Is the will of the people going to be squelched by the radical left?



Excellent commentary (and for our socialist friends he makes some good points around the 2 minute mark).

quakeroats you'll like this letter to the editor:

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/article/lets_set_a_return_to_traditional_america/52986/

I'm biased, as that is my wife's stepfather. He's a real idiot, Cornell electrical engineering grad and President of an international controls company.

can we change the name of the thread title? Socialists are people too...

Who wins, the people or the people...

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: quakeroats you'll like this letter to the editor:

http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/opinion/letters_to_the_editor/article/lets_set_a_return_to_traditional_america/52986/

I'm biased, as that is my wife's stepfather. He's a real idiot, Cornell electrical engineering grad and President of an international controls company.

In that article, "strong defense/gun control" have nothing to do with one another.

You can have a strong defense with gun control, and you can support a strong defense and be for gun control.

Not like putting various controls on guns will hinder our military capabilities, which is where a strong defense comes from.

So changed, sort of.

"Not like putting various controls on guns will hinder our military capabilities, which is where a strong defense comes from"

Not that I think the U.S. is in any real danger of being subject to a land invasion any time soon, but it would be heckuva lot more difficult for any invader if not only do they have to deal with the U.S. military, but if citizens also had the abilities to defend themselves and their homes. That's why I don't care if some citizens of other countries think we're all a bunch of gun-crazed cowboys per their media, even if the stereotype is silly - in a weird way it strengthens our national security. I agree with some limits but the citywide bans (Chicago, DC) are pretty stupid.

By the way, I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a gun and they really don't need one - gated community with one access road. If they lived in my neighborhood, I wouldn't be surprised if they purchased a firearm. I don't have one, but probably should, now I'm just dependent on the alarm and dog.

Manhattan Buckeye wrote: "Not like putting various controls on guns will hinder our military capabilities, which is where a strong defense comes from"

Not that I think the U.S. is in any real danger of being subject to a land invasion any time soon, but it would be heckuva lot more difficult for any invader if not only do they have to deal with the U.S. military, but if citizens also had the abilities to defend themselves and their homes. That's why I don't care if some citizens of other countries think we're all a bunch of gun-crazed cowboys per their media, even if the stereotype is silly - in a weird way it strengthens our national security. I agree with some limits but the citywide bans (Chicago, DC) are pretty stupid.

By the way, I'm pretty sure he doesn't have a gun and they really don't need one - gated community with one access road. If they lived in my neighborhood, I wouldn't be surprised if they purchased a firearm. I don't have one, but probably should, now I'm just dependent on the alarm and dog.

Yea, i understand what you're saying, just don't think it makes complete sense to frame it like he did in the letter.

The title of the thread should be:

'Health care -- who wins, the people or the socialists?' This means, do the people win by allowing perfectly free markets (devoid of government distortion) to serve their health care needs in a competitive manner; or do the socialists, who maintain power and control in D.C., win by seizing 1/6th of the economy and ultimately breaking the backs of the taxpayer and employers in their greedy thirst for power over your lives.

I hope I am clear, and I hope that whoever is changing the title of the thread refrains from doing so again; or I will request the thread to be pulled.

QuakerOats wrote: The title of the thread should be:

'Health care -- who wins, the people or the socialists?' This means, do the people win by allowing perfectly free markets (devoid of government distortion) to serve their health care needs in a competitive manner; or do the socialists, who maintain power and control in D.C., win by seizing 1/6th of the economy and ultimately breaking the backs of the taxpayer and employers in their greedy thirst for power over your lives.

I hope I am clear, and I hope that whoever is changing the title of the thread refrains from doing so again; or I will request the thread to be pulled.

I changed it, since I am a Mod and put socialists in parentheses. But, LJ may have changed it back.

so pull it already. Just another mindless post by the Far Right who doesn't even know what the term socialism means.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

QuakerOats wrote: The title of the thread should be:

'Health care -- who wins, the people or the socialists?' This means, do the people win by allowing perfectly free markets (devoid of government distortion) to serve their health care needs in a competitive manner; or do the socialists, who maintain power and control in D.C., win by seizing 1/6th of the economy and ultimately breaking the backs of the taxpayer and employers in their greedy thirst for power over your lives.

I hope I am clear, and I hope that whoever is changing the title of the thread refrains from doing so again; or I will request the thread to be pulled.

I changed it, since I am a Mod and put socialists in parentheses. But, LJ may have changed it back.

I didn't change it, Quaker changed it back.

Paladin wrote: so pull it already. Just another mindless post by the Far Right who doesn't even know what the term socialism means.

When there is substantial debate and massive philosophical differences over a topic that concerns 1/6th of the entire economy, and someone tags it "mindless", that ought to tell you something about their real concerns ---- perhaps being entertained by network sitcoms and reality tv shows is more important.

LJ wrote:
I didn't change it, Quaker changed it back.

Gotya.

socialists

QuakerOats wrote:

Paladin wrote: so pull it already. Just another mindless post by the Far Right who doesn't even know what the term socialism means.

When there is substantial debate and massive philosophical differences over a topic that concerns 1/6th of the entire economy, and someone tags it "mindless", that ought to tell you something about their real concerns ---- perhaps being entertained by network sitcoms and reality tv shows is more important.

Then again, labeling something socialist isn't exactly substantive either.....

QuakerOats wrote:

Paladin wrote: so pull it already. Just another mindless post by the Far Right who doesn't even know what the term socialism means.

When there is substantial debate and massive philosophical differences over a topic that concerns 1/6th of the entire economy, and someone tags it "mindless", that ought to tell you something about their real concerns ---- perhaps being entertained by network sitcoms and reality tv shows is more important.

Socialism by most standards that I know means industry owned by the state. As far as I can tell from reading the bill the state WILL NOT own health care businesses.

This would fall under government regulations which almost every industry has government regulations on them now.

BCSbunk wrote:
Socialism by most standards that I know means industry owned by the state. As far as I can tell from reading the bill the state WILL NOT own health care businesses.

This would fall under government regulations which almost every industry has government regulations on them now.

You obviously did not listen to the video. Bureaucratic regulation/dication coupled with taxation (FORCE) and fines, is the equivalent of government ownership.

And yes, the current government regulations have so distorted the private markets that is has given us the issues we face. Government is THE PROBLEM.

QuakerOats wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:
Socialism by most standards that I know means industry owned by the state. As far as I can tell from reading the bill the state WILL NOT own health care businesses.

This would fall under government regulations which almost every industry has government regulations on them now.

You obviously did not listen to the video. Bureaucratic regulation/dication coupled with taxation (FORCE) and fines, is the equivalent of government ownership.

And yes, the current government regulations have so distorted the private markets that is has given us the issues we face. Government is THE PROBLEM.

Someone wrote a good letter to the editor in the WSJ on Monday to this effect. Im paraphrasing, but he said socialism does not require direct ownership of the means of production, only control, whether through punitive taxes or brute regulation, focusing on equitable distribution of goods and services rather than profits.

I'm waiting for all those AGs to sue the federal government if health care passes with a mandate that Americans buy insurance. I remember a story a while back about that. I hope they keep their word.

David St. Hubbins wrote: Someone wrote a good letter to the editor in the WSJ on Monday to this effect. Im paraphrasing, but he said socialism does not require direct ownership of the means of production, only control, whether through punitive taxes or brute regulation, focusing on equitable distribution of goods and services rather than profits.

I saw that letter. You are right, the point he made was, what's the difference whether we have literal government ownership or not when, in effect, the federal government controls an industry. Just look at Government Motors for one example.

I can't figure out why the left has a problem with socialism. They hate free markets and love massive government, so what's their issue?

Paladin wrote: Just another mindless post by the Far Right who doesn't even know what the term socialism means.

Pretty much sums it up. Throwing labels around is about all they have to offer.

JoeA1010 wrote:
I can't figure out why the left has a problem with socialism. They hate free markets and love massive government, so what's their issue?

The left hates free markets? says who? You and the opinion writers at the National Review, the Weekly Standard, ot the WSJ?

Let me remind you that being anti unfettered free markets or equally anti collusion, price fixing, anti oligopoly/monopoly are postions of the true conservative economics.

We no longer have free markets...Adam Smith would "blow this shit up" if he were alive and see first hand what his system has become.

QuakerOats wrote:

BCSbunk wrote:
Socialism by most standards that I know means industry owned by the state. As far as I can tell from reading the bill the state WILL NOT own health care businesses.

This would fall under government regulations which almost every industry has government regulations on them now.

You obviously did not listen to the video. Bureaucratic regulation/dication coupled with taxation (FORCE) and fines, is the equivalent of government ownership.

And yes, the current government regulations have so distorted the private markets that is has given us the issues we face. Government is THE PROBLEM.

No, that is completely wrong. Ownership has a meaning, and it is not bureaucratic regulation coupled with taxation. That is a fabrication of someones imagination and not a valid definition of ownership.

JoeA1010 wrote:

David St. Hubbins wrote: Someone wrote a good letter to the editor in the WSJ on Monday to this effect. Im paraphrasing, but he said socialism does not require direct ownership of the means of production, only control, whether through punitive taxes or brute regulation, focusing on equitable distribution of goods and services rather than profits.

I can't figure out why the left has a problem with socialism. They hate free markets and love massive government, so what's their issue?

Wow, so many errors too short of time.