|
|
Post by surefire on Oct 18, 2008 12:11:09 GMT -5
The Big Dog, The United States of America as we know it will be history. The future path of this country is going to be the United States of Europe. Or less politically correct, the People's Republic of Europe.
These are not the friendly moderate Democrats of the past that will have a supermajority. The leader of the House (Pelosi), Senate (Reid), and President (Obama) are all so far to the left that they border on radicalism. Controlling all three systems means they can pretty much do what the heck they please. They also have a great opportunity to change the balance of the surpreme court.
It scares the heck out of me when EITHER party has control of all three checks and balances. Better get use to European socialism. It WILL be our future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 18, 2008 16:29:39 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you two are afraid of here. If anything, what has to be done, it is what needs to be undone by the current admin.
The country is seeing its' highest national debt in history, the economy is close to depression, high unemployment, the list goes on and all this is from the Republican 8 year reign. If it gets worse, it is because of what the divisive admin. put in place.
Obama will not only have Pelosi and Reed to get this country back on its' feet but will include Republicans so we work together.
|
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Oct 18, 2008 23:56:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you two are afraid of here. If anything, what has to be done, it is what needs to be undone by the current admin. The country is seeing its' highest national debt in history, the economy is close to depression, high unemployment, the list goes on and all this is from the Republican 8 year reign. If it gets worse, it is because of what the divisive admin. put in place. Obama will not only have Pelosi and Reed to get this country back on its' feet but will include Republicans so we work together. I could live with Obama if there were checks and balances. If the Rebublicans had a strong position in either the house or senate, then there would be an opportunity to block un-American socialistic bills. What scares me is that we have THREE arguably near radical liberals running the show, with plenty of a lead in the Senate and House after the election (the Democrats are expected to pick up at least 15 seats). IMO, there is not an ounce of moderation in Pelosi, Obama, or Reed. They are nearly as far to the left as one can get in this country. I'm all for working together as well, but not at the expense of selling this country out for a European style socialism. |
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 19, 2008 1:15:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you two are afraid of here. If anything, what has to be done, it is what needs to be undone by the current admin. The country is seeing its' highest national debt in history, the economy is close to depression, high unemployment, the list goes on and all this is from the Republican 8 year reign. If it gets worse, it is because of what the divisive admin. put in place. Obama will not only have Pelosi and Reed to get this country back on its' feet but will include Republicans so we work together. I could live with Obama if there were checks and balances. If the Rebublicans had a strong position in either the house or senate, then there would be an opportunity to block un-American socialistic bills. What scares me is that we have THREE arguably near radical liberals running the show, with plenty of a lead in the Senate and House after the election (the Democrats are expected to pick up at least 15 seats). IMO, there is not an ounce of moderation in Pelosi, Obama, or Reed. They are nearly as far to the left as one can get in this country. I'm all for working together as well, but not at the expense of selling this country out for a European style socialism. I think you can calm your fears about Socialism, as I still don't understand why the right-wing keep insisting this is the form of govt. Democrats practice. The most important issue on hand is to undo the damage created by the current administration in regards to foreign policy, economy, environmental issues, health, education and jobs to start. Can you explain "radical liberals"? How are the three mentioned a threat to the country? How are they "un-American"? That term, alone bothered me. Have you been comfortable with what has happened to the country in the last 8 years that is better than the previous? |
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Oct 19, 2008 11:20:16 GMT -5
^
First, I'm not a true "right-wing". I'm closer to a libertarian. I do not agree with legislating morals as many conservatives do. As long as people don't hurt others, I don't really care what they do. If gays want to marry, more power to them.
In regards to Shrub, err, I mean Bush, IMO he was a RINO. He bent over backwards to please both sides. I believe the left hates him because of his stubborness towards the Iraq war, and other issues. The right IMO hates him because he often catered to the left, and at best was a soft conservative.
To answer your other questions, re-distributing wealth is IMO un-American, and a form of socialism. Attacking the bill of rights is socialism, and un-American. America was built on personal freedoms, not a NANNY state where people give up rights for the good of the Government. The extreme left WILL attack the first and second admendments at first opportunity. Look at any of their voting records, and you will see that Obama, Pelosi, etc does NOT believe in the bill of rights. Pelosi is so far to the left on almost every issue that I don't see how one can see her as moderate unless one is wearing rose colored glasses.
What I'm NOT saying is that the moderate left falls under this category.
I'm sorry that my phrase bothered you. I didn't mean to insult... that is just how I see socialism. I will work on being more diplomatic in phrasing.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Big Dog on Oct 19, 2008 14:18:17 GMT -5
Let me take a crack at answering Mink's rhetorical questions.
Redistribution of wealth, or as Barack put it "spreading the wealth around", is a key element of the socialist methodology. That, Mink, is merely the tip of the iceberg. I don't really hold it against you because I honestly think you don't know any better, but you seem to be a victim of the identity politics that has swept this nation over the past couple of decades and particularly over the past 8 years. It is one of the things that I think is most wrong with this country and which I've railed over in these pages repeatedly.
There a great many people in this country who have come to believe that George Bush has opened a poorly concealed military dictatorship. However, what many fail to recognize (probably because it is history) is that the first fascistic (in principle and operation) dictatorship in this country happened during and immediately after World War I, and was led by, of all things, an ultra-liberal self described progressive Democrat academic become politician named Thomas Woodrow Wilson.
Progressives, and socialists of the day, were at the head of the push for what became nearly a totalitarian state. State sanctioned brutality, loyalty oaths, suspension of habeas corpus, stifling and suppression of dissent, enemies lists, a propaganda apparatus that would have made any dictator proud... all were done at the hands of liberals. It's all in the history books, if anyone cared to think about anything farther back than 8 years ago, but unfortunately America has largely chosen to ignore this period as today the progressives of the early 20th century are remembered as do-gooders who brought about needed change in areas such as the food supply and working conditions.
Progressives did indeed do those good things, but they most certainly did all those bad ones as well. And bear in mind, as you ponder this, the both the Nazi's and Italian Fascists did the exact same things on both sides of the ledger, some (obviously) far worse. But if you care to deeply analyze you find that at the core they all did them for the exact same political reasons and in loyalty to the same principles which exist at the core of socialism.
There are some parallels today. The propaganda push (think the spectacle in Denver), the angry suppression and shouting down of any dissenting view (actively practiced here at times), with occassional acts of violence (see the thread I posted on a McCain supporter being physically assaulted), the on going growth of the power of the state, through taxation, redistribution of wealth and dispensation of "programs". The open and unabashed voter registration fraud sweeping the nation with groups like ACORN (founded by 60's radical leftist / cum communist Wayne Rathke) with the clear intention of manipulating far left Democrats into positions of power at all levels. The list goes on and on and on.
When combined with Senator Obama's long history of association with a group of people with exceptionally radical thoughts and behaviors on their resumes, and his reluctance and reticence to even discuss the notion that these radicals have helped shape him and his views on things, it gets more than a little scary for even a moderate to look at and wonder where in hell we are going.
They count on gullible people swallowing the Kool Aid, as we say these days, just as in the early 1900s they used the first global war to sweep up people and foster hysteria to bring them "to the cause". Obama, along with Reid and Pelosi (among other prominent Democrats) play the class warfare card to the hilt (as fascists, communists and socialists all do) constantly telling us that we must punish evil, greedy corporations and redistribute wealth to those who don't have it to "give them a chance". They want government in charge of providing health care in the same manner as most of Europe and Canada. They want to continue to expand government into all areas of our lives and have Washington dictate policy on everything from curriculum in kindergartens to what groceries we can buy. They don't, surefire notes actually believe in the full Bill of Rights, rather they only believe in what is convenient for them at the moment. What, after all, is the First Amendment for when one can legislate a "Fairness Doctrine" which would serve to suppress dissent on the public airwaves.
If you can't recognize those things as socialism, or at least socialistic, then you probably should have both your vision and your reading comprehension checked. You should also understand that there is a difference between principled opposition (what I do) and identity politics (what they do).
And this is the fundemental mistake of the entire argument you make. We aren't supposed to be voting on what happened. We are supposed to be voting on where it is that we want to / need to go and who is going to take us there. The liberals and progressives continue to frame the argument in it's most simplistic terms because (thanks in part to liberals and progressives in the education system like Bill Ayers) Americans have been, for the most part, so dumbed down that they can't cogitate anything that happened more than a week or two ago at most. So they are fed quick little bites, such as your pablum about the past eight years. Here's a few facts about the past 8 years for you to chew on....
*Despite being left with an economy on the brink of recession (the dot com / corporate governance implosion) and having to get through the worst terrorist attack in history, our economy has continued to grow month over month, quarter over quarter, year over year, since the days immediately after 9/11.
* Despite having been the target of the worst terrorist attack in history, there has not, to date, been another attack on our soil.
* Regardless of "what the world thinks", the Taliban was chased from Afghanistan (which was the font of Islamo-terror) and a de-stabilizing dictator was removed from Iraq in furtherance of national policy signed into effect by President Clinton and ratified by the UN. That we are still in Iraq is in equal parts success and failure, but then a lot of wars are just like that.
In short and in toto, I do not trust Senator Obama to lead this nation to prosperity and safety. I expect him to lead it further down the path toward European style socialism and a lot of people are going to suffer needlessly for it, as usually people do in those circumstances.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mink on Oct 19, 2008 15:48:32 GMT -5
^ I'm sorry that my phrase bothered you. I didn't mean to insult... that is just how I see socialism. I will work on being more diplomatic in phrasing. Surefire, I wasn't insulted at all by your "un-American" comment. It just bothered me that anyone would use the phrase on another American. I didn't like what the Bush/Cheney admin. did to our country, however they are Americans.... who catered to a certain percentage of the country, leaving the rest to fend for themselves. IMO, they are greedy, power happy and they also took our rights via the Patriot Act. They put a face on it saying it was for our own protection, but in reality, they invaded our right to privacy. I see you as very diplomatic, so no need to change. I always respect you point of view, even if it disagrees with mine.  I don't see the Far left as Socialist. They may have differing opinions, and some have viewed them as radical, but they are Americans. If they were Communist, they'd still be American. I don't see in the Constitution where it says one has to be Republican and view politics in one way. I do understand your point of the 2nd amendment as I know that one is very important to many.
|
|
|
|
Post by surefire on Oct 19, 2008 16:32:11 GMT -5
^ I'm sorry that my phrase bothered you. I didn't mean to insult... that is just how I see socialism. I will work on being more diplomatic in phrasing. I see you as very diplomatic, so no need to change. I always respect you point of view, even if it disagrees with mine. I don't see the Far left as Socialist. They may have differing opinions, and some have viewed them as radical, but they are Americans. If they were Communist, they'd still be American. I don't see in the Constitution where it says one has to be Republican and view politics in one way. I think I understand what you are saying. I think a better way for me to have said it is their views are anti-American IMO, not them personally. I do believe socialistic views are anti-American... that IMO is partially why the original colonies split off from Great Britian in the first place. It feels like this country is heading in the same direction once again, huge tax happy Government that wants to limit personal rights. Bush & Co. share responsibility. Personal freedoms, including those that the left value, should not be sacrificed for the "good" of the Government, IMO. I respect your opinion, even though I don't always agree. |
|
|
|
Post by bolverk on Oct 21, 2008 11:33:26 GMT -5
Can you explain "radical liberals"? How are the three mentioned a threat to the country? How are they "un-American"? That term, alone bothered me. Have you been comfortable with what has happened to the country in the last 8 years that is better than the previous? I will field this. Redistribution of wealth punishes those who work hard to get ahead, plain and simple. And working hard to get ahead is supposed to be rewarded in this country, not punished by taking their money away. Redistribution of wealth is purely a liberal/progressive ideal, not conservative and not certainly not American. That, by caveat, makes progressives and far left liberals totally un-American. I am very comfortable that this nation has not been attacked in over 2500 days. Under Clinton this country was attacked several times and more then once on our own soil. If Obama is only half as tough as Clinton, I believe he is even less then half as tough, then we are in trouble. We will be less secure. I have heard Democrat pundits say were are currently less secure under Bush policies, but that is untrue. We may be less liked because we are way tougher, but we are more secure for the same reasons. This will not be the case under Obama, even Biden has acknowledged that. |
|
|
|
Post by saunterelle on Oct 21, 2008 11:56:26 GMT -5
Can you explain "radical liberals"? How are the three mentioned a threat to the country? How are they "un-American"? That term, alone bothered me. Have you been comfortable with what has happened to the country in the last 8 years that is better than the previous? I will field this. Redistribution of wealth punishes those who work hard to get ahead, plain and simple. And working hard to get ahead is supposed to be rewarded in this country, not punished by taking their money away. Redistribution of wealth is purely a liberal/progressive ideal, not conservative and not certainly not American. That, by caveat, makes progressives and far left liberals totally un-American. I am very comfortable that this nation has not been attacked in over 2500 days. Under Clinton this country was attacked several times and more then once on our own soil. If Obama is only half as tough as Clinton, I believe he is even less then half as tough, then we are in trouble. We will be less secure. I have heard Democrat pundits say were are currently less secure under Bush policies, but that is untrue. We may be less liked because we are way tougher, but we are more secure for the same reasons. This will not be the case under Obama, even Biden has acknowledged that. You're entitled to your opinion about taxes but calling people on the left "un-American" is both stupid and insulting. If it wasn't for "liberals" we would never have got ourselves out of the great depression. Thank God for FDR and his New Deal! Now, liberals (and some socialist ideas) have to rescue our country after 8 years of Republicans screwing it up! Bush himself is grudgingly resorting to socialism (taking over banks) because it is necessary! So give some thanks and shut your trap about those you don't agree with being un-American. Truth is, our country was thriving under Clinton. Obama's tax policy will be nearly the same. Was everyone in the Clinton administration un-American? Were businesses struggling? You're actually spouting that our country hasn't been attacked since 2,740 were killed on 9/11 (on Bush's watch, while a memo titled "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S." sat on his desk) while Bush was on vacation. Bush had played right into the terrorists hands. We went to war in Iraq which bankrupted our country and took our eye off the ball. We're not safer. End of story. |
|
|
|
Post by maxsawdust on Oct 21, 2008 14:25:28 GMT -5
I will field this. Redistribution of wealth punishes those who work hard to get ahead, plain and simple. And working hard to get ahead is supposed to be rewarded in this country, not punished by taking their money away. Redistribution of wealth is purely a liberal/progressive ideal, not conservative and not certainly not American. That, by caveat, makes progressives and far left liberals totally un-American. I am very comfortable that this nation has not been attacked in over 2500 days. Under Clinton this country was attacked several times and more then once on our own soil. If Obama is only half as tough as Clinton, I believe he is even less then half as tough, then we are in trouble. We will be less secure. I have heard Democrat pundits say were are currently less secure under Bush policies, but that is untrue. We may be less liked because we are way tougher, but we are more secure for the same reasons. This will not be the case under Obama, even Biden has acknowledged that. Bush himself is grudgingly resorting to socialism (taking over banks) because it is necessary! So give some thanks and shut your trap about those you don't agree with being un-American. |
|
|
|
Post by jgaffney on Oct 21, 2008 14:32:26 GMT -5
You're entitled to your opinion about taxes but calling people on the left "un-American" is both stupid and insulting. If it wasn't for "liberals" we would never have got ourselves out of the great depression. Thank God for FDR and his New Deal! You know, Saunterelle, there are scholars much smarter than you who will dispute that point with you. Many economists believe that FDR's socialist programs prolonged and deepened the Depression unneccessarily. Plus, his blatant power grabs, like trying to stuff the Supreme Court, showed his disregard for any impediment to his programs. What brought us out of the Depression was not FDR's economic policies, but the buildup required for WW2. There's that liberal tolerance on display again! You repeat the liberal trope about "8 years of Republicans screwing it up!" Which policies, exactly, are you referring to? Could it be the steady growth in non-farm employment we have experienced since Bush finally brought us out of the double whammy of the Clinton recession and the 9/11 attacks? Could it be the steady growth in personal income? Or, maybe you are referring to the current financial crisis, brought on by the subprime mortgage meltdown, which was brought on by the wide availability of federally-backed mortgages to non-qualified buyers, which was brought on by the rapid expansion of the subprime mortgage portfolios of Fannie and Freddie, which was brought on by the push in the Clinton administration to expand homeownership to everyone. Is that what you were referring to? Well, actually, the Clinton "boom" started during the Reagan administration, not as a direct result of anything Clinton did. The Reagan boom was so strong, it was able to overcome the shock of the Clinton tax increases in 1993, sorta like a negative "middle class tax cut." The boom was assisted by the Republican Congress swept in in 1994, which brought Clinton to heel on budget deficits and welfare reform. Once Clinton saw how popular those two issues were, he immmediately took them as his own idea. I won't even bring up how Clinton allowed the US to be slapped around by the terrorists, beginning with the ignominious retreat from Mogadishu. Saunterelle, even you must admit that a president is never really on vacation. No matter where he goes, the problems of the office follow. You will recall the difficult transition that the Bush administration went through in 2001, from the fight over Jim Jeffords' seat in the Senate to the outgoing Clinton staffers stealing all of the "w"s from the keyboards, to the drawn-out confirmation hearings in Congress. Please tell us what you think Al Gore would have done after receiving a memo saying that there was a heightened threat, but no informmation on where it would come from. Even the 9/11 Commission's report exonerates Bush on that claim. We have engaged the terrorists on their turf, and we have kicked their butts. Both bin Laden and Zarqawi told us, in their own writings, that they see Iraq as the central front in the War on Terrorism. Do you believe them when they say that? What does that mean to you? What does the phrase "dire consequences" as used in the numerous UN Security Council resolutions calling on Saddam to disarm, mean to you? |
|
I don't see the Far left as Socialist. They may have differing opinions, and some have viewed them as radical, but they are Americans.