Journal damn_registrars's Journal: If Everything In Govermnet Is A Socialist Takeover... 36
... Then wouldn't a Ron Paul Presidency automatically be one, too? After all, the Paullowers claim that there is a socialist takeover even when there is no socialism and no takeover. Hence a Paul presidency, being part of the government, would have to be another socialist takeover under their understanding of the concept.
The course is not the ship (Score:1)
Everything is collapsing, first toward DC, then into some global uber-state, if the Progressives have their way.
Paul, if I may interpret, is trying to halt that tendency, and restore some value to the individual.
Re: (Score:2)
Paul, if I may interpret, is trying to halt that tendency, and restore some value to the individual.
I don't see how giving all the power to the corporations would accomplish that. When the workers lose most (quite nearly all) of their rights and value to the company, it doesn't seem to bode well for the people who are not at the top of the pyramid.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
And so the answer is to give all power to the government, the ultimate corporation?
I think that is where one of the great misunderstandings lie between American "left" and "right". While I don't speak for all people of the American "left", I can tell you that I do not seek to give all power to government. I do, however, have specific roles that I feel the government should have, and specific roles that I feel the government could handle better than the current situation.
Ultimately what I seek is better mobility and rights for the working class. In my mind the health insurance comp
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Paul, if I may interpret, is trying to halt that tendency, and restore some value to the individual.
No he isn't. He's trying restore the authority to the states. Like the old days of Georgia and Alabama. Let the local police beat on those dirty hippies.
Actually, you're wrong on that. There will be no local police under ron paul. Beating up the hippies will be left to coca-cola, texaco, and jp morgan chase.
Re: (Score:1)
DC, if you've had your eyes open, has run amok, with pretty much no one able to tell DC jack.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The deal is that, by the power of the internet, there is at last the possibility of something different.
It seems as if the internet is being used to obfuscate the fact that the course hasn't changed in decades. We keep electing increasingly conservative presidents and congresses yet through the internet some of us are convinced of the exact opposite of reality. It's the flat earth society, only with wider membership.
Re: (Score:1)
Not sure how that article applies, as it doesn't seem to have anything to do with what smitty seems to be pointing out, that the Progressive Left is for greater centralization and the libertarian Right is for decentralization. But it was an interesting read anyways, to me pointing out why our current course will never change:
Re: (Score:1)
One sentence looks like you're saying that it's laughable that you guys on the Left want centralization, and then the next seems to be voicing opposition to the opposite of that. Don't know what's going on there either.
The answer: (Score:1)
No. And this is because when people say "everything in govt. is a socialist takeover" they do not literally mean "everything in govt. is a socialist takeover", they mean "most everything in govt. is a socialist takeover".
And for people who are vehemently against both socialism and govt. takeovers, the mere laying of the groundwork for a socialist takeover (like Obamacare is) is close enough. As an analogy, if you're deathly afraid of heights, when the fence gets knocked down and you're pushed 6 feet closer
Re: (Score:2)
when people say "everything in govt. is a socialist takeover" they do not literally mean "everything in govt. is a socialist takeover", they mean "most everything in govt. is a socialist takeover".
From what I've seen - especially when paullowers are involved - they honestly do see everything to literally be a socialist government takeover, even when no socialism or takeover is involved. Hell if Nokia bought out RIM next week some of them would call that a socialist government takeover, even if every employee of RIM lost their job as a result.
,bR>
And for people who are vehemently against both socialism and govt. takeovers, the mere laying of the groundwork for a socialist takeover (like Obamacare is) is close enough
That supports my point quite well there. "Obamacare" has no socialism nor does it have any takeover in it. And this statement is coming from someone
Re: (Score:1)
What prior WH press secretary Robert Gibbs called the "professional Left" I would call the "impatient Left", and include you in that category. From my POV, Obamacare lays the groundwork for the federal govt. to drive private health insurance out of business, and is a very significant, historic *step* in the Leftward progression of America. But from your POV, it's still so far from the actual goal, and some say will/is for the time being boosting the for-profit health ins. industry, that it's very frustratin
Re: (Score:1)
The bill was designed by Progressive Democrats, so obviously the end goal cannot be to prop up private health insurance. Therefore, what's actually hilarious is to say that the bill is designed to prop up private health insurance. You'd have to forget everything you know about everything else to believe that.
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, so you're so far to the Left that Progressive Democrats like BHO and Pelosi are "regressive republicans" to you. I can somewhat relate to that; I'm so far to the Right that "fiscal Conservatives" like Paul Ryan and Ron Paul are Democrat lite to me. (Their proposed levels of spending cuts are a joke, compared to the seriousness of what is needed.)
I hope the day never comes that I realize something that's myopic and simplistic.
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, so you're so far to the Left that Progressive Democrats like BHO and Pelosi are "regressive republicans" to you.
I'm not sure if that is what the AC is going for. If you look at the history of the health insurance bailout act, you'll find that the bulk of what was in the final bill - including the mandate - was actually placed in the bill by republicans. Remember how at the start the parties claimed they wanted a "bipartisan" support? In the name of "bipartisanship" the democrats rolled over, dropped everything they initially wanted, and let the republicans put in what they wanted.
And here is where I give credit
Re: (Score:1)
It looks like what happened was that some Republicans went into damage control mode, and joined with some liberal Republicans (Democrats lite) who no doubt genuinely were for some kind of mandate. So they supported having it at the individual level, versus some collective level. That "lesser of two evils" at least makes *some* sense, for the supposed Right-wing party. And of course the ins. industry drooling over the govt. requiring everyone buy their product certainly helped.
Myself being an extremist, I sa
Re: (Score:2)
It looks like what happened was that some Republicans went into damage control mode, and joined with some liberal Republicans (Democrats lite) who no doubt genuinely were for some kind of mandate.
I very highly doubt it. For the reasons I stated earlier, the GOP is the big winner with the health insurance company bailout act. They wrote the bill to feed the sponsor that was shared between both parties. They intentionally wrote a crappy bill in the interest of seeing how far they could push the other side - had the democrats rejected it and started over they would have been blocked and then not been able to do anything (which makes re-election campaigning even more difficult). Had they voted for
Re: (Score:1)
Well, like the OWS movement the Tea Party movement isn't something that's strictly defined, as is neither libertarianishness, but by populist I meant appealing to the little guy, as in they started up as a result of the Wall St. bailouts, which only the ruling class(es) was interested in bailing out.
Re: (Score:2)
but by populist I meant appealing to the little guy, as in they started up as a result of the Wall St. bailouts, which only the ruling class(es) was interested in bailing out.
The Tea Party may or may not have been started by "the little guy", but it is well known that it now belongs to the Koch Brothers [thinkprogress.org] and other people who are very much of the ruling class.
That said, OWS in the end accomplished almost nothing. Money is so intricately and intrinsically tied to politics that almost nothing can be accomplished politically without large barrels of money.
Re: (Score:1)
OWS accomplished a reinforcing of negative stereotypes of Leftists. But I agree that in the end it means nothing, as maybe a third of us in this country are solid Left and another third solid Right, whose minds wouldn't be changed no matter how that movement conducted itself, and the remaining third are what I'll call the "nominal Left", who are not deeply interested in politics/policy and have allowed themselves to be trickle-programmed to quickly write off anything negative about the Left. Speech still tr
Re: (Score:1)
Not sure what the "merchant class" is, maybe something from your Marxist theory, but I don't want to transfer any govt. rights to anywhere, actually, because I don't believe the govt. has any rights, so there's nothing to transfer.
As a Right-winger, I believe in the primacy of the human individual. We tend to see things this way [stanford.edu]:
Re: (Score:2)
As a Leftist, you believe in the primacy of the state, and that rights originate in and are granted by govt.
And you must be one of those nutjobs who insist that the Nazis were Socialists because they put "Socialist" in the name of the party.
You won't be able to grasp this, but I'm actually for the consumer.
Then you're fucked before you even get out of the gate. And you certainly don't represent or stand up for me.
I am not a "consumer". I am a human being.
And you are basically a Randroid, although you don't seem to be able to figure that out. Or maybe you don't actually believe anything and are just trolling.
But thanks for playing, anyway.
Re: (Score:1)
It's not about upward mobility or me, to me it's about how I think men should live free.
Re: (Score:1)
I didn't begin to care the most about man's freedom when I became unemployed; it started when I began to fully appreciate what you guys are up to and how much freedom is under attack. That's also when the veil was lifted from my eyes about the (neocon) Right, BTW, and how that even tho they're much less comprehensive in their assault on individual freedom, there's still an assault coming from that direction as well.