Quote :

"But I'd point out that this thread is mostly about tea party & cpac & gop fringe type shenanigans rather than about the democratic party."

You have already created a CPAC thread and a Tea Party thread. To say nothing of your all-inclusive "GOP credibility watch" thread and the somewhat redundant "Michael Steele credibility watch" thread. I'm just trying to point out that a lot of your threads are redundant as hell.

Maybe the solution to "the long threads and the scarcity of new threads" is not to create multiple separate threads on essentially the same topic and which contain essentially the same discussion.

And just for your own good, I'd refrain from taking any action as a result of hooksaw and aaronburro being annoying, because sooner or later you'll decide that the only reasonable action would be to find them and hit them with something.

---

Anyway, I guess I'll post something relevant to the thread. Barack Obama is not a communist, socialist, nazi, or fascist. People that use those terms to describe him or any other American president do not understand what those words mean. Glen Beck is "a fat mormon fuckface who should have drank himself to death years ago," and the response from conservatives that "But you guys call Bush names first!" is one of the most inane and childish things I have ever heard.

2/24/2010 3:16:44 PM

2/24/2010 3:28:30 PM

Quote :

"I don't have my own definition of socialism, I have the definition of socialism, you know, the real one, which is basically public ownership of the means of production."

There isn't one "real" definition of socialism, given that it's a composite of different theories developed by different people, but we'll pretend that your definition is "basically" right. How does the left not support public ownership of the means of production? Did we not bail out the automakers? Did we not bail out the banks? Is the end goal of all this health care bullshit not to nationalize health insurance?

Maybe under the strict definition of socialism that the public (government) must own 100% of all means of production, the left is not socialist. They certainly advocate having government control and regulate key components of private businesses. I don't know if there's an "ism" for that, but I know it's destructive. Socialism, or whatever fucked up system of government we're pursuing at this point, cannot and will not ever work, because it lacks a price mechanism. A disconnected government bureaucrat cannot tell you how much a potato in Arizona should cost, but they'll sure as hell try.

Quote :

"Well I guess I could start by explaining to you why you , yourself, would support a government which allocates resources and and has some form of economic planning. I'll start by asking you if you support a public nationwide defense program."

Taxes collected to perform a function required by the constitution is not economic planning. It allows the country to continue to exist as a sovereign nation, so every citizen benefits. It's not taking money from one citizen and handing it to another. Now, the military-industrial complex as it exists today seems to benefit some individuals over others, so in a way, that is reallocation of resources. I don't support that unholy alliance either, though.

Quote :

"What do you mean “modern liberals”? Every single president since the 30s, republican or democrat, has supported or implemented what the right now calls “socialist policies.” I can guarantee that 99.99% of the right supports what they would call a “socialist” policy, if they were told that it’s what Obama wanted."

I'm referring to anyone that supports universal health care, entitlements, or any other botched social program that both Democrats and Republicans have supported in the past.

Quote :

"Barack Obama is not a communist, socialist, nazi, or fascist. People that use those terms to describe him or any other American president do not understand what those words mean."

Barack Obama probably isn't any of those things. He's playing the game. I don't think he has any actual principles. He's doing exactly what the political climate dictates. Obama will say that what's right isn't always popular, and what's popular isn't always right. Well, he only does what's popular, and that's the problem. We need a president with courage that will level with the public and give them a (much needed) dose of reality. Until that happens, we're going to continue making the same mistakes, because Obama and Congress don't understand economics.

2/24/2010 4:18:51 PM

Quote :

"I'm referring to anyone that supports universal health care, entitlements, or any other botched social program that both Democrats and Republicans have supported in the past. "

SO you're referring to the vast majority of Americans?

2/24/2010 4:31:40 PM

Pretty much. The vast majority of people are still in denial. They think the recession is going to end in a year or two and everything will be back to normal. For the past few decades, the conventional wisdom has been that the government can spend as much money on lavish social programs as it can borrow or create, get as much debt as possible, and there will be no ill effects. That's what most Americans believed during (and before) the 90s and even the early 2000s. I think many people are waking up and realizing that we don't have the revenue to cover these expensive entitlement programs and military operations. We just don't. I don't care what your specific political views are, because they're irrelevant. As long as you have a basic understanding of math, you have to know that we're in big trouble here.

2/24/2010 4:50:07 PM

Quote :

"Barack Obama probably isn't any of those things. He's playing the game. I don't think he has any actual principles. He's doing exactly what the political climate dictates."

1) There's no "probably" to it.

2) I think you're wrong that he has no principles. He fought a pretty long, nasty battle in favor of health care for it to be something he doesn't actually believe in.

Quote :

"It's not taking money from one citizen and handing it to another."

That's exactly what all taxes are and always have been. The money they collect doesn't just disappear into the ether. It gets handed to someone, usually a citizen. You might disagree with why the money is handed to certain citizens but don't be an idiot about what taxes are.

2/24/2010 5:51:07 PM

Well I was going to write a long post explaining how you would claim obama does what the political climate dictates and in another post claim how he's pushing healthcare on an american public who doesn't really want it. Then I would explain how taxes for defense is still wealth redistribution, but Grumpy did it in a far more concise manner.

Quote :

"Did we not bail out the automakers? Did we not bail out the banks?"

Those aren't public ownership, that's a loan, we didn't get stock for those.

Quote :

"Is the end goal of all this health care bullshit not to nationalize health insurance?"

2/24/2010 6:42:11 PM

Quote :

"Those aren't public ownership, that's a loan, we didn't get stock for those."

In this instance I believe we did. The Government is the second largest shareholder in GM.

2/24/2010 6:49:45 PM

Quote :

"Pretty much. The vast majority of people are still in denial. They think the recession is going to end in a year or two and everything will be back to normal. For the past few decades, the conventional wisdom has been that the government can spend as much money on lavish social programs as it can borrow or create, get as much debt as possible, and there will be no ill effects. That's what most Americans believed during (and before) the 90s and even the early 2000s. I think many people are waking up and realizing that we don't have the revenue to cover these expensive entitlement programs and military operations. We just don't. I don't care what your specific political views are, because they're irrelevant. As long as you have a basic understanding of math, you have to know that we're in big trouble here."

This seems a little FUD-y and paranoid.

The recent financial crisis isn't directly related to the massive debt.

You can't just shout OMG the debt! the crisis! we're doomed! without coming off a bit nutty, even if your position on the individual issues of each is valid. If you try to lump them together for the purpose of bringing people over to your side, you not only cloud the issue, but you galvanize the ignorant and the insane.

2/24/2010 7:02:00 PM

Quote :

"In this instance I believe we did. The Government is the second largest shareholder in GM."

I'm sorry, I was mistaken then, to be honest, I don't know that much about the auto bailout.

2/24/2010 8:16:55 PM

Quote :

"In general why have I made more threads lately? I've been on tdub more now that I'm back in grad school, but also in response people like Hooksaw & Aaronburro who have both multiple times too many of the topics I start are on gay rights & that is the only thing I care about."

Dude, you can't let other users affect your posting habits like that. If they can get under skin enough to make you start posting more threads, then the terrorists trolls have won. F that, just live, B.

2/24/2010 11:43:53 PM

^ umm... the whole point of a message board is to do things like this.

This is very much a form of entertainment, just like people play video games. Thus, we are allowed to adapt our strategy for playing this game however we see fit.

You shouldn't let your blood pressure raise too much from TSB, but adjust your behavior in the context of this environment is not only acceptable, it's practically expected.

2/25/2010 12:03:37 AM

^^Now burros is telling me I need to not put GOP credibility related stuff in the GOP Credibility thread, if it relates specifically to NC GOP, and that instead we need more threads going at a time about it, and that I should ask a moderator to bump an old thread about NC GOP instead of using the current GOP credibility.

As much as he disagrees with me on the issues, I'm surprised that he keeps pushing me to talk about more issues, and not only that, but to use even more threads to do it in.

2/25/2010 12:21:48 AM

^^ I said 'affect you like that', not just 'affect you.' I understand what you're saying about this being an entertaining game that we can play however we want, but I was only referring to the same situation you're talking about in your last sentence, since it sounded like burro and hooksaw were getting under his skin. We're on the same page.

2/25/2010 12:46:54 AM

^ if they are allowed to run amok, they get too cock-sure of themselves, and creating situations where this can't happen is beneficial for all of us.

2/25/2010 1:08:09 AM

What happened to hooksaw anyway? Good riddance, whatever the reason...

2/25/2010 1:53:28 AM

I don't know, the eye rolling got pretty tired, but he wasn't all bad, especially if you encountered him outside the soap box.

I just looked up his last post, near the end of January, and he said as of his 15,000th post that he was on hiatus.

[Edited on February 25, 2010 at 1:59 AM. Reason : .]

2/25/2010 1:56:02 AM

People shouldn't be afraid to label themselves as socialist. I don't understand why there is such a negative connotation to the word in the first place.

2/25/2010 7:25:00 AM

We were at war with socialists for half a century - I bet that had something to do with it.

We are still antagonistic towards some socialist states, eg Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea. Totalitarian governments also seem to gravitate towards socialism as justification for their hold on power.

2/25/2010 9:07:38 AM

Quote :

"People shouldn't be afraid to label themselves as socialist. I don't understand why there is such a negative connotation to the word in the first place."

And there were the results of said socialism upon the countries that adopted it. Europeans did not abandon socialism without first trying it. European states nationalized and politicized the commanding heights of their economies throughout the 60s and 70s, only to reach rock bottom and then privatize throughout the 80s and 90s.

2/25/2010 12:42:25 PM

Europeans did not abandon Socialism period. It's done pretty well for them so far.

2/25/2010 1:28:37 PM

GGOOOOOOOOOOOO IRRATIONAL FEAR!

[Edited on February 25, 2010 at 6:51 PM. Reason : SFASDDD]

2/25/2010 6:51:43 PM

Wait a second, is that really kris?

2/25/2010 6:54:55 PM

As real as it gets, did you expect me to be more of an asshole, or more headstrong? The corporate world has done quite a number on my stubbornness.

2/25/2010 7:24:19 PM

^ 4real.

2/25/2010 7:59:56 PM

Quote :

"Europeans did not abandon Socialism period. It's done pretty well for them so far."

They did not abandon Socialism period, they simply scaled it back to less socialism than America. Percentage wise, most Western European governments own a smaller percentage of their economies than America. It turns out the Post Office is the biggest difference, as many European countries have privatized their postal service. They still collectively own chunks of Airbus stock, but even there a huge chunk is owned by private investors.

Compare that to the 60s and 70s, when the governments owned a substantial chunk of everything, from mines to factories to shopping malls, only for most of it to be privatized in the following decades. Even now, when it is the Europeans saying "The Swedish state is not prepared to own car factories" to America's state, which now owns more than it knows what to do with.

2/26/2010 10:18:11 AM

Tonight, we are all comrades.

3/21/2010 10:59:47 PM

Good night, sweet Prince Capitalism

3/22/2010 12:30:04 AM