The Secret Campaign of President Bush's Administration To Deny Global Warming

[Portlander 0]

Ok, one deffinition (to me at least) of an anti-capitalist as a socialist. Socialism is making large inroads into the democratic party.

OK - let me see if I have this straight ... Democrats are Socialists, and Socialists are bad. Socialists are bad because they are not Republicans. Republicans and not Democrats because Democrats are Socialists.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

IMO most Dems aren't socialist - only the loud annoying hairy ones are.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

That 'what' not 'who'.

Anyone in the left that calls themselves "progressives". Look for the names yourself. It's clear that you see my point but are just dragging it out.

I'm not dragging anything out - just asking you to back up specific claims you made with specific supporting evidence and examples to match the sort of thing suggested in the OP article. So far all I've seen is a collection of vagueries.

You also said that "its obvious" that Hillary Clinton is funded by anti-capitalist interests - with the only qualification that its "easy to find". If that's the case - then who specifically are her biggest contributors?

Edited June 26, 2007 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If so many people misunderstand socialism,

why continue to use the word?

First, we call ourselves socialists because we are proud of what we are. Second, no matter what we call ourselves,

conservatives will use it against us. Anti-socialism has been repeatedly used to attack reforms that shift power to

working class people and away from corporate capital. In 1993, national health insurance was attacked as “socialized

medicine” and defeated. Liberals are routinely denounced as socialists in order to discredit reform. Until we face, and

beat, the stigma attached to the “S word,” politics in America will continue to be stifled and our options limited. We

also call ourselves socialists because we are proud of the traditions upon which we are based, of the heritage of the

Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, and of other struggles for change that have made America more

democratic and just. Finally, we call ourselves socialists to remind everyone that we have a vision of a better world.

Join Us!

http://www.dsausa.org/pdf/widemsoc.pdf

Some would argue that medicaid, social security, USPS, and public schools are all various forms of socialism.

Capitalism isn't perfect either Gary, but they both can co-exist in this country and they currently do. In the case of public land and resources, I think it's important to remember that it belongs to the public. The airwaves, for example, belong to the public. There some things that should never be privatized - if all land were privatized, that would lead to Feudalistic society. While I believe we should approach government with healthy skepticism, I don't think it's productive to have contempt for government as something incapable of ever doing an adequate job. Public schools serve a great purpose in society - that everyone be offered an education. There are some things that just don't work when profit motive is entered into the equation. I hope you can at least see the limitations of capitalism as well.

IMO most Dems aren't socialist - only the loud annoying hairy ones are.

I think Gary's a closet socialist...he's just not ready to come out.

Edited June 26, 2007 by Steven_and_Jinky

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Some would argue that medicaid, social security, USPS, and public schools are all various forms of socialism.

Some do. Many do. Go check out freerepublic.com sometime, the most rabid amongst them hate all entitlement programs and the public school system because it's all commie.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Some would argue that medicaid, social security, USPS, and public schools are all various forms of socialism.

Capitalism isn't perfect either Gary, but they both can co-exist in this country and they currently do. In the case of public land and resources, I think it's important to remember that it belongs to the public. The airwaves, for example, belong to the public. There some things that should never be privatized - if all land were privatized, that would lead to Feudalistic society. While I believe we should approach government with healthy skepticism, I don't think it's productive to have contempt for government as something incapable of ever doing an adequate job. Public schools serve a great purpose in society - that everyone be offered an education. There are some things that just don't work when profit motive is entered into the equation. I hope you can at least see the limitations of capitalism as well.

Guess what caused the French Revolution...

Edited June 26, 2007 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Some would argue that medicaid, social security, USPS, and public schools are all various forms of socialism.

Capitalism isn't perfect either Gary, but they both can co-exist in this country and they currently do. In the case of public land and resources, I think it's important to remember that it belongs to the public. The airwaves, for example, belong to the public. There some things that should never be privatized - if all land were privatized, that would lead to Feudalistic society. While I believe we should approach government with healthy skepticism, I don't think it's productive to have contempt for government as something incapable of ever doing an adequate job. Public schools serve a great purpose in society - that everyone be offered an education. There are some things that just don't work when profit motive is entered into the equation. I hope you can at least see the limitations of capitalism as well.

Guess what caused the French Revolution...

Socialism? or Socialist Democrats?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steven - can you envision a government so large and so powerful and so unconcerned with being 'fair' in its land dealings that it comes to resemble a feudal power?

You have that today in the State of New Jersey. They're in bed with private developers and eminent domain anything they damn well please for the most dubious reasons. And SCOTUS let them. Our government, at all level, is a huge infringement on our rights - and I don't mean just our property rights.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Some would argue that medicaid, social security, USPS, and public schools are all various forms of socialism.

Capitalism isn't perfect either Gary, but they both can co-exist in this country and they currently do. In the case of public land and resources, I think it's important to remember that it belongs to the public. The airwaves, for example, belong to the public. There some things that should never be privatized - if all land were privatized, that would lead to Feudalistic society. While I believe we should approach government with healthy skepticism, I don't think it's productive to have contempt for government as something incapable of ever doing an adequate job. Public schools serve a great purpose in society - that everyone be offered an education. There are some things that just don't work when profit motive is entered into the equation. I hope you can at least see the limitations of capitalism as well.

Guess what caused the French Revolution...

Socialism? or Socialist Democrats?

There's a potted history here, but I trust the arguments are familiar ones.

Edited June 26, 2007 by erekose

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven - can you envision a government so large and so powerful and so unconcerned with being 'fair' in its land dealings that it comes to resemble a feudal power?

You have that today in the State of New Jersey. They're in bed with private developers and eminent domain anything they damn well please for the most dubious reasons. And SCOTUS let them. Our government, at all level, is a huge infringement on our rights - and I don't mean just our property rights.

Sure...when you let outside interests shape policy. The government should serve the people - not corporate lobbyists. When I talk about public land - I'm thinking about places like the Alaskan Wilderness. We need to preserve places like that.

[Portlander 0]

When someone wants to take profits over and above the taxes levied to pay for their own pet project that is anti-capitalist (Clinton). When someone attempts to taxe a company out of exsistence, that is anti-capitalist (tobacco). When someone tries to regulate private business to the point they can no longer run their business without a team of lawyers to make sure they have lived up to the regulations that is anti-capitalist (auto industry). I can go on and on but you get where I am coming from. I am sure your going to come back and ask if business should just be given free reign and the answer is no. But the left has taken it to such extremes that it is now anti-capitalists.

What about heroin? Should that be legal? Abortion? That is socialist.

What about when someone uses the IRS to bully competition? Is that socialist?

Are Child Labor Laws socialist? Food safety laws? pollution laws?

I'm trying to find what point you think is too much. Can you be specific? Could you put it in a way that frames what you think government should do?

Personally, I am a big fan of transparent democracy. I think that People not only ought to get to vote, but I like the Australian system that requires everyone to submit a ballot, even if you don't vote for anyone.

I think that regulation

There are a lot of bad regulations, but there are a lot of good ones. Most bad regulation is the result of corruption. For example, 75% of government off-shore oil drilling funding has to go to companies that are defined as a "Consortium". This was put in by Tom DeLay to help some some of his special constituents, who just happen to have the only oil company that are registered as a consortium. THats bad regulation. A lot of safety devices get the same treatment. You have to use this safety harness for evrything, because the maker of that safety harness is connected. not because the safety harness is critical to safety (although it probably helps a lot on many cases)

When you include everyone in decision making, particularly the people most affected by a regulation... the construction workers, oil workers, etc etc .... then you get the most effective regulation.

Seems to me you are calling this "Socialist." I don't get it!

I also think that the government ought to let the States have the level of control afforded by the Constitution. I think that, while there are roles for the goverment doing things like research in alternative fuels

(locally produced biofuels would cut off the major source of funding for the Middle East and the Radical Islamists there, it would provide jobs, it would add BILLIONS of dollars to the local economy, and it would also allow the government to reduce Agriculture subsidies. )

BUT I think that this research is best done by posting a reward that anyone can get. I don't really think the gov't should directly fund much of anything. What is done ought to have the direct and constant input of people, particularly those most afected by the funding. Same with Regulation. I think that people ought to have input over thier own lives.

Is that Socialist?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

When someone wants to take profits over and above the taxes levied to pay for their own pet project that is anti-capitalist (Clinton). When someone attempts to taxe a company out of exsistence, that is anti-capitalist (tobacco). When someone tries to regulate private business to the point they can no longer run their business without a team of lawyers to make sure they have lived up to the regulations that is anti-capitalist (auto industry). I can go on and on but you get where I am coming from. I am sure your going to come back and ask if business should just be given free reign and the answer is no. But the left has taken it to such extremes that it is now anti-capitalists.

What about heroin? Should that be legal? Abortion? That is socialist.

What about when someone uses the IRS to bully competition? Is that socialist?

Are Child Labor Laws socialist? Food safety laws? pollution laws?

I'm trying to find what point you think is too much. Can you be specific? Could you put it in a way that frames what you think government should do?

Personally, I am a big fan of transparent democracy. I think that People not only ought to get to vote, but I like the Australian system that requires everyone to submit a ballot, even if you don't vote for anyone.

I think that regulation

There are a lot of bad regulations, but there are a lot of good ones. Most bad regulation is the result of corruption. For example, 75% of government off-shore oil drilling funding has to go to companies that are defined as a "Consortium". This was put in by Tom DeLay to help some some of his special constituents, who just happen to have the only oil company that are registered as a consortium. THats bad regulation. A lot of safety devices get the same treatment. You have to use this safety harness for evrything, because the maker of that safety harness is connected. not because the safety harness is critical to safety (although it probably helps a lot on many cases)

When you include everyone in decision making, particularly the people most affected by a regulation... the construction workers, oil workers, etc etc .... then you get the most effective regulation.

Seems to me you are calling this "Socialist." I don't get it!

I also think that the government ought to let the States have the level of control afforded by the Constitution. I think that, while there are roles for the goverment doing things like research in alternative fuels

(locally produced biofuels would cut off the major source of funding for the Middle East and the Radical Islamists there, it would provide jobs, it would add BILLIONS of dollars to the local economy, and it would also allow the government to reduce Agriculture subsidies. )

BUT I think that this research is best done by posting a reward that anyone can get. I don't really think the gov't should directly fund much of anything. What is done ought to have the direct and constant input of people, particularly those most afected by the funding. Same with Regulation. I think that people ought to have input over thier own lives.

Is that Socialist?

Well said.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Steven - can you envision a government so large and so powerful and so unconcerned with being 'fair' in its land dealings that it comes to resemble a feudal power?

You have that today in the State of New Jersey. They're in bed with private developers and eminent domain anything they damn well please for the most dubious reasons. And SCOTUS let them. Our government, at all level, is a huge infringement on our rights - and I don't mean just our property rights.

Sure...when you let outside interests shape policy. The government should serve the people - not corporate lobbyists. When I talk about public land - I'm thinking about places like the Alaskan Wilderness. We need to preserve places like that.

Yes, Steven. That's what I'm talking about too! The town I am in had land that was set aside at one point as protected land. Green space, deer, all that. Then a new mayor was elected (Dem, like all his predecessors) and he turned around and rezoned it and handed it over to a developer.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Steven - can you envision a government so large and so powerful and so unconcerned with being 'fair' in its land dealings that it comes to resemble a feudal power?

You have that today in the State of New Jersey. They're in bed with private developers and eminent domain anything they damn well please for the most dubious reasons. And SCOTUS let them. Our government, at all level, is a huge infringement on our rights - and I don't mean just our property rights.

Sure...when you let outside interests shape policy. The government should serve the people - not corporate lobbyists. When I talk about public land - I'm thinking about places like the Alaskan Wilderness. We need to preserve places like that.

Yes, Steven. That's what I'm talking about too! The town I am in had land that was set aside at one point as protected land. Green space, deer, all that. Then a new mayor was elected (Dem, like all his predecessors) and he turned around and rezoned it and handed it over to a developer.

I thought once land is designated as a wildlife preserve, it can't be easily reversed. It's hard for me to comment without knowing the specifics.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I can't give you specifics without violating my longstanding online policy of not revealing where I live