Obama '08?

http://unabridged.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/unabridged?va=socialism&x=20&y=7
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation Guide
Pronunciation: sshlizm
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): -s
1 : any of various theories or social and political movements advocating or aiming at collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and control of the distribution of goods: as a : FOURIERISM b : GUILD SOCIALISM c : MARXISM d : OWENISM
2 a : a system or condition of society or group living in which there is no private property <trace the remains of pure socialism that marked the first phase of the Christian community -- W.E.H.Lecky> -- compare INDIVIDUALISM b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state -- compare CAPITALISM, LIBERALISM c : a stage of society that in Marxist theory is transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and payments to individuals according to their work

I believe that anarchism is, in theory, the most just method of dealing with socio-political relations between human beings. Unfortunately, I also believe that anarchism rests on the profoundly mistaken notion that humans are fundamentally good. Consequently, while anarchy is the best government, it is also the least viable, because people are, on the whole, irrational, short-sighted, selfish, fearful jerks. That makes me an anarcho-pessimist.

Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats are now engaged in usurping our rights and robbing us, to give it to their voters.

And you and others kept saying that you lost rights and freedoms under Bush, yet you never proved it.

Quote:

Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats are now engaged in usurping our rights and robbing us, to give it to their voters.

Which rights, exactly? I still haven't gotten an answer from you on this one.

Cycloptichorn

Very very shallow thinking, cyclops. The key to this is "unreasonable."

We are subject to all kinds of security procedures, just go to an airport and find out if you do not know about it.

What the liberal establishment did to Bush was to twist and stretch the definition of the 4th amendment

in their own convoluted effort to demonize George Bush, an honorable man that was doing his job to protect the country by detecting communications with possible foreign terror cells.

In fact, if you want to know the truth of it, I think some of the searches at airports are more unwarranted and unreasonable than checking phone calls to foreign locations,

in fact it is more of a violation of our persons, our privacy, and our papers and effects at an airport than it is phone conversations. I could cite other examples besides airports to demonstrate the point.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats are now engaged in usurping our rights and robbing us, to give it to their voters.

Which rights, exactly? I still haven't gotten an answer from you on this one.

Cycloptichorn

You must be awfully insulated from the news. Obama is trying to nationalize or regulate our health care and insurance, ultimately wanting single payer health care system, which would essentially strip us of our individual rights and responsibilities to do that ourselves.

That is only a starter for all that he probably wants to do.

Amendment V
No person … shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
…
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Budgetary implications of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts

A variety of tax cuts were enacted under President Bush between 2001-2003, through the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (EGTRRA) and the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (JGTRRA). Most of these tax cuts are scheduled to expire December 31, 2010. Since CBO projections are based on current law, the projections discussed above assume these tax cuts will expire, which may prove politically challenging. CBO has estimated that extending these cuts would cost the U.S. Treasury nearly $1.8 trillion in the following decade, dramatically increasing federal deficits and exacerbating the entitlement-related risks described above.[57]

I think I am beginning to figure out your "anarcho-pessimist" term, Joe. Because you are very pessimistic about individual freedom, which you regard as anarchy, you are therefore in favor of a very strong State to run everything, essentially a dictatorship type of government, to keep the peace and provide for the needs of all of the citizens"? Am I close to correct, Joe?

I think what you do not understand or agree with in regard to our system of government, our Declaration of Independence, and what it means to be an American, is the following. The purpose of government as instituted and believed by the founders was to guarantee our rights, liberties, and responsibilities as individuals. That does not include anarchy as you might think, because the very purpose of government was to guarantee our protection, our liberties and our persons, from outside threats, from government, and from each other. For example, besides national defense, our entire judicial system was designed to protect us from others killing us, injuring us, or robbing us of our property and our rights and liberties.

Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats are now engaged in usurping our rights and robbing us, to give it to their voters. That is as un American as you can be, and is totally counter to the principles the country was founded upon.

okie wrote:

I think I am beginning to figure out your "anarcho-pessimist" term, Joe. Because you are very pessimistic about individual freedom, which you regard as anarchy, you are therefore in favor of a very strong State to run everything, essentially a dictatorship type of government, to keep the peace and provide for the needs of all of the citizens"? Am I close to correct, Joe?

When have you ever been close to correct?

okie wrote:

I think what you do not understand or agree with in regard to our system of government, our Declaration of Independence, and what it means to be an American, is the following. The purpose of government as instituted and believed by the founders was to guarantee our rights, liberties, and responsibilities as individuals. That does not include anarchy as you might think, because the very purpose of government was to guarantee our protection, our liberties and our persons, from outside threats, from government, and from each other. For example, besides national defense, our entire judicial system was designed to protect us from others killing us, injuring us, or robbing us of our property and our rights and liberties.

Are you suggesting that the Founding Father weren't anarchists? Really? Did you come up with this brilliant insight on your own or did a retarded child help you out with that?

okie wrote:

Unfortunately, Obama and the Democrats are now engaged in usurping our rights and robbing us, to give it to their voters. That is as un American as you can be, and is totally counter to the principles the country was founded upon.

As un-American as I can be? That's really giving Obama a whole lot of credit he doesn't deserve.

The rejection of racism by mainstream conservatives hardly ends there, though. Let's recall, for example, the Trent Lott fiasco, as chronicled by the New York Times:

Early, widespread and harsh criticism by conservative commentators and publications has provided much of the tinder for the political fires surrounding Senator Trent Lott since his favorable comments about the segregationist presidential campaign of 1948.


Conservative columnists, including Andrew Sullivan, William Kristol and Charles Krauthammer, and publications like National Review and The Wall Street Journal have castigated Mr. Lott for his remarks at Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th-birthday party, arguing that the conservative movement's credibility on racially tinged issues like affirmative action and school vouchers has been squandered.

Mr. Sullivan, on his Web site, and Mr. Krauthammer, writing in The Washington Post, are among those who have called on Mr. Lott to resign. Others, like Sean Hannity of Fox News Channel and the radio talk-show host Rush Limbaugh, have said the remarks were indefensible but were not necessarily reason enough for Mr. Lott to step down. An editorial in The Wall Street Journal stopped short of a direct call for Mr. Lott's ouster, but named three Republicans it preferred in the post.

The responses by conservatives have provided a marked contrast to the contention -- put forth most recently by former President Bill Clinton and former Vice President Al Gore -- that the nation's conservative news media acts as a monolithic Republican support system.

Robert Bartley, the editor of The Wall Street Journal, said, ''I don't know that there's anything close,'' when asked if he could remember such a revolt against a conservative leader by those who are usually like-minded on the issues.

Richard Lowry, the editor of National Review, said that young conservatives particularly feel undermined by Mr. Lott's comment.

''The reaction to this on the right has been tinged with outrage,'' Mr. Lowry said. ''I think that's a product of decades of hard work that conservatives have done on racially charged issues out of idealism and principle. To have those positions tarred, even inadvertently, with this backwardness on race is extremely distressing.''

The Trent Lott example is useful because it happened way back in 2002. How is it that the conservatives who criticized him are still welcome in the movement if Yglesias is right?

But this wasn't a unique event. Much the same thing could be written, for example, about Sen. George Allen's "macacca moment." When blatant racism is in the news it isn't at all surprising nowadays to see mainstream conservative pundits denouncing it.

Permalink :: Comments (86) ::

Share This