does any of them.

Let's get this straight, you voted for the jackass because you wanted him to do what exactly...? Arbitrarily run up the debt? Bankrupt the country?

The Mad Crapper
02-19-2010, 11:59 AM
I find it amusing that he constantly tries to minimize the federal part of this by reverting to "city ordinance" talking points. We're not talking about local government here. This is a discussion about the federal government and what they force onto the entire populace.

I used to think Banyon was an over educated shithead, but his incessant ad hominem attacks clearly demonstrate to anybody paying attention that he simply doesn't have the ability to properly dispute my (or yours) assertions by garnering facts and evidence to show otherwise. The sad thing about it is he actually thinks he's being clever, but even more pathetic is that a handful of Koz Kids (ie Jenson) fall for it.

Now? I just think Banyon is a shithead.

BucEyedPea
02-19-2010, 12:12 PM
I used to think Banyon was an over educated shithead, but his incessant ad hominem attacks clearly demonstrate to anybody paying attention that he simply doesn't have the ability to properly dispute my (or yours) assertions by garnering facts and evidence to show otherwise. The sad thing about it is he actually thinks he's being clever, but even more pathetic is that a handful of Koz Kids (ie Jenson) fall for it.

Yet he calls others out for their attacks when he started plenty himself.
Plus he acts like a BB has to be academia in every single post....with a full briefing written. Man, he takes it all too far, and too seriously as if he's threatened.

The Mad Crapper
02-19-2010, 12:17 PM
Yet he calls others out for their attacks when he started plenty himself.
Plus he acts like a BB has to be academia in every single post....with a full briefing written. Man, he takes it all too far, and too seriously as if he's threatened.

Another one of his (not so) clever tactics is asking an open ended question, then snarkily insinuating you are an idiot because you can't (or won't) answer the question.

But if you notice there is never any follow up.