| Jump to bottom |
Tom Tom
jdlech, happy to respond. First, I believe you equating the tea party movement with the GOP. That could hardly be farther from the truth of things, except to identify it with the liberal party. The current revolt is not GOP-based, and in part is GOP-feared. With good reason.
Supporting my assertion, it seems to me, is what happened in NY's congressional district race Tuesday. The conservative candidate was rejected, in part for failure to address district concerns and, perhaps, failing even to live in the district. The voters chose what appears to be a Blue Dog, if his positions on hot-button issues are genuine. The fact remains that the most liberal of the three candidates had to drop out for lack of support.
I don't hear socialists settle for the fact that the military and judiciary are federally owned and, therefore, are entities of socialism. The very purpose of any state is to protect its citizens and there must be some operation set up to do this. As for the judiciary, it functions independently of any government control other than for its paychecks, and it has lifetime appointment. Like socialists themselves do, I reject the notion that one can call the two entities in question examples of socialism as a philosophy of government.
The highway system is not managed by the government; it is only partly paid for by it. It is up to states or local units of government to maintain it. Poorly done in Michigan, as you know.
Above all, none of the above figure into the classic definition of socialism that references control of the means of production. The military, courts, and highways produce nothing in the ordinary sense of that term.
I would not argue that private enterprise must be governed by laws and rules that ultimately protect and the society as a whole. The state exists merely to do this and must rely on agreed ethics and moral norms to do this. That leaves very little room, however, for government to exercise control. Or own the means of production.
The hub-bub these days, I submit, is founded on a would-be tyrant's determination to have government control everything and a reaction by the people to this determination. The "healthcare" bill itself demonstrates this determination. There's no need for a 2000 page document to require more competition to lower prices in healtcare costs--and competition does just that--or to provide healthcare for the truly needy. This is not about "overseeing" capitalistic enterprises so that they function within ethical and moral laws; it is about replacing capitalism and giving absolute control to government and government appointees and employees.
And I haven't even mentioned the "green" legislation! The Founders had it exactly right in stating that governments are to be feared. The Founders made no place for proven failures such as socialism and communism--or "governmentism."
Tom Tom
Duane, my apologies for not responding right away. I was gone for a few days and then moved on when I did return. Only after having some time on my hands did I revisit the thread. It was not done to avoid your criticisms. In fact, I tend to respect your opinions when they're well stated.
But first: Ring, tribal elders represent a government. As such, they represent a political system; not an economic system. Banditry requires a capital investment in personnel, organization and weaponry. As such it is capitalistic in nature.
Now, Duane, I actually support your right to conduct tea parties. I even agree with some of the points made by the movement. Our government is too big. Our government is too authoritarian. But where were the tea partiers when Republicans held a majority all three federal houses? Where were they when big government was trampling on our liberties back in 2001-2006? Where were you guys? Your silence then tells me that the whole movement is not about smaller or more libertarian government. It's not about taxes. It's about partisan politics. Had the democrats not swept the Republicans out of power in '06 and '08, I seriously believe I would still stand alone in protesting "big authoritarian government".
I would rather stand alone than to have others stand with me for all the wrong reasons. It only harms my credibility and I know they will back stab me once they get what they want. I'm nobodys convenient fool. The purpose of the tea parties is not to reduce the size or character of our government; just to change who runs it.
If they wanted to change the size and character of the government, rather than just who holds the power, they would have been standing with me since 2001.
Now, about the constitution. Socialism, as a political entity, did not exist when our founders wrote the Constitution. But that does not mean they did not write in socialist ideas. The constitution specifically gives federal ownership of the courts and the military. Both, by definition of socialism, are socialist. I don't hear anyone calling for private "for profit" courts in the name of capitalism. Why is that? Do the courts not provide a service to the public just like any service oriented corporation? Would you claim that no service oriented corporation is not part of the economy?
So how is it that the courts, as established by the Constitution as a socialist program, not "respect the tenets of the founding fathers", as you claimed? This is not an amendment added later. This is Article III, directly signed by every member of the Founding Fathers. They had no definition of socialism then, but what they did was certainly socialism. The same argument applies to the military in Section II Article II. All state and federal militias are socialism. We could hire private armies. In fact, private armies were employed against us during the revolutionary war. The Constitution socialized the army.
But I don't hear many people complaining about that (outside blackwater, that is).
Nor do I see many arguments against the socialized highway system. It's not even in the Constitution. Nor is it in any state constitutions (that I'm aware of). So why do you tolerate our socialized highways. Why are there no calls to privatize them? It is clearly socialism and it clearly prevents people from building/buying roads and taking the risk and it clearly prevents us from any personal profit from those risks. For that matter, why not privatize community water and sewer system? Such public works obviously prevents me from any capitalist ambitions.
My whole point is that moderation between socialism and capitalism is necessary for the smooth functioning of any society. It's my opinion that neither extreme is required or desired. Only once we agree on that can we sit down and have a productive conversation about where the line should be drawn. Your own posts tend to imply some agreement with that point without expressly admitting it. So I'm asking you flat out; do you agree that moderation between socialism and capitalism is necessary for the smooth functioning of our society? If not, then you would actually disagree with the Constitution itself (as I have pointed out earlier).
And yes, capitalism is indeed virtually the default economic system in America. This is not a bad thing, in my opinion. But we differ in the degree to which Capitalism should be managed.I've mentioned all this before, but it was ignored. So now, I've addressed your points. It's your turn to address mine.
Obama's Problem at hand
MEET THE PRESS SUNDAY: I watched it as well. All I could think of is how can I trust anything Geithner can say after all, is he not a tax cheat? The man can't even look the the interviewer in the eyes. I have a problem when someone can't look you in the eye. Second point is the answer as to whether taxes will get raised is a resounding YES YES YES YES. Obama has no choice but to raise taxes, he cannot continue to give the country's wealth away to the irresponsible without raising taxes to the responsible. Can you say reparations through the back door.
Obama's Problem at hand
If any one had the chance to watch Meet the Press Sunday you could see what President Obama's problems are clear cut and straight forward, THEY CAN'T TELL THE TRUTH AND CAN'T LOOK AMERICA IN THE EYE WITHOUT BLINKING!! My goodness Secretary Geithner of the Treasury has a problem answering simple yes or no questions with paragraphs that take scholars from Harvard Law School an hour to figure out! David Gregory asked the man time after time if taxes were going to be raised and the man just kept saying "well times are worse than we thought they were going to be",WHAT DOES THAT MEAN MR. SECRETARY"? Give us an answer, yes or no, is the President going to break his biggest promise of the race he ran last year or not???? David Gregory asked the Secretary a few times how bad all this was going to effect the Middle Class after we were all told id wouldn't? And again, we get this Obama answer of "times are tougher than we thought they were going to be" , WHAT THE HECK IS THIS???, DID YOU GUYS KNOW THERE WAS A WAR GOING ON IN THE MID EAST OR NOT? DID YOU GUYS KNOW WALL STREET WAS HAVING FALL OUT PROBLEMS AND IT WAS LOOKING BAD BEFORE HE WAS ABOUT TO TAKE OFFICE??? WHAT PART DIDN'T YOU KNOW BEFORE HE STEPPED INTO THE WHITE HOUSE????
The Obama Administration has been caught giving America so many "falsehoods", for less of a better word, that many of us have started to ask the Upper Echelon,,,,IS THIS GROUP ABLE TO LEAD THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? ARE THESE PEOPLE ACTUALLY IN CHARGE, BECAUSE MOST LEADERS DON'T HAVE TO LIE NON STOP TO DO THE JOB DAY IN AND DAY OUT,,,DO THEY??? But when we have TV reporters from all NEWS STATIONS QUESTIONING WHAT THE PRESIDENT IS DOING HERE, AND WHAT HE SAID DURING HIS RACE AND HE LIED ABOUT THIS OR THAT, SOMETHING IS REALLY REALLY WRONG !!
You can tell how big the LIE is going to be, because if it is a LARGE ENOUGH LIE, THE PRESIDENT SENDS ONE OF HIS SECRETARIES OUT TO DELIVER THE NEWS!! If it has to do with a BILL that is stuck and is because SOMEONE LIED ABOUT HOW BAD AMERICA IS GETTING TAXED OR SCRE,WED PELOSI DELIVERS THE NEWS. THEN THE PRESIDENT FOLLOWS WITH A LOOK A DEER IN THE HEADLIGHTS!! AND IF THE IT NEEDS A LIE WITH A SCREAM , THE PRESIDENT SENDS IN BARNEY FRANKS, AND FAST! IT HAS BECOME SOMETHING OF A SHAKESPEAREAN PLAY!! BUT FOLKS IT IS OUR COUNTRY, OUR CAPITOL, AND OUR PRESIDENCY, NOT HIS TO PLAY GAMES WITH LIKE THIS!!
DAN1958~HAZEL PARK, MI,48030
PROUD AMERICAN, PROUD FLAG WAVER
DON'T TREAD ON ME HOLYBAMA!!
RE: Obama's critics are right to question policies despite supporters' outcry
Sowell is just against Barack Hugo Obama because he is black.
What? Sowell is black too?
Blows that out of the water.
"I'm sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We need to stand up and say we're Americans, and we have the right to debate and disagree with any administration."
Hillary Clinton.
Mega Dittos Mrs. Clinton HA HA
RE: Obama's critics are right to question policies despite supporters' outcry
This article tells it like it is. I have often told people that when a people become too cowardly to "punch a bully" in the nose, they will succumb to daily torment. For far too long we have allowed our children and our society to become cowardly and if no one stands up now, we will soon see the demise of our great nation.
Stand Up America and Listen!
Tom Tom
jdlech, you are correct in on one fact, Capitalism does not deliver anything unless the INDIVIDUAL takes a risk.
Socialism, on the other hand denies the opportunities that copitalism offers to individuals because of its emphasis on wealth redistribution.
Therefore, Socialism ( not necessarily liberalism ) is at it's root unconstitutional because with its insertion into the economy it violates the rights of individuals who would prefer to take risks and make obscene profits, as they are entitled to do under the 9th and 10th amendments of the constitution.
The Constitution absolutely gurarantees you al of the land and profit and goods you deem right and appropriate, provided you are willing to go and get it yourself within the confines of the law. Socialism makes no such promis to anyone in fact such a philosophy abhors individualism, and individual opportunity dictating instead that those with an ability to create wealth hand it over to those who either can not or will not get it themselves.
This is anti-American, and it runs completely contrary to everything that made our country great.
The Constitution favors the philosophy of "Each according to their ability" over "Each according to their need".
The idea of freedom and liberty runs counter to the idea of Socialism and Communism.
Tom Tom
Jdlech, you probably consider me a thorn in your side, for you do not respond. Nonetheless, I'll continue posting so that others discover your penchant for avoiding questions that challenge your liberal perspective.
You consider FNC's advocacy of the tea parties as just another partisan exercize. Sorry, Jd, but the issue here goes to the heart of what has made this country successful from the beginning. You consider tea parties to be little more than rabble-rousing. That is a contemporary liberal's and a would-be despot's view of direct influence by the populace on its government. You have a right to the view, but I am exposing it for what it is.
Whether you acknowledge it or not, capitalism is virtually the default economic position because it respects the tenets of the Founders and the Constitution. Every other economic system grants to the government numerous powers that our Constitution forbids to the government.
I'll suggest you do something that you liberals are loathe to do: read the Constitution. Then read the numerous papers and letters written by the Founders before and after the ratification of the Document and the Bill of Rights.
Obama critics are right to question policies
This administration wavers on foreign policy as you stated Mr Sowell. But whats even more troubling is that he had NO experience doing these things to begin with, and everybody knew it. Even more troubling is that he said on the campaign trail for two years is that government would be more open to all. Then Why have they locked the doors behind them on healthcare. Theres no transparency he said he would deliver to the public. Their making Huge decisions behind closed doors. All the openess he discribed can't be believed now. They hate capitalism, and the free market system. Their redistributing wealth, telling executives what they should make,giving unions carte blanche to do what they want, and rewarding his supporters at the expense of all. Remarkable.
Tom Tom
jdlech.....Your statement, "Capitalism in its purest form is practiced in only one place on Earth today: Somalia.", shows a complete lacking in understanding of the tribal hierarchy present in the Somali tribal system. Whether you are talking the tribes in the North or the South, their system is based on what the elders deem necessary for the tribe. The elders (when not warring among themselves) decide as a group. What you perceive from the news of piracy to be capitalism is nothing more than banditry. It is done by a group of out-of-control renegades that have actually gone against the tribal elders in their methods to get rich quick....it is NOT capitalism. It is thievery. I lived in Mogadishu from 1987-1990 and my business manager was the son of an elder from the North. I left 6 months before the fall of President Siad Barre. The country has been in chaos ever since.
Tom Tom
Wow, Lafat Libs, I never expected such a whacked out reply.
Especially this comment:
"You have the right to be a conservative, a capitalist and to make as much money own as much land and consume as much stuff as YOU deem right and proper. This is your right given yo by the constitution and delivered via capitalism."
Capitalism does not deliver all the land and wealth as I deem right and proper. I do not own you - nor do I own the state of Kentucky nor does my income match the GDP of Brazil. So Capitalism has not delivered to me all I deem right and proper. Also, are you implying that one has no right to be a liberal or that liberalism is somehow unconstitutional? I do not deny your right to be a Capitalist or a Conservative. But free market Capitalism in its purest form is practiced in only one place on Earth today: Somalia.
Food for thought
Tom Tom
Lafat: By your definition, there is absolutely no hope for the future of the country, whether it be led by Republican or Democratic Administrations, because when the Republicans have been in the driver's seat, they've paid lip service to correct what you now decry as anti-Americanism.
That means the whole two-party monopoly is anti-American, by your own definition.
Tom Tom
[jdlech]"
Where in the Constitution does it enshrine capitalism as the official economic system of the United States?"
Excuse me????!
Let's start here at the Preamble - -
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, ... and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
What are the blessings of liberty if not the ability to direct your own financial future and prosper through capitalism, if you so choose?
How about Article 9??
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You as a citizen have the right to be a capitalist because it is not denied to you in the Constitution.
Conversely, there is no provision for the US to be a socialist country that tramples on the rights of individuals to succeed beyond the limit other citizens or the government levy upon them.
How about the 10 Amendment???
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
You have the right to be a conservative, a capitalist and to make as much money own as much land and consume as much stuff as YOU deem right and proper. This is your right given yo by the constitution and delivered via capitalism.
The legislation making its way through the Democrat Congress ( i.e. Cap 'n trade, and Health Care Reform ) will trample on the constitution and the rights guaranteed by these amendments.
Now show me where the Constitution says the Congress has the power to force you into a health care system, or to charge you to compensate other countries that consume less energy that we do.
Tom Tom
rightstermeister, I disagree.
The Democrat Used to be an American Party. It used to be for state and individual rights. It used to rally against excessive government, and used to champion human rights.
This Democrats Party; the Pelosi Reid Party are all about subjugating individual freedom and promoting group outcomes. They abhor the freeodm of individuals to choose what to buy like SUVs, and incondecent lights of 5 gallon flush toilets, they hate the idea that everyone has the right to listen to Conservative Radio if they choose to do so, They oppose your right to earn more than your neighbor and to improve your life without help from the government, and now through Health Care reform they will have the authority they need to dictate the terms of your life.
This IS unamerican. It would be just as unamerican if it was the far right forcing everyone into Fundamentalist churches on Sunday or forcing everyone to learn about Creationism, or to own a gun, or close businesses on Sunday, or abolish alcohol.
They have been taken over by the far, extreme left; people like Pelosi. Reid, Rockefeller, Frank, and the rest are proving themselves to be completely opposed to those values and traditions that made America great. How can yo be against those values and traditions and not be anti-American?
Well???
Tom Tom
Lafat Libs, read what you wrote.
Are you not defining "anti American" as whatever YOU don't like? Since when did the definition of America become the same as Capitalism? Where in the Constitution does it enshrine capitalism as the official economic system of the United States? Not since the Sherman anti trust act did we have "Pure Capitalism". Even then, there are a lot of Federal programs that are, by definition, Socialist. Our courts are Federally owned and operated; as is much of our military. The national guard and reserves are mainly owned and operated by state governments. Most of our police forces are government owned and operated at various levels. Most roads and highways are owned and operated by Federal and State governments. By definition, these are all Socialist programs.
Does that mean that all these government owned and operated institutions are "anti American" by your own understanding of the term? After all, none of them are "Capitalism".
Now I do agree with your opinion about the "war on FOX", but that is a matter of reason, rather than principle. FOX news deserves criticism, but not for mixing opinion with news. Everyone does that. But FOX stands completely apart in that they now actively organize, fund, and support political campaigns for the Republican Party. They used their airtime to help organize and support political activist 'tea parties'. No other network has ever done that. This crosses the line from news and commentary to political activism against the Democratic party in general and against the Obama administration specifically.
For that, FOX deserves the criticism of being a media arm of the Republican party.
| Jump to top |
