Jeb Bush: ‘I don’t know’ if Obama is a socialist.
Jeb Bush: ‘I don’t know’ if Obama is a socialist.
When asked by Tucker Carlson in an interview for Esquire magazine if he considered President Obama a socialist, former Gov. Jeb Bush (R-FL) said, “I don’t know. Define socialism for me.” But then, after calling Obama a “collectivist” — a common synonym for socialist or communist — Bush said the he believed the word “‘socialism’ was a pejorative, and ‘didn’t help’ the GOP make its case.” Bush said further that he didn’t think that Obama would have been elected had he “been honest with Americans about his agenda”:
Bush would not answer the question of whether he agreed with the assessment of some congressional Republicans that the president is a socialist. “I don’t know. Define socialism for me,” he told Esquire magazine. “It’s a word… I believe he’s a collectivist. He believes that through collective action, through government, you can solve more problems.” He added that he believed the word “socialism” was a pejorative, and “didn’t help” the GOP make its case. [...]
“….He made it appear like McCain was going to raise taxes, which was unfair, but there was no response back. When there was an ideological component, it was generally centrist or even center-right. Had he said what he was going to do as a candidate, (Obama) would have lost.”
Bush’s response appears to follow the lead of other prominent Republicans, like his brother former President Bush and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). In May, the former president declared that “the verdict is out” on whether Obama’s a socialist. And while RNC Chairman Michael Steele has refrained from labeling Obama a socialist, he — like Jeb — said that he viewed Obama as a “collectivist.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Can we add that to the very long list of things you don’t know, Jeb? Good thing people call you by your name every day.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:03 pmJeb Bush: ‘I don’t know’ if Obama is a socialist.
– - We do know your brother is a war criminal.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:03 pm.
R E M E M B E R:
FEAR the Marxist/Commie/Fascist/Socialist/Pinko Black man…
Have we seen Jeb’s birth certificate. I’m not sure he’s human.
.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:04 pmNotice how the podium just says “Jeb!”, rather than “Bush!” or “Jeb Bush!”
July 9th, 2009 at 3:05 pmJeb Bush: “I don’t know if Obama is a socialist, butt I do know that my brother is a war criminal, and like him, I’m a fascist pig”
There you are Jebbie, I fixed it for you
July 9th, 2009 at 3:06 pmJeb may not know if Obama is a socialist, but we all know that Bush is a fascist. Runs in the family.
PEACE
July 9th, 2009 at 3:06 pmI’m more like my brother, and I will make sure that the government cannot solve problems.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:06 pm.
Had Jeb’s brother, George, been honest about his agenda in 2000…
… Would anyone have voted for him?
.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pmInteresting. I am convinced that, had George Bush clearly said what he was going to do as a president -you know, invade countries that were not a threat, lie about it, order the torture of detainees, suspend Habeas Corpus, etc.- he would have lost too.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:07 pm“Jeb Bush: ‘I don’t know’ if Obama is a socialist.”
Here we go again with samo crapola. Yawn….
Tell you what I know, Jeb: Your brother stole not won two Presidential elections [with your help, of course], bankrupt this country, and sold the American people snake oil for 8 years to put our soldiers in harms way on two wars on false pretenses all in the name of oil and proits.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:09 pmIn all fairness, he would have received about 20% of the vote.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:10 pmVivan las Socialistas!
July 9th, 2009 at 3:10 pmHopefully, it will be the Socialist Party running against the Democrats in 2012.
Jeez. It’s obvious that this country has a socialist system in place and has for a long time.
Back in the “progressive era” (1890s-1930s) people were clamoring for socialism. And they got it. The socialism that they wanted back then is the system we have now.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:10 pmI believe he’s a collectivist. He believes that through collective action, through government, you can solve more problems.”
You gotta watch out for those collectivists. Next thing you know they’ll set up a republic. And they write horrific texts like this:
Dang collectivists.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pmDear Jeb Bush, We do know that you and your former Secretary of State of Florida, Katherine Harris, are both traitors to our American democracy and that you both should be tried for High Treason, along with your worthless lying brother George Bush and his cabal of traitorous gangsters, aka the Bush “administration.”
You GOP clowns have destroyed what once was a slightly decent political party, which had its ancient roots in the political greatness of fighting that peculiar American institution, slavery, under President Abraham Lincoln.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:12 pmJeb, Jeb who? Jeb Bush? Who gives a ratfck what any Bush thinks? We are still trying to clean the shitstains out of the fabric of America from the last Bush in the office. Last thing we need is another goddamn Bush.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:13 pmAnd the Republicans have been shooting holes in it and attempting to obstruct any further progress since 1947.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:14 pmThat scumbag ruined the homeowner’s insurance market in the state of Florida.
That whole family is poison for this country. His older brother’s regime was the most disgracefully incompetent that I have seen in my lifetime. Fascistic impulses seem to run in that clan.
I would love to see the whole lot of them move to Saudi Arabia and leave our nation in peace.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:15 pmJebbie.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:16 pmProof positive that the Bushes are the herpes of the political world.
Just when you finally think that you got rid of them, a new break out proves you wrong.
I guess that’s what happens when you get into bed with a dirty old whore like the GOP.
Well Jeb, what I do know is that you, your brothers and your father were all intimately in the 1980’s Savings & Loan debacle – which up until the most recent Wall Street thievery – was one of the largest criminal ripoffs of tax payer money ever seen. Talk about “collectivism” – the Bush Crime Family has been “collecting” ill-gotten money off the blood, sweat and trust of Americans for years.
Just saying . . .
July 9th, 2009 at 3:17 pmAleandro, your time frame is off. The Progressive movement began around 1920, just in time to have a positive effect on the country but not enough to forestall your Depression.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:18 pmI hate to say it, but with the rest of the Republican hopefuls dropping like flies, I think it’s highly likely that the Republican nominee will be Jeb Bush. He’s already campaigning.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:18 pmwell i know for certain jeb, you are an idiot
July 9th, 2009 at 3:19 pmI love the irony of the man who signed “Terri’s Law” (named after Terri Schiavo) saying the government should not be involved in health care issues.
Terri’s Law (later overturned as unconstitutional) essentially said the Florida Governor can intervene in a private family health issue and decide from the Governor’s Mansion what should happen to your loved one.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:20 pmDid Jeb confess to being a Corporacrat? Of course not!
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2008/12/general-jeb-to-ride-in-from-south.html
July 9th, 2009 at 3:20 pmThe GOP leaders attempt their incantations against the Democrats to try to turn the Democrats into something demonic that their followers can be afraid of and vote against. Let’s do our own little “expellaramus” on them by calling it “magic”, a concept that the fundamentalist Christians don’t like, as well as being an apt description.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:20 pmDon’t forget Jeb’s role in the Lehman Brothers fiasco:
http://peureport.blogspot.com/2009/01/curious-case-of-john-ellis-bush.html
http://peureport.blogspot.com/2008/12/fed-loaned-lehman-brothers-138-billion.html
July 9th, 2009 at 3:21 pmPalin exits and out of the woodwork another Bushwacker comes in. This has to be the GoOP stategy……trial balloonheads. Warning to all: “Beware of the Bush!”
July 9th, 2009 at 3:22 pm“It’s a word… I believe he’s a collectivist. He believes that through collective action, through government, you can solve more problems.”
And this is a bad thing? Seriously, why else would someone want to be an elected offical? Republicans view government as a tool to make money for their friends and themselves and to exert power over other people. Democrats (the good ones anyway) view govenment as a tool to make peoples’ lives better.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:22 pmWow. If he’s that ill informed about the current President … does he follow the news at all?!
July 9th, 2009 at 3:23 pmYeah, but wouldn’t you like to have a beer with him?
July 9th, 2009 at 3:23 pmAbsolutely no more Bush’s ever. We’ll probably see him running in 2016.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:23 pmWhich is exactly why the issue of torture and constitutional laws broken and personal freedoms lost under the last Bush has to be dealt with now or the next Bush (or whatever republican) will continue the same actions.
After fining Tenet Health for various ethics abuses in the State of Florida, Jebbie jointed the Board!
For two years of part time work, Jeb has nearly 70,000 shares of Tenet.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/70318/000007031809000099/xslF345X03/bus673.xml
July 9th, 2009 at 3:23 pmThe Progressive movement gave us such things as abolishing child labor, antitrust legislation that limited corporate power, unions to offset the company store game.
Yeah, Jeb, I can see why you would hate progressives.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:24 pmHow far do you want to go? What direction is this progress going? What’s the end goal?
Go back and read your encyclopedia.
It started in the 1890s with the suffrage movement and the temperance movement.
Then it moved on to workers’ rights and collective bargaining.
Then it kept “progressing” into the New Deal.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:26 pmHe may be the smartest of the Bush’s but that isn’t saying much.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:26 pmI do know that Jeb has no chance of holding national office. His wife was caught smuggling expensive clothes into US and not paying duties/taxes on it. Some of his kids were caught shoplifting, I seem to recall, and, possibly, rehab. His mixed marriage won’t fly with certain members of the GOP base. Not to mention that, his brother screwed up any chance of a Bush getting elected to national office for at least two generations. I am sure there is more if, I think about it for more than two minutes.
Still, I don’t get what he is doing opening up his mouth in public. I thought he would be content to continue to reap the benefits of being born a Bush. Well, no one ever accused George and Barbara Bush’s kids of being geniuses.
Hey, Jeb – Obama stated, multiple times and very eloquently, that he did indeed want healthcare reform, energy reform, and that he supported a stimulus package to help the economy as opposed to tax cuts.
Also, it wasn’t Obama that made it seem as though McCain was going to raise taxes, that was McCain (this whole taxing healthcare benefits was HIS idea, remember?).
So, sorry Jeb, but you’re wrong. Obama ran on just that and was, indeed, elected. Perhaps you were paying attention to the wrong candidate and just missed him saying it 88 bajillion times between Feb 2007 and Nov 2008.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:28 pmSocialism, of course.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:28 pmToo funny…and I thought he was the smart one in the family!
July 9th, 2009 at 3:29 pmCollectivist, you mean like buying and selling insurance?
Collectivist, you mean like selling stocks to raise money for a business venture and thus spreading the risk among a group of people?
Collectivist, you mean like buying stocks in order spread your individual risk across a group of people?
Do the dumbasses like Jeb not understand that modern capitalism is built on the idea of collectivism? The Limited Liability Corporation is an entity designed to spread risks of various kinds across a large group of people and to pool the assets of a large group of people? The very idea of insurance is to collectivise risk.
I guess Jeb et al invest only in sole proprietorships. I guess Jeb et al don’t purchase any kind of insurance–CDOs, futures, etc. If we listen to Jeb, the idea of acting collectively to raise business capital is wrong. People and companies (the very word means a form collective entity) should just wait until they’ve saved enough to buy those new computers, to build that new building, to buy those raw materials, etc. and should only invest what they’re able to lose.
Idiots.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:32 pmSweden style or Soviet Union style? When you get to the France stage, will you still want to be “progressive” or will you then like the status quo and be “conservative?”
July 9th, 2009 at 3:32 pmJebediah, you might not know, as you generally don’t know jack shit, but we sure as hell know you’re an idiot. If you think this nation would possibly put a third Bush in the White House, you’re an even bigger idiot.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:34 pmSweden style, Alejandro, Sweden style.
I’ll always be a Progressive, no matter what the status quo is, because I support progress for the sake of progress. When humanity and society stop growing, all is lost.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:34 pmObama made his ‘agenda’ quite clear and the American people elected him with an overwhelming majority. The only promises he has not kept are to clean up issues the Republicans don’t want anyone to clean up — DADT, investigating the CIA and Bush admin abuses, etc. What more can they want from him? Perhaps they are egging him on to do these things? If I were he, I would certainly not continue trying to accommodate these people who have for so long worked with people who engage in coups d’état here and abroad…
July 9th, 2009 at 3:34 pmSweden style is fine. Denmark also has an excellent system.
When we do get there, feel free to go live in a cave.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:36 pmScandinavian style, Alejandro. Por supuesto.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:37 pmUse the public roads? Socialists!
July 9th, 2009 at 3:37 pmWalk on public sidewalk? Socialist!
Use an airport? Socialist!
Go to most MLB, NBA, NFL stadiums? Socialists!
Use the Library? Socialists!
Send your kids to Public Schools? Socialists!
In the military? Socialists!
Getting Medicare/Social Security? Socialists!
When humanity and society stop growing, the Republicans will have won.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:38 pmPeople misuse the word collectivist all the time and Jeb has done it here.
It’s collectivist to say “We invaded Iraq.”
No I didn’t. “We” didn’t do anything of the sort.
“We” have a health care problem.
No, “we” don’t. Some people do and some people don’t.
Collectivism applies more to attribution than to action.
A bunch of individuals teaming up to accomplish something isn’t really collectivism. It’s when the identity of the group takes priority over the identity of the individual, that’s collectivism.
Saying things like “the black community” is collectivism.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:38 pmA bunch of black people starting a club together is not.
Jeb is paving the way for a presidential bid. However, it would not help him to engage in a 3 year war with Obama. In fact, Fox News already has that angle covered. Jeb needs to sound and look presidential if he is going to run and a negative campaign would be premature. He can engage in politics by remaining ambiguous but still in the public eye. The point is not to have his negative ratings go up. The biggest drag on a bid will be his brother’s legacy. There is a lot of time between now and the next presidential election so a lot things can happen. He needs to see what other contenders for the nomination will be and the prospects for unseating Obama. If it appears doubtful then he will run in 2016.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pmProgress for the sake of progress is interesting. So it’s like someone just wandering in the desert. “Hey, where are you going?” “Nowhere in particular. I’m just making progress.”
July 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pmIt’s a good thing that no-one with a clue takes anything a conservative says seriously anymore.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:40 pmand one should remember:
PROgress is the opposite of CONgress
July 9th, 2009 at 3:42 pmHurray! the younger, pudgier brother of Caligula has spoken.
Hey Jeb, I bet you know that your miserable failure for an older brother George, is a fascist pig, just like you.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:43 pmIt’s ironic that the party of business is against collective action.
From the Oxford English Dictionary:
Company–
1. a. Companionship, fellowship, society; {dag}also transf. of things. in company: in the society of others, amidst other people, as opposed to alone; {dag}also, altogether, in all (obs.).
3. concr. a. A number of individuals assembled or associated together; an assemblage, party, or band; esp. one of retainers or followers; a retinue or train; also, of beasts or birds.
4. collect. a. Persons casually or temporarily brought into local association, travelling companionship, etc. More loosely, with the notion of companionship obscured, ‘People such as prevent solitude or privacy’; and so applicable to a single person. Obs. exc. as referred to 5.
b. The person or persons with whom one voluntarily or habitually associates; companions or associates collectively, esp. with reference to their character; in various phrases, as to know a man by his company, to keep good or bad company, to be addicted to low company, etc.
6. a. A body of persons combined or incorporated for some common object, or for the joint execution or performance of anything; esp. a mediæval trade guild, and hence, a corporation historically representing such, as in the London ‘City Companies’.
7. Commerce. a. An association formed to carry on some commercial or industrial undertaking.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:43 pmBeing obtuse just for the sake of being obtuse is stupid. Knock it off. We told you where we want to go. You can just sit down in the middle of the desert and die. We don’t care.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:43 pmcollectivist: The guy who the loan shark sends to break your leg.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:44 pmWe should all chip in and buy this man a dictionary. Jeb is going to run as soon as the poorly informed collective memory of the voting populace forgets how bad things were under the first two Bushies. Tax cuts for everyone(unequal distribution) and cut backs in social safety nets sounds just about the perfect platform. Throw in some good ol’ time religion and they’ll have a winner for sure.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:44 pmonce our country grows out of religion and racism, progress will be easier to attain
July 9th, 2009 at 3:45 pmRUCeriousMaggot! Says:
Jebediah, you might not know, as you generally don’t know jack shit, but we sure as hell know you’re an idiot. If you think this nation would possibly put a third Bush in the White House, you’re an even bigger idiot.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:46 pm===========================================================
That’s just it RUCeriousMaggot! The nation never put the second Bush in the White House and most likely they won’t put Jeb in the White House either, those who count the votes will.
I know President Obama isn’t a Socialist. He never comes to the meetings.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:46 pmAlejandro, the Progressive movement has always been with us. From the people who protested the relocation of the 5 tribes to those whose felt child labor was wrong, that denial of rights to women, those who argued against monopolies, people have always existed who believe human rights are basic.
Just as people who believe they can do anything they damn well please because they have money have existed.
The thing that always scares the second type is when the ones of the first type not only outnumber them but are willing to stand up.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:47 pmif CONgress is the opposite of PROgress, that must mean people that are against socialism are anti-social
July 9th, 2009 at 3:48 pmRantingTommy Says:
——————————————————————————–
It’s a good thing that no-one with a clue takes anything a conservative says seriously anymore
I agree with what you’re saying but what worries me is that if they say something stupid often enough, some people begin to believe it!
Maybe that’s what they’re counting on!
July 9th, 2009 at 3:48 pmThe progressive movement was stopped for a long time when regressives, like today’s Republicans, gained complete control. It was called the Dark Ages.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:51 pmJeb Bush and a partner defaulted on a $4.5 million loan from a Florida S&L in 1988. The default helped trigger the S&L’s collapse, which cost taxpayers $285 million. Bush and partner repaid only ten percent of the irregular loan and, incredibly, also got to keep the real estate that collateralized it.
Read more about the former, not so great and corrupt Florida governor here: http://www.oldamericancentury.org/jeb_bush.htm
July 9th, 2009 at 3:51 pmI was under the impression that they were one in the same. :)
July 9th, 2009 at 3:52 pmit is absolutely what they are counting on
the right wingers depend on the ignorance, fear, bigotry, and shallowness of their base for power
they believe you can “fool enough of the people enough of the time”
sometimes they are correct
July 9th, 2009 at 3:52 pmDivided We Fall says:
You mean a THIRD Bush.
1) George H.W. Bush
2) George W. Bush
Correction noted.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:53 pmshoeless, it wasn’t stopped, just muffled as our whiny Republican friends are discovering.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:53 pm***
where can i get one of those
JEB! lobster bibs?
…
July 9th, 2009 at 3:53 pmif anyone truly believes the progressive idea is stomped flat, check out fightingbob.com.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:54 pmOnce again, I invite any of our resident trolls to provide an explanation for why socialism is bad.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:55 pmThe Florida repiggies are as corrupt as the Bush clan. They adore this clown.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:55 pmBecause Europeans do it.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:56 pmShoeless # 57,
Thank you.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:56 pmsimple: the radio told them it was bad
that’s all they need
they don’t understand socialism any more than they know what a liberal is
July 9th, 2009 at 3:57 pmAlejandro
The concept may be interesting to you, but it’s quite simple and obvious. Humanity must continue to grow as a species (not in numbers, mind you), and that results in progress. If that progress is people getting healthcare, GREAT. If that progress is easing racial tension, GREAT. If that progress is a clean, renewable way to fuel our cars and power our homes, GREAT.
But if that progress is simply a population that cares more about their fellow man than they do an extra $5 on their paycheck, that’s more than great. If that progress is people exercising and eating right, that’s more than great.
Politics are important, but humanity is more important, and we must never stop growing and progressing.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:57 pmOh, yeah. The actual point of the thread:
Jeb, Obama’s not a socialist. Those of us who are socialists WISH he was, but he’s not. He’s a moderate Democrat, with a few issues being slightly more to the left.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:57 pmSure, he is a socialist. He’s trying to gain control of every sector of our Government. Based on the lack of the Pentagon’s support towards an Idaho Christian event (which has seen support from the Pentagon for 35 years), the Great O’Barry wants to change our ideals, too. I believe that he may be the Antichrist. He is very cunning.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pmConservatives are against progress because they are afraid they cannot keep up.
Change is scary and conservatives are very easily frightened.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:59 pmlooktothehills just proved two things with one post:
1) That he has no clue what socialism is.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:59 pmand
2) That he is incapable of using an encyclopedia.
kookfromthehills chimes in to remind everyone how clueless and ignorant he is.
too cute
July 9th, 2009 at 3:59 pmlooktothehills Says:
Sure, he is a socialist. He’s trying to gain control of every sector of our Government.
July 9th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
____________
Are you saying that the government should not control the government?
That’d be kind of hard, wouldn’t it? They’re them.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:00 pmlostinthehills, there is only one thing in Idaho with value. And it isn’t some theocratic event. (Note, I am speaking from a political stand point. Idaho has many great natural resources.)
July 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pmWhy do you want big government to control your Idaho Christian event? President Obama has freed the Idaho Christians from the tentacles of government.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pmright wingers forget that, in this country, WE are the government
they see the government as a separate, evil entity, because that’s what their radio says
pure ignorance
July 9th, 2009 at 4:02 pmNo, the corporations should control the government, right Daryll?
July 9th, 2009 at 4:03 pmAlejandro Says:
Progress for the sake of progress is interesting. So it’s like someone just wandering in the desert. “Hey, where are you going?” “Nowhere in particular. I’m just making progress.”
July 9th, 2009 at 3:39 pm
______________
Interesting analogy.
See, the thing about wandering in the desert is that it improves your chances of finding either an oasis or a river or a well or a caravan or something that can help lead you out of the desert.
Whereas if you stop moving, you’ll eventually die of dehydration.
Moral of the story: Progress may make some wrong turns occasionally, but it’s better than stagnation.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pmlooktothehills, you are an idiot! Obama, trying to control every sector of our Government!?! Don’t you mean corporations? Wow, 2.2% of all the corporations are now under control of our government! Wow, socialism is sure on the march!
You believe Obama may be the Antichrist!?! Look you moron, idiot, brainwashed sheople like you will be the first ones fooled and deceived by the Antichrist.
The Antichrist, after seeing how stupid you republicans are for believing Bush, Fox News Corp, the republican party and their leader Rush Limbaugh, is probably licking his lips and thinking how easy it will be to steal your souls.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pmLook, he is taking over the private sector. Eventually, Government will control the private sector (health, finance, etc.), which is dangerous. He is dangerous.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pmNo problem rich. It was my pleasure to slap that fool down.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:05 pm“….He made it appear like McCain was going to raise taxes, which was unfair, but there was no response back. When there was an ideological component, it was generally centrist or even center-right. Had he said what he was going to do as a candidate, (Obama) would have lost.”
Yeah Jeb
Because I’m sure if you’re moronic brother campaigned on categorically being the worst president in US history , he would have gotten votes ……….
What a typical Bush Family imbecile……….
July 9th, 2009 at 4:05 pmRantingTommy Says:
right wingers forget that, in this country, WE are the government
they see the government as a separate, evil entity, because that’s what their radio says
pure ignorance
July 9th, 2009 at 4:02 pm
____________
Truth. And, come to think of it, I suppose it is possible for the government not to be in control of the government. That’s why Bush let New Orleans drown – to prove that government couldn’t control itself.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:06 pm@chiroptera toasterhead
So, are you actually in my head, or does it just seem that way when I read your posts?
Seriously, man, that’s like the 3rd or 4th post I’ve read today where you stated my exact sentiments better than I ever could have.
I am forced to conclude that we are either frighteningly on the same page, or you are wizard.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:06 pmlooktothehills Says:
Look, he is taking over the private sector. Eventually, Government will control the private sector (health, finance, etc.), which is dangerous.
Considering the track record of the private sector, not so much.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:06 pmshoeless Says:
looktothehills Says:
——————————————————————————–
Sure, he is a socialist. He’s trying to gain control of every sector of our Government. Based on the lack of the Pentagon’s support towards an Idaho Christian event (which has seen support from the Pentagon for 35 years),
Why do you want big government to control your Idaho Christian event? President Obama has freed the Idaho Christians from the tentacles of government.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pm Add Karma Recommend (1) | Report Abuse
Other examples on how the Great O’Barry and his cretins want to control Ideals: Fairness Doctrine and Hate Crimes bill.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:06 pmlooktothehills Says:
——————————————————————————–
Look, he is taking over the private sector. Eventually, Government will control the private sector (health, finance, etc.), which is dangerous. He is dangerous.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
You’re full of shit and an absolute imbecile………….
July 9th, 2009 at 4:07 pmlooktothehills, please go back to your box of crayons and coloring book.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:07 pmwhen you’re a frightened little pansy, EVERYTHING is dangerous
July 9th, 2009 at 4:07 pmBut, at least he stopped the government form controlling the Idaho Christians.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:07 pmkookfromthehills is upset that he may not be allowed to spread his hate with violence anymore
poor little guy, must have gotten beat up a lot in middle school (just wait until he gets to high school!)
July 9th, 2009 at 4:07 pmThe idiot on the hill posts another right wing lie. President Obama has publicly stated that he is against the Fairness Doctrine.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:07 pmAh, the trolls are terrified that if laws are enforced they won’t be able to whatever they damn well please.
It begins to make sense…barely.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:08 pmlooktothehills Says:
Look, he is taking over the private sector. Eventually, Government will control the private sector (health, finance, etc.), which is dangerous. He is dangerous.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
______________
Why is that dangerous? Please explain in economic terms.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:08 pmDivided We Fall Says:
looktothehills, you are an idiot! Obama, trying to control every sector of our Government!?! Don’t you mean corporations? Wow, 2.2% of all the corporations are now under control of our government! Wow, socialism is sure on the march!
You believe Obama may be the Antichrist!?! Look you moron, idiot, brainwashed sheople like you will be the first ones fooled and deceived by the Antichrist.
The Antichrist, after seeing how stupid you republicans are for believing Bush, Fox News Corp, the republican party and their leader Rush Limbaugh, is probably licking his lips and thinking how easy it will be to steal your souls.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm Add Karma Recommend (1) | Report Abuse
You want be laughing when you have to accept a sign to function in life.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:08 pmFairness Doctrine?
Can anyone be that stupid?
Not only does Obama not support the Fairness Doctrine, neither does Congress, as it was slapped down MONTHS ago.
Either keep up, or get out.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:09 pmI want!?! Crawl back under the corrupt church from which you came from you religious wacko!
July 9th, 2009 at 4:09 pmIt appears that the rabid right is just looking for a socially acceptable excuse for wearing diapers.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:09 pmlooktothehills Says:
——————————————————————————–
shoeless Says:
looktothehills Says:
——————————————————————————–
Sure, he is a socialist. He’s trying to gain control of every sector of our Government. Based on the lack of the Pentagon’s support towards an Idaho Christian event (which has seen support from the Pentagon for 35 years),
Why do you want big government to control your Idaho Christian event? President Obama has freed the Idaho Christians from the tentacles of government.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:01 pm Add Karma Recommend (1) | Report Abuse
Other examples on how the Great O’Barry and his cretins want to control Ideals: Fairness Doctrine and Hate Crimes bill.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
You condone “hate crimes” and believe that act is an IDEAL ?
BTW
Obama has never once uttered approval for a “Fairness Doctrine” , you lying sack of GOP shit………
July 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pmkookfromthehills, you ned to realize something:
there is no god, if there were, there would be no religion, no war, no famine, no republicans
get it yet? or are you going to cling to your silly superstitions for life?
July 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
looktothehills Says:
Look, he is taking over the private sector. Eventually, Government will control the private sector (health, finance, etc.), which is dangerous. He is dangerous.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
______________
Why is that dangerous? Please explain in economic terms.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:08 pm Add Karma Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
What happened to a Free Market. The Great O’Barry forced banks to except bailout funds that weren’t necessary (for control of financial entities). He wants to become emperor of America, then the world.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pmkookfromthehills, tell your mom to hire a better tutor, your homeschooling is failing you
July 9th, 2009 at 4:11 pmwhat happened to the free market?
it was taken over and corrupted by thieving republicans that scammed ignorant rubes like you into supporting them while they steal from you
July 9th, 2009 at 4:12 pmlooktothehills Says:
——————————————————————————–
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
looktothehills Says:
Look, he is taking over the private sector. Eventually, Government will control the private sector (health, finance, etc.), which is dangerous. He is dangerous.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
______________
Why is that dangerous? Please explain in economic terms.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:08 pm Add Karma Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
What happened to a Free Market. The Great O’Barry forced banks to except bailout funds that weren’t necessary (for control of financial entities). He wants to become emperor of America, then the world.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
The Free Market almost caused the entire world to economically collapse , you ignorant jackass………….
July 9th, 2009 at 4:13 pmlooktothehills,
July 9th, 2009 at 4:13 pmWhat’s wrong with the fairness doctrine?
It gives your side equal time even if it is totally wrong.
Thanks to President Obama, the Idaho Christians are no longer forced to accept socialist government funds. Now they are finally in the Free Market. Hallelujah!
July 9th, 2009 at 4:14 pmWhat happened to the Free Market? It got torched to ashes by the abuse of our system. Don’t complain to me if ashes aren’t your gig.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:16 pmFirst of all, if Obama wanted to control the financial system, lack of any regulation or accountability of the funds was a shitty way to go about it.
Second, the free market is not capable of providing goods to the people when there is no competition. This is why there is government regulation of such things as utilities. This is not a strange concept, it’s a fact of economics and capitalism.
Some things, like healthcare, don’t have to be 100% government controlled, but a government presence in the market giving competition to free market industry has the effect of regulating the prices and putting a stop to collusion. The government has been in the business of providing a competitive option for the people in several areas and it hasn’t sunk the industry yet. Example – student loans. Available through both the public and private sector, and are responsible for assisting many many people get a higher education.
Seriously. You have a lot to learn. It would be best if you did some research before you try to take progressives and liberals on in a debate of the issues. You’re fighting an uphill battle trying to outsmart us anyway, you at least need some factual information in your arsenal or you’re toast.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:17 pmlooktothehills Says:
What happened to a Free Market. The Great O’Barry forced banks to except bailout funds that weren’t necessary (for control of financial entities). He wants to become emperor of America, then the world.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:10 pm
______________
What happened to a free market? Same thing that happened to Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, and Islamofascism – they NEVER EXISTED.
As I recall, it was the BANKS that came begging to the government for a bailout after they got caught playing very dangerous games with the “free market” and caused a global financial collapse. Nobody forced them to take the money.
If the financial entities don’t want the big bad government controlling them, they have to learn to behave themselves.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:18 pmwhen kookfromthehills has no evidence, no point, and no clue, he hides behind the cult of christianity to protect his most prized possession: his ignorance
July 9th, 2009 at 4:18 pmDamn, dude. I didn’t insult you. I wasn’t even criticizing you. I just wanted to know what you mean by the term “progress.”
You didn’t really. When people say they want progress and then say they just want it for it’s own sake, that doesn’t really mean anything.
It would be nice if progressives told people their ultimate goal. If there is progress being made, this implies a goal. The goal is rarely, if ever, stated.
I could say that I want society to progress to a point where individual freedom is maximized. Does this make me progressive? I just want progress (toward that goal).
But they didn’t label themselves “progressive.”
Before the progressive movement, most of these people called themselves liberal and promoted individual liberty.
So you’re saying that freedom is not a basic human right?
Yes, I would think that large groups of people that don’t believe in freedom would tend to be scary.
Wouldn’t the best thing to be to know where you are going?
You’ve really gotta love the commenters at TP. There really are unique. Unless you count the ones at FreeRepublic, RedState, LGF, etc.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pmI believe that you may be as mentally ill as Josephine Gatchell.
Now then, how much violence will you be using to stop this possible “Antichrist?” Should we alert the authorities now?
July 9th, 2009 at 4:23 pmAlejandro, nice twisted, nonsensical response. Progressives are and you hate it.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:26 pmAlejandro
There is no way to know where you are going. We don’t have a crystal ball, you know. All we can do is analyze the current situation, come up with possible solutions, and try them out.
Progress doesn’t have to come from brilliant ideas that instantly work. It most often comes in the form of trial and error.
As for the ultimate goal, I believe it’s been made quite clear over numerous threads what the main goals of the progressives are (at least until we accomplish them, of course) – universal healthcare, equal rights for all citizens, and an environmentally-sound energy policy. There are other objectives, of course, but most progressives agree on these “big three.”
July 9th, 2009 at 4:26 pmsmidget, you just made Alejandro and company run for the Milk of Magnesia. Nice job.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:29 pmsmidget,
So you don’t know the goal, except that you repeatedly tell me what the goals are.
Ok.
But progress always seems to come from government intervention into people’s lives?
Well, your response isn’t. So why don’t you tell me what a progressive is?
I’m sure I’m a progressive because I want progress toward freedom.
Tell me why I’m not a progressive.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:30 pmI missed that part. Let me start here – that’s a stupid thing to say. I’m sorry, I don’t mean to be insulting, and I’m not calling you stupid. But that was a stupid thing to say. I am curious as to what reality you have to be living in to interpret that statement in such a way, but will forgo an answer because I have a feeling that you’re simply being argumentative.
The key part of that statement was “because they have money.” Progressives, like liberals, believe in freedom and individual liberty, but also believe that those that have money don’t get to be above the law simply because they have more resources. One of the tenets of liberalism is equality in the eyes of the law, and for centuries the very wealthy have been manipulating the seats of power and the courts because they can afford to.
Being intentionally obtuse isn’t helping to make your point.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:31 pmThat would be crazy if Jeb Busch stayed in politics now.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pmHe added that he believed the word “socialism” was a pejorative, and “didn’t help” the GOP make its case.
_____________________________________________________________
Translation — “the term ’socialism’ is played out as a pejorative, so we’re going to start using ‘collectivism’ as a pejorative instead. None of our base knows the literal meaning of either word anyway.”
July 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pmthere’s many things jeb bush doesn’t know, the least troubling is whether or not obama is a socialist
July 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pmAlejandro Says:
Wouldn’t the best thing to be to know where you are going?
July 9th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
____________
No.
The best thing would be to not get stuck in the desert in the first place.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:32 pmAlejandro
Are you trying to claim that by telling you that progressives are working toward universal healtcare, equality (via civil rights) for all people, and a clean-energy policy is not stating goals?
Wow. I thought you were at least moderately smart, but now it seems that you are incapable of reading plain English. Tell me, Alejandro – what part of that sentence would you clarified?
July 9th, 2009 at 4:33 pmlooktothehills Says:
/a bunch of idiotic garbage/
I have a great experiment for all of you “I hate government” types. Let’s really get government out of our lives:
1) Let’s repeal ALL laws regulating what business can do. That means they are totally free to engage in any business practice they want. If they want to merge to form monopolies, that’s fine. Let them. That means there will only be one or two banks and they will charge exorbitant interest rates. There will be no FDIC insurance so if the bank fails, people will lose their money (except for the bankers that know the bank is failing and will remove their money first before it is gone).
2) lets remove any and all consumer protection laws. If a product is dangerous or defective, it is the responsibility of the consumer, the company has no liability.
3) End all subsidies for roads. Sell them to private companies and let them set the price for using the road. There is only one bridge over a river? Tough, the toll will be $100 each way. That is what the market will bear, right?
I could keep going but I think you are too stupid to understand even this short comment.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:35 pmYou know, Alejandro, when people evolve to the point where they don’t go out of their way to do the wrong thing out of greed, hate, or just plain old spite, then maybe the government won’t have to interfere via laws and public assistance in order for progress to continue.
Unfortunately, we aren’t there yet. You’ll be sure to let us know when we are, right?
July 9th, 2009 at 4:36 pmAlejandro… can you tell me what ‘freedom’ is? Can you tell me the precise limits of ‘individual freedom?’ When is it ‘maximized’ and when does my ‘indivdual freedom’ start to impinge on yours?
Let’s sit around until we know exactly where we’re going… after all, there’s a ton of water in this canteen! Who gets to hold the canteen, again?
July 9th, 2009 at 4:38 pmStupid!
July 9th, 2009 at 4:39 pmbecause you simply lack the intelligence
July 9th, 2009 at 4:41 pmThe party of Stupid is no longer welcome to be the oposition. I’m sorry but they are cut. Next!
July 9th, 2009 at 4:43 pm“Had he said what he was going to do as a candidate, (Obama) would have lost.”
McCain did, and we didn’t vote for him anyway.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:45 pmA little OT, but interesting nonetheless. I guess it’s just more proof that SC really needs help with their elected officials.
Demint on Pre-WWII Germany
July 9th, 2009 at 4:46 pmThe other commenter said that there are people who believe in basic human rights and in contrast there are people who believe that they can do what they want if they have the money.
Maybe I misinterpreted what he said, but I’d like for people to do whatever they want as long as they respect the rights of others. That’s freedom.
Again, maybe what he meant by “whatever they want” included violating people’s rights and that’s not part of freedom. But then, the government violates people’s rights all the time. And progressives look to the government to solve all these problems they see around them. So I’m not sure how growing the government and allowing it to loot even more of everyone’s paychecks is considered protecting basic human rights.
Ok, so if people have money, they shouldn’t be able to do what they want?
I beg to differ.
No liberal would ever say that anyone is above the law, but a true classical liberal would argue that the “law” is actually pretty simple. Don’t violate my rights and I won’t violate yours.
Think that goes away under socialism?
July 9th, 2009 at 4:47 pmHere’s what you said.
1. There is no goal.
2. The goals are … and we’ve told you repeatedly.
Make up your mind.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:49 pmalyouneedis # 144,
DeMint is such a liar. Like an Iranian women attended a meeting with him and asked him just such a question. What bullshi* Just like his response.
Interesting to see what plays for republican intelligence though.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:50 pmHe may not know whether or not Obama is a Socialist, but according to this clip, Hannity and Palin are Socialists.
Must watch. Socialism…HOORAY!!!
http://progressnotcongress.org/?p=2025
July 9th, 2009 at 4:53 pmAlejandro- read this.
Simple laws like ‘Don’t violate my rights and I won’t violate yours’ lead to complex problems… that’s why we need to talk and walk and work together if we’re ever gonna get out of your desert.
Again, please define the precise limits of freedom.
And prove to me why I’m not a ‘classical liberal’ while your at it.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:55 pmAl = waste of time.
July 9th, 2009 at 4:57 pmHere’s what you said.
1. There is no goal.
2. The goals are … and we’ve told you repeatedly.
Make up your mind.
Let’s make this simpler for you, Alejandro.
This is where we’re going today:
We can’t tell you where we’re going tomorrow because it isn’t here yet.
When we get where we’re going today we’ll talk about where to head tomorrow… that’s why it’s called ‘Progress’
July 9th, 2009 at 4:59 pmIf a bank fails under FDIC, the people still lose their money. It’s just replaced by other people’s money.
Ever hear of Underwriters Laboratories? That’s not the government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories
And now for the superfluous part.
People want to know their products are safe. They can look for the UL certification to know that it has been tested and deemed by a trusted certification company with a long track record.
There is a huge market for testing, standards, and certification. The government is just an add on to this.
There are multiple news stories about roads being neglected by the government and communities come together to fix it. No need to tax other people that never use the road.
And if the market will truly bear $100 tolls (highly doubtful) that means there are plenty of people willing to pay it.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:03 pmAnother cowardly non-denial denial by someone who wants to play both sides of a controversial statement, similar to other prominent Republicans who issued similar comments about Obama such as “I don’t know if he’s a Muslim”, or “I don’t know if he was born in the United States”.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:06 pmlooktothehills Says:
Sure, he is a socialist. He’s trying to gain control of every sector of our Government. Based on the lack of the Pentagon’s support towards an Idaho Christian event (which has seen support from the Pentagon for 35 years),
Fox News covered this story with minister who was to conduct the event. The whole issue started last year with the Air Force academy allowing evangelicals to proselytize on the base. They distributed literature all over base. A Jewish cadet was harangued by some of the evangelicals. When this all came to light the Air Force was ordered to stop allowing the evangelicals activities on the base.
This year is the first since the evangelicals were barred from the base. The God and Country Festival requested an Air Force flyover to be a part of festival. This had been done for 42 years until this year. The Pentagon prohibited the flyover because of the religious overtones.
The minister appeared on Fox complaining about the new policy. He specifically stated that the Constitution provides for freedom of religion but not freedom FROM religion. This statement is patently false and all of those Fox commentators including Megyn Kelly, that are attorneys did not correct this statement. The US Supreme Court held in the prayer in the public schools case, that freedom of religion includes freedom FROM religion. As usual, Fox allowed the intentional misrepresentation without correction.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:09 pmI know that you, Jeb, are part of the Bush Crime Family of Secrets. We the people should never allow anyone associated with, much less related to your father or brother into the White House ever again. Now go spend some of the moeny you stole.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:10 pmO noes! He got me with the TOC!
You assume that I think people will never have disputes. That’s silly.
And there is a place for government (or at least some form of governance) when it comes to settling of disputes.
Of course we won’t always agree on what constitutes one’s “rights” but there are some simple formula to figure out certain basic ones.
Let’s look at the income tax.
Did I make the money on my paycheck through voluntary, non-aggressive means? If so, then no one else is entitled to a penny of it. So why does the government threaten me with violence if I don’t pay a portion of my income? Because someone else said that they were entitled to it. And they used the threat of force to extort it.
Maybe you should read this.
And I will disclaim that I don’t agree 100% with what most people call the NAP. Sometimes you can classify non-aggression as indeed being aggression.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:12 pmAlejandro
First post first:
We have already established that you, for whatever reason, didn’t understand what “doing whatever the hell they want” means, so I don’t particularly feel obligated to explain to you that the concept of equality in the eyes of the law to you, but apparently I have to.
Again, maybe what he meant by “whatever they want” included violating people’s rights and that’s not part of freedom.
Yeah, that’s exactly what he meant. You can tell by the way it was worded, the context in which it was stated, and by applying some common sense.
But then, the government violates people’s rights all the time.
Well, it isn’t a progressive government, so I fail to see how this tidbit has any bearing on the point.
And progressives look to the government to solve all these problems they see around them.
No, progressives look to government to reign in corporations, which most of us view as the center of the problems. It’s fine if you disagree, but don’t misrepresent out stance. You’re the one asking questions, here, so don’t pretend you already have the answers.
So I’m not sure how growing the government and allowing it to loot even more of everyone’s paychecks is considered protecting basic human rights.
You will have to explain what “looting” we are advocating. I can only assume you are referring to taxes, which have yet to be mentioned…but okay, please tell me what taxes I, or anyone else on this board, have advocated. I will go ahead and tell you that I am in favor of increasing income taxes if it gets universal healthcare. The justification for this is simple – the taxes the government would wind up taking will hardly be a fraction of the money the insurance industry gets, and you actually have some coverage, can’t be dropped because you get sick, and can’t be rejected for a “pre-existing condition” which can be as common as a kidney stone or an ovarian cyst. Easy choice.
This whole “growing the government” argument…well it’s a dumb argument. The government has been, and HAS TO in order to protect the public welfare (as is required by the Constitution) impose rules and regulations that govern both individuals and corporations. As the population grows, the government has to grow, or it can’t do its job. You seem to be under the impression that socialism is some 1984-type of system, which leaves me with little option but to discontinue this portion of the conversation until you can learn what the hell you are talking about.
The key part of that statement was “because they have money.”
Ok, so if people have money, they shouldn’t be able to do what they want?
No, you have to keep reading. Picking one sentence out of several so you can take it out of context doesn’t merit a response from me. Grow up and stop acting like a fcuking Republican child.
Progressives, like liberals, believe in freedom and individual liberty,
I beg to differ.
Prove it. Show me what it is that progressives support that takes away individual liberty. I’m curious as to what you’ve managed to misunderstand this time.
No liberal would ever say that anyone is above the law, but a true classical liberal would argue that the “law” is actually pretty simple. Don’t violate my rights and I won’t violate yours.
Yeah. Those rights have to be established before you can expect someone to not violate them. This isn’t a complicated topic, but you are going out of your way to make it so.
Think that goes away under socialism?
Um, no. Would you care to show me where I said that? Corruption is a function of humanity. Laws are an attempt to control and punish it. Maybe laws don’t work. So what would you suggest instead of laws? Anarchy? That’s all that’s left if the law is gone, you know. Perhaps you should visit Somalia before pursuing that goal, just to see what it’s like.
Now the second post.
Here’s what you said.
1. There is no goal.
2. The goals are … and we’ve told you repeatedly.
Make up your mind.
That isn’t at all what I said.
I never stated that there is no goal, I said it’s impossible to see where you’re going, as in we can’t see the future. That doesn’t mean we have no goals. That doesn’t mean we know what the goals are. The means by which the goals are acheived, however, can’t be 100%, because the future is unknowable, so the best we can do is try to come up with a solution that seems appropriate and give it a go. Again, not nearly as complicated as you seem to want to make it.
It has nothing to do with me not being able to make up my mind and a whole lot to do with you not being able to properly interpret what others seem to have no difficulty understanding.
I have decided that this conversation is over. Clearly you have nothing to add, you’re just trying to take snippets of posts and twisting them to make them seem stupid, and the reality is that liberals and progressives as a whole aren’t generally stupid, and I’m most certainly not. I don’t appreciate your dishonesty in your quoting, your intentional obfuscation of an obvious point, and inability to interpret anything as a normal human being would. It is clear you are out for nothing more than to argue, and I’m done with it. If you have more questions about the progressive platform, maybe some of the other posters can help you.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:13 pmAlejandro…
Please tell me why Hardin is wrong… why we don’t need collective, agreed management of shared resources to preserve individual freedom.
I’m anxious to learn.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:13 pmLaws against aggression, Yes.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:15 pmPublic assistance? You mean using voluntary donations right?
The government didn’t have to threaten people with losing their homes if they didn’t pay into the coffers, did they? And then the coffers weren’t embezzled and distributed to the well-connected, right?
Nice job of dumbdump and run, Darlyy.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:15 pmDid I make the money on my paycheck through voluntary, non-aggressive means? If so, then no one else is entitled to a penny of it.
Did you use collective resources to do it? Almost certainly… why are you entitled to all the benefit when we all sacrificed a little for that benefit?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:16 pmDamn I really can’t wait till Darryl gets lifted up in the nude. Too bad that silly made up shit isn’t ever going to happen…
July 9th, 2009 at 5:17 pmIf a progressive government works by extorting money from the majority of the people, then a progressive government violates people’s rights.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:18 pmIf a progressive government works by extorting money from the majority of the people, then a progressive government violates people’s rights.
Explain to me how ‘taxation’ equals ‘extortion’
We have shared interests… like roads, schools, healthcare, farms, etc.
We should have a system to share the costs to maintain those shared interests, right?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:20 pmAgain, it all comes back to who gets to hold the canteen, doesn’t it Alejandro?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:24 pmMan I missed something around here. A few days ago you guys were all playing nice with a troll and I didn’t get it. I still don’t get it.
See you later.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:32 pmMan I missed something around here. A few days ago you guys were all playing nice with a troll and I didn’t get it. I still don’t get it.
I assume you’re referring to me… at least partially. I come for the discussion, for the chance to hear the arguments of the trolls so that I can dissent, dissect and destroy those arguments more effectively in my real life. That’s why I do it.
See you.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:34 pmI don’t know if you realize this, but corporations cannot exist without the government.
You do know that a corporation, as opposed to a private company, means that individuals in the organization are protected from personal liability? That’s what makes it a corporation, limited liability.
Without the government to limit liability, there is no limited liability corporation.
Without the government to rule in court that a corporation is a person (with rights, but with only one responsibility – profits for shareholders) you wouldn’t have nearly as many problems with them.
So to say that the government will save you from corporations is ridiculous. The government creates and protects corporations. And corporations currently run the government.
So sure about that? Medicare is on the road to insolvency. Should we raise FICA taxes to cover it?
Choice? So I’ll be able to choose not to pay for it?
You implied it.
And yes, corruption is human nature. And power corrupts. Socialist governments have more power than limited governments.
Let’s say I set up a small clinic that treated wounds and the like, maybe even expand into basic medical care, like treating the flu and colds, maybe administering vaccines, but I only worked in a cash-only basis. I wouldn’t accept insurance or medicare or anything but cash on the spot. I also didn’t have any government permits or licenses and I didn’t allow government inspectors onto the property.
Under a dream progressive system, would I be free to do this?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:36 pmExtortion is threatening people with violence unless they pay you.
Explain how this is any different that what the government does wrt taxes.
If you want to collectively own schools, healthcare, farms (farms?), etc. then create a co-op and get people to voluntarily pay into them. Don’t FORCE people to pay for it. And don’t give me that crap about if you don’t like it, leave.
July 9th, 2009 at 5:38 pmExtortion is threatening people with violence unless they pay you.
The Government will not threaten you with violence if you do not pay taxes.
They will garnish you wages, fine you or perhaps imprison you if you do not pay taxes.
The Government may eventually come to arrest you if you refuse to pay taxes… if you threaten those who come to arrest you there may be violence… but resisting arrest is against the law. As is failure to pay taxes.
Who decides who owns a piece of property? You?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:49 pmWho decides what is a collective resource and what is private? You again?
Or is that something we should all decide together, perhaps through our system of governance?
Let’s say I set up a small clinic that treated wounds and the like, maybe even expand into basic medical care, like treating the flu and colds, maybe administering vaccines, but I only worked in a cash-only basis. I wouldn’t accept insurance or medicare or anything but cash on the spot. I also didn’t have any government permits or licenses and I didn’t allow government inspectors onto the property.
Under a dream progressive system, would I be free to do this?
Let’s say you had a tonic that you said could cure many of these ailments. Let’s say that you only accepted cash for it. Let’s say that many people swore that it worked and that they felt better after drinking it. Let’s say that you knew that the tonic only contained water and alcohol you distilled in your backyard, but you thought it was generally doing more harm than good. Let’s say people started to go blind after drinking it. Let’s say you refused any and all responsibility because they were drinking it freely and you truly think it works.
Would you be free to do this under a dream libertarian system?
July 9th, 2009 at 5:56 pmharm than good should be good than harm above
July 9th, 2009 at 5:57 pmI think you are arguing with someone else. I’ll just say that I have no problem with public land or bodies of water and there is a place for government to use force to protect certain resources.
You don’t need to tax income to do this.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:08 pmYou don’t need to tax income to do this.
Okay.
What’s a better system?
Who should manage them?
Who decides what is private and what is public?
What happens when your ‘private use’ intrudes on the public interest? Should people be allowed to have toxic waste dumps on ‘private’ land?
Your simple system leaves many questions unanswered.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:12 pmThis may have already been said above…
July 9th, 2009 at 6:14 pmNO MORE BUSH’s!!
Go Away!! Ph uck off !
If Obama is a socialist, are Republicans anti-social?
Antisocial Personality Disorder – a condition characterized by persistent disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others. Deceit and manipulation are central features of this disorder.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:29 pmSorry for the delay. I’m still at work, btw. Had to attend to something.
Your above situation is an obvious example of fraud. And fraud is not ok.
But, you didn’t answer mine.
If a progressive system is truly all about freedom, then would my non-licensed, cash-only clinic be within the law?
July 9th, 2009 at 6:47 pmKidnapping someone and imprisoning them is NOT violence?
And, yes, theft (garnishment of wages) is violence. Ok, let’s call it aggression then.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:51 pmOrganized labor is what’s bankrupting this country, plain and simple. Retirees under the age of 55 who have full benefits until death will render us unable to get out of this hole. That’s the elephant in the room that everyone is afraid to address, and the blame cannot be pinned on the Republicans.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:53 pmJeb Bush is a total idiot. Hey, Jeb– answer this honestly– was your brother George a stupid, incompetent, lying, dishonest loser who lied to the U.S., smeared others, allowed spying on honest Americans, started a dishonest war, wasted trillions of taxpayers money— shall I go on? Will you ever answer honestly? Of course not. Neither did your lying brother. Jeb, another lying, smearing, dishonest Bush sibling. Put these creeps out to pasture.
July 9th, 2009 at 6:57 pmIf a progressive system is truly all about freedom, then would my non-licensed, cash-only clinic be within the law?
But I never said it was all about freedom. I asked you to define freedom.
No- I don’t support your unlicensed, cash-only clinic. I think that unlicensed, cash-only clinics lead to too much fraud and bad medicine. And we both agree that fraud is not ok.
But, in your libertarian system, who gets to decide that it’s fraud? What if you really believed that your tonic worked? What if most people who bought it agreed? Is it still fraud? Who decides?!?
July 9th, 2009 at 6:57 pmOh no. No “system” is simple (and I never said I had a “system”). There are simple principles that can help people interact with each other. When people don’t acknowledge those principles, this causes disputes, and that’s where a “system” might come in, and of course disputes become complicated.
Look, I’m not an anarchist. I do think there is a place for government (basically for arbitration of disputes), but I just don’t see why there needs to be a government that is as intrusive as the typical socialist model.
“Hey I don’t want to pay 40% of my income to you.”
“Tough. Pay or we’ll take your house.”
That’s not the way things should be.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:00 pmKidnapping someone and imprisoning them is NOT violence?
Ahh, then are you also against the arrest and imprisonment of someone who refuses to leave ‘your property’? What if you employer decides that your paycheck should be half what it normally is because your work was lacking… is that theft? Who decides?
You say you have simple systems for determining rights.
I’m waiting for the answer to a simple question.
Who decides what ’simple system’ is most correct?
July 9th, 2009 at 7:05 pmI just don’t see why there needs to be a government that is as intrusive as the typical socialist model.
And that is why we have elections… where we appoint representatives who advocate for the ‘model’ of government we want.
And we compromise. And those compromises become law. And we all agree to abide by that law for the sake of the common good.
One of those laws is the income tax. That’s why We ‘The People’ will arrest you if you don’t pay them. It’s not kidnapping. Sorry.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:09 pmWell, actually, the clinic set-up was mentioned in a response to either smidget or shoeless, I can’t remember. But he/she said that progressive government was all about protecting individual liberty. That’s when I brought up the clinic thingie.
Freedom is when I can do what I want as long as I’m not harming anyone else. Who decides if harm has been done? That’s what courts are for. It’s far from perfect. Actually, it’s a terrible way to settle disputes, but it’s better than all the rest.
And hey, I’m not against democracy, like some people. I just don’t think it works on a massive scale. In a country the size of the US, direct democracy would be horrible, but democracy works fairly well on a small scale, say at the municipal level. So that’s another way to determine “the law.” The main problem with direct democracy, though, is the old tyranny of the majority thing.
Again, some sort of arbitration is called for here. Either courts or something similar.
The veracity of your belief would come out in court/arbitration. If you did harm, regardless of whether you knew it or not, you still owe reparations, either monetary reparations or some form of punitive measures.
If you knowingly harmed people, the penalties would be higher.
Again, this isn’t anarchy.
If I think a product (like a drug) does X and you think it does X, then no, no fraud has taken place. No one lied.
It might be proved in court that it was negligence, perhaps.
But, hey, if you smoke two packs of cigarettes a day and die of cancer, then you’ve got no one to blame but yourself. And no one owes you anything. You were told of the dangers and made your choice.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:19 pmThanks
July 9th, 2009 at 7:30 pmYou’re getting ridiculous. The person refusing to leave, say, your house is the aggressor. You have the right to throw him out yourself or hire someone to do it for you. And no, I don’t advocate imprisoning them. Well, unless they repeatedly did it and the only way to keep the out of your house is to lock them up, then so be it.
The people who are interacting. On a small scale, this is much easier to accomplish.
And our current “simple system” in the federal government isn’t even analogous to any kind of “agreement.” It’s just corporations ruling us through force.
You’ve got this who decides thing going on, but really, the best person to decide anything, when it comes to your life, is yourself. I don’t need men with guns and jail cells to tell me what I can and can’t put into my body, or what papers I have to have to move from one location to another, or what permits and licenses I need to sell and buy things.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:31 pmBut, hey, if you smoke two packs of cigarettes a day and die of cancer, then you’ve got no one to blame but yourself. And no one owes you anything. You were told of the dangers and made your choice.
But, hey, for many years those tobacco companies said it DIDN’T cause cancer. Remember? Even though they KNEW (or should have known) differently.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:31 pmhttp://medicolegal.tripod.com/cancerstats1925.htm
The person refusing to leave, say, your house is the aggressor. You have the right to throw him out yourself or hire someone to do it for you.
So the Cherokee have the right to hire someone to evict the people who are living on lands granted them by treaty in Oklahoma?
July 9th, 2009 at 7:38 pmI don’t need men with guns and jail cells to tell me what I can and can’t put into my body, or what papers I have to have to move from one location to another, or what permits and licenses I need to sell and buy things.
Explain to me how this won’t be EXACTLY what happens when you weaken the federal government… seems that Fiefdoms have been with us for a long time… and the power usually resides with the men with guns, or swords, or sharpened sticks in a fiefdom… does it not?
July 9th, 2009 at 7:43 pmWe do know, however, that Jeb has long profited from association with Florida Cuban mafiosi.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:45 pmYou’ve got this who decides thing going on, but really, the best person to decide anything, when it comes to your life, is yourself.
You’ve got this ‘let me decide for myself’ thing going on, but you refuse to recognize that everything is interconnected and interdependant. No man is an island. No ‘products’ can be produced or sold independent of our shared and interconnected resources and history.
So we have to decide together. And work together.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:52 pm‘Freedom’ does not equal ‘doing what you damn well please.’
Freedom comes with responsibility to all of us. We share that responsibility.
Lorne Woo Says:
Organized labor is what’s bankrupting this country, plain and simple. Retirees under the age of 55 who have full benefits until death will render us unable to get out of this hole. That’s the elephant in the room that everyone is afraid to address, and the blame cannot be pinned on the Republicans.
These retiree worked many years to get to a full pension which is funded by the employer. Unions use employer contributions to fund medical insurance for retired employees but it is not cheap. My father was a Teamster and until my mother could qualify for Social Security, my parents paid about $400 per month for insurance.
Organized labor is not bankrupting the country. Look to Wall Street and the billions that have passed through their hands, particularly the salary paid to many bankers and CEO’s. Don’t give us the crap about organized labor when the white collar criminals have fleeced us of billions of dollars.
July 9th, 2009 at 7:54 pm“… Had he said what he was going to do as a candidate, (Obama) would have lost.”
I remember your brother George saying during the 2000 debates that we had our troops overextended around the world and we should bring them home. And he DID lose the 2000 and 2004 elections. You handed him Florida, even though he lost it.
July 9th, 2009 at 8:43 pmJeb is running in 2112. I guarantee it.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:57 pmRodeskawler Says:
Jeb is running in 2112. I guarantee it.
You do realize that he will be 159 years old, don’t you? And 163 when he finished his first term!
July 9th, 2009 at 10:58 pmEven if he was it is better then being a flippin puppet like your brother was. Hell he did not even have the balls to admit his mistakes and that he was in the pocket of corporate America.
July 10th, 2009 at 10:34 amRodeskawler Says:
Jeb is running in 2112. I guarantee it.
July 9th, 2009 at 9:57 pm
______________
I always knew Jeb Bush was one of the Priests of the Temples of Syrinx!
July 10th, 2009 at 10:43 amtoaster, as long as he keeps brewing up those tanna leaves , he can go on forever. :)
July 10th, 2009 at 1:24 pmSimple: if you don’t know the answer to the question, then you have no business running for public office.
July 10th, 2009 at 2:31 pmlooktothehills Says:
No Obama is not a socialist but you are a liar a fool and an astonishingly stupid moron. Too stupid to even know what Socialism is. Why dont you STFU and stop humiliating yourself by showing just how stupid you are.
July 12th, 2009 at 2:02 amlooktothehills Says: 92
No he isnt dangerous YOU are just stupid. If they dont want any government strings they shouldnt have taken taxpayer money. IF they had been able to get money from a bank that bank would also have put strings upon it. You are a moron Daryll. Incredibly stupid and a fool
July 12th, 2009 at 2:04 am