Home Non Cigar Related

Puro's Rants

Ok, well I wrote a rant a while back and thought this might be a good place to blow off some steam from time to time so I'll just have a continuos thread of rants going. I used to have a great outlet for this when I hosted a radio show but now I work in Law Enforcement so poitical views are kept more bottled up and I'm REALLY about to explode.
I have never in my life been so sick and tired of the F***ING media in this country! It doesn't matter which way you lean on the issues there is absolutly no way you can deny the total liberal media bias almost everywhere you look! CNN is by far one of the WORST offenders as always! I actually read the headline "GOP to Blame for Economic Meltdown" today in big bold letters on the screen. Now this was about a subtle as Morton Downey Jr on a 3 day scotch binge. If they aren't bashing the entire republican party then its the hourly public dismemberment or Sarah Palin. You would think she was Courtney F***ING Love to hear the media and the Hollywood "Deletes" talk about her. But anything negative said about Obama is just a "Lie from the Right Wing Propaganda Machine" that is the McCain Campaign. I have never in my life been so totally disgusted with what I see on TV. I always wonder why all the idiots are against us... then it becomes very clear why!
«13456751

Comments

  • LasabarLasabar Posts: 4,473 ✭✭✭
    PuroFreak:
    Ok, well I wrote a rant a while back and thought this might be a good place to blow off some steam from time to time so I'll just have a continuos thread of rants going. I used to have a great outlet for this when I hosted a radio show but now I work in Law Enforcement so poitical views are kept more bottled up and I'm REALLY about to explode.
    I have never in my life been so sick and tired of the F***ING media in this country! It doesn't matter which way you lean on the issues there is absolutly no way you can deny the total liberal media bias almost everywhere you look! CNN is by far one of the WORST offenders as always! I actually read the headline "GOP to Blame for Economic Meltdown" today in big bold letters on the screen. Now this was about a subtle as Morton Downey Jr on a 3 day scotch binge. If they aren't bashing the entire republican party then its the hourly public dismemberment or Sarah Palin. You would think she was Courtney F***ING Love to hear the media and the Hollywood "Deletes" talk about her. But anything negative said about Obama is just a "Lie from the Right Wing Propaganda Machine" that is the McCain Campaign. I have never in my life been so totally disgusted with what I see on TV. I always wonder why all the idiots are against us... then it becomes very clear why!
    Don't worry... you can just type the word ****... there's no filter
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    PuroFreak:
    Ok, well I wrote a rant a while back and thought this might be a good place to blow off some steam from time to time so I'll just have a continuos thread of rants going. I used to have a great outlet for this when I hosted a radio show but now I work in Law Enforcement so poitical views are kept more bottled up and I'm REALLY about to explode.
    I have never in my life been so sick and tired of the F***ING media in this country! It doesn't matter which way you lean on the issues there is absolutly no way you can deny the total liberal media bias almost everywhere you look! CNN is by far one of the WORST offenders as always! I actually read the headline "GOP to Blame for Economic Meltdown" today in big bold letters on the screen. Now this was about a subtle as Morton Downey Jr on a 3 day scotch binge. If they aren't bashing the entire republican party then its the hourly public dismemberment or Sarah Palin. You would think she was Courtney F***ING Love to hear the media and the Hollywood "Deletes" talk about her. But anything negative said about Obama is just a "Lie from the Right Wing Propaganda Machine" that is the McCain Campaign. I have never in my life been so totally disgusted with what I see on TV. I always wonder why all the idiots are against us... then it becomes very clear why!
    in a way i agree. But i have made mypeace with the media. I listen and watch only slanted media. I try for purely right or left opinion pieces. why? because then i can listen to them and know that they have nothing to hide. Like i said before in another thread, im ok with Rush and his Conservative agenda -because he is honest about pushing it. I am OK with Al Franken and his Liberal agenda -because he is honest about pushing it. If you listen to the stuff you know is tainted then you can not feel like you are being hosed because you have a filter on. you can filter out the crap. both of those people spew a bunch of crap, but im ok with that.

    CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and FOX NEWS all have agendas that they push. they all claim to be fair and impartial, but none of them are.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    kuzi16:
    PuroFreak:
    Ok, well I wrote a rant a while back and thought this might be a good place to blow off some steam from time to time so I'll just have a continuos thread of rants going. I used to have a great outlet for this when I hosted a radio show but now I work in Law Enforcement so poitical views are kept more bottled up and I'm REALLY about to explode.
    I have never in my life been so sick and tired of the F***ING media in this country! It doesn't matter which way you lean on the issues there is absolutly no way you can deny the total liberal media bias almost everywhere you look! CNN is by far one of the WORST offenders as always! I actually read the headline "GOP to Blame for Economic Meltdown" today in big bold letters on the screen. Now this was about a subtle as Morton Downey Jr on a 3 day scotch binge. If they aren't bashing the entire republican party then its the hourly public dismemberment or Sarah Palin. You would think she was Courtney F***ING Love to hear the media and the Hollywood "Deletes" talk about her. But anything negative said about Obama is just a "Lie from the Right Wing Propaganda Machine" that is the McCain Campaign. I have never in my life been so totally disgusted with what I see on TV. I always wonder why all the idiots are against us... then it becomes very clear why!
    in a way i agree. But i have made mypeace with the media. I listen and watch only slanted media. I try for purely right or left opinion pieces. why? because then i can listen to them and know that they have nothing to hide. Like i said before in another thread, im ok with Rush and his Conservative agenda -because he is honest about pushing it. I am OK with Al Franken and his Liberal agenda -because he is honest about pushing it. If you listen to the stuff you know is tainted then you can not feel like you are being hosed because you have a filter on. you can filter out the crap. both of those people spew a bunch of crap, but im ok with that.

    CNN, MSNBC, ABC, and FOX NEWS all have agendas that they push. they all claim to be fair and impartial, but none of them are.
    I agree with you in a sense that yes, I respect what those kind of people do. They are very open about their views and you know what to expect. Rush, Franken, Hannity, Savage... They are there to appeal to a certain group. But it's when ABC, CNN, MSNBC, CBS and the rest expect all the rights a privliges of a nonbias media group then slant everything to fit their agenda. The Palin interview with ABC is a great example, they edited the footage of the interview to make her look bad and didn't do what is expected of them as a supposed "Credible" media source. That is where I become angry, because most people in the country don't take the time to research and learn the truth and just buy in to the mainstream media and daytime talk show crap that is spewed forth day in and day out...
  • Hell, I like Bill O'Reilly. When people are being stupid, he let's them know they are. As for the liberal crap on the tv about "the war in Iraq", I ignore it because I've been in the intelligence community of the US Navy for all of my adult life and I'm currently in Iraq and know everything that drives some of these decisions that the US public isn't privy to. What really get's me though is that people actually buy into the slanted sh** they see on tv. For instance my mother has all of these conservative republican views, but wanted Hilary Clinton because "she likes what she had to say" I then asked her to have some of what she was smoking. Well I better stop now before I really get going.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    This is a clip from a news story about a conversation between Barack Obama and a man who owns a plumbing company. The conversation took place on the campaign trail this week.
    "Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."
    "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
    No wonder he is so interested in talking to Kim Jong Ill and Hugo Chavez... He is looking for tax plan advice!! This is Socialism plain and simple! There is no other word for this. I am not poor by any means, but I am in no way wealthy. My family does without a lot of things because we can't afford them and we do struggle, but I do not expect or even want assistance from the government. I work hard and am doing things to improve our situation and I am proud to support my family. It's INSANE!!! Thats like saying there are people on this site that can afford to order more cigars than I can so they should have to send me 2 or 3 smokes from every box they order. Hey... Maybe it isn't such a bad idea! haha
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    a teacher in high school was teaching the class about communism. he was giving the theories on how it would work. Produce according to their ability and receive according to their need. they studied Marx and Lennon for a week and were told to study hard for a test at the end of the week. the test would be an essay test. The essay was to make an argument FOR communism. all the students did as told.
    when the tests were graded and handed back there were two grades:
    one in blue
    one in red.
    the teacher then explained that the blue score was a "capitalist" score and the red score was the "communist" score.
    to the the good students who worked hard and studied hard had a blue score in the 90+ range
    the decent students who studied but not as hard had a blue score of 80- 90
    the average students who either coasted, didnt study but were smart, or who studied hard but just didnt understand the concepts well got a score in the 70-80 range.
    the students that didnt study much if at all were 60-70
    the rest of them who didnt study at all and didnt care got even lower, some as low as a 20%

    there was a bell curve in the class. the two smallest groups were the top few and the bottom few. most were average or slightly above.

    the class average was a 72%. that was the score in red that everyone got.

    the majority of the class had a score higher than that but the few at the bottom were so low that the class average was brought down by this. most of the students were mad. the lowest scoring students were in the minority but were quite happy.

    the day after the tests were handed back the teacher asked the students with above the average score if they knew they would only end up with a 72% no matter how hard they studied would they have tried so hard. all of them said they wouldnt. ...this would only lower the average score more. this was the introduction into Capitalism.


    i hope when i have kids i can find a teacher like that.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    kuzi16:
    a teacher in high school was teaching the class about communism. he was giving the theories on how it would work. Produce according to their ability and receive according to their need. they studied Marx and Lennon for a week and were told to study hard for a test at the end of the week. the test would be an essay test. The essay was to make an argument FOR communism. all the students did as told.
    when the tests were graded and handed back there were two grades:
    one in blue
    one in red.
    the teacher then explained that the blue score was a "capitalist" score and the red score was the "communist" score.
    to the the good students who worked hard and studied hard had a blue score in the 90+ range
    the decent students who studied but not as hard had a blue score of 80- 90
    the average students who either coasted, didnt study but were smart, or who studied hard but just didnt understand the concepts well got a score in the 70-80 range.
    the students that didnt study much if at all were 60-70
    the rest of them who didnt study at all and didnt care got even lower, some as low as a 20%

    there was a bell curve in the class. the two smallest groups were the top few and the bottom few. most were average or slightly above.

    the class average was a 72%. that was the score in red that everyone got.

    the majority of the class had a score higher than that but the few at the bottom were so low that the class average was brought down by this. most of the students were mad. the lowest scoring students were in the minority but were quite happy.

    the day after the tests were handed back the teacher asked the students with above the average score if they knew they would only end up with a 72% no matter how hard they studied would they have tried so hard. all of them said they wouldnt. ...this would only lower the average score more. this was the introduction into Capitalism.


    i hope when i have kids i can find a teacher like that.

    Awesome point Kuzi! I hope my son has a teacher like that when he gets older too, but with the way things are in the academic world, I seriously doubt there will be any around.
  • dutyjedutyje Posts: 2,263
    I love the board game Monopoly. I'm great at Monopoly -- ruthless. My wife refuses to play me in Monopoly. I remember when I was young, I always made my little brother play me in Monopoly. The most rewarding part of the game always came when I was swimming in wealth. However, I couldn't be stopped. Normally, when somebody lands on Boardwalk with a hotel, and it soaks all their money, that's supposed to be the end of the game.

    That's not how it worked for me. When my poor brother would roll into my line of hotels, and exhaust his resources, with all his properties mortgaged, I didn't want the game to end. See, I didn't yet have all the hotels and houses possible, and he still had some mortgaged properties. Also, there was still a lot of money in the box that didn't belong to either of us.

    So rather than let the game just end, and snuff him out, I'd buy his mortgaged properties for outrageous sums of money (how about I give you $5,000 for Baltic Avenue?). I tell you what... I'll give you a refund on you utility bill and I'll cut your railway fares in half. Of course, this only extended the game to his inevitable bankruptcy.. but that still wasn't enough. I needed to have everything. I'd waive his hotel fees until he had the money. I'd spot him some dough.

    If you've ever played against someone like me, it's not any fun. You see, my brother knew he had no chance, and he would eventually refuse to sell me his properties. I'd have to offer him quite a bit just to get him to play along. It was a delicate balance between total game domination and having him suddenly fly into a rage and throw the board across the room. That was the worst possible outcome for a greedy, ****-retentive perfectionist such as myself. I wanted the perfect game, and his broke ass wasn't about to stop me.

    So I'd feed him enough money to keep him happy while I grew my interminable wealth. Rebates, refunds, reductions in fees, waivers. I'd bail him out of jail just so he could keep hitting my properties. I loved it. Just sitting here thinking about it makes me smile.

    I love that game.
  • vankleekkwvankleekkw Posts: 404
    I loved being the banker to skim money when making payouts. I guess it is a good thing that I didn't go into the banking industry. I might be on the news right now about a money laundering scheme. :)
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    kuzi16:
    a teacher in high school was teaching the class about communism. he was giving the theories on how it would work. Produce according to their ability and receive according to their need. they studied Marx and Lennon for a week and were told to study hard for a test at the end of the week. the test would be an essay test. The essay was to make an argument FOR communism. all the students did as told.
    when the tests were graded and handed back there were two grades:
    one in blue
    one in red.
    the teacher then explained that the blue score was a "capitalist" score and the red score was the "communist" score.
    to the the good students who worked hard and studied hard had a blue score in the 90+ range
    the decent students who studied but not as hard had a blue score of 80- 90
    the average students who either coasted, didnt study but were smart, or who studied hard but just didnt understand the concepts well got a score in the 70-80 range.
    the students that didnt study much if at all were 60-70
    the rest of them who didnt study at all and didnt care got even lower, some as low as a 20%

    there was a bell curve in the class. the two smallest groups were the top few and the bottom few. most were average or slightly above.

    the class average was a 72%. that was the score in red that everyone got.

    the majority of the class had a score higher than that but the few at the bottom were so low that the class average was brought down by this. most of the students were mad. the lowest scoring students were in the minority but were quite happy.

    the day after the tests were handed back the teacher asked the students with above the average score if they knew they would only end up with a 72% no matter how hard they studied would they have tried so hard. all of them said they wouldnt. ...this would only lower the average score more. this was the introduction into Capitalism.


    i hope when i have kids i can find a teacher like that.
    That's a good teaching tool.

    A good extension would be to remove the artificial certainty in it. That is, the kids already knew how well they'd done on the test, before they were asked which grading system they preferred. This is like asking the already-wealthy whether they prefer a progressive income tax or a flat one.
  • LukoLuko Posts: 2,004
    urbino:
    kuzi16:
    a teacher in high school was teaching the class about communism. he was giving the theories on how it would work. Produce according to their ability and receive according to their need. they studied Marx and Lennon for a week and were told to study hard for a test at the end of the week. the test would be an essay test. The essay was to make an argument FOR communism. all the students did as told.
    when the tests were graded and handed back there were two grades:
    one in blue
    one in red.
    the teacher then explained that the blue score was a "capitalist" score and the red score was the "communist" score.
    to the the good students who worked hard and studied hard had a blue score in the 90+ range
    the decent students who studied but not as hard had a blue score of 80- 90
    the average students who either coasted, didnt study but were smart, or who studied hard but just didnt understand the concepts well got a score in the 70-80 range.
    the students that didnt study much if at all were 60-70
    the rest of them who didnt study at all and didnt care got even lower, some as low as a 20%

    there was a bell curve in the class. the two smallest groups were the top few and the bottom few. most were average or slightly above.

    the class average was a 72%. that was the score in red that everyone got.

    the majority of the class had a score higher than that but the few at the bottom were so low that the class average was brought down by this. most of the students were mad. the lowest scoring students were in the minority but were quite happy.

    the day after the tests were handed back the teacher asked the students with above the average score if they knew they would only end up with a 72% no matter how hard they studied would they have tried so hard. all of them said they wouldnt. ...this would only lower the average score more. this was the introduction into Capitalism.


    i hope when i have kids i can find a teacher like that.
    That's a good teaching tool.

    A good extension would be to remove the artificial certainty in it. That is, the kids already knew how well they'd done on the test, before they were asked which grading system they preferred. This is like asking the already-wealthy whether they prefer a progressive income tax or a flat one.

    Salient point...it would be interesting to offer it before they knew their grades and see what played out. My guess is, the smart kids know they're smart and by and large, know they did well. So they wouldn't go for a commy grading system.
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    I didn't go into it all, but, yeah, there's still some artificial certainty in it. This gets into the whole maximax vs. maximin strategy problem that game theorists talk about. John Rawls spent a lot of time on this in his writings on game theory and political philosophy.
  • FourtotheflushFourtotheflush Posts: 2,555
    Unfortunately the analogy doesn't work. The grades being awarded for hard work and smarter kids dont equate to earnings and taxes.
    I do agree that capitalism is the way to go, but to say that Obama's tax plan is socialization is just plain WRONG.
    Now if you were to say that he wanted to take over all the countries oil and use the profit from that to fund Oh Health Care or Welfare or any other social program now thats socialism.
    I think a better vision of socializing our economy is with this BAILOUT plan.
    Lets see, lets let private companies profit in a capitalist market place
    But when these companies make bad decisions and start going under at a record rate, lets socialize those losses to stem the tide of fearful investors
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    No Four, I'm afraid you are wrong. When you take the money from the wealthy and redistribute it to the rest of the country that is socialism my friend. That is pretty much the exact definition. Now what you were describing would be more along the lines of Fascism... Thats another story. Redistribution of wealth is socialism period.
    Definition from Dictionary.com reads:
    Socialism- Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
  • urbinourbino Posts: 4,517
    PuroFreak:
    No Four, I'm afraid you are wrong. When you take the money from the wealthy and redistribute it to the rest of the country that is socialism my friend. That is pretty much the exact definition. Now what you were describing would be more along the lines of Fascism... Thats another story. Redistribution of wealth is socialism period.
    Definition from Dictionary.com reads:
    Socialism- Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
    How do you get from that definition to the notion that socialism = wealth redistribution, Puro? The definition says socialism is gov't ownership of the means of production and distribution. If the gov't doesn't take ownership of the means of production and distribution, it isn't socialism, according to this definition. Redistribution of wealth is not ownership of the means of production and distribution, and therefore is not socialism.

    OTOH, insofar as the Paulson plan involves the gov't buying an ownership stake in these banks, that is socialism. (Actually, even that is slightly problematic since banks don't produce or distribute anything, but close enough.)
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    urbino:
    PuroFreak:
    No Four, I'm afraid you are wrong. When you take the money from the wealthy and redistribute it to the rest of the country that is socialism my friend. That is pretty much the exact definition. Now what you were describing would be more along the lines of Fascism... Thats another story. Redistribution of wealth is socialism period.
    Definition from Dictionary.com reads:
    Socialism- Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
    How do you get from that definition to the notion that socialism = wealth redistribution, Puro? The definition says socialism is gov't ownership of the means of production and distribution. If the gov't doesn't take ownership of the means of production and distribution, it isn't socialism, according to this definition. Redistribution of wealth is not ownership of the means of production and distribution, and therefore is not socialism.

    OTOH, insofar as the Paulson plan involves the gov't buying an ownership stake in these banks, that is socialism. (Actually, even that is slightly problematic since banks don't produce or distribute anything, but close enough.)

    In the line"government that often plans and controls the economy." Also the other half of the Definition explains it better

    so·cial·ism /'so????l?z?m/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

    I'm sorry, I can see that it wasn't explained clearly in that little clip of the definition. The fact that the government controls the distribution of capital is one of the main foundations of socialism. It is also in the Marxist Theory the stage following capitalism in transition to communisim. I'm not saying Obama wants to turn the U.S. into a communist country, but I do believe that he has socialist views that he wishes to impose.
  • Bad AndyBad Andy Posts: 848
    It is one the Marxist beliefs that follows into socialism. So you are both right. Social policy along with overt gov't control of private business is a large part of socialism. Obama though is extremely socialistic in his politics.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    Fourtotheflush:
    Unfortunately the analogy doesn't work. The grades being awarded for hard work and smarter kids dont equate to earnings and taxes.
    tell that to two groups of people:

    those who went to Harvard

    and those who failed to graduate high school or dropped out.

    i do know what you are saying though. it isnt a direct connect but what better way to teach a 14 or 15 year old who on average wont have the same concept of a dollar the way an adult would?
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    dutyje:
    I love the board game Monopoly. I'm great at Monopoly -- ruthless. My wife refuses to play me in Monopoly. I remember when I was young, I always made my little brother play me in Monopoly. The most rewarding part of the game always came when I was swimming in wealth. However, I couldn't be stopped. Normally, when somebody lands on Boardwalk with a hotel, and it soaks all their money, that's supposed to be the end of the game.

    That's not how it worked for me. When my poor brother would roll into my line of hotels, and exhaust his resources, with all his properties mortgaged, I didn't want the game to end. See, I didn't yet have all the hotels and houses possible, and he still had some mortgaged properties. Also, there was still a lot of money in the box that didn't belong to either of us.

    So rather than let the game just end, and snuff him out, I'd buy his mortgaged properties for outrageous sums of money (how about I give you $5,000 for Baltic Avenue?). I tell you what... I'll give you a refund on you utility bill and I'll cut your railway fares in half. Of course, this only extended the game to his inevitable bankruptcy.. but that still wasn't enough. I needed to have everything. I'd waive his hotel fees until he had the money. I'd spot him some dough.

    If you've ever played against someone like me, it's not any fun. You see, my brother knew he had no chance, and he would eventually refuse to sell me his properties. I'd have to offer him quite a bit just to get him to play along. It was a delicate balance between total game domination and having him suddenly fly into a rage and throw the board across the room. That was the worst possible outcome for a greedy, ****-retentive perfectionist such as myself. I wanted the perfect game, and his broke ass wasn't about to stop me.

    So I'd feed him enough money to keep him happy while I grew my interminable wealth. Rebates, refunds, reductions in fees, waivers. I'd bail him out of jail just so he could keep hitting my properties. I loved it. Just sitting here thinking about it makes me smile.

    I love that game.
    point taken. there is a point in a pure capitalist system where you could drive everyone so far into poverty that they cannot buy your product. thats bad because then you are unable to get more money or improve.
    ...that, and this is the real world. not monopoly. that game is set up to be like that. Hell, its CALLED "MONOPOLY." In the real world there is so much competition that the analogy you made could almost never translate into real life (much like there is a disconnect in my analogy) if a true monopoly does come into existance the US has laws to keep it from being a problem.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    on a side note... i play monopoly the way you do. my wife and i cant play cos she calls me "mean"

    i learned from my Dad.
    my mom calls him mean when he plays too.

  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    kind of on topic. there are a ton of issues going on with this clip but at least it makes you think. its also a bit on the biased side but since you know that going into it view accordingly:http://www.breitbart.tv/html/195153.html
  • FourtotheflushFourtotheflush Posts: 2,555
    Just as info Wiki really isnt a fully trusted source for definitions. At any time it can be totally off because users can edit it.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    Fourtotheflush:
    Just as info Wiki really isnt a fully trusted source for definitions. At any time it can be totally off because users can edit it.
    Well the definition I used didn't come from a user edited site. And that IS the definition of Socialism. I can scan the pages from Websters if you would rather see that...
  • sanesane Posts: 151
    First if you want to get the definition of Socialism then you should read a socialist party site such as http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/whatissoc.html
    If you don't want to read this or other socialism sites then here is the definition of socialism:
    "Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population."

    Second if you are scared of Obama socializing are government then you should look at what the last 3 republicans presidents have do, or you can just look at what the Bush administration just did by forcing 9 US banks to accept partial nationalization.
  • LukoLuko Posts: 2,004
    OK, you can parse the meaning of socialism all you want. Barry Obama does want to redistribute wealth. It may sound good since I assume none of us here is Warren Buffett, but it ain't.

    As a conservative (from a governance standpoint, not socially), I am disgusted by how large and unwieldy the federal government has become over the last 16 years.
  • PuroFreakPuroFreak Posts: 4,132
    sane:
    First if you want to get the definition of Socialism then you should read a socialist party site such as http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/whatissoc.html
    If you don't want to read this or other socialism sites then here is the definition of socialism:
    "Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population."

    Second if you are scared of Obama socializing are government then you should look at what the last 3 republicans presidents have do, or you can just look at what the Bush administration just did by forcing 9 US banks to accept partial nationalization.
    If I was pleased with most of what President Bush has done that would mean something. But take a look at the vote count for the Fail Out package and you will see that a LOT more Demos voted for the bill than Reps. And as McCain said tonight, if you wanted Obama against Bush, then he should have ran 4 years ago. haha Best line of the entire debate!
  • sanesane Posts: 151
    PuroFreak:
    sane:
    First if you want to get the definition of Socialism then you should read a socialist party site such as http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/whatissoc.html
    If you don't want to read this or other socialism sites then here is the definition of socialism:
    "Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population."

    Second if you are scared of Obama socializing are government then you should look at what the last 3 republicans presidents have do, or you can just look at what the Bush administration just did by forcing 9 US banks to accept partial nationalization.
    If I was pleased with most of what President Bush has done that would mean something. But take a look at the vote count for the Fail Out package and you will see that a LOT more Demos voted for the bill than Reps. And as McCain said tonight, if you wanted Obama against Bush, then he should have ran 4 years ago. haha Best line of the entire debate!
    I don't claim to be happy with the D's or the R's, I think we need a new way of thinking in the government. I don't think Obama will be much different but I do think that McCain will turn this state into a police state and send us into a new war if not more then one. I also think that McCain will take away more of my civil liberty's and freedoms then Obama. I don't like ether very much but I like Obama a hell of a lot more then I like McCain. As for the Bail out, that is a bull *** and every person that voted for it should be removed from the government including Obama and McCain.

    I should also say that I have no problem with a socialist governing body with a capitalist free market as long as they are that and not some half-assed version. I think that health care, banking, social security and other programs should be setup as socialist industry, owned by the people to support the people. I also agree with taxing the rich, if you think that Obama's plan is to high at only about a 60% tax then look at some of the other well known presidents, like JFK you will see it was around a 75% or Eisenhower witch was around 90%.

    Also for the BS about Joe the plumber, if you look at most small business's 90% or more make a NET profit of less then $250k so they will not see an increase in taxes in most cases they will see a drop.
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    a police state? how so?
  • kuzi16kuzi16 Posts: 14,616 ✭✭✭✭
    sane:
    Also for the BS about Joe the plumber, if you look at most small business's 90% or more make a NET profit of less then $250k so they will not see an increase in taxes in most cases they will see a drop.
    im fairly sure that statement is not true.
  • sanesane Posts: 151
    kuzi16:
    a police state? how so?
    I feel that McCain will continue down the same path that Bush has lead us down for the past 8 years. Bush has moved us closer to being a police state then any other president over the last 50 or more years.

    What makes me think we are moving towards a police state? well lets take the patriot act that was a big jump, and then we can look at Guantanamo, or the blatant push to allow spying and detaining of US citizens. You can also look at what the police are getting away with, look at the WTO protests in Seattle. There is also the problem with private military gaining power and influence in the US.

    Those are just some reasons why I think we are moving towards being a police state.
Sign In or Register to comment.