Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2017 6:33 AM
393 online now:
CRR, Faith, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (5 members, 388 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,050 Year: 16,656/21,208 Month: 2,545/3,593 Week: 12/646 Day: 12/78 Hour: 4/2

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Author Topic:   The Obama Nation
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 171 (478987)
08-22-2008 10:16 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by DrJones*
08-22-2008 9:39 PM


Re: Hitler is Obama?
Dr Jones writes:


so you didn't say:

"God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel."

I did say that cherry picked statement and yes I did cite the scriptural references to it.

I also said this in that very same thread which you quote mined your cherry picked link out of.

1. I go with the science on that one. Though I'd rather have a good Christian black daughter-in-law than an atheist or even a secularist one, the science seems to be that the majority tendency is to prefer one's own color and race. All one need do is go in the churches and neighborhoods, of the world to come to that conclusion. History attests to it.

2. I would advise a single son to marry into his own race since God created the races but if my son came home with a black bride I and wifie would go out of our way to make the new bride feel welcome and treat her as we would a white one.

Furthermore, Doc, I believe it was somewhere in that thread that I spoke of when I voted for black Catholic candidate Allan Keys when he made his first run for president.

I made the point that Keys was a Catholic since I've also been critical of that religion for various reasons.

Buzsaw be no racist and no bigot. Buzsaw b 4 u 2 c y Buz saw. :)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by DrJones*, posted 08-22-2008 9:39 PM DrJones* has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by subbie, posted 08-22-2008 10:21 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 110 by DrJones*, posted 08-22-2008 10:28 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 107 of 171 (478989)
08-22-2008 10:19 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by subbie
08-22-2008 10:13 PM


Re: Point by point refutation
Subbie, obviously you're running outa gas. I see nothing in your message worth my time to address further.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by subbie, posted 08-22-2008 10:13 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by subbie, posted 08-22-2008 10:25 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 108 of 171 (478990)
08-22-2008 10:21 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Buzsaw
08-22-2008 10:16 PM


Re: Hitler is Obama?
Dr Jones* writes:

so you didn't say:

"God separated the races and attempting to mix them is like attempting to mix water with diesel fuel."

I did say that cherry picked statement and yes I did cite the scriptural references to it.

If you can show me a scriptural reference to diesel fuel, I'll be very impressed.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 08-22-2008 10:16 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
subbie
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 109 of 171 (478991)
08-22-2008 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by Buzsaw
08-22-2008 10:19 PM


Re: Point by point refutation
Running out of gas? Not half. I was worrying about running out of stupid things you've said that I can make fun of, but then I realized what an inexhaustible supply you have, so that put that concern to rest.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Buzsaw, posted 08-22-2008 10:19 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-22-2008 10:41 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

  
DrJones*
Member
Posts: 1658
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 110 of 171 (478992)
08-22-2008 10:28 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by Buzsaw
08-22-2008 10:16 PM


Re: Hitler is Obama?
yes I did cite the scriptural references to it.

So your racism is religious based, so what?

that I spoke of when I voted for black Catholic candidate Allan Keys

Ah yes the old "I'm not a racist I have black friends" defence.

Buzsaw be no racist and no bigot

But your own words refute this.


soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry

Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor
This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by Buzsaw, posted 08-22-2008 10:16 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3511
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 111 of 171 (478993)
08-22-2008 10:31 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Buzsaw
08-22-2008 9:41 PM


Why the Russian revolution of 1917
Buz, there was good reason for the Russian revolution of 1917. The resulting government/economic system had a lot to be said for it. Alas, for various reasons (World Wars I and II included?), things didn't live up to the idealism and things turned for the worse of Stalinism. But things need not have gone that route.

There is a middle ground between extreme capitalism and extreme socialism. Capitalism tends to work because it appeals to one of man's baser instincts - greed and self interest. Communism and socialism, on the other hand, has a greater concern for the common well being of community and society.

So, why are you such a knee-jerk supporter of an economy based on greed? Might there not also be proper room for policy more aimed at taking care of community and society?

Yes, there will always be some lazy leaches on society. That is now the case, with examples both of the poor and of the wealthy. But it is the wealthy that have the resources to contribute to the betterment of community and society. The system has been good to the wealthy - Why shouldn't they pay back to help maintain the overall health of the community and society that made them wealthy? Some of them are, some are not.

Or do we now need a new American revolution, where those that have material wealth far beyond any practical need get killed?

Buzsaw writes:

1. Hitler was very popular in Germany before and after gaining power.
2. Hitler was a slick and capable orator who chould appear as all things to all citizens.
3. Hitler's policies were quite socialistic.
4. Hitler promised change and the people got change.
5. Hitler was what some refer to as a messiah figure.

I would dispute #3. Care to substantiate that assertion?

2. Hitler was a slick and capable orator who chould appear as all things to all citizens.

Some leaders are more charismatic public speakers than others. It can be used either to sell good policy or to sell a snow job bad pollicy.

In all, I would think that Ronald "the great communicator" Reagan would perhaps match up far better in those qualities of 1, 2, 4, and 5.

BUT PERHAPS ALL THIS BELONGS IN A TOPIC OF ITS OWN.

Moose

Added by edit:

Forgot to include http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Revolution_(1917)

Is there a strong parallel between Tzar Nicholas II and George W. Bush?

Edited by Minnemooseus, : See above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 08-22-2008 9:41 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2008 5:17 PM Minnemooseus has responded

    
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3794
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 112 of 171 (478994)
08-22-2008 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by subbie
08-22-2008 10:25 PM


Subbie, shall we confine our messages to having some real content?
Little messages such as that one do nothing to move any debate forward. They also tend to get my "give out a suspension" finger itchy.

No replies to this message, unless you have a damn good reason (Example of such). Otherwise a suspension may well result.

Adminnemooseus


New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.

Report a problem etc. type topics:
Report Technical Problems Here: No. 1
Report Discussion Problems Here: No. 1
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum

Other useful links:

Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, Assistance w/ Forum Formatting, Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics, Official Invitations to Online Chat@EvC

Admin writes:

It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.

There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.

Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Source


This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by subbie, posted 08-22-2008 10:25 PM subbie has acknowledged this reply

    
kuresu
Member
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


(1)
Message 113 of 171 (478999)
08-23-2008 12:38 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Buzsaw
08-22-2008 9:41 PM


Re: Still no socialism
It's also not moving toward that direction. They've elected their most conservative governments (repealing taxes!) in the 1990s and 2000s since the 1930s, when they were in bed with Hitler.

I also highly doubt Sweden will move in that direction. And since I am Swedish, and somewhat familiar with them and their politics, I might have a better idea than you.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Buzsaw, posted 08-22-2008 9:41 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
kuresu
Member
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 114 of 171 (479000)
08-23-2008 12:59 AM
Reply to: Message 102 by Buzsaw
08-22-2008 9:21 PM


Re: Hitler is Obama?
Why don't you address the items listed in my message?

I did. Not as a point by point refutation. Reread my argument. All those comparisons you listed don't show that Hitler=Obama. That's why I mentioned militarism, massive inflation, war, breaking international treaties, etc.

There were, however, striking similarities which you can't just laugh off.

True. Hitler was an elected dictator by 1936. The US has elected Bush II the dictator (oops, that's Cheney). Germany in 1936 was building a war machine that nearly took down Europe, Britain, and the USSR. The US today has a massive war machine that's stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Now then, if you actually had anything to counter with you would show how I'm wrong instead of re-posting your failed list. You should counter why militarism, massive inflation, disregard for international law, etc do not factor into why Hitler and Obama are the same. Because if you don't, and just claim I'm not dealing with your list, you've shown your hand, and it's empty.

Now then, as to your list.

Hitler was very popular in Germany before and after gaining power
So was Julius Ceasar. So was George Washington. Are they also Hitler?
Hitler was a slick and capable orator who chould appear as all things to all citizens.

So was Cicero. Or Jesus Christ (given the shear number of separate sects, interpretations, etc I'd say you can make Christ a hippie communist or a die-hard facsist). Or Williams Jenning Bryant. Or Churchill. None of them are Hitler, are they?
Hitler's policies were quite socialistic

Debatable, however, if taken at face value. So were Bismarck's when they were introduced in the 1890s (I think that's when they came out). So were the Labor Party's in Britain (and they're all speaking German, right?). So were some of Christ's. So were France's. Are any of those leaders Hitler?
Hitler promised change and the people got change.

Didn't Christ change things? The ace up every politician's sleeve when times are bad is "I will change things for the better!". Does that make practically every politician Hitler?
Hitler was what some refer to as a messiah figure.

Christ was what some refer to as a messiah figure. Oh, but wait, Christ is obviously not Hitler, right?

See how useless and stupid your list is? You can't cherry pick certain qualities and say that two people are thus the same. You have to take in the whole picture.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by Buzsaw, posted 08-22-2008 9:21 PM Buzsaw has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2008 9:01 AM kuresu has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 115 of 171 (479019)
08-23-2008 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by kuresu
08-23-2008 12:59 AM


Re: Hitler is Obama?
Kuresu, again, your refutation attempt is pointless. All you did was to cite various people in history who match up something similar to these.

This discussion is relative to the 2008 election and all of the similarities which I've cited pertain to these two men.

My position is not that Hitler = Obama. It is that there are significant similarities.

I might add that like in Germany when Hitler rose to power, the occult was on the increase and apostacy from Christianity to secularism was becoming more prevalent among the citizenry as now is the case in America.

Hitler also appealed to the youth and energized them as is the case with Obama.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by kuresu, posted 08-23-2008 12:59 AM kuresu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Modulous, posted 08-23-2008 11:17 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7407
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 2.7


(1)
Message 116 of 171 (479020)
08-23-2008 11:17 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Buzsaw
08-23-2008 9:01 AM


Oranges are not the only fruit
quote:

1. Apples grow on trees.
2. Apples are grown en masse by humans who eat them.
3. Apples contain seeds that be used to grow more apple trees.
4. Apples can be squeezed to provide delicious sweet juice
5. Apples can vary from only an inch in diameter to the size of a fist.

The above applies to Oranges too. It doesn't say anything useful or interesting so Buz, what conclusions should we draw from your comparison? Why can we not make those same conclusions about other politicians who also match many characteristics or facts about Hitler. For instance, does the fact that Hitler and McCain were war veterans before coming into political power mean anything? How is one to tell what is important and what is not? Should we compare McCain's confession of being a pirate with others who have likewise confessed?

For example, Hitler was so popular (as you pointed out) that he lost the presidential election.


First Round:
Paul von Hindenburg 18,652,000 (49.6) None
Adolf Hitler 11,339,000 (30.1) Nazi Party (NSDAP)

Second Round (since nobody acheived over 50%)
Paul von Hindenburg 19,360,000 (53.0) None
Adolf Hitler 13,418,000 (36.8) Nazi Party (NSDAP)

He only gained power when Hindenburg died after Hindenburg had given him the position of Chancellor (though he wasn't first choice for that role either and the Nazi Party's popularity was falling to below a third) and he found himself with limited emergency powers. At which point he tore the constitution up and essentially declared himself dictator.

Of course, Hindenburg was an elderly statesman staring senility in the face who died in office. I suppose if McCain makes Obama VP (heh) and then dies in Office, the situation is slightly comparable, is the lesson here that we should watch out for Obama tearing up the constitution, murdering or imprisoning his political enemies and declaring himself the Dictator of the US?

Of course, Hitler's rise to getting more power than his station was due came on the back of a terrorist attack (damn those anarchists!) so he managed to convince the President to give him more and more powers, including the Enabling Act which essentially gave Hitler the power to enact laws or commit actions that were unconstitutional...such as spying on people, taking them away to 'camps' with no trial and no lawyer and so on and so forth.

If we're going to play the silly game of 'compare US politicians to Hitler' I can think of closer matches - so once again, what are we to conclude about the vague comparisons to Hitler?

1. Hitler was very popular in Germany before and after gaining power.

In short, he was second most popular in Germany with a popularity of 30-37% before ascending to any power and as he gained popularity, his powers were limited by those that saw the danger. His popularity declined, and he managed to convince a senile and popular old man to make him the second most powerful man in Germany. The old man died. He seized control, killed or exiled everyone who openly spoke against him and then asked 'Do you like me?'.

This is comparable to Obama, how?

Hitler was a slick and capable orator who chould appear as all things to all citizens.

As are almost all succesful leading politicians of Western Nations - that's how they have a chance of getting elected in the first place. The comparison seems moot.

3. Hitler's policies were quite socialistic.

Hitler was the leader of the National Socialist party. Which particular policy of Hitler's is comparable to a policy of Obama's?
The Clement Attlee comparison competition remains open. Let's compare Hitler, Attlee and Obama and see who is more socialist. Why not throw FDR into the mix for some home-grown fun.

5. Hitler was what some refer to as a messiah figure.

Interesting that you mention this, because the only comparisons to religious prophets and Obama I've heard about come from the McCain's anti-Obama smear campaign. The formula is simple: He's not seen as dangerous or incompetent like Bush/McCain, a step back to the nineties like Clinton, a boring 'suit' like Gore or Kerry but more like an actual leader of people. This is so rare in a Presidential candidate, people get a little more worked up about it than they might otherwise. I refer you to JFK or Churchill for futher information.

But after we have made the comparisons, I'd like to know what you think this tells us about Obama.

Incidentally, if you know any of the parts of the book that we are meant to be discussing and you know that the cite is accurate, I'd be interested in seeing it and the sources. If the book compares Obama to Hitler that would be very interesting.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2008 9:01 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 171 (479037)
08-23-2008 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by Minnemooseus
08-22-2008 10:31 PM


Re: Why the Russian revolution of 1917
Moose writes:

Capitalism tends to work because it appeals to one of man's baser instincts - greed and self interest. Communism and socialism, on the other hand, has a greater concern for the common well being of community and society.

So, why are you such a knee-jerk supporter of an economy based on greed? Might there not also be proper room for policy more aimed at taking care of community and society?

1. The greedy are more apt to be those who want more than they deserve or have earned by legitimate enterprise and work.

2. It is the capitalist nations, America in particular, which have been the benevolent good Samaritans globally, particularly on the continent of Africa, Haite, the islands, etc. The Indonesian Tsumani, Berlin Air Lift, nearly all earthquake and other disaster areas have been beneficiaries of the affluent capitalists, largly Christian orientated.

3. Where have the secularist USSR, Comunist nations, Muslm totalitarian nations etc been when disaster or need have arisen globally?

4. The work ethic, ingenuity, and benevolence, all of which are most prevalent in capitalist nations are not products of base instincts or of communistic and socialistic regimes.

5. Whatever government subsidizes, increases. Subsidized milk = more milk. Subsidized tobacco = more tobacco. Subsidize poverty = more poverty. The greater the gravy train gets, the more who hop aboard. That's greed. That's self interest. That's base instinct.

Moose writes:

But it is the wealthy that have the resources to contribute to the betterment of community and society. The system has been good to the wealthy - Why shouldn't they pay back to help maintain the overall health of the community and society that made them wealthy? Some of them are, some are not.

1. Soaking the more affluent work producers, employers and enterprising intelligent and ingenious builders of society and the result is that they have less incentive to produce, less capital to hire and less to build, less income for government to tax and less means of expanding the economy.

2. Redistribution of one man's hard earned capital to the nonproductive poor becomes an incentive to poverty.

3. Socialism promotes political corruption. The more the polititions promise the poor and even the lower middle income, the more votes they will receive from the majority less affluent.

Moose writes:

Or do we now need a new American revolution, where those that have material wealth far beyond any practical need get killed.

This has never been the case in history. The only revolutions which have been needful have been relative to freedom in nations. Last century over a hundred million were killed since the Bolshevik Revolution by their own Socialistic governments, many of the victims being the affluent, the industrious and the productive.

I've said the above to say that the aspirations of Obama and the Democratic Party to redistribute the earnings of the affluent to the poor, so many who are non-productive, will change America forever, as the man promises.

I was born in Nebraska in 1935 in the midst of both severe drout and depression. Nobody starved. Neighbor helped neighbor. Some, like my family relocated from the drout. People scrimped and sacrificed to become the most prosperous nation on the planet via free enterprise capitalism, benevolence, reverence to God and hard work. :cool:

That's it for now, Moose. Perhaps I can get back to more.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-22-2008 10:31 PM Minnemooseus has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Jaderis, posted 08-24-2008 5:19 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 121 by Minnemooseus, posted 08-24-2008 5:50 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 128 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2010 1:35 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 118 of 171 (479043)
08-23-2008 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by Buzsaw
08-20-2008 10:03 PM


Buzsaw writes:

quote:
Obama is no idiot. Like Hitler

....whoa! "Hitler"? You're comparing Obama to Hitler?

Godwin's Law. You automatically lose. You clearly know so little about the Holocaust and even even less about your own argument that you seem to think that Hitler is the best analogy for your argument.

And on an even more practical note, if your mind goes to Hitler when thinking of Obama, then there is no possible way to show you wrong. It doesn't matter what evidence is shown to you, you will reject it.

Prove us wrong: What would it take? What would it take for you to say that you were wrong?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by Buzsaw, posted 08-20-2008 10:03 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6098
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 119 of 171 (479044)
08-23-2008 8:43 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Fosdick
08-21-2008 2:22 PM


Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:
Investment can be seen as advanced spending.

This is going off-topic. If you want to discuss it elsewhere, start a new thread.

You didn't read the source, did you? Investment is only secondary. Investing in a business is required, but it is inefficient: If the business fails, that money that was invested didn't contribute to the economy. And that assumes that the investment goes toward the creation of new productivity in the economy rather than in non-production areas.

Note, this does not mean that there should be no economic incentives for investment. However, the greater incentive should be on consumers as it is a more efficient means of stimulating the economy. That's why the Bush tax cuts haven't done anything to help the economy but actually made things worse: It didn't go to the people who would consume but rather to the people who would invest. It's why the economic gap between the rich and the poor in this country as become the greatest it has ever been since the Great Depression.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Fosdick, posted 08-21-2008 2:22 PM Fosdick has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Fosdick, posted 08-24-2008 11:20 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Jaderis
Member (Idle past 867 days)
Posts: 622
From: NY,NY
Joined: 06-16-2006


(1)
Message 120 of 171 (479059)
08-24-2008 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Buzsaw
08-23-2008 5:17 PM


Re: Why the Russian revolution of 1917
I was born in Nebraska in 1935 in the midst of both severe drout and depression. Nobody starved. Neighbor helped neighbor. Some, like my family relocated from the drout. People scrimped and sacrificed to become the most prosperous nation on the planet via free enterprise capitalism, benevolence, reverence to God and hard work.

So, IOW, you were a child of the New Deal, right? The same New Deal which heavily subsidized the farmers of Nebraska and elsewhere. The same New Deal which encouraged minimum wages and the expansion of unions which, however you feel about them today, allowed an American blue-collar middle class to thrive and prosper. You know, the ones hardest hit by the Depression.

The same New Deal which brought government funded electricity to the rural farm areas in which you were born (because the electric companies sure weren't gonna do it on their own...no profit, right?) and invested in the infrastructure of the nation to allow more opportunity to more Americans.

We have a mixed economy which has served us fairly well. I don't see Obama wanting to expand the "welfare state" as you paranoiacs imagine. Taxing for infrastructure, education, security (both economic and physical) and healthcare is vital for the continuing success of the nation. We need roads, power, communications, police/fire departments, an educated citizenry, healthy people, etc and it is just as obvious now as it was in the 1930's that people are falling through the cracks no matter how hard they work.

People who have worked for 20+ years at the same factory are losing their jobs, healthcare and pensions on a whim from the corporate office. Are they lazy, too? What about the women who want to go to school to better themselves, but they have a kid and no family to support them so they have to work? Are they lazy, too? What about the farmers who have spent their whole lives on the family farm only to see their livelihoods destroyed by "free trade" or the inability to compete with the big boys (same with "mom and pop shops" vs Walmart - how many people do you know who say "hey, let's support Jim's hardware store instead of going to Walmart even tho his prices are twice as high?" I know I do, but do you?)? Are they lazy, too? Should we not have a system in place which protects against personal catastrophe even if it is sometimes taken advantage of by some of those who you deem "lazy?" (And I live in NYC and live in a pretty impoverished area in Brooklyn and have been in both the unemployment office and the food stamp office...the mythical bling mama with a cadillac is nowhere to be found)

So, what do you propose? Churches? The kindness of strangers? Where were they during the depression? What about now? Where are all these good people helping out the homeless and the hungry in our own country?

You admit that people are essentially greedy (including those you don't want to give your money to) so how do you propose that we help those who are left with nothing? At least the "socialists" like me (and I am not quite socialist) recognize that people are greedy and depending on the charity of all has brought us nothing much to show (especially depending on the charity of those with lots of money and lots of power). You seem to think that the world operates like your small town in Nebraska where everyone knows everyone and gosh darnit lets just help him out. It just doesn't work that way and it might seem unfair to you, good Christian that you are, to take even more money than what I assume you already give to help the poor among you, but not everyone is as good and giving as you, Buz.

Most people's money is earned on the backs of those less fortunate or on the backs of those who agitated and died for the benefits we have today. So get off your anti-socialistic high horse and thank all of those people who gave you overtime and holiday pay, non-lethal working conditions, farm reforms, rural electricity, paved roads, non-leaded gasoline, product safety, all of the advances of government subsidized science, cleaner air and water and your $2.98 t-shirt from Walmart.


"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

"Hazards exist that are not marked" - some bar in Chelsea


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Buzsaw, posted 08-23-2008 5:17 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

    
Prev1
...
67
8
9101112Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017