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
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!
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."
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 ?
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
Just party ... or person ... or ... something.
Still not /quite/ sure ;-)
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
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
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.