Fraud and deception from the AP

[Deleted]

Aug 8, 2008 15:13:35 GMT -5 kchoya said:

"...imperialism must be defeated and a world revolution—a revolution against war and racism and materialism, a revolution based on human solidarity and love, cooperation and the common good —must win"

For the sake of argument...what is wrong with taking a stance against imperialism, war and racism, and in favor of human solidarity, love, cooperation and the common good?



Does the use of the word "revolution" make it problematic?
Does the simple fact that it came out of the mouth of a member of the Communist Party make it problematic?
What if the Pope had said these things? Would they be troublesome then?

It's all about context, I suppose.

[kchoya]

Aug 8, 2008 15:39:42 GMT -5 @cam said:

It's all about context, I suppose.

You think?

First, you ignore the first part of the quote. [lawyer geek]That violates Rule 106[/lawyer geek]

Second, don't you think the words "solidarity" and "common good" and so forth have special meaning to communists?

[HoyaSinceBirth]

Sorry I assumed we were talking about the candidates associations in terms of a reflection of character not of policy. You really think Obama's going to push for a communist state if elected? In terms of how it reflects on their character I think believing the positions of the KKK is worse than believing the views of communism.

[Deleted]

Aug 8, 2008 15:52:28 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Aug 8, 2008 15:39:42 GMT -5 @cam said:

It's all about context, I suppose.

You think?

First, you ignore the first part of the quote. [lawyer geek]That violates Rule 106[/lawyer geek]

Second, don't you think the words "solidarity" and "common good" and so forth have special meaning to communists?

Lawyer geek alert! You forgot that "revolution" has special meaning to communists too...

That said - do you actually believe that Obama is a communist? Or is it possible that he's read and talked to and been influenced by various people, and he's smart enough to parse the good (down with war, down with imperialism, down with racism) from the bad (down with capitalism!)?

[hifigator]

Aug 8, 2008 15:59:16 GMT -5 HoyaSinceBirth said:

Sorry I assumed we were talking about the candidates associations in terms of a reflection of character not of policy. You really think Obama's going to push for a communist state if elected? In terms of how it reflects on their character I think believing the positions of the KKK is worse than believing the views of communism.

The point in this situation is that Obama has seeked out guidance and instruction from a very wide range of very questionable sources -- fram anti-American fanatical nuts to socialists. And as much as you will hate to admit it, there is a lot of socialism in his beliefs, from his class envy, increasingly taxing the rich and his health care for all. You can call it whatever you want, but as the saying goes: a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. In other words, it doesn't fundamentally matter what you call it. It is not much more than modified socialism.

[hifigator]

Aug 8, 2008 16:12:36 GMT -5 @cam said:

Aug 8, 2008 15:52:28 GMT -5 kchoya said:

You think?

First, you ignore the first part of the quote. [lawyer geek]That violates Rule 106[/lawyer geek]

Second, don't you think the words "solidarity" and "common good" and so forth have special meaning to communists?

Lawyer geek alert! You forgot that "revolution" has special meaning to communists too...

That said - do you actually believe that Obama is a communist? Or is it possible that he's read and talked to and been influenced by various people, and he's smart enough to parse the good (down with war, down with imperialism, down with racism) from the bad (down with capitalism!)?

You just touched on a key point. Once again, it is next to impossible to get liberals to admit it, but ultimately they really are anti-capitalism.

[kchoya]

Aug 8, 2008 16:12:36 GMT -5 @cam said:

Aug 8, 2008 15:52:28 GMT -5 kchoya said:

You think?

First, you ignore the first part of the quote. [lawyer geek]That violates Rule 106[/lawyer geek]

Second, don't you think the words "solidarity" and "common good" and so forth have special meaning to communists?

Lawyer geek alert! You forgot that "revolution" has special meaning to communists too...

That said - do you actually believe that Obama is a communist? Or is it possible that he's read and talked to and been influenced by various people, and he's smart enough to parse the good (down with war, down with imperialism, down with racism) from the bad (down with capitalism!)?

No, of course I don't think he's a communist. I do think he's pretty liberal. And without any sort of record to examine, we have to look at the people he associates himself with to guess at what types of policies he would pursue.

[HoyaSinceBirth]

I don't mind a bit of socialism and I'm fine with admitting it.

[hifigator]

Aug 9, 2008 10:21:29 GMT -5 HoyaSinceBirth said:

I don't mind a bit of socialism and I'm fine with admitting it.

Sort of like the AA program: admitting the problem is the first step. At least you have made it that far.

[The Stig]

Aug 9, 2008 11:00:01 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Aug 9, 2008 10:21:29 GMT -5 HoyaSinceBirth said:

I don't mind a bit of socialism and I'm fine with admitting it.

Sort of like the AA program: admitting the problem is the first step. At least you have made it that far.

The Cold War ended almost 20 years ago. Socialism is no longer a synonym for evil.

Cold War Eastern Bloc style governments were socialist in name only. These days socialist countries are more free than our own, and their economies are just as good as ours on a per capita basis.

[hifigator]

Aug 9, 2008 11:28:25 GMT -5 The Stig said:

Aug 9, 2008 11:00:01 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Sort of like the AA program: admitting the problem is the first step. At least you have made it that far.

The Cold War ended almost 20 years ago. Socialism is no longer a synonym for evil.

Cold War Eastern Bloc style governments were socialist in name only. These days socialist countries are more free than our own, and their economies are just as good as ours on a per capita basis.

So at least you are being honest. I disagree with you, but at least you aren't denying that you in some way, shape or form admire socialism. Personally, I do not.

[Bando]

Aug 8, 2008 16:29:17 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Aug 8, 2008 16:12:36 GMT -5 @cam said:

Lawyer geek alert! You forgot that "revolution" has special meaning to communists too...

That said - do you actually believe that Obama is a communist? Or is it possible that he's read and talked to and been influenced by various people, and he's smart enough to parse the good (down with war, down with imperialism, down with racism) from the bad (down with capitalism!)?

You just touched on a key point. Once again, it is next to impossible to get liberals to admit it, but ultimately they really are anti-capitalism.

You're a Editeding liar. The Democratic party in this country is unique in the western world for it's lack of flirtation with Marxism. The Democrats were some of the greatest of the Cold Warriors, and you're revising history with this outright slander.

Furthermore, I feel sorry for you, as you apparently lack the intellectual capacity to distinguish between market regulation and collective ownership. If you believe the government has no place in the economy, you're not a conservative, you're an anarchist.

[The Stig]

I didn't see that anti-capitalist comment before, and I'm also pretty Editeded about it.

Social democracy and capitalism can exist together in the same system. Capitalism thrives in the social democracies of Europe and other advanced countries. Any index of economic freedom you can find will put those countries close to the top, if not at the very top. Here's a map using the Wall Street Journal's index: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Index_of_Economic_Freedom_2008.png

The Scandinavian countries are almost all in the second bracket, and New Zealand and Canada are in the top bracket.

If you reject any elements of socialism in a capitalist system, then you're no better than the crazed Marxists who call for the destruction of capitalism.

[Boz]

We already have elements of socialism in our capitalist system.

We don't need any more.

[/opinion]

[jerseyhoya34]

Aug 8, 2008 16:36:25 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Aug 8, 2008 16:12:36 GMT -5 @cam said:

Lawyer geek alert! You forgot that "revolution" has special meaning to communists too...

That said - do you actually believe that Obama is a communist? Or is it possible that he's read and talked to and been influenced by various people, and he's smart enough to parse the good (down with war, down with imperialism, down with racism) from the bad (down with capitalism!)?

I find this strange when McCain is not running on his record, which, so far as I can tell, is a little thin when it comes to successful legislation. So, name the aspects of McCain's legislative record that you would point to as being significant and noteworthy for their success. It may take some research since he has missed so many votes recently.

I also find this "liberal" label stuff strange in the sense that it is hard to fathom after these past 8 years why conservatives are proud. Was it waging war against Iraq under empirically false pretenses? Not finishing the job in Afghanistan? Putting the budget out of balance? Home foreclosures? Failure of response after Katrina? Failure to address the energy crisis? There is good reason to be proud of conservatives, such as Ronald Reagan, who were accomplished and governed well. But, there is a strong sense that his Republican successors simply did not measure up to his ideals and ability, and their supporters were fine with it.

That said, conservatives should be proud of their campaigns. They have won at all costs over the last 8-10 years, but their ability to govern in the aftermath has been anything but distinguished (by success anyway).

[EasyEd]

Aug 10, 2008 20:58:30 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Aug 8, 2008 16:36:25 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Aug 8, 2008 16:12:36 GMT -5 @cam said:

Lawyer geek alert! You forgot that "revolution" has special meaning to communists too...

That said - do you actually believe that Obama is a communist? Or is it possible that he's read and talked to and been influenced by various people, and he's smart enough to parse the good (down with war, down with imperialism, down with racism) from the bad (down with capitalism!)?

I find this strange when McCain is not running on his record, which, so far as I can tell, is a little thin when it comes to successful legislation. So, name the aspects of McCain's legislative record that you would point to as being significant and noteworthy for their success. It may take some research since he has missed so many votes recently.

I also find this "liberal" label stuff strange in the sense that it is hard to fathom after these past 8 years why conservatives are proud. Was it waging war against Iraq under empirically false pretenses? Not finishing the job in Afghanistan? Putting the budget out of balance? Home foreclosures? Failure of response after Katrina? Failure to address the energy crisis? There is good reason to be proud of conservatives, such as Ronald Reagan, who were accomplished and governed well. But, there is a strong sense that his Republican successors simply did not measure up to his ideals and ability, and their supporters were fine with it.

That said, conservatives should be proud of their campaigns. They have won at all costs over the last 8-10 years, but their ability to govern in the aftermath has been anything but distinguished (by success anyway).

Ambassador, I actually agree with the spirit of what you say, if not all the particulars. With the Republicans in the White House and in control of Congress for a goodly portion of the last eight years, they created a fiscal mess. Spending has gone on out of control. Earmarks have expanded exponentially. They have neglected the existing crises in Social Security and Medicare. They have done nothing on the energy situation. They have done nothing of substance on the immigration issue. And they will nominate for President someone who is on the fringe of the party. If they lose the upcoming election, they deserve to lose since they have lost their soul.

[hifigator]

I don't understand the fervor in the attitudes of those of you who try to deny my point on liberals and their views. It's a little different than when people call liberals "anti-American." In that case, there is an obvious negative tone which none of us would want to be associated with. But I don't see the same severity of being called anti-capitalist. I think there can be little doubt that liberals by and large are anti-capitalist. From regulations, permits, zoning, EPA, unions, growth "management," traffic "control," and the list goes on and on. The point is that all of these elements are more trumpeted by liberals. Essentially all of these elements succeed in doing one thing: making it more expensive to do business. That is the plain and simple fact. Now you can argue that they are still "good" ideas. But there can be no doubt that regardless of what we call them or whether we like the particular ideas, they serve the purpose of retarding capitalism.


As to the point on the Republicans of the past 8 years, I pretty much agree. I thin the republicans have done a poor job, but I don't see a problem criticizing both parties. There is plenty of blame to go around.

[SFHoya99]

Aug 11, 2008 12:04:43 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I don't understand the fervor in the attitudes of those of you who try to deny my point on liberals and their views. It's a little different than when people call liberals "anti-American." In that case, there is an obvious negative tone which none of us would want to be associated with. But I don't see the same severity of being called anti-capitalist. I think there can be little doubt that liberals by and large are anti-capitalist. From regulations, permits, zoning, EPA, unions, growth "management," traffic "control," and the list goes on and on. The point is that all of these elements are more trumpeted by liberals. Essentially all of these elements succeed in doing one thing: making it more expensive to do business. That is the plain and simple fact. Now you can argue that they are still "good" ideas. But there can be no doubt that regardless of what we call them or whether we like the particular ideas, they serve the purpose of retarding capitalism.


As to the point on the Republicans of the past 8 years, I pretty much agree. I thin the republicans have done a poor job, but I don't see a problem criticizing both parties. There is plenty of blame to go around.

You're doing a couple of things wrong here. One is that there are a lot of people who would classify themselves as "liberals" out there who very strongly believe in free trade, in minimal government intereference, etc.

However, the difference between minimal government interference and NONE is huge.

Actually knowing the realities of the business world and economics leads me to three points:

1) The idea of a purely efficient market exists only in a fantasy world

2) Business people are NOT trying to create an efficient market -- we're constantly trying to create and inefficient market

3) The problem of the commons is very, very real.

For eight years now we've seen the result of the Neo-conservative ideal that the "markets fix everything." The result is records deficits, a declining dollar, a housing crisis and a disastrous situation in Iraq that could have been mitigated with some real kind of plan.

I don't consider capitalism as something diametrically opposed to say, clean air standards.

In the end, it simply increases money velocity, creates new jobs with new technologies and increases quality of life. What's the issue? The idea that requiring a filter on a smokestack hurts the economy is BUNK. Jobs are created to make that filter and install it. In the end of the day, it can actually help.

[hifigator]

sf, a couple of quick points:

As I said, the examples I lister are more often trumpeted by liberals. That's just how it is. As you state, there are some "liberals" who are for less government, although not many. I will totally agree with you, in that the current administration has strayed very far from the less government ideology. That is a major factor in Bush's low approval rating. It isn't simply an unpopular war. He has alienated many on the right, left and in the middle for sure.

sf wrote:

For eight years now we've seen the result of the Neo-conservative ideal that the "markets fix everything." The result is records deficits, a declining dollar, a housing crisis and a disastrous situation in Iraq that could have been mitigated with some real kind of plan.

Ronald Reagan was a much better example of true conservative ideology and his/our success speaks for itself. The declining dollar is largely connected to skyrocketing oil prices. The housing crisis is the result of people getting extended and over their head. Too many were living paycheck to paycheck but still bought too expensive of a house because of the ultra low interest rates. To blanketly place all of that blame on the administration is flawed logic -- some yes, all no. Lastly, the situation in Iraq is improving dramatically and rapidly. That is very hard for libs to admit but it is the truth. More and more good news comes from Iraq almost daily. There were plenty of errors along the way, but at this point in time, to refer to it as a "disastrous situation in Iraq" shows nothing but a very biased point of view. Call it an expensive situation or a costly situation or a mishandled situation, and I might go along with you. But to call it a "disastrous situation" does a disservice to the efforts of our brave men and women, to say nothing of the efforts of the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who are anxiously anticipating true western freedom.

[The Stig]

Aug 11, 2008 12:04:43 GMT -5 hifigator said:

I don't understand the fervor in the attitudes of those of you who try to deny my point on liberals and their views. It's a little different than when people call liberals "anti-American." In that case, there is an obvious negative tone which none of us would want to be associated with. But I don't see the same severity of being called anti-capitalist. I think there can be little doubt that liberals by and large are anti-capitalist. From regulations, permits, zoning, EPA, unions, growth "management," traffic "control," and the list goes on and on. The point is that all of these elements are more trumpeted by liberals. Essentially all of these elements succeed in doing one thing: making it more expensive to do business. That is the plain and simple fact. Now you can argue that they are still "good" ideas. But there can be no doubt that regardless of what we call them or whether we like the particular ideas, they serve the purpose of retarding capitalism.

The fervor is there because we're pro-capitalist, not anti-capitalist like you say. It would be like me branding you as a Florida State fan. I don't mean it as an insult, but you'd still be insulted and rightfully angry at me.

I think you can still be pro-capitalist while still wanting to avoid pure, unrestrained capitalism. Like I said in my earlier post, I think capitalism is an inherently good system, and I think most liberals would agree with me there.

The purpose of capitalism is not to make it cheap to do business. You're right that all of those things make it more expensive to do business, but that doesn't mean they're anti-capitalist. The purpose of capitalism is to promote higher quality goods and services for lower prices through free market competition.

Ideally, I think our economy should be underpinned by capitalist ideals, namely a competitive free market. However, I also think there should be certain protections in place to prevent our economic pursuits from irreparably damaging society. I guess you could call it a more benign version of capitalism.