The Danger of Obama

The Conservative attack method is simple.

Opponents abroad? Terrorists. (Added 2001 (c)neoCON)

Opponents domestic? Communists.

C'mon, McCarthy taught us this! He did nothing but speculate and fear monger. Hermann Goering said it even better:

"Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

I asserted no such thing. Surely you know the difference between socialism and communism.

Barack Obama wants more economic regulation. Economic regulation is socialism, plain and simple. Please don't make me draw it in crayon for you.

Oh, and I'm not a conservative.

I believe I went over this in another thread. I already explained why having economic regulation is not a bad thing.

But the people who assert such things often don't know the difference.

You are clearly one of them.

Barack Obama wants more economic regulation. Economic regulation is socialism, plain and simple. Please don't make me draw it in crayon for you.

Oh, and I'm not a conservative.

Whether or not you think socialism is a good or bad thing is not the issue

Business regulation =/= socialism

:thumbdown:

Economic regulation is socialism? Surely you jest.

See, there's a difference between enforcing rules, which we know as regulation and the state owning and controlling every aspect of business, which we know as socialism.

Want this drawn in crayon?

Again, if the state can dictate with whom and under what circumstances I am permitted to trade, it exercises a higher degree of control over my property than I do, which makes it the effective owner of all property governed by economic regulation. This is intro political theory, not Agambenian notions of homo sacer, so you should be able to figure this out.

If you own something, you have complete control over it. You can sell it, use it, consume it, or destroy it.

Business regulation equates to state ownership of property, which is the definition of socialism.

Economic regulation is socialism? Surely you jest.

See, there's a difference between enforcing rules, which we know as regulation and the state owning and controlling every aspect of business, which we know as socialism.

By your logic, Ponzi schemes should be legal. It IS the government telling you how you can and cannot conduct business.

Alright.

Using your logic again:

No regulations on what chemicals are used in our food. That's socialism.
No regulations on vehicle safety. That's socialism.
No regulations on pollution and waste dumping. That's socialism.
No regulations on pharmaceutical drug safety. That's socialism.

What do you think has happened? The government put the bait out.
Bailout. The fish bit. Except for Ford. Now, the corporations will do as they are told. They have a new master.

Not one time have you seen a libertarian or a conservative object to regulation concerning public safety. If so, give an example. The arguments concern economics. But, you probably feel compelled to change the subject.

Take your conspiracies elsewhere, I will not hear of them. :thumbdown:

Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Heh?

Since 02-01-09 when you posted this, your government has passed another bailout that will ensure the enslavement of corporate America.
Barry has stated that now is not the time for making a profit.
"Profit" is the goal of business. The moron mis-speaks again...?
I'm old, I've never witnessed a president ASSume so much power.
He's just getting started.