AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Cycloptichorn,

No. Recognizing opportunity and possibilities based on experience is not a true conspiracy theory. Laws, regulations, and controls are to reduce opportunity and incentive to violate desired behavior. When no laws, regulations, or controls are in place to limit government powers or power is assumed, only a fool does not recognize opportunity for mischief.

2 Replies

@old europe,

No point OE. If you can't or won't provide a simple example of anything that Obama could say that you would see as 'demonizing capitalism', it is a really safe bet that you would not agree with anything I would post. I posted the excerpt I thought most pertinent to make the point, and you have already dismissed that as 'vague'.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Laws in a capitalistic system are made to control fraud; nothing more, nothing less. It does not reduce opportunity or incentive. Show us which laws limits opportunity or incentive?

Mischief happens irregardless of laws; that's the reason why we have the Madoffs and Stanfords.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No point OE. If you can't or won't provide a simple example of anything that Obama could say that you would see as 'demonizing capitalism', it is a really safe bet that you would not agree with anything I would post.

That's all I need to do to get you to post the most explicit example of Obama demonizing capitalism from the piece you posted?

Okay. I will go along with that.

Example: If Obama said he believed that were the proletariat to seize the means of production, they would encourage social relations that would benefit everyone equally, and a system of production less vulnerable to periodic crises, I would argue that that would count as "demonizing capitalism".

Foxfyre wrote:

I posted the excerpt I thought most pertinent to make the point, and you have already dismissed that as 'vague'.

You have claimed that the excerpt you posted contained several explicit examples of Obama demonizing capitalism. All I'm asking you to do is to re-post what you think is the most explicit example of the several examples given in the opinion piece.

1 Reply

@old europe,

No, I claimed the letter contained several explicit examples. But the excerpt I posted makes the point.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxie wrote:

Quote:

A valid comment but realistically October 31 was just a bit short of five months ago. Certainly our elected leaders can and do change their perspective and point of view and should if additional information/experience warrants that, but otherwise does a leopard generally change his spots in so short a time?

I have not seen a great deal of flexibility in our President except that he is governing far more left of the impression he put out there while campaigning. And I have seen no willingness to compromise. His response to that so far has been "I won."

Do you think he would have been elected had he campaigned on his first budget being 3.5 trillion dollars with all the increase being in new essentially irreversible entitlements and social spending, especially since he was emphatically running against a poor economy? I have seen no indication he intends to modify that despite expert opinion that his projected revenues will likely miss the mark and the GDP cannot sustain the deficts he projects without severe economic damage being done.

I have seen no indication that he intends to reverse much if any of the tax policy that he ran on but has since proposed additional taxes. His rhetoric has been nonstop and explicit in his contempt for 'corporate and wallstreet' greed and that those who earn a certain level (i.e. those who have been financially successful) will be expected to pay more to support the government he intends and he also intends that they give up lucrative tax deductions as well.

All this is seen by me and apparently at least some others as a frontal assault on capitalism and individual initiative and prosperity. I can't see that Obama has compromised on any of that since the letter was written.

Please show us which sentence/statement by Obama challenges capitalism?

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

No, I claimed the letter contained several explicit examples.

My mistake. I agree, you said there were "very explicit examples included in that letter", not necessarily in the excerpt you posted. I'll change my request for you to back up your claims and to just pick the most explicit example of all of those examples of Obama "demonizing capitalism" that are giving in the letter and re-post it.

Foxfyre wrote:

But the excerpt I posted makes the point.

Your claim was not just that "it made the point", but that there were

Foxfyre wrote:

very explicit examples included in that letter

All I'm asking you is to back up your claim.

1 Reply

Conservatives have a lot to apologize for, having greatly damaged our country. Thankfully, the Dems are able to move in and clean up the mess as much as possible.

It was the conservatives who caused the great depression, as well as the one we are now in. A conservative, Eisenhower, got us into the war in Nam, and Bush lied us into Iraq. It was a conservative, GWB, who ignored warnings that might have prevented 9/11.

I can only hope that the public finally wises up to you conservative bastards.

0 Replies

@old europe,

I don't think so OE since we've both already agreed that you won't accept any example I would point out as valid.

I'll almost certainly deal with this again from time to time if President Obama continues on his current course. And we can go at it again then.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

I don't think so OE since we've both already agreed that you won't accept any example I would point out as valid.

You can't provide examples for all those who aren't myself or OE?

Certainly you don't want to look to others like you look like to us, do you?

1 Reply

@parados,

I posted the relevant paragraphs that I thought best summarized the very long letter that I linked. I referred any who might be interested to read the letter itself for examples that support that summary. If there is anything in the letter you do not understand, ask it. I'm sure I or somebody will be happy to help you out. The author is quite specific about the kinds of things that the President was saying that were anti-business and/or anti-captialist.

Now if the motive is to discredit me, fine. Post your evidence. But if you are actually interested in discussing the subject of the letter, then post whatever strikes your fancy from the letter and let's discuss that. Dispute the author if you can. I am affirming that it is my opinion that he was spot on.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote

Quote:

:"We'll see. I think when the people find out what it will cost them, Obama won't be enjoying anywhere nearly as much support for his healthcare plan. "

Unfortunately, I'm not as opptomistic as you Fox. This is not how the Dems work. You know what they will do is probably start off with their verision of a market based system where the Federal government offers, in competition with regular insurance companies, a plan of their own which will be the cheapest. More and more people will drop their private coverage in favor of the government's. As time goes by the government will take more and more market share until there are no more private companies left. After this happens we will then see the classic symptoms of Nationalized health care--price controls on the industry with the resultant rationing and wait periods. Finally the government will be the major supplier and begin to actually refuse to pay for certain procedures. Research in new drugs and medical devices and procedures will slow to a trickle....Problem of course is this will be done slowly and perniciously so the public will not notice until it is too late, just like the FDR thing. No need for me to make this up--See National Health Care, Canada,UK.

JM

1 Reply

@JamesMorrison,

Yeah you are as optimistic as me as witnessed by your post. Smile

I agree 100% that what you are describing is what is intended unless enough Americans get smart in a hurry and head it off. I don't think I was saying anything implausible to think that an attempt to nationalize the bank will be acomplished in much the same way. I hope I am wrong. I really do. It would make us so much stronger if everybody was on the same team with the same motives even if we did occasionally try to take different forks in the road.

But once it's a done deal; once the people realize what they have lost and how much it has cost them, the President won't enjoy anywhere nearly as much support as he does now.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I don't think so OE since we've both already agreed that you won't accept any example I would point out as valid.

I have done no such thing. In fact, I have jumped through all of your hoops to get you to simply copy and paste one single example of the several examples that you claim are given in the article where Obama is "demonizing capitalism and wealth".

You have claimed, more than once, that you had asked me to give an example (in spite of the fact that you, in fact, hadn't done so):

Foxfyre wrote:

I asked just to see if you could provide any kind of example of what Obama could say that would convince you that he was 'demonizing capitalism'

and I complied. I gave an example of what I would argue would count as "demonizing capitalism".

You also claimed that I dismissed the excerpt you posted as vague, when I had never done such a thing.

You make grandiose claims that you then refuse to back up. You make other people jump through hoops, but are unable to simply copy and paste one single example of the allegedly several examples that would quickly substantiate your claims. Instead, you make post upon post upon post, coming up with all sorts of excuses for why you will refuse to back up your claims.

Your claims have zero credibility if you're that steadfast in your refusal to back up what you're saying.

You have no leg to stand on.

1 Reply

@old europe,

Fine OE. I have no leg to stand on in your opinion. I accept your opinion as your opinion. If you think that example you gave was a serious example, however, then we really have absolutely nothing to discuss further on this. That's the best I can do for now.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Fine OE. I have no leg to stand on in your opinion. I accept your opinion as your opinion. That's the best I can do for now.

At times, your brazen intellectual dishonesty is simply astonishing.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

And I accept your opinon as your opinion too Joe which you show up to express at periodic intervals. I suppose the idiots, trolls, exercises in futility, numbnuts, and leftwing liberals--you probably fit in there somewhere--do view me as dishonest because I don't think as you do.

But to avoid my terrible dishonesty or whatever else you find objectionable about me, all you have to do is not read my posts, put me on ignore, scroll right on past or just not show up to say something snotty. Okay? I don't do that to you or anybody.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I suppose the idiots, trolls, exercises in futility, numbnuts, and leftwing liberals--you probably fit in there somewhere--do view me as dishonest because I don't think as you do.

I don't know about the "idiots, trolls, exercises in futility, numbnuts". But I suppose, you call me a 'leftwing liberal'.

I explicitly state that I don't think you are dishonest because you think differently than I do but I fully agree with what oe wrote above.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I have come to expect leftwing liberals to fully agree with other leftwing liberals and I don't recall ever seeing a leftwing liberal take another leftwing liberal to task for dishonesty or criticizing each other about anything here on A2K. I'm not saying that has never happened, but I don't recall ever seeing it happen.

Lately you and I have actually been able to civilly discuss a concept now and then and, when you're not trying to 'get' me but are actually discussing the concept, I have enjoyed that enormously whether or not we agree.

We conservatives usually don't trash each other either, but we can and do disagree.

But I think it is mostly a matter of perception and ideology probably does factor into that.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I have come to expect leftwing liberals to fully agree with other leftwing liberals and I don't recall ever seeing a leftwing liberal take another leftwing liberal to task for dishonesty or criticizing each other about anything here on A2K. I'm not saying that has never happened, but I don't recall ever seeing it happen.

We conservatives usually don't trash each other either, but we can and do disagree.

But I think it is mostly a matter of perception and ideology probably does factor into that.

I don't think it's bad to ask people to highlight specific parts of something they posted in order to have a frame of reference with which to move the conversation forward. Do you?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know