Obama policies, socialism, the European zone as a economic prison

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 8:32 PM GMT
    http://nationalsponsor.com/obama-the-european-socialist/

    The two videos at the bottom of this article are of paramount importance. The first is a video of Dick Morris, a once advisor to Clinton during his terms as president, explaining the motives of President Obama. He does a standout job explaining what it means when people speak of Obama as a European socialist.

    The 2nd video gives you a great insight into the mechanics of the European Union and how the socialist bureaucrats have taken every step to strip its member nations of their sovereignty and even their right to hold democratic elections.

    These videos are eye openers. I am not sure as to the motivation of the left’s leadership. I do, however, have a grasp on why socialism is an easy sell to the weak minded.

    There is a great experiment where-in college students where asked of which scenario they would prefer:

    Scenario A: USA growth rate of 1%, Japan growth rate of 3%
    Scenario B: USA growth rate of -1%, Japan growth rate of -3%

    Most chose scenario B. People would rather suffer through a recession than have some other group of people do better than them! It’s a concept called Relative Prosperity. This experiment really shows how depraved the human mind is. Even if you can convince people about how efficient the market is, how capitalism produces more goods and services, how socialism causes shortages, people still like it because it supposedly puts people on equal footing.

    When people criticize capitalism, you hear complaints about unequal distribution of wealth, the classical argument from envy about how it is unfair. People would rather make the emotional-based decision to reject the benefits of capitalism because someone else benefits more than they would. Instead they choose the “fair” yet poor, results of socialism.




    Nigel Farage: Trapped Inside an Economic Prison

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 8:46 PM GMT
    Do you listen to Glenn Beck?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 8:49 PM GMT
    Funny, the same site has this article on gay marriage:

    http://nationalsponsor.com/pushing-gay-marriage/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 8:53 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 saidFunny, the same site has this article on gay marriage:

    http://nationalsponsor.com/pushing-gay-marriage/

    We don't have to agree with anyone's position on gay marriage to listen to what they have to say about the economy, politics, and fiscal policy. That is, of course, unless you don't have the capability of differentiating.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 8:57 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    conscienti1984 saidFunny, the same site has this article on gay marriage:

    http://nationalsponsor.com/pushing-gay-marriage/

    We don't have to agree with anyone's position on gay marriage to listen to what they have to say about the economy, politics, and fiscal policy. That is, of course, unless you don't have the capability of differentiating.


    Nice ad hominem. You do realize you are no different than the liberals on here that you constantly debate? You are an idealogue.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 9:07 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 said
    socalfitness said
    conscienti1984 saidFunny, the same site has this article on gay marriage:

    http://nationalsponsor.com/pushing-gay-marriage/

    We don't have to agree with anyone's position on gay marriage to listen to what they have to say about the economy, politics, and fiscal policy. That is, of course, unless you don't have the capability of differentiating.

    Nice ad hominem. You do realize you are no different than the liberals on here that you constantly debate? You are an idealogue.

    Not hardly. I presented some information. You chose to not comment on the specific points, but deflect. I pointed out the weakness if all you could do was deflect, not stating that was the case, necessarily. Then you responded with your own name calling. That is another deflection away from addressing, or if you wished, refuting them? Are you unable or unwilling to address the issues, or is the easy way out calling me a name. pot meet kettle icon_smile.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 9:59 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    conscienti1984 said
    socalfitness said
    conscienti1984 saidFunny, the same site has this article on gay marriage:

    http://nationalsponsor.com/pushing-gay-marriage/

    We don't have to agree with anyone's position on gay marriage to listen to what they have to say about the economy, politics, and fiscal policy. That is, of course, unless you don't have the capability of differentiating.

    Nice ad hominem. You do realize you are no different than the liberals on here that you constantly debate? You are an idealogue.

    Not hardly. I presented some information. You chose to not comment on the specific points, but deflect. I pointed out the weakness if all you could do was deflect, not stating that was the case, necessarily. Then you responded with your own name calling. That is another deflection away from addressing, or if you wished, refuting them? Are you unable or unwilling to address the issues, or is the easy way out calling me a name. pot meet kettle icon_smile.gif


    Name calling? Calling you an idealogue is not name calling. Christian73 is an idealogue. It is not necessarily bad either.

    Deflecting? This would be true if I read/watched the "information" you posted and lacked the arguements to debate you. I didn't bother reading/watching them once I saw the site you got it from. My comment had nothing to do with whatever you posted--I'm sure I could find some "information" supporting the exact opposite position from some equally shady sources.

    But statements like: "I do, however, have a grasp on why socialism is an easy sell to the weak minded." are just pure idealogical bullshit in my view.

    I value conservatism as a needed opposite to liberalism; a yin to the yang. I do not value propoganda, talking points, or opinions masked as "facts or information."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 10:07 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 saidDeflecting? This would be true if I read the "information" you posted and lacked the arguements to debate you. I didn't bother reading them once I saw the site you got it from. ...

    Then you really had nothing of value to add to the thread, just forum filler.

    BTW, the immediate link of a source does not necessarily mean the actual source of the information. For example, a few days ago there was a study from Fairleigh Dickinson University that was referenced on Huffington Post. Some discounted it thinking HP was the source. You could of course take the position that just because HP printed it and you don't think much of HP, that the study from FDU should automatically discounted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 10:27 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    conscienti1984 saidDeflecting? This would be true if I read the "information" you posted and lacked the arguements to debate you. I didn't bother reading them once I saw the site you got it from. ...

    Then you really had nothing of value to add to the thread, just forum filler.

    BTW, the immediate link of a source does not necessarily mean the actual source of the information. For example, a few days ago there was a study from Fairleigh Dickinson University that was referenced on Huffington Post. Some discounted it thinking HP was the source. You could of course take the position that just because HP printed it and you don't think much of HP, that the study from FDU should automatically discounted.


    I realize this--but I am skeptical of partisan sites... let alone blogs. In journalism, there are many forms of bias besides misreporting "facts". Because of this, I skip such sources (including the HP). Furthermore, your criticism of "forum filling" means nothing since no one else has commented yet. Sorry but I stand by what I wrote, and my opinions are not made invalid by being labeled "filling."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 26, 2011 11:30 PM GMT
    conscienti1984 said...I realize this--but I am skeptical of partisan sites... let alone blogs. In journalism, there are many forms of bias besides misreporting "facts". Because of this, I skip such sources (including the HP). Furthermore, your criticism of "forum filling" means nothing since no one else has commented yet. Sorry but I stand by what I wrote, and my opinions are not made invalid by being labeled "filling."

    Many people turn that skepticism into avoiding sources that don't fit their existing views either for fear of being challenged or for being too lazy to see another side. If you get your news from multiple sources with views on the right as well as the left, I wouldn't criticize at all for avoiding what you consider too biased, i.e. partisan. I continue to get my news from multiple sources, both domestic and international, representing multiple viewpoints. I have in the past changed positions on specific issues after either additional evidence or some soul searching, but on the value of fiscal conservatism versus the far left socialism (deliberately using the term, tired of being PC), my opinions have only strengthened over the years.

    But you aren't the first to call me an ideologue. Another member in the past said I was dogmatic, misusing the term, when he meant ideologue. His evidence was my unwillingness to change my position based on what he thought was brilliant insight. I tried to explain that you can't legitimately come to that assessment without knowing someone's background prior to RJ. If someone has, over the years, absorbed much information and come to certain positions also over the years, it is less likely that they would modify their position significantly by what someone writes or references on RJ.

    I maintain that discounting an argument or ignoring the points completely because of the source or person made the argument is not useful to an intelligent discussion. Certainly you are entitled to skip sources that you believe have little credibility. I do that consistently myself. But I submit that at the very minimum, reading or listening to points should be a prerequisite to joining the discussion of them. Just my opinion.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 12:48 AM GMT
    Sorry I stopped reading after, "on the value of fiscal conservatism versus the far left socialism".... (Actually I did read the whole post; however, my optimism dropped significantly after reading that statement.)

    My experience is that when people use terms like socialism, fascism, communism, Nazism, or Hitler usually they are not reasonable and/or are ignorant about said terms.

    Getting information from various news media of various political leanings is great--getting information from outwardly biased political blogs, TV channels, websites, and newspapers is troublesome and contributes to the political divide in this country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 12:49 AM GMT
    Once you begin quoting well-known prostitute toe sucker Dick Morris, who has made an entire career out of stabbing the Clintons in the back repeatedly, most people are going to tap out.

    Given that you tend to frequent only right-wing websites, you may not realize that it recently came to light that Morris has been making the rounds on Faux News to talk up his clients (like Herman Cain) without the inherent conflict of interest being noted.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 12:57 AM GMT
    conscienti1984 saidSorry I stopped reading after, "on the value of fiscal conservatism versus the far left socialism".... (Actually I did read the whole post; however, my optimism dropped significantly after reading that statement.)

    My experience is that when people use terms like socialism, fascism, communism, Nazism, or Hitler usually they are not reasonable and/or are ignorant about said terms.

    Getting information from various news media of various political leanings is great--getting information from outwardly biased political blogs, TV channels, websites, and newspapers is troublesome and contributes to the political divide in this country.

    The term "socialism" is appropriate and accurate as the policies and goals mirror those of West European politicians and political parties that are called, and call themselves, "socialist". If you had watched the videos, you would have understood the context that the term is used, as unappealing to you as it is. Understand the term is considered toxic and highly negative, but for this campaign, PC is gone, and things will be called as they are. The term will stick too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 1:00 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidOnce you begin quoting well-known prostitute toe sucker Dick Morris, who has made an entire career out of stabbing the Clintons in the back repeatedly, most people are going to tap out. ...

    Most people on the far left may "tap out", but who cares? We generally write for the independents and lurkers. The counter-arguments the far left has been coming up with recently have not been substantive anyway, so again, who cares?

    BTW - I suspect I frequent a much greater diversity of web sites and news sources than you, both domestically and internationally, and with various political viewpoints.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 2:41 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOnce you begin quoting well-known prostitute toe sucker Dick Morris, who has made an entire career out of stabbing the Clintons in the back repeatedly, most people are going to tap out. ...

    Most people on the far left may "tap out", but who cares? We generally write for the independents and lurkers. The counter-arguments the far left has been coming up with recently have not been substantive anyway, so again, who cares?

    BTW - I suspect I frequent a much greater diversity of web sites and news sources than you, both domestically and internationally, and with various political viewpoints.


    It's not about the "far left." Anyone who bothers to Google Dick Morris will known virtually instantly that he is not someone to be taken seriously. That you even noted him as a "Clinton advisor" - to suggest that he was, what?, a Democrat or a liberal? - borders on dishonesty, as Morris has spent the last twelve years being a lap dog to Roger Ailes and any other right-wing douche bag that will pay him to sit on television and lie to their viewers.

    In terms of counter-arguments, the expectation that there would be one supposes that there was an argument to begin with, which there was not. In the course of an argument, one would present evidence that could be weighed, instead you presented a well-known liar and a lunatic right-fringe ideologue from Britain who wants to leave the EU.

    Neither of them would be considered objective participants or reliable sources for your critique of an American left-wing that doesn't exist purporting to call for policies that it is not.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 3:15 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOnce you begin quoting well-known prostitute toe sucker Dick Morris, who has made an entire career out of stabbing the Clintons in the back repeatedly, most people are going to tap out. ...

    Most people on the far left may "tap out", but who cares? We generally write for the independents and lurkers. The counter-arguments the far left has been coming up with recently have not been substantive anyway, so again, who cares?

    BTW - I suspect I frequent a much greater diversity of web sites and news sources than you, both domestically and internationally, and with various political viewpoints.


    It's not about the "far left." Anyone who bothers to Google Dick Morris will known virtually instantly that he is not someone to be taken seriously. That you even noted him as a "Clinton advisor" - to suggest that he was, what?, a Democrat or a liberal? - borders on dishonesty, as Morris has spent the last twelve years being a lap dog to Roger Ailes and any other right-wing douche bag that will pay him to sit on television and lie to their viewers.

    In terms of counter-arguments, the expectation that there would be one supposes that there was an argument to begin with, which there was not. In the course of an argument, one would present evidence that could be weighed, instead you presented a well-known liar and a lunatic right-fringe ideologue from Britain who wants to leave the EU.

    Neither of them would be considered objective participants or reliable sources for your critique of an American left-wing that doesn't exist purporting to call for policies that it is not.

    Continually avoiding the issues. Nothing to respond to.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 4:58 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 said
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidOnce you begin quoting well-known prostitute toe sucker Dick Morris, who has made an entire career out of stabbing the Clintons in the back repeatedly, most people are going to tap out. ...

    Most people on the far left may "tap out", but who cares? We generally write for the independents and lurkers. The counter-arguments the far left has been coming up with recently have not been substantive anyway, so again, who cares?

    BTW - I suspect I frequent a much greater diversity of web sites and news sources than you, both domestically and internationally, and with various political viewpoints.


    It's not about the "far left." Anyone who bothers to Google Dick Morris will known virtually instantly that he is not someone to be taken seriously. That you even noted him as a "Clinton advisor" - to suggest that he was, what?, a Democrat or a liberal? - borders on dishonesty, as Morris has spent the last twelve years being a lap dog to Roger Ailes and any other right-wing douche bag that will pay him to sit on television and lie to their viewers.

    In terms of counter-arguments, the expectation that there would be one supposes that there was an argument to begin with, which there was not. In the course of an argument, one would present evidence that could be weighed, instead you presented a well-known liar and a lunatic right-fringe ideologue from Britain who wants to leave the EU.

    Neither of them would be considered objective participants or reliable sources for your critique of an American left-wing that doesn't exist purporting to call for policies that it is not.

    Continually avoiding the issues. Nothing to respond to.


    When you have credible people or sources that speak to issues I'd be happy to respond to said issues. Instead, what we have here are the political equivalent of howler monkeys screeching about fictional problems.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 5:15 AM GMT
    I think CONSCIENTI1984 had some very important things to say here.

    One of them this, "I value conservatism as a needed opposite to liberalism; a yin to the yang. I do not value propoganda, talking points, or opinions masked as "facts or information."




    Thanks

    -Doug
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 5:19 AM GMT
    Christian73 saidWhen you have credible people or sources that speak to issues I'd be happy to respond to said issues. Instead, what we have here are the political equivalent of howler monkeys screeching about fictional problems.

    If disqualify everything from any source on the right, then you have a convenient excuse for not responding. If you were able to respond you would, but you can't, so you won't. But I don't really blame you. Defending your ideology in the face of multiple failures would be similar to arguing that gravity does not exist, and you would end up claiming that if you let go an object, it would go up instead of down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 5:25 AM GMT
    Socialism is not a dirty word, it is a compliment. I am a socialist.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 6:17 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Christian73 saidWhen you have credible people or sources that speak to issues I'd be happy to respond to said issues. Instead, what we have here are the political equivalent of howler monkeys screeching about fictional problems.

    If disqualify everything from any source on the right, then you have a convenient excuse for not responding. If you were able to respond you would, but you can't, so you won't. But I don't really blame you. Defending your ideology in the face of multiple failures would be similar to arguing that gravity does not exist, and you would end up claiming that if you let go an object, it would go up instead of down.


    I don't disqualify every source from the right. The news pages of the WSJ are pretty decent, despite Murdoch's interference. There are plenty of right wing or right-leaning journalists who are relatively objective and report actual news.

    Your real problem is that the vast majority of right-wing media long ago gave up on any semblance of reportage and regularly "reports" lies, misinformation, and demonstrably false "news stories." So the sources you rely on - like Dick Morris - are not even worth responding to because they are known peddlers of lies and propaganda.

    A recent example would be Herman Cain's assertion that if he became president and the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage, he would "overturn" their ruling. Despite the right-wing's great success in packing the court with right-wing corporatists, do you understand the problem with Cain's assertion? I do. But many in the right-wing media reported this claim as if it were even possible. As if it wouldn't represent a coup de tat of the Court by the Executive branch.

    Rick Perry made a similarly ridiculous claim that he would make Congress a part-time job of citizen legislators. This, too, was reported and bandied about as if it were even remotely possible.

    So knowing the kind of sources you're quoting, why would I even bother to refute the assertions that are ridiculous on their face?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 8:40 AM GMT
    Christian73 said...So knowing the kind of sources you're quoting, why would I even bother to refute the assertions that are ridiculous on their face?

    Then you have no need taking up space in such threads. Deflecting away attention from the topic is not effective as people new to a thread generally read the OP first.

    The point simply is this. I have determined that socialist is a fitting label for Obama because his positions and goals are consistent with those of European politicians and political parties, which are labeled and label themselves as socialists. I have encountered many other people, both private and public people who have made the same determination. I could have written those reasons, but found that Dick Morris did so in a way that is completely consistent with my positions. That it is Dick Morris is to me not relevant. It is the points and Dick Morris happened to be the one who made them. The points are not more valid because of Dick Morris, and his reputation, good or bad, has no bearing on their validity. So if you refuse to watch the video because you don't happen to like Dick Morris, then there is no way you can discuss why many of us label Obama a socialist. So why take up space in a thread debating what is not relevant to the discussion, or demonstrate outrage at the use of the label when you don't know the reasons given that explain its use?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 27, 2011 12:08 PM GMT
    But SoCal ... when you cite things that say Obama is a Socialist it preempts everything youare trying to say

    Barack Obama is is a "Socialist" just as much Ronald Reagan was a Fascist
    If you agree with that statement then you can go yammering

    If not it's all Unicorns and Fairies
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 3:23 PM GMT
    As far as I can tell socalfitness's argument is thus:

    I define a socialist to be something like Obama...

    ... therefore Obama is a socialist.

    Vocabulary item for the day:

    TAUTOLOGY
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 27, 2011 3:32 PM GMT
    Why do you continue to enable the republitrolls by responding to their fatuous mind farts?