Large Scale Central

Socialism?

General Discussion
#121
Ron Simpson said:
Steve Featherkile said:
Mike. I appreciate that you don't, or won't, get it. But the rest of us do.

Obama wants to dramatically reorganize the US, starting with the coal industry. Everything that relies on electricity and the railroads will follow, as will business in the United States.

Then, you will have created whatever you want to call it. You don’t want to call it Socialism, so what will you call it? It certainly won’t be Capitalism.


It’s just that word “socialism” that seems to bother those on the left who are quite obviously in denial and would rather play word games than just deal with the obvious. But it is what it is.

Ron, I learned they don’t like “Hippie” either. I guess “Lice Infested Hippie” would really upset them.

#122

It’s not that I dislike “hippie,” I just find it kind of puzzling. It’s like being called a brooklyn dodger, or a Philadelphia Athletic. It’s a term that’s 30 years out of date.

How about beatnik? It’s sort of like that. “You and your beatnik comrades can vote for Obama!” It’s puzzling

#123
Ron Simpson said:
mike omalley said:
The word socialism doesn't bother me at all. Inaccuracy bothers me.

I asked you to demonstrate how Obama was an socialist, after you gave a point by point definition of socialist. And you responded with Ayers and Rev. Wright, neither of whom are Obama or are involved with Obama’s campaign.

That’s because you can’t prove he’s a socialist, because he’s not.


Fine. Define socialism anyway you want. After all, we don’t want to unduly alarm anyone, do we? Define Obama anyway you want. He’s probably nothing more than a mainstream American politician in the same mold as Hubert Humphrey, right?

Close your eyes tight. Ride the fantasy train.
And drink the Koolaid.


Still 100% substance free.

Point by point, Humphrey was far more left/liberal than Obama–I think I could argue that. But then you’d have to actually have read Obama’s positions to judge.

#124

Mr. O’Malley

Do you really believe that there are any politicians anywhere that would actually put into writing, what their actual plans of doing anything are? I surely do not!

It is my opinion, that all politicians tell all individuals willing to listen, likely to vote or not, exactly what they think those individuals want to hear, in the most ambiguous manner possible.

So pointing to any verbal or written promise or statement of future policy, provided by any politician is totally worthless as a gauge for what they will do once elected to office. The only value derived from any such statement or document is gained after the fact, when used as a measure to determine if the promises have been kept, even then the value is at best marginal thanks to the intentional ambiguity with which it was created to begin with.

As for the validity of the Crockett “It’s not yours to give” story, as I stated no record of that specific instance has thus far been uncovered. However, there is documented proof of his taking a similar stance in a like situation involving the family of General Brown in 1828 as provided by the following link.

A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774-1875

As for Mr. Crockett being a Whig that came very close to the end of his political career since the party didn’t come into being until 1833. Being derived from the National Republicans Party, which in turn was derived from the precursor factions of the Adams (i.e. John Quincy) supporters and the Anti-Jacksonian. I really don’t think it was a joining by Crocket. as much as it was using of him by the Whig party for his anti-Jackson stance and as hedge on preventing the Presidency being handed to Van Buren, which failed.

Additionally, I really can’t envision anyone that has done much reading on Crockett classifying him as a party-line type of individual. Quite the contrary, I think he’d fit very nicely into the “his own man” category, as evidenced by the price he paid for taking the confrontational stance against President Jackson a fellow Tennesseeian, regarding the “Indian Removal Act.”

#125

Steve C.
With respect.
Unless anyone can show proof that a politician has actually said or done something to confirm an opinion of him/her then that opinion remains just that.
An opinion.

#126

Tony

Exactly, as is yours, an opinion. Additionally, I nor anyone else bears the burden of proof to justify their opinion.

Any number of individuals could review the exact same material, and that could result in a like number of opinions, such is the human condition.

#127
Steve Conkle said:
Tony

Exactly, as is yours, an opinion. Additionally, I nor anyone else bears the burden of proof to justify their opinion.

Any number of individuals could review the exact same material, and that could result in a like number of opinions, such is the human condition.


Just let me make sure I am clear on this.
Are you saying no one is required to offer proof that an opinion is any more than that? An opinion.
However if irrefutable proof was offered that opinion would become fact?

#128
mike omalley said:
It's not that I dislike "hippie," I just find it kind of puzzling. It's like being called a brooklyn dodger, or a Philadelphia Athletic. It's a term that's 30 years out of date.

How about beatnik? It’s sort of like that. “You and your beatnik comrades can vote for Obama!” It’s puzzling


Mike,

In the 60’s and the 70’s wearing a mandatory unifrom through an airport in the USA could be a tramatic experience, because if you beat the crap out of the lice infested hippie scum that was in your face, you might get your uniform dirty or disrespect your position in the service you were serving, defending this Country. Many of us were there because of the draft, just doing our jobs. So we would end up with police escorts through the airports, so that they didn’t have to deal with calling in ambulances for the trash and also, us getting Article 15’s for getting rowdy. Those scumbags are now lawyers, professors and politicans, but still “lice infested hippie scum”.

I hope that I’ve made it clear enough that you can understand. Names like Bill Ares, Jane Fonda, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Black Panthers, the SDS, the Chicago 7 and the other scum of the earth means something to some of us.

This is their last stand, if they win they may someday become respectable in some people’s eyes, but not all. So be it. If they loose, it is their last hoorah. They will be to old in another 4, 8 or 12 years.

#129
Ric Golding said:
mike omalley said:
It's not that I dislike "hippie," I just find it kind of puzzling. It's like being called a brooklyn dodger, or a Philadelphia Athletic. It's a term that's 30 years out of date.

How about beatnik? It’s sort of like that. “You and your beatnik comrades can vote for Obama!” It’s puzzling


Mike,

In the 60’s and the 70’s wearing a mandatory unifrom through an airport in the USA could be a tramatic experience, because if you beat the crap out of the lice infested hippie scum that was in your face, you might get your uniform dirty or disrespect your position in the service you were serving, defending this Country. Many of us were there because of the draft, just doing our jobs. So we would end up with police escorts through the airports, so that they didn’t have to deal with calling in ambulances for the trash and also, us getting Article 15’s for getting rowdy. Those scumbags are now lawyers, professors and politicans, but still “lice infested hippie scum”.

I hope that I’ve made it clear enough that you can understand. Names like Bill Ares, Jane Fonda, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Black Panthers, the SDS, the Chicago 7 and the other scum of the earth means something to some of us.

This is their last stand, if they win they may someday become respectable in some people’s eyes, but not all. So be it. If they loose, it is their last hoorah. They will be to old in another 4, 8 or 12 years.


Oh my, Ric! You think you gonna be younger and smarter in 4, 8 or 12 years? I’m just listening to the radio and what seems to be the most striking feature in the Obama camp (strictly going on what is reported!) is the large group of under 25s who work their butts off right along with some of those people who are going to be over the hill in 4, 8 and 12 years.

As Arlo sang in Alice’s Restaurant “It’s a movement!” :wink: :slight_smile:

#130

Ric if you want to keep living in the past that’s your choice. I was 12 when vietnam ended. Obama was ten. You are fighting an old battle and as Hans-Joerg points out, the word appears to be moving on. There are no hippies on my campus. I don’t know any hippies. I did, they were much older than me, but they are all dead now.

The republican party’s determination to keep trying to refight the 60s is I think, a big reason why they are losing tonight. 1970 was nearly 40 years ago.

#131

Mikey, there are some things one doesn’t just “get over”…People who lived through the great depression never forgot that wealth can just disappear overnight. Guys who fought in 'Nam won’t forget getting treated like shit, spit on, and being called “baby killers” and worse when they got home.

My cousin’s husband was a deacon at my mom’s church, he was also in Vietnam for 2 tours. One day in general conversation it came out that the new part-time pastor had participated in anti-war protests in Philly and Chicago… my cousin’s husband immediately resigned and said he won’t come back until the pastor leaves.

Of course the world has “moved on”… we always try to forget our embarrassing and less than honorable moments. You of all people should know that.

#132

Mik I haven’t forgotten anything. But I live in the present. There’s no point in blaming the younger generation for the sins of the elder.

#133
Mik said:
.......

My cousin’s husband was a deacon at my mom’s church, he was also in Vietnam for 2 tours. One day in general conversation it came out that the new part-time pastor had participated in anti-war protests in Philly and Chicago… my cousin’s husband immediately resigned and said he won’t come back until the pastor leaves.

…


Mik,

Tell you what, way back in '68 - the hot summer in Europe, including Switzerland - I was quite busy sticking up little posters on as many lamp posts as possible. The message: “LBJ - the bully with an airforce!”.

It wasn’t aimed at the grunts who got sent to 'Nam, it was aimed right at the person who was - at that time - responsible for the damn mess. If one aims, one better aim at the right target!

#134
Tony Walsham said:
[br]Are you saying no one is required to offer proof that an opinion is any more than that? An opinion.
Yes sir, that is exactly what I meant to say. The only time the need to explain one's reasoning for arriving at any given opinion, is when one's intent has shifted to attempting to influence and cause change in someone else's opinion.
Quote:
[br]However if irrefutable proof was offered that opinion would become fact?
The problem with your above statement, is that in a great many cases what is put forward by one individual as "irrefutable proof" is merely the statement of yet another opinion. Since an opinion is a belief that is held by an individual with confidence, not a physical reality, though it can exert great force as if it were. Unless and until the individuals involved can find common ground on which they agree, they will remain at an impasse.
#135

Hey Guys, I served in the Vietnam era. I was in the U.S. Coast Guard and was very lucky in not having to go to Vietnam, but I have extreme honor and respect for those that did go. The hate was universal to all that wore the uniform. I hope we never return to that and we honor our young people as they come back.

As to “living in the past”, sorry that isn’t here. I live very much in the present and remember the past, some parts with reverence and some memories with disgust. Liberals lost in our county, 44% to 56%, so I certainly don’t feel I am out of touch with my neighbors. It is time to polish your ammo, squirrel away your money and look poor. This Country survived Jimmy Carter with 21% interest rates, we can survive this.

#136

Hey Ric,

Since you remember, better start remembering why Jimmy Carter’s term got saddled with those interest rates!

As I like to say: “An accurate memory is a real burden, unless you have the selective kind!”

#137

Okay HJ, what is your opinion why the Peanut Farmer had such a terrible time?

#138

Ric,

The largest part of that was the delayed blow back from that stupid war.

#139

That and a “my way or the highway” attitude toward congress that got him no cooperation at all.

Carter was ineffective. Thats why he was easily defeated after 1 term. Shrub probably would have gone down in 4 too if it hadn’t been for 9/11.

Hopefully in a year or two you will come to see that the dems under Obama can get it done. If not, I gladly stand with you to help usher in someone else who can.

#140

Carter lost because of the 2nd oil embargo and the resulting inflation, because Volker allowed interest rates to spike, and because of the hostage crisis in Iran. There was little he could have done about any of those, except not welcomed the deposed Shah to the US for cancer treatment, which is what provoked the hostage crisis