The Democrat Thread

[kapkomet]

I don't see the relevance. We aren't remotely close to a collectivism society not matter how much you want to think so.

Really? I agree, but we're heading that way... more in the last 10 weeks then I've seen in my lifetime. And when you factor in the last 6 months, we've REALLY headed for it. And yes, I blame GWB for that.

 

But I'd still like some thought out answers on this question... and I won't be a dick. I just want to know what people think about that question and why.

[BigSqwert]

col·lec·tiv·ism (kə-lĕk'tə-vĭz'əm)

n.

The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

 

That sounds like the U.S.S.R. in the cold war era where they controlled and owned everything including the food supply, news media, etc. A bit of a stretch to compare our current conditions to that system.

[lostfan]

It isn't an absolute yes-or-no question, kap.

[southsider2k5]

It's a shame more Republicans aren't this reasonable.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/07/fee....gop/index.html

 

Maybe if a Democrat had written a similar article in the previous eight years, things would be nearly as poisionous as they are now...

[lostfan]

Maybe if a Democrat had written a similar article in the previous eight years, things would be nearly as poisionous as they are now...

Maybe. Election season was f***ing ridiculous in most places. Everyone was either a fascist or a socialist.

 

edit: also the White House's tone towards Republicans, while still partisan, is a lot different from the previous White House staff's tone towards Democrats from about 2002-2006. But most of the divisiveness seems to come from Congress.

Edited April 8, 2009 by lostfan

[kapkomet]

It isn't an absolute yes-or-no question, kap.

I know that. That's why I want some people to answer to it. But I see no one is going to take it seriously... so that in and of itself answers the question.

 

[lostfan]

I know that. That's why I want some people to answer to it. But I see no one is going to take it seriously... so that in and of itself answers the question.

I could answer it in detail but I think you know what I'm going to say if you've read enough of my posts.

[kapkomet]

I could answer it in detail but I think you know what I'm going to say if you've read enough of my posts.

My point for asking the question is the two are absolutes on a continuum. I want to know what people's views of this are, especially you libs. Seriously. I want to understand where some of your viewpoints come from.

 

 

[BigSqwert]

Here's something Sean Hannity is dying to do...minus the kind words.

[lostfan]

My point for asking the question is the two are absolutes on a continuum. I want to know what people's views of this are, especially you libs. Seriously. I want to understand where some of your viewpoints come from.

All right, I'll bite. I think a society is the most efficient when it functions as a collective unit where everyone has the same goal or concept in mind (I guess loosely defined the well-being of their society). In fact I can't think of a single historical example where this is not the case. Government (at all levels) can accomplish some of these things, for many others, it can't. However, this does not mean that the lowest levels of society (individuals, families, communities) should not be the strongest units. They just need to be provided resources to reach their full potential, and when they can, they'll make the best decisions for that society and find the best way they can contribute to it. Free enterprise with the least amount of government interference possible is the best way to handle the economy, but I also don't think the market is the end-all/be-all to itself and I'm realistic about the government sometimes needing to intervene.

Edited April 8, 2009 by lostfan

[HuskyCaucasian]

Here's something Sean Hannity is dying to do...minus the kind words.

actually, it strikes me as more of a Glenn Beck thing to do. Hannity, while a moron, is controlled. Beck has fallen off his rocker.

[BigSqwert]

I love Roger Ebert.

 

To: Bill O'Reilly

From: Roger Ebert

 

Dear Bill: Thanks for including the Chicago Sun-Times on your exclusive list of newspapers on your "Hall of Shame." To be in an O'Reilly Hall of Fame would be a cruel blow to any newspaper. It would place us in the favor of a man who turns red and starts screaming when anyone disagrees with him. My grade-school teacher, wise Sister Nathan, would have called in your parents and recommended counseling with Father Hogben.

 

Yes, the Sun-Times is liberal, having recently endorsed our first Democrat for President since LBJ. We were founded by Marshall Field one week before Pearl Harbor to provide a liberal voice in Chicago to counter the Tribune, which opposed an American war against Hitler. I'm sure you would have sided with the Trib at the time.

 

I understand you believe one of the Sun-Times misdemeanors was dropping your syndicated column. My editor informs me that "very few" readers complained about the disappearance of your column, adding, "many more complained about Nancy." I know I did. That was the famous Ernie Bushmiller comic strip in which Sluggo explained that "wow" was "mom" spelled upside-down.

 

Your column ran in our paper while it was owned by the right-wing polemicists Conrad Black (Baron Black of Coldharbour) and David Radler. We dropped it to save a little money after they looted the paper of millions. Now you call for an advertising boycott. It is unusual to observe a journalist cheering for a newspaper to fail. At present the Sun-Times has no bank debt, but labors under the weight of millions of dollars in tax penalties incurred by Lord Black, who is serving an eight-year stretch for mail fraud and obstruction of justice. We also had to pay for his legal expenses.

 

There is a major difference between Conrad Black and you: Lord Black is a much better writer and thinker, and authored a respected biography about Roosevelt, who we were founded to defend. That newspapers continue to run your column is a mystery to me, since it is composed of knee-jerk frothings and ravings. If I were an editor searching for a conservative, I wouldn't choose a mad dog. My recommendation: The admirable Charles Krauthammer.

 

Bill, I am concerned that you have been losing touch with reality recently. Did you really say you are more powerful than any politician?

 

That reminds me of the famous story about Squeaky the Chicago Mouse. It seems that Squeaky was floating on his back along the Chicago River one day. Approaching the Michigan Avenue lift bridge, he called out: Raise the bridge! I have an erection!

[kapkomet]

All right, I'll bite. I think a society is the most efficient when it functions as a collective unit where everyone has the same goal or concept in mind (I guess loosely defined the well-being of their society). In fact I can't think of a single historical example where this is not the case. Government (at all levels) can accomplish some of these things, for many others, it can't. However, this does not mean that the lowest levels of society (individuals, families, communities) should not be the strongest units. They just need to be provided resources to reach their full potential, and when they can, they'll make the best decisions for that society and find the best way they can contribute to it. Free enterprise with the least amount of government interference possible is the best way to handle the economy, but I also don't think the market is the end-all/be-all to itself and I'm realistic about the government sometimes needing to intervene.

Anyone else? This is a good post. I'll comment later... leaving for softball. Game #4 of the season. In this league, I'm batting 1.000.

 

 

[StrangeSox]

lostfan could have ghostwritten that paragraph as my opinion. I'm sure if we dug down deeper we'd all find disagreements, but his post is basically my opinion as well.

[HuskyCaucasian]

I debated starting a new thread on this, but decided against it.

 

House Republican Compiles a List of Democratic "Socialists"

Not too long ago, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann was on Hardball, calling for the media to investigate her Congressional colleagues to "find out if they are pro-America or anti-America." Well, it turns out that someone has taken up Bachmann's call on a proactive basis! His name is Spencer Bachus and he has made a list -- a secret list! -- of the socialists in the House of Representatives. Or so he told the Birmingham News. Who are the seventeen socialists? That's the secret part, apparently.

 

From The Hill's Briefing Room:

Rep.

S

pencer Bachu

s

(R-Ala.) put

s

the number of

s

ociali

s

t

s

in the Hou

s

e at 17.

"

S

ome of the men and women I wor

k

with in Congre

s

s

are

s

ociali

s

t

s

," Bachu

s

told local government leader

s

on Thur

s

day, according to the Birmingham New

s

.

Bachu

s

gave the

s

pecific number of Hou

s

e

s

ociali

s

t

s

when pre

s

s

ed later by a reporter.

By the way, I can't wait until someone tells Bachus about how "only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism." He is not going to take that news well, I imagine.

[lostfan]

lol! Seriously? He is literally being Joseph McCarthy.

[HuskyCaucasian]

lol! Seriously? He is literally being Joseph McCarthy.

The only difference is that these are "socialists", not communisits... but I know the GOP has a hard time telling the difference. they are one and the same to most of them.

 

Has Joe the Horny Plummer been consulted on this list?

[Balta1701]

This is a fascinating and unexpected result.

 

For months now, the Republicans have decided to tar a popular president with the label "Socialist!", clearly setting up themselves as opposing socialism (by, conveniently, sounding exactly like the previous President).

 

Instead of this hurting the President with anyone except the Bush 24%...President Obama's popularity is actually improving the popularity of Socialism.

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

 

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

 

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

 

Investors by a 5-to-1 margin choose capitalism. As for those who do not invest, 40% say capitalism is better while 25% prefer socialism.

 

There is a partisan gap as well. Republicans - by an 11-to-1 margin - favor capitalism. Democrats are much more closely divided: Just 39% say capitalism is better while 30% prefer socialism. As for those not affiliated with either major political party, 48% say capitalism is best, and 21% opt for socialism.

 

The question posed by Rasmussen Reports did not define either capitalism or socialism

[kapkomet]

This is a fascinating and unexpected result.

 

For months now, the Republicans have decided to tar a popular president with the label "Socialist!", clearly setting up themselves as opposing socialism (by, conveniently, sounding exactly like the previous President).

 

Instead of this hurting the President with anyone except the Bush 24%...President Obama's popularity is actually improving the popularity of Socialism.

I saw this, and it's absolutely pathetic. It tells me that the GOP is totally screwed up in the head, and if they would EVER get a real leader to explain why capitalism is the engine that made this country great COMBINED WITH fiscal restraint at the government levels, that it would finally stop this nonsense. As I've said before, GWB's biggest legacy was to start us down the path of this nonsense, Obama's just finishing it off. After all, it's what the people want.

 

By the way, thanks for clarifying the point that Obama's a "socialist".

[lostfan]

If we had more than 2 political parties, there would probably be an honest-to-god socialist party. The reason there's not is because of the legacy stigma attached to the word. Most of the people who I hear shouting it out (this doesn't include most posters on this board, obviously) really don't have a clue what it means, they just know/think it's bad.

Edited April 10, 2009 by lostfan

[Balta1701]

I saw this, and it's absolutely pathetic. It tells me that the GOP is totally screwed up in the head, and if they would EVER get a real leader to explain why capitalism is the engine that made this country great, that it would finally stop this nonsense. As I've said before, GWB's biggest legacy was to start us down the path of this nonsense, Obama's just finishing it off. After all, it's what the people want.

 

By the way, thanks for clarifying the point that Obama's a "socialist".

I never said that. I just said that because the Republicans are trying to apply the word to him...it's improving the popularity of the word. Doesn't mean he actually is one. Key note of that data is that Ras didn't define Socialism, so it was entirely a question of how people were viewing the word, not necessarily whether they agree with the policies it would entail.

[kapkomet]

I never said that. I just said that because the Republicans are trying to apply the word to him...it's improving the popularity of the word. Doesn't mean he actually is one. Key note of that data is that Ras didn't define Socialism, so it was entirely a question of how people were viewing the word, not necessarily whether they agree with the policies it would entail.

I know you didn't say that. Hence the . But yea, your point of equating "Obama" to "socialism" and therefore, "socialism" must be "good", because "Obama is good", is just amazing. I know this is a terrible grammatical sentence...

[Balta1701]

I know you didn't say that. Hence the . But yea, your point of equating "Obama" to "socialism" and therefore, "socialism" must be "good", because "Obama is good", is just amazing. I know this is a terrible grammatical sentence...

Or it could very well be..."Republicans think Socialism is bad, Republicans were in charge for the last 8 years, Socialism must therefore be good because they screwed everything up." Either way...

[kapkomet]

Or it could very well be..."Republicans think Socialism is bad, Republicans were in charge for the last 8 years, Socialism must therefore be good because they screwed everything up." Either way...

Exactly.

 

And it shows how ignorant Americans are (in general).

 

[Balta1701]

If you want an example of how in-depth Secretary Gates has thought through his budget, take a look at the Littoral Combat ship. It's terribly over budget. But he kept it. Why? Because despite being over budget, if you start making them, you basically are producing a fast ship for a lot less money than a destroyer, frigate, or carrier costs. Which is exactly the kind of thing you need against smaller, insurgent type threats. Like, say, Pirates.

The Defense Secretary believes that price tag can come down. But, as opposed to our friend and naval analyst Galrahn, Gates believe the LCS "has a capability that we just have to have... It would have enormous value against fast boats like we see, for example, in the Persian Gulf." Even at an inflated price, it would still be more economical than other options the Navy uses today. "You don't need a $5 billion ship to go after pirates. You don't need a $5 billion ship necessarily to do a humanitarian mission. So its flexibility and its ability to get into tighter places than other ships that makes it more attractive."

The situation in Somalia right now is an excellent example of how our military just is not built to face off against the asymmetric threats the U.S. is encountering in the 21st century. Which is why cutting back on the big ticket items and focusing in on the things we need is so important. Because tying up $5 billion worth of equipment because a couple pirates hit a container ship is a terrible way to use resources in the long run.