OT: We The People...

Page 2 of 7  

Robatoy wrote:

The definition of "socialism" requires OWNERSHIP of the means of production. It is not socialism for the government to "control" the means of production, something they have always done with regulations, taxes, fines, and so forth.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 7/25/2010 11:34 PM, HeyBub wrote:

Can the government seize the means of production at a whim? If so then it owns them regardless of any paper that says otherwise.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

ANY government can do that. That they Can does not make them Socialist.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Yes, businesses have been seized before, but only under Democratic administrations (which demonstrates the Democrat's, if not tendency, at least their lack of aversion to socialism).
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Enrolled in that Logic course, yet ?
Your need ... is apparent and emergent.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil Brooks wrote:

Hmm. The only businesses I recollect being seized were the steel mills under Truman (a Democrat). I though about the air traffic controllers under Reagan, but they worked for the government in the first place.
Actually, as a math major, I had two courses in symbolic logic (made an "A" in both) as an undergrad. 'Course that was many years ago, but I'm pretty sure my abilities in that regard wargarbeled.
Look! A squirrel!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

1) A moment's review points out that Truman sought to avert a steel mill strike ... during wartime ... in the interests of national security, no ?
Presumably, like the Conservatives do, with Obama, then -- they would simply have torn him a new one, whichever way he chose to proceed.
2) What were once called "Democrats" are now, in large numbers, conservative Southern Republicans, so ... the party of the President, in this case matters ... just about not at all (unless you're blindly partisan and an ideologue par excellence).
3) That this occurred ... in NO way demonstrates *anybody's* "lack of aversion to Socialism."
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
What it DOES, is -- to intelligent people -- prove MY point about YOUR "thought process," and the "thought processes of others, here.
If I dig ... will I find YOUR protestations against GW Bush's actions, during wartime ?
Why do I feel so confident that ... I wouldn't ?
Hmm.
Again: reasoning backward from partisan ideology....
The party that -- for all appearances -- would have you BELIEVE that its constituents are "principled ..." in fact ... couldn't give a SHIT about principle.
Just party ... or person ... or ... something.
Still not /quite/ sure ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil Brooks wrote:

Well, see, that's the difference. Democrats (aka "progressives") believe the end justifies the means, that it's okay to violate the laws if the result is, on some scale, good. Republicans (aka "conservatives") hold that the process is crucial, that no good can come from an immoral (or illegal) act.
Of course, during wartime, the President may do as he thinks best under his Article II powers. I'm not criticizing Truman, just illustrating that it was a DEMOCRAT that did SEIZE an industry. Truman nationalized the steel industry April 8th, 1952. This would not have been in wartime had Truman not fired McArthur almost exactly a year earlier.
And look at the jobs that would have been created in decontaminating North Korea (and possibly parts of China)!
A couple of current examples: The Health Care law and the most recent Financial Reform Act. Both were multi-thousand page bills promoted by Democrats. The curious thing about the bills is that they were short on rules and long on results. By that I mean they each contained goals but are vague about implementation. Both bills are full of phrases such as "The Internal Revenue Service shall develop regulations to ... (make something happen)..."
So, next year, when you sell a gold coin to a stamp and coin shop, they've got to give you a 1099. Likewise Staples has to create a 1099 for your small business and report your purchases to the government (if in excess of $600).

Of course you wouldn't find my protestations. I approved of almost everything Bush did... but then he followed the law, even when Congress demanded that Fannie & Freddy raise their "disadvantaged" loan portfolios from 50 to 57% in 2007 (with predictable results).

Well, the party IS more important than the person. And I'm speaking as a once-upon-a-time professional. I've been to campaign management schools, held elective office, and served on the staff of a U.S. Senator.
While there are exceptions, once upon a time the party could discipline a member who strayed. Even today, a member must usually yield to the collective wishes of his peers.
And on the voter level...
The "independent" voter is actually the most dependent of all. He has no say in either party's eventual candidate, no input on the policies, platforms, or promises. Come election day, he has to choose between two people he never met. Even worse, AFTER the election, whether his choice won or lost, he has no influence over the elected official's advocacy.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. What THAT is is pure, unmitigated bullshit, on your part.
It's also the sort of rank hypocrisy that I laugh and cry about, around here, and that comes so freely out of the mouths of most rabid and blindly partisan conservatives.
You're trying to have it both ways.
No "conservative" gave a SHIT about the FISA workarounds that Bush used, under the aegis of "national security."
And ... ironically ... it was JUST the KIND of transgression that true "conservatives" SHOULD abhor.
But ... as a group ... you're the biggest bunch of unprincipled hypocrites I've ever seen.
Party before principle. Person before principle. Party before country.

AGAIN: Democrat was a label. Most of his ilk now call themselves Republicans.
I presume the label is important to you. Let's not hesitate to look AT it, then.

And ... had my grandmother had balls (arguably, she did), we'd have called her my grandfather.
Hypothesis contrary to fact.

ibid.
I'm not sure what you're saying, or what you're getting at.
I have the distinct feeling that you don't, either, though, so ....


He did, huh ? He "followed the law ?"
I'd say you should START with the warrantless wiretapping case, and go from there, but ... you won't.
It's rather odd/funny/typical/disgusting that you make that claim, when it's patently bullshit.
It calls into question ... just WHY you think he "followed the law."
Confirmation bias is the first thing that comes to mind: if you didn't LIKE the truth, you simply ignored it.

That's NOT at all what I said. I said that folks like you put PARTY over principle, AND person over principle.
Now ... you were saying ... ?
Never mind. You went off on a false tangent, based on incorrectly reading what I stated so clearly.
[snipped]
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil Brooks wrote:

Countries began been monitoring ("tapping") the enemies electronic communications since The Recent Unplesantness, sometimes called The Second War of Independence, when both the Union and Confederate forces intercepted each other's telegraphic messages. We broke the Japanese "Purple" code without a warrant and the British did the same thing with the Enigma Machine.
This IS following the law inasmuch as Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution says: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States..." "Commander in Chief" means the ultimate authority and he cannot be gainsaid by the Congress or the Courts when conducting military operations. This was affirmed in the "Prize Cases" during the Lincoln administration and has remained unsullied since.

See above.
If you believe that, say, the Congress can tell the president how to wage war, from a massive invastion to subtle surveillance, then I suggest you are mistaken (not that they haven't tried).
The only power the Congress has over war-making is the purse. It CAN cut off funds. In fact, the Congress did threaten to do so when Teddy Roosevelt laid plans to sail the White Fleet around the world as a demonstration of America's might and reach. When informed that the Congress would not appropriate the money, Teddy said: "I have enough money to send them HALF way around the world. Let's see if the Congress will pay to get them back."
He got the money.
Conversely, the Congress DID cut off (promised) funds to South Vietnam, allowing the North to subdue them. Tens of thousands died or were made homeless by the goddamn perfidious Democrats in Congress who sponsored and promoted that idea.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Here ya' go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_(logical_fallacy)#Red_herring

So you LIKE IT when Bush breaks the law, but ... when YOU use the example of what TRUMAN did, in the interests of national security, you call HIM a Socialist.
Got it.

I will, if you will.

Here ya' go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
I snipped the rest. All you were doing is arguing against something that you -- apparently -- WISH I HAD said.
But I didn't.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Neil Brooks wrote:

You got it wrong. I DID NOT say I liked it when Bush broke the law; I said Bush didn't break the law (regarding wiretaps). That's not MY opinion, it's the conclusion of every court that's looked into the matter.
Neither did I call Truman a socialist. I simply pointed out that in the last 100 years the only president to nationalize an industry, a la Hugo Chavez, was a Democrat.*

Hmm. Never seen that before.
----- * Chavez, by the way, has nationalized several industries in the interests of "national security."
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
HeyBub wrote:

I guess Obama and his band of socialists haven't nationalized Ford Motor Co... yet.
--
Jack
Fight Socialism, buy a Ford!
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Ford was smart, they turned down the money.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Right, and if the government didn't help Ford, they wouldn't have made it. Just ask Biden.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@att.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

I think Ol' Lonesome Joe's comment was something along the lines of, "If the government hadn't bailed out GM and Chrysler, then Ford would have gone under". Sooo, the government keeping one's competition from failing, thus making government subsidized cars available on the market helped Ford sell more of its cars. Get it?
/yeah, me either
--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It simplified my automobile purchasing decisions for a long time to come.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm with you on that one (though I'm already happy with Fords and would not buy another Chrysler if you gave me the money). The problem is that SWMBO wants a Mustang convertible. ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't see that a a problem, but a benefit. Get her the Roush model.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I do see a little problem hiding in there somewhere. Nah, zeros mean nothing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.