Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
Reddit"There is always a charge that socialism does not fit human nature. We've encountered that for a long time. Maybe that's true. But can't people be educated? Can't people learn to cooperate with each other? Surely that must be our goal, because the alternative is redolent with war and poverty and all the ills of the world." -- Frank Zeidler
John McCain hopes to revive his campaign by suggesting that Barack Obama is some kind of socialist.
The Republican nominee for president says that his Democratic rival's plan for stimulating the economy sounds "a lot like socialism."
"At least in Europe, the socialist leaders who so admire my opponent are up front about their objectives. They use real numbers and honest language. And we should demand equal candor from Senator Obama," the Arizona senator claimed over the weekend.
Asked if he thinks Obama is a socialist, McCain offers an insinuating raised eyebrow and a shrug non-response: "I don't know."
McCain is not really concerned about socialism. He is trying to suggest that Obama is somehow un-American.
Obama's no socialist.
But, as a Wisconsinite, I can't buy the basic premise of McCain's argument.
I grew up in a state where socialism was as American as my friend Frank Zeidler.
Zeidler, an old-school American socialist who served three terms as the mayor of Milwaukee from 1948 to 1960, died two year ago at age 93. His passing was mourned by Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives, who recognized the gentle radical as one of the most honorable men ever to cross the American political landscape.
Zeidler actually ran for president in 1976 as the nominee of the American Socialist Party. In fairness, it was more an educational campaign than a serious bid for an office that the former mayor never really coveted. Like so many of the great civic gestures he engaged in over eight decades of activism, Zeidler's 1976 campaign promoted the notion that: "There's nothing un-American about socialism."
Campaigning on a platform that promised a shift of national priorities from bloated defense spending to fighting poverty, rebuilding cities and creating a national health care program, Zeidler won only a portion of the respect that was due this kind and decent man and the values to which he has devoted a lifetime.
Had Zeidler been born in another land -- perhaps Germany, where the roots of his family tree were firmly planted -- his Socialist Party run would have been a much bigger deal. Indeed, he might well have been elected.
In most of the world, the social-democratic values that Zeidler advanced throughout his long life hold great sway. Latin America has been experiencing a revival of socialist fervor in recent years. And virtually every European country has elected a socialist government in the past decade. Indeed, the current leaders of Britain and Spain head political parties that are associated with the Socialist International, of which Zeidler's Socialist Party was a U.S. affiliate. In the recent Canadian elections, the socialist New Democratic Party experienced a substantial boost in its parliamentary delegation.
In Zeidler's youth, America's Socialist Party was a contender. During the 1920s, there were more Socialists in the Wisconsin legislature than Democrats, and a Wisconsin Socialist, Victor Berger, represented Milwaukee in the US House. When Norman Thomas sought the presidency as a Socialist in 1932, he received almost a million votes, and well into the 1950s Socialists ran municipal governments in Reading, Pennsylvania; Bridgeport, Connecticut and other quintessentially American cities – including Zeidler's Milwaukee.
For millions of American voters in the past century, socialism was never so frightening as John McCain would have us believe. Rather, it was a politics of principle that added ideas and nuance to a stilted economic and political discourse.
For the most part, Zeidler and his compatriots campaigned along the periphery of presidential politics, especially as the Cold War took hold.
But they earned respect in communities such as Milwaukee, where voters kept casting ballots for Socialist candidates even as Joe McCarthy was promoting his "red-scare" witch hunt.
Years after he left the mayor's office, Zeidler's contribution -- a humane, duty-driven, fiscally responsible version of socialism that is reflective of the man as much as the philosophy –- was always recognized by Wisconsinites as a very American expression of a legitimate and honorable international ideal.
Zeidler was the repository of a Milwaukee Socialist tradition with a remarkable record of accomplishment -- grand parks along that city's lakefront, nationally recognized public health programs, pioneering open housing initiatives, and an unrivaled reputation for clean government -- that to his death filled the circumspect former mayor with an uncharacteristic measure of pride.
Because of its emphasis on providing quality services, the politics that Zeidler practiced was sometimes referred to as "sewer socialism." But, to the mayor, it was much more than that. The Milwaukee Socialists, who governed the city for much of the 20th century, led a remarkably successful experiment in human nature rooted in their faith that cooperation could deliver more than competition.
"Socialism as we attempted to practice it here believes that people working together for a common good can produce a greater benefit both for society and for the individual than can a society in which everyone is shrewdly seeking their own self-interest," Zeidler told me in an interview several years ago. "And I think our record remains one of many more successes than failures."
Would that John McCain – and, frankly, Barack Obama -- had the intellectual honesty to assess those successes, and the ideals that underpinned them. The candidates would not, necessarily embrace socialism. But they would recognize the absurdity of tossing the "S" word around as an epithet.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
The McCarthy mentality still lives in our country. We see this is the mistaken comments of those who feel that Europeans are somehow suffering under a socialist system. My friends in Europe couldn't be paid to move here and they are all middle class.
Posted by Truthman at 10/20/2008 @ 10:45am
What I have noticed the last few weeks is that the Great Financial Minds are twisting every which way to keep from using the "S" word when referring to their government backed bailouts and the nationalization of the banking industry.
Like liberal and feminist, the right-wing-nuts like to coopt the language so that they can then use it to spread their fear and propaganda. "Clear Skies" etc would be the reverse of using socialism in their propaganda fight.
We have socialized streets, garbage pick-up, police and fire depts, a VERY socialized military system and now a socialized banking and investment system. Any attempt to make this an evil word is just so much propaganda from the same folk that want us to fear the guy with a funny name.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 10:51am
so sad, the dream's becoming a nightmare:
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174991/
nick_turse_going_to_extremes_in_america
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2008 @ 11:01am
This reminds me of the song that goes "Tax the rich, feed the poor Till there are no rich no more" why not tax the rich till there are no poor no more. Are we trying to get rid of people who are successful?
Posted by abell12ct at 10/20/2008 @ 11:40am
YES JOHN NICHOLS, the idea of fair distribution, of "giving" is an American thing. Provided its voluntary.
The issue is not whether or not should give and spread our bounty with those less fortunate: Its guarding against those who would force us to.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/20/2008 @ 12:01pm
"We have socialized streets, garbage pick-up, police and fire depts, a VERY socialized military system and now a socialized banking and investment system."
SERIOUSLY!
It's the evolution of this country. Bit by bit we will become socialist. And the majority of this country seems OK with it. Especially the "capitalists" on Wall Street when they're caught with their pants down.
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/20/2008 @ 12:06pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/20/2008 @ 12:01
So, for instance:
Paying for Maliki's protection from his own people with American tax dollars could be voluntary? Same with paying for the SGT York and the Osprey systems?
Or is this one of those things that the stuff you want is OK, but if somebody else wants it but you don't it's not OK? And that would be why we elect representatives to make those choices. don't like what they chose, vote 'em out.
Like we are going to do with the GOP. AKA- Big guvt, big spenders, big borrowers, no oversight.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 12:10pm
If anyone has ever paid attention to history over the last 100 years or so, but we have never had a complete capitalist economic system, nor a socialist system. But we have always happily borrowed the ideals for either system when needed. To help get us out of the last depression, the "New Deal" was instrumental. A highly socialistic concept that was highly regarded. This is because in this country either system, when employed over long cycles, eventually needs adjustments, according to human nature, which fluctuates between the values of greed and fairness.
Posted by Guitar Man at 10/20/2008 @ 12:46pm
I think now is a time better than any other to re-examine Fukuyama's overzealous predictions at the end of the previous century. Recently I've been reading Derrida's "Spectres of Marx," which also takes a look at that issue. To suggest that "socialism" is an epithet -- or even to believe that it is a bad thing-in-itself -- is to be the basest of political beings.
"Socialism" is a bad word, but there is no reason behind that in our political discourse. It's just bad; it appeals to emotions of "wrong," and it serves the purposes of a larger public pathos. The sad part is that people eat it right up! I had a conversation a week ago with someone who said "that sounds too much like socialism..." to which I responded, "Oh no, not the S word!" Of course, this person could not give me any reason why he didn't like socialism. That's becasue he couldn't; he's been trained by the political discourse in this country to simply associate it with something bad. And as long as that mindset prevails, we will not be able to consider all possible options.
People need to overcome themselves and realize that the only two truly conscious global/international/cosmopolitan movements are socialism and environmentalism, and the two are inextricably linked. If we want to solve the problems of ecology (ie, the problems of human survival) we need to take a second look at what socialism can do beneficially.
Posted by Scroot at 10/20/2008 @ 12:54pm
Yargh! Socialism!...
The rallying cry of the Republican party to try to strike fear into the American people. The problem is Republicans and Democrats alike support socialist when it is to save their pals in large corporations. If LVL comes here to talk about how Obama is a socialist then I am asking him to explain how McCain is NOT a socialist when he was an equal supporter in the socialistic bail out of corporations that just happened.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/20/2008 @ 12:55pm
John Nichols sings the praises of socialism in Milwaukee and in Europe - but in doing so he overlooks that capitalism has enabled people to provide for themselves and others to a much greater degree than ever possible under socialism.
Societies that move away from socialism have been the ones who have advanced standards of living, modern techology, etc. to a far greater degree than socialist societies have.
Capitalism has enabled people who achieve success in life to help others less fortunate, and much more often to do so in a manner that helps other people help themselves, and not become life-long wards of the government.
Jimmy Carter has quoted a statistic that the Netherlands is better because they give a greater degree of their GDP to foriegn aid than America. This statistic is totally misleading because it only includes Government donations. When you add in private donations (American citizens donating to private charities that provide humanitarian aid), the American aid far outpaces that of the Netherlands. In the Netherlands, people generally look to the government to do this, and do not contribute privately to anywhere near the amount Americans do.
European societies that are lauded as such great models of humanity and social living fall totally short on meeting their responsibilities to defend themselves should the need arise. They fall back on relying on the United States, while criticizing our way of life. They also fall short on meeting their responsiblities to provide forces if needed for international efforts, for example in Darfur. They are incapable of doing so.
So, this great socialism comes at a price, a price not seen by the lofty idealists on places such as The Nation.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/20/2008 @ 12:59pm
Thats right, CRABWALK you vote 'em out. I'm not a hypocrite, old boy: I'm opposed to govt taking my money without my permission, once you're past the basics, no matter which party's in charge. But lets face it, we have to live under something, so I take a free market sysytem over socialism anytime.
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/20/2008 @ 1:05pm
sjchermak-If you look at our history prior to making donations to the poor a tax write off you'll discover that unrestrained capitalism leads to child exploitation,horribly unsafe working conditions,widespread poverty,wars for profit,genocide of Native Americans,and other such problems.Capitalism can be good,but it must be combined with some socialism in order to give it humanity.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 1:09pm
Socialism always fails because it goes against human nature. People cannot be 'educated' to go against their nature. Socialism is just another euphemism for slavery. If this world falls into socialism, it will be a new dark age.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:09pm
Good morning SJ. Looks like your Bills threw a wrench into the NFL, along with Dalls' loss. That should make you smile.
Care to comment on the most socialized of American beer-cro-croceis, the military? How is it that they are able to supply day care, healthcare and have an equitable pay system, but the rest of us cannot?
you make a 1/2 valid point about Europe and the US "supplying" their protection. But, I think you leave out why after WW2 that was wanted by the US. Also, unlike the US, maybe Spain and Luxemburg do not see a need to have their troops in 250 bases around the world. Maybe if we didn't fuck with the internal politics of so many places, you wouldn't feel the need to have military scattered to the four winds? We also use the military for drug inderdiction, a lost cause that Europe is finding other ways to combat.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 1:09pm
The US was built on the ideals of John Locke, who stipulated that man has three natural rights: life, liberty, and property. A government which fails to recognize any one of the three is in conflict with the natural rights of man, and is bound to fail eventually. Socialism does not recognize the right to property, and thus all socialist societies fail.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:13pm
ponti-capitalism goes against human nature which is quite obvious if you study history.Societies that lived closest to nature did not practice capitalism nor did they own much in the way of property.Few people world wide live for greed or money because it goes against our nature to do so.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 1:19pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:09pm
care to point out the European Slave Nations to us Ponti?
do you think Wisconsin and Minnesota are Slave States?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 1:20pm
>>>"Socialism as we attempted to practice it here believes that people working together for a common good can produce a greater benefit both for society and for the individual than can a society in which everyone is shrewdly seeking their own self-interest,"<<<
We already have socialism in the United States.
Whether it is police, fire or defense, we all pay into the "collective" piggy bank for the good of all.
The real debate is how far to extend this collective action.
Obama says we should extend this into areas of healthcare since we all get sick and we all have no control over the medical conditions we may face and therefore want "all" of our conditions covered regardless of whether some private insurance company is able to make a buck if the conditions were covered.
We "all" benefit from an educated population, so this also appears to be another area where socialized action is necessary so that any American can become educated regardless of their financial circumstances of their parents or themsleves.
There are many, many areas where the free-market "only" takes care of self-interested individuals, and fails to effectively provide public services.
Markets and competition have their place, but so does collective action for the benefit of all.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 1:20pm
Socialism does not recognize the right to property, and thus all socialist societies fail.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:13pm
how exactly do you see the Marines failing?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 1:30pm
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 1:20pm
Europe is heavily socialized, but they are still basically capitalist. Even so, due to their socialistic policies, most European societies are scientifically and socially stagnant. In 50 years many demographers predict most European societies will cease to exist since their birth rates are below replacement level. Most important scientific advances upon which their economies depend, as well as their common defense, are provided by the capitalist US. Please, don't point to Europe as a success story, when really they are just a slow motion failure.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:33pm
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 1:30pm
"how exactly do you see the Marines failing?"
Even for you, CRABBIE, that was an idiotic question.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:34pm
ponti-Birth rates have nothing to do with socialism and Germany is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world as is Japan, both of which include socialism into their versions of capitalism.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 1:39pm
Ponti, your words, not mine
"...ALL socialist societies fail."
The US military is a socialized entity, or "society".
You also stated that socialism is slavery, therefore it should follow that socialist (even socialist/capitalist)countries have slavery. I am asking you to show us morons the slavery inherent in Europe as, according to you, one equals the other. Are you able to back up your words or would you prefer to rethink your position vis-a-vis socialism/slavery?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 1:40pm
If you want to see the future that socialist policies will bring to this country, visit Washington DC, Detroit, Michigan or any of the major cities in the rust belt. Major characteristics are a tiny, highly stressed, and overworked middle class, a small and highly privileged elite, and a vast underclass of government-dependent minimum wage workers. For the average citizen, it looks and feels a lot like slavery, because that's what is.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:41pm
ponti-Real slavery has existed in every form of economic system.Let's try keeping this factual.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 1:44pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 1:39pm
I think birth rates have a lot to do with socialism. Socialism robs the citizenry of initiative and demoralizes the populace. Look it up; a hallmark of all socialist countries is a declining birthrate.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:44pm
ponti-Get a grip on reality.Human birth rates are very much dependent on size of area and level of education.More educated people know that the world is getting crowded and have fewer kids.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 1:46pm
Ponti, were the Carribean Islands peopled with Capitalist Slaves or Socialist Slaves?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 1:48pm
"ponti-Get a grip on reality"
buwhahahahaaaa
right!
Snicker, chuckle. Oh, Man, good one IM. LOL!
----
I would like to read Pontis opinion on the differences between Chinese Socialism, Cubas Socialism and say... Swedens Socialism. Do you see any differences Pointi, or is socialism socialism is socialism? Is it just a bogey word for you, like "weapons of mass destruction" and "domestic terrorist", or do you see gradations in the term/philosophy/implementation of "socialism"?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 1:54pm
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 1:30pm "how exactly do you see the Marines failing?" Even for you, CRABBIE, that was an idiotic question.
actually crabwalk makes an excellent point. You noted that "The US was built on the ideals of John Locke, who stipulated that man has three natural rights: life, liberty, and property." Yet, young marines do not own property, they dont own their barracks, let alone their weapons, tanks etc. So they dont have a right to property. Young marines dont have liberty either seeing as though they are subject to a military hierarchy which prevents them of acting of their own accord. So they dont have liberty either. And then what about the last natural right: life. A military's primary purpose is to engage in combat and indeed to endanger the very lives of its soldiers. So, so the US Marines lack the very ideals the US was built on and all 3 natural rights....
Thus, according to your statements the Marines and by extension similar military organizations are doomed to fail. Yet empirically we know that they havent and show no signs of failure. Indeed, military organizations are bastions of the socialist ethos, putting the collective above the individual. So perhaps you should avoid being so pejorative towards socialism when it has succeeded so thoroughly in our armed forces. qed
Posted by hdthoreau at 10/20/2008 @ 1:55pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 1:46pm
"educated people know that the world is getting crowded and have fewer kids."
As societies advance, couples have fewer children, true, but I would say that actual loss of population only occurs in heavily socialized societies, like the Soviet Union, socialistic European countries, and countries like North Korea and Cuba. Loss of fecundity also strongly correlates to atheism and agnosticism fairly well. So it's not a simple correlation, but overall the trends are fairly obvious.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:55pm
To the anonymous right wing gudgeon
Having read your posts intermittently for a few months, my conclusion is that as far as personal wealth goes,you have squat. You've fallen for all the right wing talking points & come time of need, there you'll be with hand outstretched demanding "whats coming to you". I've witnessed you phonies of the right for many years now. You people don't have a clue how the rights you take for granted were gained & preserved over the years & all the while under continuous assault from reactionaries.(Look what's happened in the last decade) The sickness of your situation is that you're hanging yourself.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/20/2008 @ 1:55pm
Europe is heavily socialized, but they are still basically capitalist. Even so, due to their socialistic policies, most European societies are scientifically and socially stagnant.----Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:33pm
They are?
Then how did 3 Europeans win the Nobel for Medicine/Physiology?!??!?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/20/2008 @ 1:56pm
>>>If you want to see the future that socialist policies will bring to this country, visit Washington DC, Detroit, Michigan or any of the major cities in the rust belt.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:41pm<<<
Wrong!
These impacted areas were caused by "CAPITALIST GREED" in which companies there shipped jobs overseas to try to boost their short-term profits.
It is no different than what you see in mining towns in West Virginia (yes, PONTI, it happens in White areas as well). The mining business dries up, and displaced workers are left fending for themselves.
I'm sure you have driven through one of these boom-bust ghosts town that were created and killed by capitalism, right?
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 2:00pm
ponti-You are ignoring reality in order to stay in your fantasy world.Socialism has nothing to do with the number of times people will have sex and kids.There are certain religions that promote having tons of kids of kids, whether you can afford them or not, and they will have those kids no matter what system they live under.Look at Muslims and Catholics that live in socialistic European and south of the border countries.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 2:00pm
"European societies that are lauded as such great models of humanity and social living fall totally short on meeting their responsibilities to defend themselves should the need arise. They fall back on relying on the United States, while criticizing our way of life. They also fall short on meeting their responsiblities to provide forces if needed for international efforts, for example in Darfur. They are incapable of doing so."
this is the most ridiculous defense of current american capitalism that i have ever read in my entire life. my favorite line has to be "while criticizing our way of life".
Posted by darladoon at 10/20/2008 @ 2:10pm
for example in Darfur. They are incapable of doing so.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/20/2008 @ 12:59pm |
Just a note, when did Darfur move to Europe?
To all you mental giants out there who think Europe is struggling due to thier limited socialism; GO THERE! If you can stay for a while and get to know the people you will see how wrong you are. Of course they will complain about their government and want to see it perform better, but, so what? We do the same thing with our government.
Sjchermak, rev lvl, ponti and the rest of the "intellectuals" who post here are beyond being way off track. It appears that you guys have "shit for brains." I say that in the nicest possible way.
Posted by Truthman at 10/20/2008 @ 2:18pm
Darfur, like Iraq and Afghanistan, would be examples of the "free Market" in it's purest form.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 2:41pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/20/2008 @ 1:56pm
"Europe is heavily socialized, but they are still basically capitalist. Even so, due to their socialistic policies, most European societies are scientifically and socially stagnant.----Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:33pm
They are?
Then how did 3 Europeans win the Nobel for Medicine/Physiology?!??!?
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/laureates/2008/"
The awarding of Nobels can be highly selective, prone to a pro-European bias, and in any case they are not the best defining standard. Bill Gates, for example, invented the most successful PC operating system in the world but he received no Nobels. Most great advances in science, technology, and commercialization of same go unreward with Nobels.
The best question is, where do the new pharmaceuticals, the new medical devices, the new technologies that raise productivity come from? If you read a little of the history of human progress in making life better for people, they have historically come from the US. Read 'Modern Times' by Paul Johnson, or 'A History of the American People' by the same author if you want to get an understanding of this.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 2:52pm
The problem with "America" is that there is too little 'socialism.'
Weak labor movement, strong fundamentalist religion, crappy health care system, poor labor rights, military out of control, corporations out of control, environment being degraded for cash.
You name it, and 'liberalism' won't fix it.
Posted by ElyDog at 10/20/2008 @ 2:59pm
The awarding of Nobels can be highly selective, prone to a pro-European bias,-----Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 2:52pm
"Science has liberal bias"?....LOL
I think Colbert said that (or something like it!)
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/20/2008 @ 3:00pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/20/2008 @ 3:00pm
""Science has liberal bias"?....LOL
I think Colbert said that (or something like it!)"
Actually, he said 'reality has a well-known liberal bias'. This from a guy who makes his living yakking at people and has never had a single position of responsibility or any contact with running a business or creating a penny of wealth. His cluelessness is classic in its exemplification of the utter out-of-touch state modern liberalism exists in.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 3:08pm
The US was built on the ideals of John Locke, who stipulated that man has three natural rights: life, liberty, and property.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:13pm
uh, and whose property WAS that?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2008 @ 3:14pm
Pontificus,
"Fecundity" and "Correlation" are pretty big words for a conservative. You seem to have a genuine intellectual curiosity (although, I know "intellectual" is slanderous among conservatives). Please share your interest in facts with fellow conservatives who seem only able to shout out "socialism", "terrorist", "traitor", and "kill him". I'm anxious to see the Republican Party someday return to being a party of ideas.
Posted by Be Good at 10/20/2008 @ 3:15pm
Last year Ponti said the Nobels had a "liberal" bias. (This was in a discussion about public/private schools. I had pointed out that the winner of that years chemistry prize had gone to public schools.) Now it is a "European" bias.
If it won't fit into his worldview, it has a bias, against Pontiflogic.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 3:17pm
ponti,
this has been your absolutely worst series of nonsense i have seen from your twisted fingers.
THE SOCIALISTS ARE GOING TO EAT YOU!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2008 @ 3:17pm
Socialism of (say) the Scandinavian variety is vastly superior to the US social order - the citizens are in general better educated, more highly skilled, more literate and cultured, and enjoy superior health care; poverty is all but unknown, and the option of exercising one's skills to become rich remains.
To be called a 'socialist' should be taken as a compliment. But in the Worlds Only Super-Power, there is not enough political nuance in the poorly educated general population to hold rational discourse about political and social matters. Only a tiny portion of the political spectrum is permitted.
From outside the US, the differences between Republicans and Democrats are generally regarded as very slight, in practice. But without breaking Big Business's stranglehold on American politics, these two flavours will be the sum of possibilities.
Perhaps now, under the depression, will be a time to experiment with new politics? The system of business will be at its weakest (but most vicious). Green looks like a way to go - green technology s booming where other businesses are failing. Perhaps a lean, mean, hi-tech green politics will emerge... one can only hope.
Posted by mikecope at 10/20/2008 @ 3:19pm
Mike, you must have eaten the Leftist propaganda. Green tech is just another way for "socialism" to eat your children. : )
The Cons have been telling us for years that no money can be made being enviromentally responsible. It is part of the plot to take over the world the left has hatched.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 3:27pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/20/2008 @ 3:14pm
"uh, and whose property WAS that?"
You know FROSTY, you have your head stuck so far up your ass that one day soon I'm certain you will see daylight.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 3:35pm
lvliberty-Can you show us where the constitution says that Americans must vote for whomever you want and cannot decide for themselves the direction they wish to take?
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 3:39pm
"Mike, you must have eaten the Leftist propaganda." Posted by crabwalk
Sure. I take half a box every morning with honey, yogurt & nuts. Yorter try it. Delicious and good for you!
Posted by mikecope at 10/20/2008 @ 3:39pm
Posted by mikecope at 10/20/2008 @ 3:19pm
"Socialism of (say) the Scandinavian variety is vastly superior to the US social order - the citizens are in general better educated, more highly skilled, more literate and cultured, and enjoy superior health care; poverty is all but unknown, and the option of exercising one's skills to become rich remains."
Yeah that's great, maybe one of these days they'll even start to pay for their own defense or contribute something to the world other than crappy furniture and over-priced liberal-mobiles. And oh yeah, in 50 years the demographers tell us the odds are these societies won't even exist.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 3:41pm
As a former Wisconsinite, born and raised in the Milwaukee area, I appreciate Mr. Nichols for writing this article. Through osmosis, I think as my father was nowhere close to being a socialist, I inherited some of that socialist tradition and have always embraced the term "socialist" even when others verbally ridiculed me for it.
The Right has, for a long, long time now, demonized people like me by using the terms socialist and liberal in the negative. I expect that. But what has always pained me was that as liberals and/or socialists, we allowed the hijacking of language without much of a fight.
I appreciate this article because I think its time for all those embrace these terms to take them out of the Right's derogatory lexicon and reaffirm their true meaning and dignity.
Posted by msteadt at 10/20/2008 @ 3:53pm
Ponti-It is because of immigration policies and the fact that native Europeans have a lower birth rate that some believe that those countries won't be the same and not because of socialism.Like here,many got too educated and needed immigrants to do the grunt work.In places in America native born Americans are becoming the minority because of our immigration policies.Get your facts straight.Frosty asked a good question to which your responded like a child.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 4:04pm
Posted by msteadt at 10/20/2008 @ 3:53pm
spot on!
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 4:05pm
from a guy who makes his living yakking at people and has never had a single position of responsibility or any contact with running a business or creating a penny of wealth.-----Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 3:08pm
So by your standard, RONALD REAGAN should have never been elected Governor of California?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/20/2008 @ 4:06pm
lvliberty should never mention the constitution since he wants God to damn America if Obama is elected through the process created by the constitution.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 4:08pm
Weekly I challenge the leftists here why they refuse to honor the constitutions limits of power on Congress as directed in Article 1, Section 8, and the 10th amendment.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 3:33pm
Article 1, Section 8: The Congress shall have power...To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;....
"provide for the common defense and general welfare"....seems pretty vague and open.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/20/2008 @ 4:09pm
It is part of the plot to take over the world the left has hatched.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 3:27pm
see?
(This is about overthrowing the constitution and replacing it with a socialist/democratic form of govt as seen in Europe and extolled by many leftists on this website.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 3:33pm )
World Domination!!
A product of "the left", but in no way a product of the country with military bases throughout the world or the coporate takeover of such things as food crop seeds. it is ONLY "the left" that seeks world domination by subtle insinuation into classrooms and bedrooms.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 4:10pm
Mask-The constitution was not well written and too vague.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 4:10pm
MASK... how dare you bring up the word "welfare" in context of the constitution!! Why...why... it would be like talking about "regulation" while discussing gun ownership!! those words are not there!! Only those words we want to see exist in the Owners Manual.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 4:13pm
Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 10/20/2008 @ 1:05pm
You are ignoring the fact that the "free markets" is what creates most financial crisis in the first place.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 3:33pm
However, you appear to be in favor of socializing military power on the federal level despite the fact that the Constitution clearly supports local militias run by an armed citizenry. Or that the founding fathers had serious misgivings about a standing army, which incidently the Constitution seems to suggest armies can only be raised for a limited time.
The Constitution also socializes our system of justice, inter-state and foreign trade regulation, post offices, minting money, etc. So, the Constition isn't against socialism. It, in fact, legalizes various forms of it.
However, the form you are most invested in, the military, is only socialized at the state level, which is probably better than having a system of private warlords. Still, socialism is socialism. It's funny how you like to use "socialism" as code for "something I don't like". Why not use the standard definition like the rest of us?
Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2008 @ 4:27pm
Wow! This is by far one of the most intelligent and dynamic debates on the virtues of socialism that I have ever read. I'm truly inspired by the individuals on here who are arguing in favor of socialism.
Posted by astutz at 10/20/2008 @ 4:30pm
Wow! This is by far one of the most intelligent and dynamic debates on the virtues of socialism that I have ever read. I'm truly inspired by the individuals on here who are arguing in favor of socialism.
Posted by astutz at 10/20/2008 @ 4:30pm
The left is perfectly free to pursue all the socialist revolution they want in the individual states. But the left wants nothing to do with following the constitution. This is about overthrowing the constitution and replacing it with a socialist/democratic form of govt as seen in Europe and extolled by many leftists on this website. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 3:33pm
No, it's not. It;s about your paranoia. No one is trying to over throw anything. You just have been duped into being afraid. The reason they aren't running on a socialist platform is because, gasp, their not socialist. They are in the tradition of American capitalism. American capitalism has never ever been truly capitalist. Capitalism ideally has zero regulation. Zero government say. Zero taxes. There have ALWAYS been taxes. There has ALWAYS been some government regulation of the economy. ANY regulation is socialism because it is the government interfering in the economy which is socialistic. So those who are privatizing the military are socialist.
All taxes are socialistic including taxes only to pay for the military. You may ask why for the military? Who does the military buy there weapons from? Boeing, Northrop and a myriad other private companies which is akin to the government contracting building companies or publishers in order to create jobs. All of it is socialism by your definition it would seem. So in essence America has and always will be a free market socialist economy and everyone including you is ok with it to one degree or another.
The only true argument isn't about socialism. It's about how socialist we want the country to become. Some like you only want a little socialism. Others want more. Others want full on socialism instead of free market socialism.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/20/2008 @ 4:34pm
Why not use the standard definition like the rest of us? Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2008 @ 4:27pm
I think he ACTUALLY believes that nothing he supports is socialist. He doesn't realize that ALL Americans support forms of socialism in one way or another. Even if you only support a standing army you are still supporting socialism.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/20/2008 @ 4:37pm
Why not use the standard definition like the rest of us? Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2008 @ 4:27pm
"To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;"
There is the direct quote for you SRJ. A lot of people ignore that the government is really only supposed to maintain a Navy. The rest of the branches of the military are only supposed to be called upon during times of invasion or insurrection and they are in fact supposed to be in general from state militias instead of a large standing army.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/20/2008 @ 4:40pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 3:33pm
Why don;t you ask Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley how they feel about socialism right now? I suspect that their "fake free-market capitalism" will be exposed for what it has always been - a money grab by the privileged few at the expense of everyone else.
This Wall Street bailout thing, more than any other, has demonstrated quite clearly that "free-market" capitalists like to talk the talk, but when THEIR money is on the line based on their own bad judgment, they will shut up and beg for their check from the government just like the "welfare queen" they despise.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 4:42pm
The difficulty I run into time and time again in discussing "socialism" is that the term is so fluid and variable. The proponents I have talked to never seem satisfied that any real world example I put in front of them is the "real" socialism. There are frequently explanations why the specific example is not the way it should be implemented, and that when properly done, then society will be (not is) more fair, just, and egalitarian. If I try and get them to describe the end state, or even an advanced step on the way to an end state, I frequently get the response that it is a process of perpetual improvement (progressive?), sort of like Japanese quality circles. It can't be criticized because it has never existed the way it should be, can't be described because we'll know it when we get there, and is superior to systems which have or do exist. Euro Social Democracies seem to be the current high water mark, but when pushed a little, my discussion partners claim that these too have vast room for improvement. I just fall back on my reading of Dworkin and Rawls, and try to imagine just what level of government coercion would be needed to put into practice what they describe.
Posted by sntauri at 10/20/2008 @ 4:45pm
Posted by sntauri at 10/20/2008 @ 4:45pm
Well the problem is on the other side too. Socialism is such a variable term to the detractors and the supporters. I hear so much about socialism that isn't necessarily associated at all with socialism by those who don't support it in order to make it seem like the great evil.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/20/2008 @ 5:10pm
Lvliberty-The reason that Biblical and constitutional scholars do not agree with one another is because all of that is vague,including what you just included,and it's ludicrous for any of us to hold the rigid views that you have about either because your interpretation is no more relevant than any other persons.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 5:34pm
I noticed that lvliberty ignored the parts of the constitution that Ccc mentioned that contradicts his views just as he ignores those parts of the Bible that people mention that contradict his views.Must be nice to pick and choose what you like and don't like.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 5:43pm
>>>The difficulty I run into time and time again in discussing "socialism" is that the term is so fluid and variable. The proponents I have talked to never seem satisfied that any real world example I put in front of them is the "real" socialism.
Posted by sntauri at 10/20/2008 @ 4:45pm<<<
There are "purists" on both sides of the issue, and they are usually academics who are free to make lots of "assumptions" to make their classroom models seem valid.
In the real world, there will always be a need for collective action that requires collective resources. <---Do you call this "socialism"? - probably not, since it lacks the purity of "collective ownership and administration of ALL of the means of production and distribution of goods".
This is where Academia fails - it gets into these false debates among itself over which pure model is best, instead of putting forth an ideal "mixed" system that has a chance of actually working in a real modern economy.
Personally, I think education-through-college, universal health care, defense, energy, affordable housing, fire, and police should be collectively owned, produced, managed, and distributed as "basic human rights" in any modern democracy.
Collective action is also required on a number of fronts on an ad-hoc basis depending upon need. For example, collective action is needed to build and maintain roads and bridges and ensure an affordable and effective transportation system. Collective action is needed to protect the environment or eco-systems so that they are sustainable.
On a number of fronts, collective action is needed where free-market approaches by themselves simply won't be effective.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 5:49pm
>>>I was against the bailout and was very disappointed in McCain voting for it.
Both parties ignored the constitution in an attempt to do what they thought was right but was clearly outside their constitutional authority.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 5:31pm<<<
But would you be AGAINST the bailout if it meant the end of the modern international economy as we know it?
At some point, even you must acknowledge the need for collective action to avoid harm to or reap some benefit for most of its citizens.
Only the Anarchist who is against "any" form of government can be against organized collective action with collective resources - which is all government really is.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 5:55pm
Ask your Repub friends or even many of your Dem friends. "What is Socialism?"
I would say that most of the former and many of the latter would be unable to elocute on the subject. To the former it would bring up some horrible vision of the "Red Menace." To the latter it would likely bring up some confused mumbo jumbo about sharing or egalaitarian ideals. If you want to confuse them even more, ask them what Democratic Socialism is.
We are so politically puerile in this country as a whole that it is almost unbelievable.
I was introduced to Socialism by my great aunt when I was about thirteen or fourteen and just becoming politically aware. I was lucky to have her. She was born in the late 1800's and lived through the great depression. She took an interest in me and taught me how to play the piano aswell as lessons in spirituality and politics. I owe her much.
I can understand ignorance due to a lack of education. But with the availability of the internet, so many are so ignorant for no reason when enlightenment is just a few clicks of the mouse away.
I will not list the many adavantages of a Social Democracy as I have already done so in previous posts. Look um up.
Socialism is not a bad word and holds no negative connotation. It holds only promise and salvation for a troubled and greedy world.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/20/2008 @ 5:57pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 5:56pm
And what is you point, exactly?
That there are socialists in the Democratic Party?
OK...but so what?
There are also greedy capitalist, bigoted, selfish-bastards in the Republican Party, right?
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 6:01pm
Well. of course one groups goals speak for all.
right Luvvy?
therefore I can take AIP, Army of God or the KKK and use it to speak for you.
right? You are on "the right" as is the KKK.
oh no!! Luvy will scream. He is NOT a racist.
I can see how you would take the word "transform" and equate it to " overthrow", but would not like me to use your fear of Muslims to equate that to a racist attitude toward Arabs or African American Muslims. Wait. no I can't.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 6:03pm
LUVVY, what do you think of the Kubutz's in Israel?
Do you have any comment on the socialized structure of the military and many christian sects? I could be mistaken, but don't you collect money from your sheep, er parishioners, and then dole it out as you and a board of church members see fit, including YOUR salary? What if a member of your church does not want his money going to a cause you support? My grandfather was an itinerant Methodist preacher and he didn't own a home until he was into his 60's. The Church provided him with a house, healthcare and food, in addition to a stipend, wether he had a position or not. Was he an evil socialist?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 6:20pm
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 6:01pm
Socialists in the Democratic Party can hardly be compared to greedy capitalist, bigoted, selfish bastards in the Republican Party. Please don't make that comparison..
Otherwise I would ask you to please refrain from being on my side.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/20/2008 @ 6:24pm
"Socialist Zionism and Labor Zionism gave Israel the Kibbutz, a uniquely Jewish and uniquely Zionist vision of democratic utopian socialism. The big difference between Kibbutzim and previous voluntary socialist commune experiments is that Kibbutzim really worked. They helped form the backbone of the State of Israel, its economy and its defense.
However as the state grew, it became apparent that a society founded on agrarianism would have difficulty surviving in a post-industrial economy in a country with scarce land and water resources. In modern Israeli society, the challenge of pioneering is no longer draining swamps, clearing land of rocks, bringing produce to market and building roads. The swamps that must be drained are swamps of urban poverty. The "produce" that must be generated is often hi-tech solutions that are marketed abroad. The roads that must be paved are roads of understanding between different communities in Israel. The kibbutz movement was always a blend of pragmatism and idealism. Not surprisingly, the communal spirit has bounced back with new answers to communal living that helps realize the Zionist dead. New and different models of cooperation are being explored, one of which is the urban kibbutz. Below are two articles that discuss the Urban Kibbutz."
http://www.zionism-israel.com/
city_communes_kibbutz.htm
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 6:26pm
Posted by chaoszen at 10/20/2008 @ 6:24pm
I don't know about you, but I'll take a peace-loving advocate for affordable housing, jobs, universal healthcare, sustainable environment, free college education, socialist Democrat over a greedy, selfish, bigoted, capitalist Republican any day of the week!
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 6:37pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 5:27pm
LVLIB, according to the pre-Civil War sources you cited...
there was nothing wrong with slavery, was there?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/20/2008 @ 6:38pm
BTW, all others...keep LVLIB's citations in mind....
according to his few of the "general welfare" clause...
ANY Federal non-defense domestic spending less highways and roads...is un-Constitutional and BY HIS OWN EXTENSION "socialism".
So....what REPUBLICAN (even Ronald Reagan) has ever called for the total elimination of Federal "welfare" (even to their attempt to privatize Social Security).
In other words...to LVLIB, by his own standard, even some hard-core conservative Republicans would be "socialists".
Ergo...any attack on DEMOCRATS as "socialists"...is just...a matter of degree, isn't it???
LOL
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/20/2008 @ 6:41pm
The "Urban Kibbutz" illustrates how quickly Socialism can be adapted from agrarian principles to an urban environment.
The Urban Kibbitz holds as much promise for success as it's previous incarnation.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/20/2008 @ 6:42pm
All you are going to get from LvLiberty is paranoia and contradictions.Just ask him when Viet Nam and Iraq attacked the US in order to use our militias to repel those invasions?He will ignore any parts of the Bible or constitution that don't back up his views and only quote those parts that do.He is a raging hypocrite who will spend all of his time contradicting himself..
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 6:42pm
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/20/2008 @ 6:38pm
hmm, what were womens rights back in the good 'Ol days?
zip.
All MEN are created equal. All WHITE men. Mostly white men that own land and can pay a TAX at the polling place.
But, alas, the constitution lives and breathes with the society it holds in it's folds. No matter what Scalia may think.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 6:44pm
oops...
Own land OR pay poll tax.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 6:45pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 5:56pm
That's one interpretation of Socialism LVL. Every government like every religion has many interpretations. What is capitalism? If you ask a capitalist purist who says that capitalism is ZERO interference by government in the economy then we are a socialist nation already. If you ask a socialist what a socialist government is you will get everything ranging from, socialized healthcare, welfare, schooling and all the jazz, to an entirely government run economy verging on Communism. Like people before me said, the reason there are so many different interpretations of government and religion because everything is foggy and shifting in the end. All that matters is how you and others end up interpreting it. What you call capitalism that you like is socialism to someone else. So welcome to the Socialist party I guess.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/20/2008 @ 6:47pm
By the way the very fact that you support a standing military that uses private contractors IS socialism.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/20/2008 @ 6:47pm
"Personally, I think education-through-college, universal health care, defense, energy, affordable housing, fire, and police should be collectively owned, produced, managed, and distributed as "basic human rights" in any modern democracy.
Collective action is also required on a number of fronts on an ad-hoc basis depending upon need. For example, collective action is needed to build and maintain roads and bridges and ensure an affordable and effective transportation system. Collective action is needed to protect the environment or eco-systems so that they are sustainable.
On a number of fronts, collective action is needed where free-market approaches by themselves simply won't be effective."
Just a few missing items! Food production and distribution, means for food preparation and preservation, clothing, social services, controlled substance dependency services, pharmaceutical research, production and distribution, and I'm sure there's more. In fact, it seems that there are no goodss, or service with the possible exception of leisure time entertainment, that should be exempt from collectivization.
I simply believe that this is the final goal for many proponents of socialism, regardless of the definition of the term.
Posted by sntauri at 10/20/2008 @ 6:48pm
All the dinosaurs in the media. Listening to MSNBC all these people are so clueless. They got Mitt Romney on now.
Where did these people come from? Why are they here? And how do we get rid of them? It's like trying to live in upside down town.
Drives me crazy! How bout you?
Posted by chaoszen at 10/20/2008 @ 6:50pm
I would have to laugh if it wasn't so tragic...
Posted by chaoszen at 10/20/2008 @ 6:53pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 6:42pm
would this qualify?
"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
as it relates to the UN and it's charter ratified by congress, specifically the portion of the UN charter (treaty) that states no nation may attack another nation unless the first nation is under attack or imminent threat of attack?
As easily overlooked as the Prince of Peace.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 6:56pm
Posted by sntauri at 10/20/2008 @ 6:48pm
Personally, I will not be satiated until our socialist brothers and sisters finally assume total control of pornography production and distribution and the all the associated production of items necessary to produce said audio/visual aids.
On a kibbutz.
With Jane Fonda.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 7:02pm
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/20/2008 @ 4:40pm
Exactly my point.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 5:39pm
The unfortunate fact, LVL, is that neither political party or people that profess to be either "conservative" or "liberal" are interested in reducing federal power.
Take a look at Ronald Reagan's administration. Federal power that includes the ability to create Star Wars weapons, engage in proxy wars or in the real thing, undermines any dynamic that gives states more of a say in governance.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2008 @ 7:06pm
>>>I simply believe that this is the final goal for many proponents of socialism, regardless of the definition of the term.
Posted by sntauri at 10/20/2008 @ 6:48pm<<<
I don't know if this is the "final" goal, except for some socialist purist.
Would anyone seriously argue that eBay is not a good "free-market" for selling used items, especially for those who live in remote areas? What value would there be for the government to administer an eBay-like market? As long as there is regulation to counter fraud, I would think that is all the government involvement that would be required.
I think the danger is in pretending that the market will or can solve all of our problems, and it is equally dangerous to assume the government can solve all of our problems.
I think Mario Cuomo said it best in the 1984 Democratic convention keynote speech: "Don't give me any government that I don't want, but give me all the government I need."
Most of the political debate has therefore centered on what is the right mix of government/private action to "effectively" deliver all of the products and services Americans need.
Sometimes the private sector works well without government involvement, sometimes it needs prodding and regulation, and there are other times when government is best suited to deliver for the public.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 7:07pm
People who make over $250.000 a year make more use of the commons. They should pay more in taxes for more use and strain on the commons. Simple. Equitable and Fair.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/20/2008 @ 7:07pm
Ergo...any attack on DEMOCRATS as "socialists"...is just...a matter of degree, isn't it??? LOL Posted by Maskdelta at 10/20/2008 @ 6:41pm
It all depends on who one socializes with, I guess. And aren't human beings supposed to be social animals anyway? Isn't that how we got this far? Oh, wait. That smacks of evolution theory.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/20/2008 @ 7:11pm
"We Try Harder" Remember when Avis workers bought the company to save it in the 70's? Just an economic risk/opportunity a group of Americans took. They bought those keys. What, exactly, would be wrong with that?
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/20/2008 @ 7:22pm
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 7:07pm
I may renind you and others on this post that Ebay is the only place where you can still buy silver coins. Actual "Real Money" There are none avaiable except on Ebay.
Why is that? Because Ebay is a true reflection of the market for such things.
That is the true free market economy. Something is worth only what someone else is willing to pay for it.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/20/2008 @ 7:27pm
the problem is Barack thinks it's an epithet too.
Posted by neaguy at 10/20/2008 @ 7:37pm
the problem is Barack thinks it's an epithet too.
Posted by neaguy at 10/20/2008 @ 7:46pm
Universal Health Care has been mentioned often in this thread today.
It is promoted as good, with systems in Canada and Europe held up as role models that the U.S. should follow.
Or.... maybe not!
Somehow the horror stories that these kind of systems provide never seem to make it to the public airwaves in this country:
========================
A Canadian Doctor Describes How Socialized Medicine Doesn't Work
By DAVID GRATZER | Posted Thursday, July 26, 2007 4:30 PM PT
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx? id=270338135202343
===========================
Posted by sjchermak at 10/20/2008 @ 7:50pm
Thanks John for saying this. It needed saying. And, if readers wish to see currently existing socialist work in the U.S. go to http://www.dsausa.org
There is an interesting Economic Justice Agenda there.
Posted by Dcampbell at 10/20/2008 @ 7:52pm
That would be the ultimate achievement in you divisive dreams. The country is already divisive enough, but you would strive to make it even more so. Shame on you.!
You are an Anti-American son of a bitch and if I were in arms length of you I would feel it my patriotic duty to give you a hug. A real up close and personel sort of hug.
Posted by chaoszen at 10/20/2008 @ 7:56pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 7:47pm
Posted by chaoszen at 10/20/2008 @ 7:57pm
Metteyya:
You said ".....I think Mario Cuomo said it best in the 1984 Democratic convention keynote speech: "Don't give me any government that I don't want, but give me all the government I need."....."
Mario Cuomo has an expansive view of how much government he needs, and he does not seem to reflect, after he gets the government he needs, whether the government he had to have really accomplished the objective, or whether it made things worse for people.
A while back I read two books within a few months of each other. They were written in the mid 1990's.
1. Reason to Believe by Mario Cuomo
2. To Renew America by Newt Gingrich
Both books did address the question of poverty, and both books brought out some pertinent points, and there even was some commonality in those points.
But the striking observation is that only one of these two individuals had any real clue as to what could be productively done to reduce poverty in this country and thus make life better for those who previously had been impoverished.
Hint: It was not Mario Cuomo.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/20/2008 @ 7:59pm
Metteyya,
In a conversation above that you were having with pontificus, you equated the District with Detroit as follows:
====================
>>>If you want to see the future that socialist policies will bring to this country, visit Washington DC, Detroit, Michigan or any of the major cities in the rust belt.
Posted by pontificus at 10/20/2008 @ 1:41pm<<<
Wrong!
These impacted areas were caused by "CAPITALIST GREED" in which companies there shipped jobs overseas to try to boost their short-term profits.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 2:00pm
======================
Pontificus equated the District with Detroit with regard to how they are cities affected by socialist policy. Which is true. But then you said they were affected by "Capitalist Greed" and that companies in the District shipped jobs overseas.
I say you said this because you made the general statement to apply to all the "impacted areas"
Now, I would like you to tell me what companies in the District shipped jobs overseas. I would like you to explain to me how the economy of the District with regard to jobs and the workforce even remotely compares with Detroit, and how "Capitalist Greed" has impacted the District.
Some people do try to improve things for citizens in the District. Former Mayor Anthony Williams (who was a Democrat) promoted vouchers for kids so that they might be able to get a better education than that offered by the DC school system. He, of course, was condemned for doing so.
Stuff like THAT is the commonality between the District and other lib-run cities. Libs impeding progress and better opportunities for the very people that libs say they are fighting for.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/20/2008 @ 8:12pm
>>>How is that not a radical overthrow of our current institutions? Do you think that companies will just hand over the keys of ownership?
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 7:16pm<<<
Actually, I think employee owned companies is a great idea! Instead of being exploited for the least amount of wages an employer can get away with paying, living wages would be the rule, and no golden parachutes for ANY executive!
This has gotten bipartisan support from Kucinich on the left to Ron Paul on the right. They both co-sponsored the Employee Ownership Act of 1999.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Employee_Ownership_Act_of_1999
Are you calling Ron Paul a "socialist, LVL?
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 8:26pm
sjchermak-You wouldn't know what a lib was if one bit you on the ass.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 8:29pm
I'm the only one that loathesliberty has on ignore,after he condemned me to hell,of course.What that means is that the rest of you aren't trying hard enough and I need you to step it up.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 8:32pm
loathesliberty has no clue as to what a socialist is nor does he know anything about the constitution.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 8:33pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/20/2008 @ 7:59pm
The problem with Gingrich's approach is that private charity is simply not enough to eliminate poverty.
As I said in a thread the other day, POVERTY IS RELATIVE. The poor of yesterday may be better off, but they are still poor.
Yesterday, the poor tilled the fields and lived in shacks owned by their sharecropper masters. Today they live in apartments with inadequate heat, vermin, drugs, violence and hopelessness wherever they turn.
Gingrich will say, "but, look - at least they don't have to work in the hot sun like they used to!".
The problem with this "wealth lifts all boats" philosophy is that the goal of a modern society should be much more than that - it should be to lesson the disparity between boat sizes - between the mega-yacht and the simple raft; it should eliminate the condition in which a large group of its citizens feel inferior to others because of the circumstances that they were born into through no fault of their own.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 8:38pm
"The problem with this "wealth lifts all boats" philosophy is that the goal of a modern society should be much more than that - it should be to lesson the disparity between boat sizes - between the mega-yacht and the simple raft"
The intent may be good. The implementation becomes the test of acceptability to a free society. In our current political structure, our elected reps will wind up determining that the "mega-yacht" can be no more than X% of a "simple raft". You can put in whatever % makes you feel right. My problem is that there are many people, supported by lots of scholarly work (my good buddy Rawls!) who want that X to be ZERO. They will accept bigger numbers, but year by year the goal is radical egalitarianism. Call it paranoid, but I've no desire to live in New New Harmony II.
Posted by sntauri at 10/20/2008 @ 9:01pm
Posted by sjchermak at 10/20/2008 @ 8:12pm
You are correct - the DC case is somewhat different than that of Detroit. It was LVL that lumped them together and I neglected to separate them in my response.
Detroit was adversely affected by jobs being shipped overseas and to other lower wage parts of the US.
DC has a different problem, and it is not socialism.
I think the early child education and k-12 education in DC must be revamped, as it should it most inner-cities in America.
First, childcare and after-school programs should be mandatory, as single parents should not have to work second and third jobs to pay for childcare.
Second, the whole emphasis in the curriculum has to change from low-level worker preparation to manager and owner preparation like it is done at Sidwell Friends and other prominent private DC schools. I may not be able to get into Sidwell Friends because I was raised in SouthEast DC, but I should have access to the same Sidwell Friends curriculum and have the same Sidwell Friends expectations where it is "assumed" that I will go on to college and graduate school.
Third, DC should get full state representation. Without sufficient funds, it is impossible to implement all of the programs needed to make a difference. Statehood would ensure they have the tax base to do what is required to lift its residents out of poverty.
Fourth, all of the hi-tech jobs are being created in nearby Virginia and there is simply no reason they couldn't stay in DC. This is linked to all the point above, especially number 2 and 3, because without statehood, it is hard to compete with Virginia and others who have a full arsenal of state incentives and better schools to attract new businesses to locate there.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 9:01pm
intelligent and open-minded people, you are not alone.
www.slaughterhaus.com
Posted by SlaughterHaus at 10/20/2008 @ 9:12pm
Posted by sntauri at 10/20/2008 @ 9:01pm
Even in Sweden, X is not ZERO!
I visited Sweden a couple of years ago and stayed in a nice farm house on the ocean. There were certainly other houses in the area that were not as large and may not have had an ocean view, but they were still decent sized, and the farmhouse was not overly-large with big greek pillars and 3,00o s.f. guest houses like you see in Beverly Hills or in the Hamptons.
I think the me, me, selfish culture that is encouraged by free-market capitalism gives people a sense of "I am above everyone else - or should be". This is reflected in the scale to which one wants to separate themselves financially from others.
First, it was "I have to be a millionaire", then I have to have "100 million dollars"; now I need to be a "billionaire" before I have "made it" in America.
This is absolutely absurd.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/20/2008 @ 9:16pm
"This is absolutely absurd"
To a large extent I agree.
I went to a Catholic Grammar School, where we wore uniforms. They were dull, but functional. I always wondered why we wore uniforms. The good nuns told me that was so that no one who was poor would feel bad about their clothing. Fine. At the end of the day I went home and wore whatever was in my closet.
Somewhere between Mao suits for all and Richard Fuld lies a workable system. But I have yet had a conversation with my left leaning debating buddies where the urge to put us in Mao suits wasn't right out in front, or just below the surface. The distaste for the excess inequality drives the reaction to wipe it out through any means possible. I'm not getting back into that pale blue shirt and grey pants again!
Posted by sntauri at 10/20/2008 @ 9:33pm
crabbie- Congress does have the power to make treaties, like SEATO,which was used as an excuse to invade Viet Nam,but it's questionable to whether or not South Viet Nam actually existed,but no treaty gave us the right to attack Iraq,as you pointed out, since the UN charter forbids it.Confusing stuff.Too bad the constitution wasn't written very well.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 9:58pm
"That's one interpretation of Socialism LVL. Every government like every religion has many interpretations. What is capitalism? If you ask a capitalist purist who says that capitalism is ZERO interference by government in the economy then we are a socialist nation already. If you ask a socialist what a socialist government is you will get everything ranging from, socialized healthcare, welfare, schooling and all the jazz, to an entirely government run economy verging on Communism. Like people before me said, the reason there are so many different interpretations of government and religion because everything is foggy and shifting in the end. All that matters is how you and others end up interpreting it. What you call capitalism that you like is socialism to someone else. So welcome to the Socialist party I guess."
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/20/2008 @ 6:47pm
Ask your Repub friends or even many of your Dem friends. "What is Socialism?" I would say that most of the former and many of the latter would be unable to elocute on the subject. To the former it would bring up some horrible vision of the "Red Menace." To the latter it would likely bring up some confused mumbo jumbo about sharing or egalaitarian ideals. If you want to confuse them even more, ask them what Democratic Socialism is.Socialism is not a bad word and holds no negative connotation. It holds only promise and salvation for a troubled and greedy world. Posted by chaoszen at 10/20/2008 @ 5:57pm
Alot of words. It is much more simple than that:
Socialism seeks a commonality of mediocrity, communism seeks a commonality of misery.
Posted by twillie at 10/20/2008 @ 10:09pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 7:39pm
This comment is as true of free market fundamentalist as socialists.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 8:07pm
Unfortunately, Amendment 10 isn't how it works in reality. You apparently have no trouble dipping into my pocket for a war on Islam, but invoke the Constitution when it becomes a war on poverty. They aren't any different - other than one can be argued as more "Christian".
Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2008 @ 10:13pm
Luvvy has IM on ignore?
Pretty shallow conviction on your part there Luvvy.
It's too late to get into detail, but suffice it to say that the Supreme Court has disagreed with the Good Rev's opinion on the role of the feds for nigh on these 6 decades and precedent is law. He may claim to be mainstream, but he is off in his own little creek, sans paddle.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 10:24pm
SR- still in India?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 10:26pm
"Secondly, I've responded before on the military. It is a contract agreement between the govt and individuals in which individuals agree to surrender many of their liberties as part of their service. In exchange they receive housing, food, and medical care, because they are not free to go wherever and whenever they want to procure these things outside of their service agreement."-LIVER
You may dance all you wish, but it is a SOCIALISTIC system.
---
"How is that not a radical overthrow of our current institutions? Do you think that companies will just hand over the keys of ownership?
And what I posted was just a brief blurb. All you have to do is read their full platform to understand the radical agenda. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 7:16pm"
Later in their platform they say that they work WITH democrats within the system given to us. If one group causes change by working within the system I guess we could call it "overthrowing", if it makes you feel under attack as you like. However, I would call it working for change, just like the right has done. Should we say that Bush has "overthrown" the Supreme court with his appointments? Would you accept that term?
I could make an argument that he overthrew the Justice Dept, as he and Gonzalez may have broken laws in their ideological picks. But, I don't think you can make the argument that DSA is overthrowing the constitution by lobbying. Or is lobbying out in your book too?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 10:36pm
Posted by crabwalk at 10/20/2008 @ 10:26pm
Nope. I got back home the last week of August.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2008 @ 10:41pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 7:47pm
You should make a distinction between Democrats and socialists. I'm a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. I doubt that many people that comment here or even The Nation subscribers can say the same.
While I don't agree with everything that the DSA supports - such as their support of Obama in this election, they do have some fundamental principles that I do agree with, for example:
1. "We believe that social and economic decisions should be made by those whom they most affect."
2. "Democratic Socialists favor as much decentralization as possible."
3. "Democratic Socialists have long rejected the belief that the whole economy should be centrally planned. While we believe that democratic planning can shape major social investments like mass transit, housing, and energy, market mechanisms are needed to determine the demand for many consumer goods."
4. "The improvement of people's lives requires real democracy without ethnic rivalries and/or new forms of authoritarianism."
I favor socialist forms of ownership based on democratic communities. Where possible, it should not be "government" as defined by federal government or the states, but self-organized, democratic communities along the lines of homeowner associations, business development, social organizations and so forth.
This is in perfect alignment with my libertarian views that people should be left alone to live whatever lives they like to the degree possible and are enabled to have a meaningful voice in the decision making process in things they care about.
We have precious little of that in our current framework.
http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf
Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2008 @ 11:04pm
scroot .... couldn't agree more. For some reason the right seems oblivious to the lessons of history as well as the examples set by the entirety of the industrialized world. So to SJ and the rest:
The Euro-nations that enjoy prosperous economies and better life stats than the US are social democracies. We are becoming one as noted here and in other threads regarding our military, police, and now our banking system. As resources become more scarce and humanity is forced to conserve them even more we shall be forced to a more equitable standard of living over time it is inevitable (as there aren't enough planets to fully support billions of Westerners) (our life expectancy, infant mortality, science in schools are all towards the bottom of the industrial world)
The natural conditions of all systems is one of equilibrium. It is easily proved mathematically that the "end state" must be a steady-state economy, or no economy at all because permanent (hence infinite) increase of the economy posits an invalid function.
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/20/2008 @ 11:05pm
crabbie-luvvy doesn't like me because he can't write me off as a Christian hating,America hating,troop hating lefty,since I have a mixture of views that put me in the middle and he prefers to just post at people he calls lefties.It drives him crazy that I won't vote republican this time around.He did condemn to hell first,though, with the rest of you which I thought was nice of him..
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 11:07pm
I'll bet every leftist on this thread is green with envy over sntauri's fake (reasoned supposition) Rolex. God, that would go good with my Mao jacket. Good reason for your paranoia, dude. You're loaded!
Posted by Sorelish at 10/20/2008 @ 11:59pm
The left is perfectly free to pursue all the socialist revolution they want in the individual states. But the left wants nothing to do with following the constitution. This is about overthrowing the constitution and replacing it with a socialist/democratic form of govt as seen in Europe and extolled by many leftists on this website.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 3:33pm
Aw, c'mon, Larry. We all know that you really despise the Constitution, like most "good Christian" Republicans. You continue to support an illegitimate cabal that has spent 8 years shredding it, all in the name of your self-image as God, and your wallet. You do remember Article VI, don't you, Larry? The one that bans religious tests as a requirement for holding public office, the one that states that the Constitution, laws enacted under it, and treaties (e.g., the Geneva Conventions against torture) are the supreme law of the land. And, since the Bill of Rights was not intended to limit rights to those expressed, you remember that there is a Constitutional right to privacy, whether in one's phone calls, e-mails, bedrooms, physician's office, right? Larry, for as long as I've seen your posts, you'vesuggested actions that have the effect replacing our Constitution with a fascist theocracy. Remember, Larry, that Bush's political and familial ancestors in the Third Reich had soldiers wear belt buckles that read "Gott mit uns" - "God with us". And they were just as wrong as you are.
Posted by jmusolino at 10/21/2008 @ 01:13am
Paulson has been to China a few times. Guess how many?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States
This enormous inflow of capital from China is one of the root causes of the financial crisis engulfing the US as of September 2008: China has been buying huge quantities of dollar assets in order to keep its currency undervalued and its export economy humming, which has caused US interest rates and saving rates to stay artificially low for too long. These low interests, in turn, created the housing bubble (when interests are low, people can afford more expensive houses while keeping their monthly mortgage payments the same), whose collapse has caused the recent turmoil in the financial markets worldwide. Leading economists such as Larry Summers (former Treasury Secretary under Clinton) and Paul Krugman had been warning about this pernicious cycle since the mid-2000s
Paulson has been to China a few times. Guess how many? >70
seventy
Could do his 'Gimme 700 billion' tune in Mandarin
These neocons are socialists.
Posted by winyahn at 10/21/2008 @ 05:35am
He did condemn to hell first,though, with the rest of you which I thought was nice of him.. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/20/2008 @ 11:07pm
We can party with Luvvy when we get there. Ought to be a blast!
Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2008 @ 07:39am
I watched a Michel Moore movie called Sicko and could not help thinking that here is one of the most advaced countries in the world and yet its citizens had go to Cuba for medi care. Socialsim is not what is happing in Europe, after world war two the European ruling class had no choice but to implement such things as the NHS (America being one of the richest countries in the world is not even able to provide health care to the same level as its European counter parts) and other European countries also followed suit.The wealth sharing would not be done on the basis of socialsim by Obama but rather done to avoid a public back lash given the $700bn that has been used to bailout culprits of the economic meltdown. Obama himself had to mention to McCain that his campain is being backed by people like Mr. Buffet who is a capitalist. Socialism in America has always been potrayed as an evil system and yet the system that America adheres to makes people lose thier 401Ks and suffer foreclosures and cost people jobs. Under genuine socialism people are guaranteed work, shelter and freedom to explore thier individual potential whereas with capitalism we live to make money for people who would go on to live a socialist life.
Posted by linda123 at 10/21/2008 @ 07:49am
Posted by srjenkins at 10/20/2008 @ 11:04pm
Notice that LVL ignores every post that is too hard to answer. He can't really defend himself as not also being socialist so he goes for the easy chum. I think he realizes that the definition he is using is bollocks but he was taught during Reagan that that's what it is and refuses to broaden himself a little bit. Every American supports socialism. It's just a matter of degree. Everyone from the hardcore "anti-socialists" who support a military that uses privatized contracts with private weapons designers, to the the hardcore socialist who wants complete government control of the economy.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 8:07pm
Wanna know why it would never be done state by state? Because the last time we had something that grand and potentially divisive tried to be carried out at the state by state level we ended up in a civil war because we didn't just set a precedent the first time around.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 09:31am
What's funny is how the moonbats on this site have been denying for years that they are socialists, running away from the label, and accusing anyone calling them on it as 'McCarthyites'. All it takes is one article by Nichols defending socialism, and all of the sudden a patently failed economic system is all in vogue again, and worthy of defending. One marvels at the efficiency of the kool-aid delivery system.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 09:33am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 8:07pm
Oh also LVL. The reason it isn't carried out at a state level is because the people who seek to create full on socialism want a socialist FEDERAL government. Not a socialist state government. That's why it isn't carried out at a state level because socialism requires a strong federal government and cooperation from the federal government.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 09:34am
Ponti .... see: Posted by leftofcenter at 10/20/2008 @ 11:05pm
LL - re: Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 3:33pm
W already shredded the Constitution - so why cry foul now when you cheered it on previously?
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/21/2008 @ 09:46am
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/21/2008 @ 09:46am
"W already shredded the Constitution - so why cry foul now when you cheered it on previously?"
That sort of rationalization has been thought of already, my friend, see the Nazi Party in Germany in the 30's. Accuse your political opponent of largely imaginary crimes, then use your accusation as justification for doing that very thing yourself. You folks can't even be original. Sheesh.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 09:53am
John McCain hopes to revive his campaign by suggesting that Barack Obama is some kind of socialist.
Socialist is just a code word for pinko commie.
Posted by boing007 at 10/21/2008 @ 10:00am
Secondly, of course slavery was wrong and the founders specifically left out an direct mention of it so as to let future generations resolve it as they did. And with the appropriate vehicle of constitutional amendments.----Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/20/2008 @ 7:32pm
Therefore the SPECIFIC definition of "general welfare" could ALSO be "left out" to "let future generations resolve it as they did."
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/21/2008 @ 10:06am
What else does McCain have to throw at Obama???? His 'smoke and mirror's' economic plan is being rejected as 'the creation of this mess we are in'. But, he still keeps touting it like it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. The William Ayers terrorist nonsense is bitting the dust (no one really cares about it). It's about as phony as McCain and Palin both. Palin hasn't been the overnight success McCain thought she would be (except with the religious nuts and they would vote for anyone who said they were a Christian). So last night he trotted out a new commercial on how the last 8 years haven't been so great (no kidding John who would have ever guessed). So now he wants us to give him another 4 years to screw the economy up worse. John McCain has Bush, Palin, the economy, Iraq/Afghanistan, and the rats bailing by the dozen working against him. What else does he have to go with but accuse Obama of being a 'commie' and hope it changes someone's mind????? No doubt a lot of right wing nuts buy it. But, look what they bought the last two elections????
Posted by ganddw42 at 10/21/2008 @ 10:18am
Socialists in this country would be flattered by Mr. Nichols article. The fact of the matter is that ever since Debs ran on the socialist ticket and got 6% of the vote, the movement has never (and might never) really grab a foothold in this country for several reasons. The first is that this country is, relatively speaking, new on the scene, and as such we began as one devoid of the feudal and rigid caste system that our European cohorts did not. There were no peasants, lords and royalty. As such, in the psyche of the American worker, there is always the possibility of upward mobility and the "rags to riches" mentality that in a feudal system did not exist. Second, socialism requires coordination of the greatest degree among the workforce. Subsequently, this coordination requires a sort of inertia on the part of the workforce to allow for ample time to mobilize it. While we do have labor unions that are quite strong, it is difficult to mobilize this force because the American worker has been historically a pretty dynamic one constantly moving where the work is. Think "manifest destiny." Plus much of our workforce consists of immigrants who a) are running from a socialist system or b) simply don't care and are sending money back home. Lastly, and I don't want to belabor the point, but socialism will have a tough time gaining significant momentum because private interests in Washington are the ruling order of the day. Socialism requires an almost facsistic coordination where everyone works in unison. There are just too many private interests and our system allows them to buy off Congressman.
Posted by roywally at 10/21/2008 @ 10:32am
We've got socialism in the U.S. but it is politically risky to use the word. The German ruling party under Hitler and the Russians under various communist heads described themselves as "socialist" (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Nation Socialist German Workers Party etc.) Thus the bad taste the word may leave. We have Social Security and any number of government sponsored benefits doled out to both deserving and undeserving in the population. Look at the last farm bill as an example of largess given to the rich, not to mention the bailout of the banks. Now some want to forgive mortgage loans and let people keep their houses for free. The arguments set forth above, some more erudite than others, seem to be little more than callow college freshmen arguments over semantics.
Posted by jsens at 10/21/2008 @ 10:47am
As a 30 something professional, registered republican, Caucasian single mother of two, independently living in southern Connecticut; who has NEVER voted outside the GOP, words CAN NOT adequately express the passion I feel for the democratic ticket. Both Obama and Biden have impressed me tremendously with their political acumen, integrity, knowledge, judgement, morals, and values. The thought of this team running our country is a massive relief for me. I've reached the point of being physically ill with fear whenever I begin to think about the remote possibility of John McCain as POTUS. The fluid in my spinal cord literally curdles and threatens to compromise my brain stem whenever I hear or see that man speak. When I watch him scathingly flail his puppet like arms, dart his shifty reptilian tongue and beady cold hearted eyes about, I immediately associate his treachery and ugliness with the pessimistically bi-polar, power hungry Gollum character from The Lord of the Rings. Though not quite as histrionically verbose, I'm positive I am not the only individual who feels this way. http://3rdrail.net23.net/index.php
Posted by PrincessofPleasuretown at 10/21/2008 @ 10:51am
As a 40 something professional, registered democrat, Caucasian single mother of two, independently living in northern virginia; who has NEVER voted outside the kool-aid drinking wing of the Democratic Party, words CAN NOT adequately express the passion I feel for the republican ticket. Both McCain and Palin have impressed me tremendously with their political acumen, integrity, knowledge, judgement, morals, and values. The thought of this team running our country is a massive relief for me. I've reached the point of being physically ill with fear whenever I begin to think about the remote possibility of Barack Obama as POTUS. The fluid in my spinal cord literally curdles and threatens to compromise my brain stem whenever I hear or see that man speak. When I watch him scathingly flail his puppet like arms, dart his shifty reptilian tongue and beady cold hearted eyes about, I immediately associate his treachery and ugliness with the pessimistically bi-polar, power hungry Gollum character from The Lord of the Rings. Though not quite as histrionically verbose, I'm positive I am not the only individual who feels this way.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 11:15am
Did 'Family Guy' Go Too Far With Nazi 'McCain' Pin?
Monday, October 20, 2008
* E-Mail * Respond * Print
* Share: o Digg o Facebook o StumbleUpon o Post to MySpace! o o
Fox
* * *
The animated sitcom 'Family Guy' is no stranger to controversy, but on Sunday night the show went into uncharted territory as it seemed to weigh in on the presidential race by likening the McCain/Palin ticket to the Nazi party in World War II.
In the episode, two of the characters, Stewie (a talking baby) and Brian (a talking dog) are transported to Poland during the Nazi invasion of World War II. In one scene, the characters beat up and steal the uniforms of two Nazi officers. Stewie looks down at his Nazi uniform and notices a McCain/Palin campaign button attached to its lapel, remarking "Huh, that's weird."
The McCain campaign did not have an immediate comment. A rep for the show defended the episode, telling Foxnews.com: "From its inception, 'Family Guy' has used provocative concepts and biting satire as the foundation of its humor. The show is an 'equal oportunity offender.'"
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 11:21am
Posted by PrincessofPleasuretown at 10/21/2008 @ 10:51am
"Both Obama and Biden have impressed me tremendously with their political acumen, integrity, knowledge, judgement, morals, and values."
I notice you didn't say 'experience'.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 11:37am
ponti-Like the kool aid drinking luvvy you see what you want to see in these posts rather than looking at what people are actually saying.It would,of course,be pointless to tell you,again, what people are saying because you will continue to twist things your mind in order to stay in your fantasy world..
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 11:53am
Having spent the last 20 minutes or so reading through these comments, I just what to point out a few things:
1) There seems to be -- here and in popular political discourse -- a line of argument that assumes 'socialism' and 'communism' are the same thing, or, perhaps more accurately, that all forms of socialism have the end-goal of being communist. Both cases are simply not true, as reflected by real socialist policies in all countries of the world. So let's be clear when we're hacking away at each other.
2) Regarding the Constitution -- this is an important question. Has anyone read the Larry Sabato Jr book on potential revisions to the Constitution? I think without a doubt there needs to be some drastic alteration of this document, if not the adoption of an entirely new one.
The Constitution is incredibly flawed, and here's my evidence: Coded within it, and within the Anglo-American legal system that supports and pre-supposes its validity, are the mechanisms for the document to overturn and destroy itself. In short, it's flawed because it's gotten us HERE, to a point where it no longer functions according to its own rules.
3) Indeed, Locke was on the bookshelves of the framers. But his writings are also 300 year-old idealistic conceptial games that assume the existence of a perfect and -- here's the kicker -- endlessly abundant 'State of Nature' from which we derive all of our property through valuation in work. Do our current ecological conditions (and knowledge thereof) change that view for any of you? Sure do for me.
4) Economics is an incredibly wonderful and efficient framework for organizing human interaction and large societies. But should it organize the people themselves? Are we just Homo Oeconomicus?
Posted by Scroot at 10/21/2008 @ 12:00pm
The Family Guy episode was hysterical! They do push the limits farther than I thought possible, but they do it and it's FUNNEE.
Pointi, you equated those here to Nazis, but now you are offended when the free market does it to your candidate? too rich, baby. too rich.
If you missed their dig at the FCC a couple of years ago, take the time to look it up. One of the funnier bits was the new regulation on the Dick Van Dyke Show. After the FCC got doen with it the title read "The - Van -- Show"
Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2008 @ 12:20pm
NOBODY, there is no need to think for yourself. Ponti will tell you what you believe.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2008 @ 12:22pm
Posted by Scroot at 10/21/2008 @ 12:00pm
" Indeed, Locke was on the bookshelves of the framers. But his writings are also 300 year-old idealistic conceptial games that assume the existence of a perfect and -- here's the kicker -- endlessly abundant 'State of Nature' from which we derive all of our property through valuation in work. Do our current ecological conditions (and knowledge thereof) change that view for any of you? Sure do for me. "
Current political fashion has little appeal to me if it's rooted in a patently flawed ideology like socialism. The fact alone that an idea is over 300 years old has little import with regard to its validity if it's still true. For example, Newton's laws are still as true today as they were 300 years ago. Progression in knowledge requires integrating true concepts into thought and expanding on them, not tossing them overboard because they are in conflict with latest political fashion based on nothing but abstract theories that have proven to be wrong in practice again and again. How many times must socialism fail before you folks start to realize it is inherently flawed, and flawed for reasons that were well-known 300 years ago?
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 12:24pm
Well SRJ, that is because defending our citizens and our national security is part of the constitution. Same question to you.-why do you have a problem working within the framework of the constitution under the 10th amendment? Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 10:17am
Actually it's not. Look at the Constitution LVL. They specifically said that we are only allowed to call upon the armed forceds during INVASION or INSURRECTION. They wrote that to stop people like you from attack people you disagree with. So we shouldn't be in Iraq because it's unConstitutional. Iraq did not invade us so calling on the armed forces to fight an aggressive war was unConstitutional.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 12:27pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 10:47am
I try. I think it is not even possible to consider a switch from capitalism to socialism a state issue because it requires a change in the federal government AND the state governments.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 12:29pm
pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 12:24pm
"not tossing them overboard because they are in conflict with latest political fashion based on nothing but abstract theories that have proven to be wrong in practice again and again." ------
I would say that presuming a theoretical "State of Nature" is precisely an "abstract theory."
Is not neoliberalism an abstract theory?
Did Socialism fail, or did Authoritarianism?
You are right on the 300 year-old point, to an extent. But my main point was that the archaic theory you refer to (Lockean) assumes that the resources of the Earth are infinite, which is reflected in the real-world actions of the realization of such theory (American Economy/Ecology.) Resources are limited. So, the question is, whither Liberalism?
Posted by Scroot at 10/21/2008 @ 12:30pm
So, I ask you what I've asked others; if you believe that, then why not repeal the 10th amendment, abolish the state govt's and put all budget and policy issues under the Federal Govt? You don't attempt that because you and others know that most Americans won't agree to it. Thus you try and circumvent the law. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 10:42am
Actually by the way that is all wrong. You are talking about something entirely different. I am talking about a massive switch of government from capitalist to socialist. Which doesn't involve circumventing the law and it doesn't involve state government. It involves changing the fundamentals of the whole system which doesn't need to be done at a state level it has to be done at a federal level.
I am not interested in turning America into a socialist government despite what you may have deluded yourself into believing. I think free market socialism which we have now is just fine, needs to be tweaked a bit but I'm ok with it.
Also the reason it doesn't happen at a federal level with a repeal of the 10th Amendment is because there would be a big rift in the country. It's not that all of the American people would be against it. I think it would be a large enough number for it to make it possible but a large enough number against it to lead to whole sale violence. If Congress repealed the 10th Amendment people like you would throw a fit because you would say they were acting unconstitutionally even though they went about it in a perfectly legal way.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 12:34pm
Ponti, you cannot think of any capitalist nation that has failed in the pat 300 years? Not one?
you never did get back to us on the differences between the Soviet/Swedish/Cuban/English versions of socialism and the differences between them. Nor did you ever address the issue of the socializes societies in the military and Christian communities in the US.
why is that?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2008 @ 12:35pm
crabbie-It is nice of ponti and luvvy to tell us what everyone thinks and who everyone hates.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 12:41pm
"Did Socialism fail, or did Authoritarianism? "
If you understand Locke's theory that successful governments must protect the natural rights of citizens to their life, liberty, and property, then you understand why socialism fails. Socialism compromises to right to a citizen's property, in that it gives the government the right to take it arbitrarily and at will. With no right to property, a citizen's liberty and, ultimately, life are forefeit as well.
It is a commonplace observation, in fact, that socialistic governments always must continue to socialize more and more parts of the economy as those parts that are seized inevitably fail. Thus, to the empirical observation that all socialistic societies fail, we can begin to induce the reason why, and impute as proof to a theory which was first put forth 300 years ago. The only remaining question is, why do people continue to cling to theories like socialism, long after they have been shown to invariably fail in practice?
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 12:43pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 12:41pm
"crabbie-It is nice of ponti and luvvy to tell us what everyone thinks and who everyone hates."
IM, I don't hate you, it's your willful ignorance I hate. Hate the sin, not the sinner.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 12:44pm
ponti-I did not say that you hated me nor have you shown that I am willfully ignorant,but you did just prove my point when I said that you see in posts what you want to see since I did not say that you hated me.The hate the sin,but love the sinner is idiotic and impossible,but I'm curious as to what sins you think I have committed?
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 12:50pm
Ponti, who is attempting to take your property?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2008 @ 12:53pm
Ponti writes: "The awarding of Nobels can be highly selective, prone to a pro-European bias, and in any case they are not the best defining standard. Bill Gates, for example, invented the most successful PC operating system in the world but he received no Nobels. Most great advances in science, technology, and commercialization of same go unreward with Nobels."
Bill Gates didn't invent any operating system. DOS came about because the company IBM wanted to do the operating system for the PC, SCO, wasn't interested (met the IBM suits in a hot tub in Santa Cruz to show their distain for the project)and IBM turned to their compiler company Microsoft. Microsoft just copied SCO's operating system. The big innovation for Microsoft was getting the rights to sell the operating system to anyone, a business not a computer science innovation. DOS is a pretty rudimentary operating system most computer science students do something similar as part of their BS degree. Microsoft has never been a very innovative company, just a very very persistant company.
Now you may say I wasn't talking about DOS I was talking about Windows. Bill Gates didn't write any code or "invent" anything for Windows. It took Microsoft 11 years after the introduction of the Mac by Apple to produce a functional windows based operating system (Windows 95). At the time of its introduction the joke in the computer industry was Windows 95 = Macintosh 84. (And Mac itself was a ripoff of Xerox research)
If you say Bill Gates deserves a Nobel prize for his work on operating systems, you lack the necessary technical knowledge to argue with the Nobel committee. You are completely ignorant about software development and science.
Posted by Guiles at 10/21/2008 @ 12:58pm
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 12:50pm
"but I'm curious as to what sins you think I have committed?"
Like MASK, your arguments don't have the virtue of integrity. For you, it's always about being right, not about finding the truth of a matter. Thus, you are always right, and you never learn anything. If you are proven wrong in one area, you just change the subject. In short, you're hopeless.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 12:58pm
pontificus --
Where are the "fail[ures] in practice?"
It's a categorical error to assume that socialism eliminates all property. I don't think that's a tangible suggestion. Your insights on Locke are dead-on and it's clear you've read it, which is more than I can say for most.
Let's continue the argument under the Lockean framework, if that's your desire. Now, clearly the right to property, under Neoliberalism, trumps the other two (life, liberty.) Does rampant liberalism protect life or liberty? I think that Chile, Bolivia, Venezuela, Argentina, and others would like to take that up with you.
If we accept that we want democracy, where all people are suddenly engaged political beings, shouldn't we be obligated to protect the existence and health of these beings, for the sake of the existence of the government itself? It seems that socialist policies would enable precisely this sort of protection where de facto greed cannot. In a democracy there is an obligation to protect the entire social body because that body exactly is the socius of political will.
Under Locke, people without any property cannot leave the State of Nature, and thus cannot participate in the Governmental organization (remember - property is the entry fee; you give up SOME property to leave the SoN, according to Locke.) Are you suggesting that the poorest, un-propertied of the Earth are not worthy political beings?
Posted by Scroot at 10/21/2008 @ 12:59pm
>>>Socialism compromises to right to a citizen's property, in that it gives the government the right to take it arbitrarily and at will. With no right to property, a citizen's liberty and, ultimately, life are forefeit as well.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 12:44pm <<<
This is QUITE a stretch!
First, eminent domain laws already give the government the right to take property for public purposes, but NOT without "just compensation". Your "conservative" Supreme Court has consistently upheld eminent domain laws under the Constitution of the United States.
Second, even assuming "just compensation" were not paid - and this is a "big" assumption - how do you leap in logic to saying such a "taking" would lead to forfeiting "other" liberties or forfeiting one's life? This simply doesn't follow logically from the taking of specific property.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/21/2008 @ 1:00pm
Posted by Guiles at 10/21/2008 @ 12:58pm
Yeah, yeah I knew some geek was going to come forward with the 'Bill Gates never invented anything blah blah blah..." I hear it all day from people of all kinds of political stripes. It's a pointless argument. The fact is, he commericalized the most successful operating system in the world, something used almost universally by every PC owner. He founded arguably the most successful company ever created and improved productivity for millions if not billions of people. That's the definition of success, not whether some insulated group of pointy heads decides to honor him with some ludicrous prize. Get over it already.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 1:02pm
Posted by Scroot at 10/21/2008 @ 12:59pm
It's an established fact that citizens must willingly contribute a part of their property towards any government. In exchange, theoretically, they receive protection of their life, liberty, and property. Where socialistic ideals go wrong is where the government takes to itself the right to strip people of their property for arbitrary reasons, e.g., to 'spread the wealth'. It's one thing, in other words, for people to surrender a portion of their property for a tangible benefit, quite another for people to surrender their wealth on the basis of someone else's concept of fairness. Simply put, they won't do it willingly, which is why socialistic governments more or less, sooner or later, inevitably gravitate towards State thuggery on the order of Chavez's Venezuela. It's also why such societies gravitate towards the enervated, enfeebled, and ultimately doomed models of modern Europe.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 1:17pm
ponti-I see that you were unable to say what sins I have committed and just said that I have be right,but not find truth which is nonsensical and avoids the question and seems like you are saying that you know what constitutes truth and that one must agree with you,but that would be egotistical and nothing more.My views on certain things have changed since coming on here which means that I don't just need to be right.Your views have not grown or changed despite facts given to you so it is you,and not me,that needs to be right..
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 1:18pm
Pontificus is not worth the time you guys give him. He isn't here to make any decent points nor is he here to actually have a conversation. He is here to inject his inane and obviously ignorant opinions. If you challenge him he either responds in the most obnoxious way possible or he doesn't respond at all. Ignoring him is the best thing you can do.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 1:26pm
Posted by Scroot at 10/21/2008 @ 12:59pm
I enjoyed this discussion and I am gratified that at least someone here understands the terms of the debate, although clearly you and I disagree. It is worth noting that the arguments I put forth are not new or novel, but are rather well documented in books such as 'Modern Times' and 'A History of the American People' by Paul Johnson. Although these books are highly respected, they are not well received in the academy, since they conflict with fashionable theories of the day. More's the pity, you may want to read them sometime, especially 'Modern Times', perhaps the best and most influential book I have ever read.
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 1:30pm
pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 1:17pm
------- But is it fair to say that things like health care, infrastructure, and public works are "arbitrary" re-distributions of wealth?
Our disagreement seems to be over what constitutes the "tangible benefit" you describe more than anything else.
I think it's important to clarify: Socialism, in Europe and in its modern if broad sense, does not redistribute property necessarily. It redistributes weath, which is to say, value, which physically takes the form of money (which the government prints.) These governments don't tell you to pay taxes with your desks, jewelry, or automobiles; they tell you to pay taxes ON them, on the valuation of them. So property, in its strict sense, is not always the exclusive issue here.
Also, remember that the difference between 'Nature' and property (under the Lockean model) is that your work makes 'nature' into property, and thus imparts onto it 'value.' Work both makes it yours and increases its value (and, textually inferred by some, increases your value as an economic being.) The counter to that is basic Marxism: under very liberal economies, the 'work' does not guarantee the property or the value, or even the equity of value to what the property would otherwise be.
This is the problem with Locke's "State of Nature": Property doesn't come from some ether, some magical floating place -- it comes from someone/where else. Resources are limited; the State of Nature schema, from what we know now, is an extremely limited conceptual argument.
Posted by Scroot at 10/21/2008 @ 1:31pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 1:17pm
You are reading too much Ayn Rand!
Rand, like many academics, is great if you confine her philosophy to the theoretical world she creates. The real world is much more complex, and this partially explains why mixed socialist/capitalist models do much better than either model alone.
Posted by Metteyya at 10/21/2008 @ 1:32pm
Ccc-The reason I discuss things with the pontis and luvvys isn't to try and change their views,but it helps me think about and question my own views in order to grow.I spend lots of time Soul searching as part of my Spiritual and Mystical quest and this helps me in that quest.Of course,there are times when I just find it to be entertaining.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 1:36pm
Ponti, for someone that claims to be as well read as you do, you sure do come off as a complete dumbass sheep. How is it possible that someone that has a grasp of Lockes philosophies and claims to know more than us about the world can be so duped into the Ayers nonsense, be frightened of a non-Muslim christian, believe that Plame was not covert or think that Saddam was a threat to your person?
could it be an adherence to ideology and party over sense? Could it have anything to do with who tells you what to think versus those you consider to be enemies and therefore cannot be believed at any point?
Nah, couldn't be, because you would never cling to ideology over reality, now would you? You would never take the word of Bush's Justice Dept over that of a has been guvt official that happens to agree with your preconceived notion. Unless the JD told you to be afraid of someone, then you would buy it.
BTW, did you enjoy Canadian Thanksgiving? They held it on time, even though you are sure that they don't do such a thing.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/21/2008 @ 1:44pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/08 @11:15am
A good indication that ponti is really Ann Coulter.
Posted by Sorelish at 10/21/2008 @ 1:53pm
Ccc-The reason I discuss things with the pontis and luvvys isn't to try and change their views,but it helps me think about and question my own views in order to grow.I spend lots of time Soul searching as part of my Spiritual and Mystical quest and this helps me in that quest.Of course,there are times when I just find it to be entertaining. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 1:36pm
Yeah I discuss with LVL all the time. But at least it's attempted semi-intelligent discussion. I feel like discussing with ponti is a full on dead end because you won't be able to even have intelligent conversation.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 2:02pm
Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 2:02pm
I feel like the discussion I had just now went pretty well
Posted by Scroot at 10/21/2008 @ 2:03pm
Ccc-It isn't reading his views that helps me,but it's thinking of my responses that helps me.Plus,there is the entertainment value and one cannot take life too seriously.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 2:06pm
If one digs hard enough,like lvliberty did,one can find a "legal" excuse to invade any country,but I doubt that our founders had that in mind.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 2:13pm
It would be nice if we looked at each state as it's own country,like how Americans did prior to the great depression and WW2,but those two events made Americans move to other states and made us into one country and we aren't going back and it is pointless to wish for something you aren't going to get.I wish I was born 150 years ago,but it isn't going to happen and luvvy may as well figure this out and look to the present and future because we are not going to go backwards.We have a huge central government and that won't change,unfortunately.Now,all we can do is try to make that huge central govt more effective.Reality is what it is.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 2:36pm
I just don't see where you find these restrictions you are claiming. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 2:19pm
Because socialism is based on the citizenry of the entire country not of specific parts of the country. You can have state forms of socialization but in order to employ a single standard of government across all states you have to make it a federal issue. You are talking about a full scale switch to socialism not the implementation of socialistic programs. implementing single payer health care, free college and social security does not make you a socialist nation. Declaring your country socialist is what makes you are socialist nation. So states can implement their own socialist style programs but that is not the type of socialism you and many are talking about. There is a difference between a socialist NATION and a nation that some social programs.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 2:54pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 2:08pm
No I am not in error. We seem to be interpreting it differently. That's the thing about the Constitution. Like the Bible there is room for multiple interpretations and no true evidence to prove one more correct than another. In my interpretation that says we only implement a standing army when we are invaded or there is insurrection in our lands. The government is only allowed to maintain a standing Navy probably because it's hard to find privately owned war ships and because they need to be able to quickly scramble to protect our coasts because the only method of invasion of US lands was by invading them. They did not allow the military to be used to invade other countries. That is just you interpreting the Constitution to mean what you want it to. It does not say anything about being able to invade other countries anywhere.
That's what you guys don't realize is that even when you say you are just reading the Constitution literally you are still interpreting it. They specifically designated a difference between MAINTAINING a Naval force and raising an Army. Why would they have not said maintain a Navy and Army if that was what they meant?
"3rd, the first two clauses noted here do not restrict the right of the US to wage military action against a range of offenses internationally."
How does it not? It says only during time of invasions or insurrections. That is very plain speech.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 3:04pm
Re the army clause. The purpose of the two-year limitation wasn't to prevent Congress from keeping a standing army in existence for a longer period of time but to require the executive branch to keep going back to Congress for appropriations. As a practical matter, the annual nature of the appropriations process has meant that this safeguard hasn't come into play in some time
Second, the fact that the militia can be called forth to repel invasions doesn't mean that the it isn't part of the army's job either.
LL's point about the current invasions being a continuation of hostilities from the Gulf War overlooks that, the final cease fire agreement from the conflict was with the UN Security Council and 2) the UNSC resolution finding that Iraq was in material breach also stated that the UNSC "remained seized of the matter". Any war predicated on Iraqi non-compliance with the cease-fire would therefore require a UNSC sign-off.
Posted by brunowe at 10/21/2008 @ 3:22pm
Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 09:53am
Couldn't help but notice you addressed the item I left for LL above, but not the meatier one I left for you on economics.
but to the other .. as attributed to a conversation in the Oval Office re: Harriet Meiers:
I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/21/2008 @ 3:23pm
I'm sorry. Who does this REALLY sound like?!??!!?
"For you, it's always about being right, not about finding the truth of a matter."----Posted by pontificus at 10/21/2008 @ 12:58pm
So in other words, PONTI's view of "the truth" is "right"...anything else is "un-Truth" and "wrong".
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/21/2008 @ 3:44pm
The problem with LLs quote from Jefferson and Madison is that they give the impression that the framers were of one mine on this issue. In fact, there were both narrow and expansive interpretations of parts of the Constitution.
Now we have the "promote the general welfare" provision of I, 8. Again, merely quoting Madison or Jefferson gives the false appearance of unanimity. Hamilton, in his Report on Manufactures of 10 December 1791 wrote:
"It is therefore of necessity left to the discretion of the National Legislature, to pronounce, upon the objects, which concern the general Welfare, and for which under that description, an appropriation of money is requisite and proper. And there seems to be no room for a doubt that whatever concerns the general Interests of learning of Agriculture of Manufactures and of Commerce are within the sphere of the national Councils as far as regards an application of Money.
The only qualification of the generallity of the Phrase in question, which seems to be admissible, is this--That the object to which an appropriation of money is to be made be General and not local; its operation extending in fact, or by possibility, throughout the Union, and not being confined to a particular spot"
Indeed, this interpretation is compatible with the Tenth Amendment since the clause refers to Congress's taxing and spending powers and isn't a general grant of jurisdiction. As early as 1792, Congress has acted on the Hamiltonian interpretation--in that case subsidizing cod fisherman ( 1 Stat. 229 (1792)). In 1806, Congress funded our first infrastructure project, the Cumberland Road (2 Stat. 357 (1806)).
Posted by brunowe at 10/21/2008 @ 4:06pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 10:17am
"Same question to you.-why do you have a problem working within the framework of the constitution under the 10th amendment?"
My problem is that it won't work. I support home rule on both state and local levels, but if the federal government can saddle citizens and states with trillions of dollars of debt prosecuting a "war of terror", corporate bail outs and the like, then my local community doesn't have economic sovereignty - which comes before every other kind of liberty.
You take your hand out of my pocket and stop buying bombs with it, then we can talk about what states might be able to do under the 10th amendment.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/21/2008 @ 4:14pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 3:45pm
No I am not conflating them. I understand the difference between the Army and the Militias. However if you notice the Constitution still does not support your view. It says to raise and maintain an Army for up to two years in which case the military funding comes back for renegotiations. Which means the army is only meant to be maintained during time of war. The only thing that was supposed to be held constantly was the Navy.
The founders were smart. They only provided in the Constitution to use the military during times of great strife. They saw the perils of maintaining a standing army in a capitalist government when war becomes a business because private contractors are who are making money from weapons. They were smart enough to see that a standing army is only needed in conflict. The Navy was meant to be our real defense and I emphasize defense. Many of the founding fathers warned against exerting our interests on other countries through our military. They warned very very often about imperialist actions or invading other countries. I think the founding father would EASILY look at our current actions in Iraq as being against what America stood for.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 4:19pm
You take your hand out of my pocket and stop buying bombs with it, then we can talk about what states might be able to do under the 10th amendment. Posted by srjenkins at 10/21/2008 @ 4:14pm
But then how will all those war profiteers at Halliburton, Boeing, Humvee and the many other companies that make a profit off of war maintain their trillions?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 4:21pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 3:45pm
Which is why they are in Iraq and not in New Orleans for Katrina, right?
"Whenever Congress determines that more units and organizations are needed for the national security than are in the regular components of the ground and air forces, the Army National Guard of the United States and the Air National Guard of the United States, or such parts of them as are needed, together with such units of other reserve components as are necessary for a balanced force, shall be ordered to active Federal duty and retained as long as so needed."
If Congress can decide to take them at any time, then they are a reserve of the federal force, not a state force.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/32/usc_sec_32_00000102----000-.html
Posted by srjenkins at 10/21/2008 @ 4:22pm
"Which means the army is only meant to be maintained during time of war."
That is simply not true. The duration of a standing army was left to the political branches. The two-year rule's purpose is simply to prevent the executive from severing the tether to the legislature by a long-term appropriation.
If the purpose were to limit the existence of an army to insurrection or repelling an invasion, the framers could easily have put that restriction in the document.
"They warned very very often about imperialist actions or invading other countries."
Actually, they seemed to have no problem using a standing army to suppress Indians.
Posted by brunowe at 10/21/2008 @ 4:24pm
Hi, crabwalk. Here's your problem: "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs," gets confused with (and the Right wouldn't like it) "Do to others as you would have them do to you." That's right, Jesus and all of his friends were a group of socialists. Of course, it could have been because the Judao traditions also require people to care about and for the needs of others. This is not a hard concept. As for slavery? Are people in Manitoba and Berlin, Australia and yes--even France slaves? We come closer here, taxed AND tied to employers who "might" offer us the chance to buy partially discounted insurance packages which might allow us to afford to be seen by a doctor (80-20), and might (or might not)include affordable access to the medications prescribed. Germany's health care system was tops. I got ill, I got seen, treated and follow up care. There was NO paperwork. I just paid the monthly premiums into the AOK. Here, (Bluecross PPO thru Anthem) it took 7 months to find one doctor who might be in "network" and when he prescribed one drug I found the PPO did not cover ANY medications. How much better would universal care be? It certainly could not be less helpful, eh? Schools are a form of socialism, everyone goes--for free on taxes, or that's the plan. Infrastructure is socialist by design, and it also creates jobs. Is mass transit socialism too? Parks? Co-ops? Community education? TIF for new businesses? The point is, it's not bad. We(collectively) PAY income and sales and gains taxes now. What do we get for them? What's in it for us as a community? We'll pay more in future, what ought we to expect? And WHY not?
Posted by MNquip at 10/21/2008 @ 4:32pm
We have violated the constitution and bill of rights since shortly after they were written.There are limits to freedom of speech,freedom of religion, and all the rest,we not allowed to posses the same arms that the military has,etc and it is not just the left that has done that despite luvvy's claims to the contrary.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 4:55pm
Trying to discuss the Bible or constitution with luvvy is pointless since he will not even acknowledge that one can interpret these things in different ways and only sees his very narrow view of both.He will,simply,tell you that you are wrong because you are a lefty.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 5:08pm
If Christians aren't supposed to take over their governments than why is it that luvvy will only vote for a Christian and must one be a Christian to get anywhere in American politics?
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 6:03pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 5:03pm
Under your view of the Constitutional powers....
is it Constitutional for the Federal government to "impose" a "Food & Drug Act" upon the manufacturers of foods and drugs in the various States?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/21/2008 @ 6:06pm
The early returns in the county where I live show the following:
McCain-Palin (R) - 2 Obama-Biden (D) - 0
I voted early last night and a friend of mine did too, and I know she voted McCain-Palin.
So hopefully this early lead will hold up as the rest of the returns come in over the next couple of weeks.
Posted by sjchermak at 10/21/2008 @ 6:07pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 4:51pm
The reason they provided for a state run militia system as well as an army to be called up in case of attack is because the state run militias were to keep check of the federal government. That way if an imperialist ever used a federal army to attack the states the states would have their own standing armies to fight back. You have to put yourself in their shoes when you think about this stuff. They had just fought their way out of an imperial government where the army was used to strip them of rights. So logic states that the reason they differentiated between a federal run Army and state run militias is because the militias responsibility was to not only to control insurrection in their own states, but on top of that to put up a fight if the government ever went south and became a dictatorship which was wielding an army. The founding fathers made sure to provide us the tools to rebel if need be.
Again and along the same lines. Why did they only say that Congresses job is to MAINTAIN a Navy and to RAISE an Army which funds only last 2 years. They made sure to differentiate between the constant maintenance of a Navy and the occasional raising of an army.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 6:15pm
They are commanded to be about the work of the kingdom, not building a Christian socialism. Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 5:20p
Yes I'm sure Christ cared about whether your government was socialist or not. I'll bet you can find a quote somewhere from Christ that say socialism is an invention of Satan.... Talking about Christ words in respects to how he felt about certain governments is asinine.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 6:18pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 4:51pm
Again the Federalist papers are an interpretation of what 3 of the people thought it meant. You get varied interpretations of things even from the founding fathers. That's why immediately there was a split in the parties and the Federalists were born and the Democratic-Republicans were born because they couldn't figure out what should stay in states hands and what shouldn't and some of the leaders of the parties were people that had been apart of the writing of the Constitution.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 6:33pm
Even our founding fathers supported socialism.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.." -Thomas Jefferson
That was Jeffersons warning showing support of a central government controlled banking system. Basically socialized banking.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 6:59pm
Some one please tell McCain that the class war is over and the wealthy have won. 10 percent of Americans own 80 percent of the wealth. Once I built a railroad, made it run on time, buddy can you spare a dime?
Posted by lachatte at 10/21/2008 @ 7:27pm
"Some one please tell McCain that the class war is over and the wealthy have won. 10 percent of Americans own 80 percent of the wealth. Once I built a railroad, made it run on time, buddy can you spare a dime? Posted by lachatte at 10/21/2008 @ 7:27pm
Huh, interesting. Did you know that the top 25% of income-earners pay 86% of the income taxes collected? You can bet they don't collect 86% of the benefits.
Posted by twillie at 10/21/2008 @ 8:09pm
You can bet they don't collect 86% of the benefits. Posted by twillie at 10/21/2008 @ 8:09pm
No but they collect 95% of the total money floating around the US .
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 8:17pm
It only makes sense that if 10% of the population controls 80% of the US capital then that 10% should pay 80% of the taxes. It's simple math. If you split the pie evenly then the people with the biggest take will pay the biggest portion back in.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 8:19pm
Someone needs to teach Palin about the constitution and then apologize to the left for claiming that it is the left that wants to by pass it..
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/21/2008 @ 8:40pm
It only makes sense that if 10% of the population controls 80% of the US capital then that 10% should pay 80% of the taxes. It's simple math. If you split the pie evenly then the people with the biggest take will pay the biggest portion back in. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 8:19pm
Who says 10% controls 80% of US capital? What is your source?
Posted by twillie at 10/21/2008 @ 10:20pm
the FDA
I would love to see it dramatically scaled back.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 8:40pm
better take a vioxx and reconsider....
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 12:41am
Posted by twillie at 10/21/2008 @ 10:20pm
The Federal Reserve says, "In 2001, the division of wealth observed in the SCF attributed about a third each to the wealthiest 1 percent, the next wealthiest 9 percent, and the remaining 90 percent of the population."
The actual ratio for 80% of assets - which is different than capital but I think is a charitable interpretation here - is probably between 15-20%.
http://www.federalreserve.gov/ pubs/oss/oss2/papers/ concentration.2001.10.pdf
Another fun chart.
http://www.portfolio.com/ interactive-features/2008/03/Tax-Brackets
BTW, could The Nation fix their broken URL system. This should be trivial to fix and is highly annoying in its current state.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 01:00am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 5:03pm
I'm more interested in eliminating the federal military power grab that both is not in the Constitution and makes the 10th amendment unworkable than I am in repealing the 10th amendment.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 01:06am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 5:03pm
Also, I presented an argument. Extravagent federal spending that states and individuals have to pay for eliminates options like the one you suggest under the 10th amendment. The fact that you don't want to address this point illustrates weakness in your argumentation.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 01:08am
"Why did they only say that Congresses job is to MAINTAIN a Navy and to RAISE an Army which funds only last 2 years. They made sure to differentiate between the constant maintenance of a Navy and the occasional raising of an army.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/21/2008 @ 6:15pm | ignore this person | warn this person "
Except that this country has always had a standing army (since 1792), even it was very small.
Posted by brunowe at 10/22/2008 @ 05:01am
Posted by brunowe at 10/22/2008 @ 05:01am
And the fact that it was thought necessary because of American attempts to pacify American Indians and the defeat of militia forces at the Battle of Wabash is instructive.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 08:33am
What an awesome thread!
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/22/2008 @ 09:08am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 8:40pm better take a vioxx and reconsider.... Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008
With a nice hot mug of Chinese milk - mmmm.
Truly no offense intended. "We don't mean any harm, we just don't have any better sense." - Elvin Bishop
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/22/2008 @ 09:18am
"There is always a charge that socialism does not fit human nature. We've encountered that for a long time. Maybe that's true. But can't people be educated? Can't people learn to cooperate with each other? Surely that must be our goal, because the alternative is redolent with war and poverty and all the ills of the world." -- Frank Zeidler
"Socialism as we attempted to practice it here believes that people working together for a common good can produce a greater benefit both for society and for the individual than can a society in which everyone is shrewdly seeking their own self-interest," Zeidler told me in an interview several years ago. "And I think our record remains one of many more successes than failures." -------------------------------------
Both of these statements fail to recognize the greatest strength of capitalism: People working together to advance the common good. Every millisecond of every day in America millions of perfect strangers cooperate with each other in such a way that we all benefit. We've all heard the story of "how many people should I thank for my dinner", or something like that. If you follow the trail from your dinner table back to the farm, you'd be thanking thousands of strangers -- none of whom know or care about you. That's part of the magic and immeasurable power of capitalism. Free individuals working in their own self (selfish) interest benefit the whole.
Socialism seems nicer and kinder because it "recognizes" the need for individuals in a society to work together. At the same time it goes wrong by trying to manage the process. The mysterious beauty of capitalism is found in unlikely places: individual liberty, freedom of trade, and yes, selfishness. It may seem crude, but God bless self interest.
Posted by Person at 10/22/2008 @ 09:33am
"Socialist" is an epithet because it means "extreme liberalism". It means interference, intervention, and control. It means central planning from an elite power. It means a lessening of individualism. It means all these things and much more.
Socialism is a nice ideal and it's practiced in all kinds of places: at home, at church, in the neighborhood, on the farm... We are very socialist in my house, for instance, with my wife and two little girls. But what's good in my house isn't necessarily good for society at large. Socialism as a value system, a personal motto, an ideal for personal achievement is fine. When applied to a national economy, however, with incalculable moving parts and pieces, it will harm more than help.
Posted by Person at 10/22/2008 @ 09:54am
Everyone is selective in what parts of the constitution to follow and have different interpretations of it.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 10:27am
Except that this country has always had a standing army (since 1792), even it was very small. Posted by brunowe at 10/22/2008 @ 05:01am
That because like every superpower our country is in constant warfare. Those who have the power realized a long time ago that the only way to truly maintain power is to commit to perpetual warfare. It's what the Romans did. It's what every great empire has ever done. Perpetual warfare keeps a need for the military and a need for government control. If we were a peaceful country we wouldn't need the government nearly as much. The feds have stifled states rights by maintaining the gears of war. They have maintained peoples loyalty and submissiveness by telling us that there is always something to be afraid of.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/22/2008 @ 10:50am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 09:58am
I'll tell you what is nonsense. The fact that you are arguing, in one breath, that the Constitution isn't being followed when it comes to so-called "socialist" programs like Social Security - which is basically a narrow view of the General Welfare clause.
Then, in the next breath, you say that the Constitution is being followed in respect to the military - which is essentially a broad view of common Defense, a view that goes directly against the clear intention of the founders to have limited standing armies at the federal level.
There is a reason that the document states "reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress" and that it does not state "To provide and maintain a army" as it does for a navy. It is also clear that the militia is being trained by the federal government according to federal guidelines.
Again, "if you believe like CCC that the 10th amendment is outdated or unworkable, why aren't you promoting it's repeal?"
I don't believe that the 10th amendment is unworkable. I do believe that given the current unconstitutional arrangement of our armed forces that this unconstitutionality undermines both the letter and spirit of the 10th amendment, which is empirically not the case.
Instead of repealing the 10th amendment, I'm asserting we need to drastically reign in military spending and limit our armed forces to repelling invasions, stopping insurrections and piracy. This, in conjuction with other necessary changes to the scope of federal power, will help restore sovereignty to states.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 11:03am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 09:51am
I believe you are missing Frosty's humor. Vioxx was known to increase cardiovascular risk, and was taken off the market after the FDA provided new research about problems with the drugs. While there is an open question about whether the the FDA and the company should have acted sooner, do you want to speculate what might have happened if there were no FDA at all?
Now, of course, you can be a purist and say that it is not a problem for you because you don't take prescription drugs. Hopefully, your health status won't change so that you need them - like millions of other Americans.
Once again, you are trying to pretend like the real life problems aren't there.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 11:18am
While the constitution calls for interstate commerce involvement by the Fed, the FDA act of 1938 and its subsequent editions have far surpassed the role that the Fed should take.
It is now a monstrosity that is reaches too far and wide into American lives. I would love to see it dramatically scaled back.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/21/2008 @ 8:40pm
By the 1930s, muckraking journalists, consumer protection organizations, and federal regulators began mounting a campaign for stronger regulatory authority by publicizing a list of injurious products which had been ruled permissible under the 1906 law, including radioactive beverages, cosmetics which caused blindness, and worthless "cures" for diabetes and tuberculosis.
The resulting proposed law was unable to get through the Congress of the United States for five years, but was rapidly enacted into law following the public outcry over the 1937 Elixir Sulfanilamide tragedy, in which over 100 people died after using a drug formulated with a toxic, untested solvent. The only way that the FDA could even seize the product was due to a misbranding problem: an "Elixir" was defined as a medication dissolved in ethanol, not the diethylene glycol used in the Elixir Sulfanilamide.
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/22/2008 @ 12:17pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 11:30am
I've made very clear arguments. The fact that you can't address them beyond making vague, sweeping generalizations such as "entire history and the weight of background clarification from the founders" or "To take your position is to either...x, Y or Z" suggests that you aren't being terribly critical in your assessment - of your own position or of others.
Entire histories don't provide evidence for particular positions. Manifest destiny, the Mexican American war, and many other counter-examples are available that suggest that the army has been used for many other purposes than simply responding to the threat of war. The Mexican American war is particularly interesting because the army was used to protect, obstensibly, another country.
Further, you consistently fail to address specific concerns such as why do the founders provide for maintaining a navy, but not an army. Why can't you rise to this challenge and instead try for sweeping generalization? I know why.
To do so would be to admit that not only are you inconsistent in your view of federal power (strict interpretations socially, loose interpretation militarily) but you put forth a conception that, if we were to look at it from an originalist point of view that you seem to espouse, undermines the republic in essentially the same ways as the federal social programs you argue against.
You want to try to hide the rabbit in the hat, but you don't have a hat.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 12:31pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 12:03pm
Until when? You develop cancer and need chemotherapy to survive? Or surgery that requires anesthesia?
It's all well and good to be into homepathic medicines, but if you aren't ready to die for those beliefs - as most people aren't, then you have to have some kind of sane policy toward prescription drugs. "I don't need them" is a terrible policy position - on anything.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 12:35pm
I think Luvvys response to the Vioxx joke is quite telling. what his views amount to, when broken down, is that if HE does not utilize something, then there is no need for it. If he does not need the FDA to regulate, then the FDa should not exist. If he does not need medicare, then it should not exist.
I go back to athe argument I made two days ago. Luvvy can moan all he wants about Social Security being unconstitutional, but the Supreme Court has established that many of the things Luvvy rants against are fine under their interpretation of the Constitution. These are precedents, and that is how law is established over time.
Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2008 @ 12:54pm
Luvvy, how did you establish your policy of "no prescription drugs"? What is the underlying reasoning?
Posted by crabwalk at 10/22/2008 @ 12:56pm
Our nation has been subjected from it's beginning to constant threat of war, invasion,
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 11:30am
oh yeah,
those crazy mexicans and canadians with their many fist destiny.....
wtf?!?!??!?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:06pm
But I still would not subject my body to prescription drugs.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 12:03pm
so if you get neurocysticercosis down in el salvador after a few pork sandwiches,
they'll be no albendazole for you?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:14pm
You want to try to hide the rabbit in the hat, but you don't have a hat.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 12:31pm
i think he wants to saw the rabbit in half.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:16pm
"I don't need them" is a terrible policy position - on anything.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 12:35pm
¿CDOs?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:17pm
I've noted that we have had a standing Army throughout our history.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 12:52pm
actually, most of the time they've been marching.
(very interesting how you capitalize "Army", much like you do with gOd)
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:20pm
If I wanted to get real technical as an out (if I thought I needed it, but I don't); I could always fall back on the fact that the Marines are part of the US Navy and therefore we could enlarge the Marines satisfy your rather bizarre interpretation.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 12:52pm
oh, cut the crap, larry.
just say it out loud,
"THE FOUNDING FATHERS WANTED US KICK ASS AT WILL!"
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:22pm
larry,
there's no money left.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:23pm
or does EVERYBODY hate america so much that almost 1,000 military installations are needed around the world?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:24pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 12:52pm
"I've posted why the founders stated that a standing army was not inconsistent with the wording of the constitution."
You've quoted Hamilton and selectively quoted Madison. I also notice Jefferson didn't rate a mention - such as those in the Declaration of Independence. Nor does the discussion of standing armies in the state legislatures during ratification. Nor does the actual events around the war of 1812, that demonstrate that the standing army required quotas from state militias, and in some case didn't recieve them.
Nor does it address the fact that there is this strange inconsistency where a navy is maintained in the Constitution, but the army is not. If most of the founding fathers we for it, why isn't it in there? Because if it were, it wouldn't have passed.
See discussion here: http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/FieldsAndHardy.html
Now, if you want to make an efficacy argument that expands the meaning of the text, then own it. Otherwise, you need to explain these issues a little better than relying on selected writings of noted founding father Federalists.
You are also aware that Law of Nations means international law? Please feel free to further explain this point, because I'd love to hear more.
"The militia was always seen as something that would not be needed on a full-time basis as opposed to the army and navy."
Bunk - as the article above demonstrates.
Your Marine argument is bad. If we are concerned with Constitutional intent, then it is obvious the Marines are an army. Jackson and others actually tried to fold it into the army.
As a general note, it is interesting how concerned you are with language, yet willing to bastardize it if it serves your purpose.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 1:35pm
1798-1800 France Undeclared naval war against France, marines land in Puerto Plata. 1801-1805 Tripoli War with Tripoli (Libya), called "First Barbary War". 1806 Spanish Mexico Military force enters Spanish territory in headwaters of the Rio Grande. 1806-1810 Spanish and French in Caribbean US naval vessels attack French and Spanish shipping in the Caribbean. 1810 Spanish West Florida Troops invade and seize Western Florida, a Spanish possession. 1812 Spanish East Florida Troops seize Amelia Island and adjacent territories. 1812 Britain War of 1812, includes naval and land operations. 1813 Marquesas Island Forces seize Nukahiva and establish first US naval base in the Pacific. 1814 Spanish (East Florida) Troops seize Pensacola in Spanish East Florida. 1814-1825 French, British and Spanish in Caribbean US naval squadron engages French, British and Spanish shipping in the Caribbean. 1815 Algiers and Tripoli US naval fleet under Captain Stephen Decatur wages "Second Barbary War" in North Africa. 1816-1819 Spanish East Florida Troops attack and seize Nicholls' Fort, Amelia Island and other strategic locations. Spain eventually cedes East Florida to the US. 1822-1825 Spanish Cuba and Puerto Rico Marines land in numerous cities in the Spanish island of Cuba and also in Spanish Puerto Rico. 1827 Greece Marines invade the Greek islands of Argentiere, Miconi and Andross. 1831 Falkland/Malvinas Islands US naval squadrons aggress the Falkland Islands in the South Atlantic. 1832 Sumatra, Dutch East Indies US naval squadrons attack Qallah Battoo. 1833 Argentina Forces land in Buenos Aires and engage local combatants. 1835-1836 Peru Troops dispatched twice for counter-insurgency operations. 1836 Mexico Troops assist Texas war for independence.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:35pm
1837 Canada Naval incident on the Canadian border leads to mobilization of a large force to invade Canada. War is narrowly averted. 1838 Sumatra, Dutch East Indies US naval forces sent to Sumatra for punitive expedition. 1840-1841 Fiji Naval forces deployed, marines land. 1841 Samoa Naval forces deployed, marines land. 1842 Mexico Naval forces temporarily seize cities of Monterey and San Diego. 1843 China Marines land in Canton. 1843 Ivory Coast Marines land. 1846-1848 Mexico Full-scale war. Mexico cedes half of its territory to the US by the Treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo. 1849 Ottoman Empire (Turkey) Naval force dispatched to Smyrna. 1852-1853 Argentina Marines land in Buenos Aires. 1854 Nicaragua Navy bombards and largely destroys city of San Juan del Norte. Marines land and set fire to the city. 1854 Japan Commodore Perry and his fleet deploy at Yokohama. 1855 Uruguay Marines land in Montevideo. 1856 Colombia (Panama Region) Marines land for counter-insurgency campaign. 1856 China Marines deployed in Canton. 1856 Hawaii Naval forces seize small islands of Jarvis, Baker and Howland in the Hawaiian Islands. 1857 Nicaragua Marines land. 1858 Uruguay Marines land in Montevideo. 1858 Fiji Marines land. 1859 Paraguay Large naval force deployed. 1859 China Troops enter Shanghai. 1859 Mexico Military force enters northern area. 1860 Portuguese West Africa Troops land at Kissembo. 1860 Colombia (Panama Region) Troops and naval forces deployed. 1863 Japan Troops land at Shimonoseki. 1864 Japan Troops landed in Yedo. 1865 Colombia (Panama Region) Marines landed. 1866 Colombia (Panama Region) Troops invade and seize Matamoros, later withdraw. 1866 China Marines land in Newchwang. 1867 Nicaragua Marines land in Managua and Leon in Nicaragua.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:35pm
1867 Formosa Island (Taiwan) Marines land. 1867 Midway Island Naval forces seize this island in the Hawaiian Archipelago for a naval base. 1868 Japan Naval forces deployed at Osaka, Hiogo, Nagasaki, Yokohama and Negata. 1868 Uruguay Marines land at Montevideo. 1870 Colombia Marines landed. 1871 Korea Forces landed. 1873 Colombia (Panama Region) Marines landed. 1874 Hawaii Sailors and marines landed. 1876 Mexico Army again occupies Matamoros. 1882 British Egypt Troops land. 1885 Colombia (Panama Region) Troops land in Colon and Panama City. 1885 Samoa Naval force deployed. 1887 Hawaii Navy gains right to build permanent naval base at Pearl Harbor. 1888 Haiti Troops landed. 1888 Samoa Marines landed. 1889 Samoa Clash with German naval forces. 1890 Argentina US sailors land in Buenos Aires. 1891 Chile US sailors land in the major port city of Valparaiso. 1891 Haiti Marines land on US-claimed Navassa Island. 1893 Hawaii Marines and other naval forces land and overthrow the monarchy. Read More | President Cleveland's Message 1894 Nicaragua Marines land at Bluefields on the eastern coast. 1894-1895 China Marines are stationed at Tientsin and Beijing. A naval ship takes up position at Newchwang. 1894-1896 Korea Marines land and remain in Seoul. 1895 Colombia Marines are sent to the town Bocas del Toro. 1896 Nicaragua Marines land in the port of Corinto. 1898 Nicaragua Marines land at the port city of San Juan del Sur. 1898 Guam Naval forces seize Guam Island from Spain and the US holds the island permanently. 1898 Cuba Naval and land forces seize Cuba from Spain. 1898 Puerto Rico Naval and land forces seize Puerto Rico from Spain and the US holds the island permanently. 1898 Philippines Naval forces defeat the Spanish fleet and the US takes control of the country.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:35pm
1899 Philippines Military units are reinforced for extensive counter-insurgency operations. 1899 Samoa Naval forces land 1899 Nicaragua Marines land at the port city of Bluefields. 1900 China US forces intervene in several cities. 1901 Colombia/Panama Marines land. 1902 Colombia/Panama US forces land in Bocas de Toro 1903 Colombia/Panama With US backing, a group in northern Colombia declares independence as the state of Panama 1903 Guam Navy begins development in Apra Harbor of a permanent base installation. 1903 Honduras Marines go ashore at Puerto Cortez. 1903 Dominican Republic Marines land in Santo Domingo. 1904-1905 Korea Marines land and stay in Seoul. 1906-1909 Cuba Marines land. The US builds a major naval base at Guantanamo Bay. 1907 Nicaragua Troops seize major centers. 1907 Honduras Marines land and take up garrison in cities of Trujillo, Ceiba, Puerto Cortez, San Pedro, Laguna and Choloma. 1908 Panama Marines land and carry out operations. 1910 Nicaragua Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto. 1911 Honduras Marines intervene. 1911-1941 China The US builds up its military presence in the country to a force of 5000 troops and a fleet of 44 vessels patrolling China's coast and rivers. 1912 Cuba US sends army troops into combat in Havana. 1912 Panama Army troops intervene. 1912 Honduras Marines land. 1912-1933 Nicaragua Marines intervene. A 20-year occupation of the country follows. 1913 Mexico Marines land at Ciaris Estero. 1914 Dominican Republic Naval forces engage in battles in the city of Santo Domingo. 1914 Mexico US forces seize and occupy Mexico's major port city of Veracrus from April through November.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:35pm
1915-1916 Mexico An expeditionary force of the US Army under Gen. John J. Pershing crosses the Texas border and penetrates several hundred miles into Mexican territory. Eventually reinforced to over 11,000 officers and men. 1914-1934 Haiti Troops land, aerial bombardment leading to a 19-year military occupation. 1916-1924 Dominican Republic Military intervention leading to 8-year occupation. 1917-1933 Cuba Landing of naval forces. Beginning of a 15-year occupation. 1918-1920 Panama Troops intervene, remain on "police duty" for over 2 years. 1918-1922 Russia Naval forces and army troops fight battles in several areas of the country during a five- year period. 1919 Yugoslavia Marines intervene in Dalmatia. 1919 Honduras Marines land. 1920 Guatemala Troops intervene. 1922 Turkey Marines engaged in operations in Smyrna (Izmir). 1922-1927 China Naval forces and troops deployed during 5-year period. 1924-1925 Honduras Troops land twice in two-year period. 1925 Panama Marines land and engage in operations. 1927-1934 China Marines and naval forces stationed throughout the country. 1932 El Salvador Naval forces intervene. 1933 Cuba Naval forces deployed. 1934 China Marines land in Foochow. 1946 Iran Troops deployed in northern province. 1946-1949 China Major US army presence of about 100,000 troops, fighting, training and advising local combatants. 1947-1949 Greece US forces wage a 3-year counterinsurgency campaign. 1948 Italy Heavy CIA involvement in national elections.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:35pm
1948-1954 Philippines Commando operations, "secret" CIA war. 1950-1953 Korea Major forces engaged in war in Korean peninsula. 1953 Iran CIA overthrows government of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh. Read More 1954 Vietnam Financial and materiel support for colonial French military operations, leads eventually to direct US military involvement. 1954 Guatemala CIA overthrows the government of President Jacobo Arbenz Guzman. 1958 Lebanon US marines and army units totaling 14,000 land. 1958 Panama Clashes between US forces in Canal Zone and local citizens. 1959 Haiti Marines land. 1960 Congo CIA-backed overthrow and assassination of Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. 1960-1964 Vietnam Gradual introduction of military advisors and special forces. 1961 Cuba CIA-backed Bay of Pigs invasion. 1962 Cuba Nuclear threat and naval blockade. 1962 Laos CIA-backed military coup. 1963 Ecuador CIA backs military overthrow of President Jose Maria Valesco Ibarra. 1964 Panama Clashes between US forces in Canal Zone and local citizens. 1964 Brazil CIA-backed military coup overthrows the government of Joao Goulart and Gen. Castello Branco takes power. Read More 1965-1975 Vietnam Large commitment of military forces, including air, naval and ground units numbering up to 500,000+ troops. Full-scale war, lasting for ten years. 1965 Indonesia CIA-backed army coup overthrows President Sukarno and brings Gen. Suharto to power. 1965 Congo CIA backed military coup overthrows President Joseph Kasavubu and brings Joseph Mobutu to power. 1965 Dominican Republic 23,000 troops land. 1965-1973 Laos Bombing campaign begin, lasting eight years. 1966 Ghana CIA-backed military coup ousts President Kwame Nkrumah. 1966-1967 Guatemala Extensive counter-insurgency operation.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:36pm
1969-1975 Cambodia CIA supports military coup against Prince Sihanouk, bringing Lon Nol to power. Intensive bombing for seven years along border with Vietnam. 1970 Oman Counter-insurgency operation, including coordination with Iranian marine invasion. 1971-1973 Laos Invasion by US and South Vietnames forces. 1973 Chile CIA-backed military coup ousts government of President Salvador Allende. Gen. Augusto Pinochet comes to power. 1975 Cambodia Marines land, engage in combat with government forces. 1976-1992 Angola Military and CIA operations. 1980 Iran Special operations units land in Iranian desert. Helicopter malfunction leads to aborting of planned raid. 1981 Libya Naval jets shoot down two Libyan jets in maneuvers over the Mediterranean. 1981-1992 El Salvador CIA and special forces begin a long counterinsurgency campaign. 1981-1990 Nicaragua CIA directs exile "Contra" operations. US air units drop sea mines in harbors. 1982-1984 Lebanon Marines land and naval forces fire on local combatants. 1983 Grenada Military forces invade Grenada. 1983-1989 Honduras Large program of military assistance aimed at conflict in Nicaragua. 1984 Iran Two Iranian jets shot down over the Persian Gulf. 1986 Libya US aircraft bomb the cities of Tripoli and Benghazi, including direct strikes at the official residence of President Muamar al Qadaffi. 1986 Bolivia Special Forces units engage in counter-insurgency. 1987-1988 Iran Naval forces block Iranian shipping. Civilian airliner shot down by missile cruiser. 1989 Libya Naval aircraft shoot down two Libyan jets over Gulf of Sidra. 1989 Philippines CIA and Special Forces involved in counterinsurgency. 1989-1990 Panama 27,000 troops as well as naval and air power used to overthrow government of President Noriega.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:36pm
1990 Liberia Troops deployed. 1990-1991 Iraq Major military operation, including naval blockade, air strikes; large number of troops attack Iraqi forces in occupied Kuwait. 1991-2003 Iraq Control of Iraqi airspace in north and south of the country with periodic attacks on air and ground targets. 1991 Haiti CIA-backed military coup ousts President Jean-Bertrand Aristide. 1992-1994 Somalia Special operations forces intervene. 1992-1994 Yugoslavia Major role in NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro. 1993-1995 Bosnia Active military involvement with air and ground forces. 1994-1996 Haiti Troops depose military rulers and restore President Jean-Bertrand Aristide to office. 1995 Croatia Krajina Serb airfields attacked. 1996-1997 Zaire (Congo) Marines involved in operations in eastern region of the country. 1997 Liberia Troops deployed. 1998 Sudan Air strikes destroy country's major pharmaceutical plant. 1998 Afghanistan Attack on targets in the country. 1998 Iraq Four days of intensive air and missile strikes. 1999 Yugoslavia Major involvement in NATO air strikes. 2001 Macedonia NATO troops shift and partially disarm Albanian rebels. 2001 Afghanistan Air attacks and ground operations oust Taliban government and install a new regime. 2003 Iraq Invasion with large ground, air and naval forces ousts government of Saddam Hussein and establishes new government. 2003-present Iraq Occupation force of 150,000 troops in protracted counter-insurgency war 2004 Haiti Marines land. CIA-backed forces overthrow President Jean-Bertrand Aristide.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:36pm
defence!
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:39pm
o.k. larry,
now, please explain how each of the above is "constitutional".
america is broke, larry.
you may not spend much but you owe about $45,000.
and so does your wife.
and each of your kids.
and the grandkids.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:42pm
"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt. If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 1:48pm
Posted by Person:
"There is always a charge that socialism does not fit human nature. We've encountered that for a long time. Maybe that's true. But can't people be educated? Can't people learn to cooperate with each other? Surely that must be our goal, because the alternative is redolent with war and poverty and all the ills of the world." -- Frank Zeidler
Pol Pot took Frank Zeidler one further: if we assume that people can't be 're-educated' to conform to the ideal of the 'new socalist man' (because of societal conditioning) - why not just kill all the 'tainted' ones off and start over?
Same sentiment - just willing to take it that one bit further. Different branches of the same tree.
As I said, socialists think people have no will and that they can be 'educated' to change. By force, if necessary. And of course, it's ALWAYS necessary. That's why even those who are just dupes of the socialists are dangerous.
Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2008 @ 2:36pm
It's important to note that two polls today show the race is essentially a dead heat. It's comforting to think that as people focus on actually voting, they will realize how utterly unqualified by experience and how utterly ill-suited by ideological background Obama is to the Presidency. If the trend continues and ACORN's massive and systematic voter fraud fails to steal the election for him, I predict violent riots as the thuggish nature of Obama's campaign comes to the surface.
Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2008 @ 2:43pm
It's gratifying that the pollsters trace the tightening of the race to "Joe the Plumber"'s question which goaded Obama into revealing his real psychology. He'd been pretty careful up to then to stick to vague generalities, but he made a big mistake, slipped up, and actually spoke what was on his mind, e.g. "I'm here to spread your wealth". He's been losing ground ever since.
Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2008 @ 2:52pm
We sure are seeing a lot of support for Barack Obama and his good intentions. I'd like to know how many here believe he will be able to get congress to go along with his "change we can believe in." Let's see if he can really get congress to pass a bill that will lower taxes for people making under $200,000 a year and/or that won't tax us old folks on our social security payments. (We have Jimmy Carter, of unhappy memory, to thank for that travesty.) The Democrats took over the legislature in Minnesota after the 2006 elections and immediately went on a tax raising binge. I suspect the same thing will happen next year when the Dems get a majority in the House and Senate and Obama is president. Obama will never be able to veto legislation passed by his own party, so watch out seniors!
Posted by jsens at 10/22/2008 @ 3:08pm
drivel...
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 3:09pm
As a general note, it is interesting how concerned you are with language, yet willing to bastardize it if it serves your purpose. Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 1:35pm
You made my point more eloquently than I did.
What he posted LVL is the essentials of my entire argument. The founders went through painstaking steps to make sure to differentiate between Army, Navy and militia. They weren't mistaken when they said that the Navy was to be maintained, the army was only to be raised when need and the militia was to be called on only in dire situations.
You have said that all the founding fathers agreed on these things but they didn't The three that you quoted did but there were others who warned against standing armies. There have been many figures who have warned against the privatization of the military. You ignore sweeping portions of history to selectively quote people that agreed with you. There have been plenty of quotes presented to the contrary but you ignore those preferring yours only.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/22/2008 @ 3:11pm
Ccc-One thing that is known is that our founders did not agree on much of anything and there was much division.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 3:14pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 3:09pm
"drivel..."
Cheer up, FROSTY. If McCain wins, you can rest assured he won't feel the need to 'educate' those who fail to understand the moral superiority of his cause.
And I'm sure we in the US can go a few more years without the kind of 'change' you're hoping for, which I presume includes those Human Rights Tribunals busily stripping you Canadians of what you have left of freedom of expression.
Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2008 @ 3:17pm
ponti, read this:
http://agonist.org/michael_collins/
20081022/right_left_wing_election_models_agree_on_winner
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 3:29pm
Human Rights Tribunals busily stripping you Canadians of what you have left of freedom of expression.
Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2008 @ 3:17pm
actually, i worry more about the NSA.
(hi guys)
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 3:30pm
Posted by jsens at 10/22/2008 @ 3:08pm
When you have more than $10 trillion in debt, someone will have to pay for it at some time. Why not start with you?
I know my household pays the government six figures every year, and Obama plans to raise my taxes. Compared to McCain's plan of more war and let's pass the buck to the next guy, at least Obama is honest about what he's going to do.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/22/2008 @ 3:11pm
The part that bothers me most is that he doesn't acknowledge that his position has the same problems of the position he is critisizing. Under originalism, his argument that a global war of terror is sanctioned by the Constition doesn't work. Limited government is in direct conflict with global war.
I'm not sure originalism is the best way to interpret the Constitution, but I'm assuming it here so that I can drive this point home. Global war undermines limited government and violates both the letter and the spirit of the Constitution. Yet, LVL wants to pretend it's all kosher. That's nonsense.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 3:36pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 3:30pm
"actually, i worry more about the NSA.
(hi guys)"
Of course you're not worried. After all, at this point in time the Human Rights Tribunals are busy pushing YOUR view of the world on people. Kinda always works that way, you know?
Posted by pontificus at 10/22/2008 @ 3:40pm
ponti-It does appear that the left is more honest.Part of the reason that I'm with them these days.
Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 3:57pm
The part that bothers me most is that he doesn't acknowledge that his position has the same problems of the position he is critisizing. Under originalism, his argument that a global war of terror is sanctioned by the Constition doesn't work. Limited government is in direct conflict with global war.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 3:36pm
As with many things in politics and religion rarely do the believers assume a consistent belief. They choose to believe bits and pieces. They modify their belief when the time suits it but blind themselves to it. So if you tell THEM that it isn't consistent they can't even see it.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/22/2008 @ 5:01pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 8:25pm
And you have exactly illustrated our point once again.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/22/2008 @ 9:14pm
I "Googled" socialist and first line read;
Related searches: obama socialist
This is good .... right?
Maybe...
Well whatever.
N/G'08
Posted by bleedingheart at 10/22/2008 @ 9:34pm
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 3:30pm
Me too, my brother used to work there ... and my daughter's 1st husband was an AF "vampire" (intel guys who always work in dark rooms with IR maps and such) Yeah ... there is stuff that goes on...
Posted by leftofcenter at 10/22/2008 @ 10:02pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/22/2008 @ 8:25pm
"...because we are afraid that rulers, created by our choice, dependent on our will, might endanger that liberty, by an abuse of the means necessary to its preservation."
Pretty much sums up the global war of terror and "might endanger" has become "has endangered". Although, I'm sure Hamilton never imagined this kind of abuse of federalism and war so broadly defined.
I'll not bring up the issues I raised before. The fact that you have decided to ignore them is commentary enough.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 10:51pm
The fact that you have decided to ignore them is commentary enough.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/22/2008 @ 10:51pm
i'm worried about larry.
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 11:12pm
Ccc-One thing that is known is that our founders did not agree on much of anything and there was much division. Posted by i'm nobody at 10/22/2008 @ 3:14pm | ignore this person | warn this person
Thanks, IAM. I found an odd comfort and a good chuckle in your post. The more things change the more they stay the same.
Posted by A_Pax_On_Your_Houses at 10/23/2008 @ 03:55am
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/22/2008 @ 11:12pm
Well, before we all start worrying about LVL, we should acknowledge that his central point - that a standing federal force of some kind is necessary - is correct.
But, there is a two fold problem in his argumentation. One, he is claiming that it is provided for under a strict interpretation of the Constitution. That's false. If a standing army were provided for explicitly in the Constitution, the Constitution would have never been ratified because each of the states were very concerned about a federal force being used against them. So, they had to play it as if militias would still be important.
The second problem is that he wants to avoid all claims about the inappropriate use of federal force - throughout U.S. history but particularly for the war of terror - by simply claiming it is provided for in the U.S. Constitution.
Now, if he changed his premises away from a Constitutional argument to an efficacy argument, then he'd have to deal with all the problems that are associated with a standing army - from mounting debt, violations of the Law of Nations (a surprising addition in this thread), and so forth. LVL knows this - which is why he is clinging so desperately to the Constitutional justification - and why I and others - are challenging it.
The unfortunate thing is that there is a certain level of fantasy in his argument - that somehow the world works like the Constitution says it does. And in the next breath, he argues that the world does not work according to the Constitution, i.e., Social Security and other government programs.
His argument is deeply flawed, yet he seems incapable of recognizing these problems. It's unfortunate.
Posted by srjenkins at 10/23/2008 @ 08:48am
indeed.
i think they should take the army dudes and get 'em planting trees.
lots of trees.
and if some loco (country) goes crazy and decides to attack,
they'll be ready.
does the constitution mention depleted uranium?
Posted by frosty zoom at 10/23/2008 @ 09:59am
PONTI,
How many polls are you reading that "show the race tightening"?!?!?!?
Posted by Maskdelta at 10/23/2008 @ 10:29am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 10/23/2008 @ 1:10pm
The problem is that Madison wasn't the only one putting his two cents in on the Constitution. By focusing only on him you completely ignore the many other people who put their finger prints on that document. You are once again selectively choosing who you WANT to listen to.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 10/23/2008 @ 2:23pm
The American public is either so stupid, or so brainwashed, or so something concerning socialism that even the mention of the "S" word is the kiss of death for any politician.
In my opinion, it has been the right wing elements in our society -- the vile columnists and bloggers, the military, the corporations -- that have brought us to this situation because of the decades-long constant bombardment of their propaganda. Why, J. Edgar Hoover alone, with the aid of the likes of Walter Winchell, Roy Cohn, and other scum, had most of the American public fooled until we saw him, post mortum, dressed in his tutu. Then only some of the public remained fooled. Others still believed he was the Messaiah, destroying the non-existent Communist conspiracy.
I sometimes think this country has become hopeless. If I had the energy, the money, and the ability to speak the language, I think I would move to France, leaving this place to be despoiled and destroyed by the right wingnuts.
Posted by elcomputo at 10/23/2008 @ 5:06pm
Caring about people is not a bad thing. Just because one raises taxes on the rich and reduce some taxes to strengthen America. Once things get on a solid footing taxes should be reduced for all people. Bush lower taxes but started a war. The system still failed. Our schools need help. We need more jobs. What should people do? We do not have money or jobs. Everyone is reducing their work forces. McCain does not understand. We need pro-business programs. We need strong cooperate leadership that care about profit and people. Time will tell. Today we need an FDR who can make America strong again.
Posted by drjalee52 at 10/23/2008 @ 10:08pm
The challenge is to balance 'socialism' with capitalism. Having lived 40 years in the UK, and seen even the Conservative party accept social medicine and social security, it seems to me that a civilized country has a responsibility to support their citizens. Being social means helping each other, and that is the civilized way to live. Now I have lived in the USA for 25 years, I am amazed that some people decry socialism while accepting social security and medicare etc. McCain is a classic example - receiving military medical, senate medical and probably taking his social security, even with $60m in the bank. Controlled capitalism in the US is (was) admired across the world, but civilization also requires some socialism for the good of it's citizens.
Posted by mel01c at 10/25/2008 @ 09:32am