[dadipentak]

If being Socialist means taking back some measure of control from the corporations that are exerting undue influence in Washington, destabilizing our economy, polluting our environment, industrializing our food supply, and stealing from the middle class to give to the rich, then I AM PROUD TO BE A SOCIALIST.

I'm in.

[GingeM]

IRA:

Hey--watch your tone, okay?

This is unacceptable.

Flagged to mods.

Read the entire exchange and then make sure you flag for the right reason. Shooz post deliberately took what I previously said out of context and then used that to be rude and offensive.

Oh, wait... You're a Lib... You want everyone who doesn't agree with you silenced. Go whine to "teacher"... It shows who you really are.

Johnmflores:

If being Socialist means taking back some measure of control from the corporations that are exerting undue influence in Washington, destabilizing our economy, polluting our environment, industrializing our food supply, and stealing from the middle class to give to the rich, then I AM PROUD TO BE A SOCIALIST.

Every country that has gone down the Socialist path has ended up with the system effectively destroyed and everyone worse off... You proud of being a part of that?

Suringa and Nesster:

Cool lets just all call Obama a socialist and ignore all the socialist programs that have been running in the country for many years before Obama.

You have all that and you still want more handed to you by the state... Greedy, greedy bastiges... How about you get off your own arses and do something for yourself?

Wildman:

It's like saying we shouldn't even consider the wisdom of speed limits because there is the possibility that pretty soon the state will have us all driving at 10mph.

Errr... Federal speed limits were repealed... Because they weren't "wise'... and deaths went down... Funny, huh? It's like the gun control laws you tree huggers love so much, but every time the gun laws are relaxed crime goes down... More of your leftie "wisdom" that falls flat on it's face... Tell me... Why should we trust your ideas on anything?

[Nesster]

IRA:



Suringa and Nesster:

You have all that and you still want more handed to you by the state... Greedy, greedy bastiges... How about you get off your own arses and do something for yourself?

I do so, and I did, last elections, voted for Obama to get this country on the right track after 8 nasty years. I'm glad I did



...and where does that illogical prejudice come from, that if one's for reasonable social programs, and thinks a civilized society in this day and age should do something better with health care, or financial regulation, or marriage laws, or be more egalitarian, or what have you, that this automatically means we don't get off our arses to take care of ourselves? So being liberal means being personally irresponsible? That not automatically jumping when big business tells you to makes us socialists? And then, when our actions don't conform to your prejudices we are labeled hypocrites? That, sir, is insulting and only shows the sad state of current right wing thought.

[jeffkrol]

Errr... Federal speed limits were repealed... Because they weren't "wise'... and deaths went down... Funny, huh? It's like the gun control laws you tree huggers love so much, but every time the gun laws are relaxed crime goes down... More of your leftie "wisdom" that falls flat on it's face... Tell me... Why should we trust your ideas on anything?

That statement confuses cause and effect.. not to mention the impact of the new DWI laws.... in other words that argument is full of shite......
National Maximum Speed Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

# Various states enacted legal measures to tiptoe around the 55 mph limit:

* Arizona, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Utah replaced traditional speeding fines with $5–$15 energy wasting fines as long as drivers did not exceed the speed limit in effect before the 55 mph federal requirement.[17]
o Nevada's energy wasting fine was enacted on April 15, 1981 when signed by Governor Robert List. Motorists not exceeding 70 mph in 55 mph zones could be issued $5 "energy wasting" fines. However, standard speeding tickets were still allowed and "troopers were directed not to take the new law as a signal to stop writing tickets".[21]
* In 1986, North Dakota's fine for speeding up to 15 mph over the 55 mph limit was only $15 and had no license points.[22]
* South Dakota cut speeding fines in 1985 and stopped assessing points for 10 or less than the speed limit in 1986.[22]
* August 1, 1986, Minnesota, which normally suspended licenses after 3 tickets, stopped counting speeding tickets for no more than 65 (10 over).[22]

# In 1981, 33 state legislatures debated measures to oppose the 55 mph speed limit.[17]
# Some law enforcement officials openly questioned the 55 mph speed limit. In 1986, Jerry Baum, director of the South Dakota Highway Patrol, said "Why must I have a trooper stationed on an interstate, at 10 in the morning, worried about a guy driving 60 mph on a system designed to be traveled at 70? He could be out on a Friday night watching for drunken drivers."[22]
# Even organizations supporting the 55 mph limit, such as the AAA, provided lists of locations where the limit was strictly enforced.[17]
# On June 1, 1986, Nevada ignored the 55 mph (89 km/h) speed limit by posting a 70 mph (110 km/h) limit on 3 miles (5 km) of Interstate 80. The Nevada statute authorizing this speed limit included language that invalidated itself if the federal government suspended transportation funding. Indeed, the Federal Highway Administration immediately withheld highway funding, which automatically invalidated the statute by its own terms.[12]

in other words the law was circumvented anyways.....

Safety impact

It was believed that, based on a drop in fatalities the first year the limit was imposed, the 55 mph limit increased highway safety.

Other studies were more mixed on this point, and a Cato Institute report showed that the safety record actually worsened in the first few months of the 55 mph speed limit, suggesting that the fatality drop was a short-lived anomaly that regressed to the mean by 1978.[14] After the oil crisis abated, the 55 mph speed limit was retained mainly due to the possible safety aspect.

In 1986, the highway death toll was roughly half that of 1966. The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which normally favors increased restrictions on drivers, said that credit for this "mainly" goes to laws passed 8 years before the 55 mph speed limit went into effect. Joan Claybrook was in "deep agreement."[15

This is interesting.......

Claybrook quotes Henry Ford saying in 1977 the laws forced manufacturers to build safer cars. "We wouldn't have the kinds of safety built into automobiles that we have had unless there had been a federal law," he said on the TV show "Meet the Press."

Claybrook is critical of the Reagan administration's efforts to cut back on the number of auto regulations as too burdensome to the auto industry.

When Reagan came into office, he appointed George Bush head of a task force which has been responsible for dozens of modifications in auto safety regulations.

Claybrook is also upset that there are no official plans by the administration to celebrate the passage of auto safety legislation.

http://www.chron.com/CDA/archives/archive.mpl?id=1986_266087
As I said.. your confusing cause and effect......

The 55-mph national speed limit, passed by Congress after the 1973 Arab oil embargo primarily to save fuel, is also under increasing attack. Although the National Academy of Sciences said the law saves lives, drivers have been going faster but the traffic fatality rate has been decreasing. President Reagan is in favor of raising the limit to 65, and that support is likely to boost efforts in Congress to raise the limit.

Bottom line... gov intervention SAVES lives here.....
To reiterate...... this is just outright wrong.......

Errr... Federal speed limits were repealed... Because they weren't "wise'... and deaths went down.

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 07-10-2010 at 02:51 PM.

[GingeM]

Jeff:

As usual your long winded quote proves nothing...

Nesster:

You're going to be so unhappy in a few over 100 days... The US population have realized what a stupid mistake they made letting their emotions over George dictate their logic over who should be in power. I think it will be a very long time before the Democrats of today have even a semblance of power in DC... As it should be.

[jeffkrol]

Jeff:

As usual your long winded quote proves nothing...

Nesster:

You're going to be so unhappy in a few over 100 days... The US population have realized what a stupid mistake they made letting their emotions over George dictate their logic over who should be in power. I think it will be a very long time before the Democrats of today have even a semblance of power in DC... As it should be.

Of course I can't prove anything to you, you DON"T listen or read apparently.... or put 2 and 2 together.

[subeeds]

If being Socialist means taking back some measure of control from the corporations that are exerting undue influence in Washington, destabilizing our economy, polluting our environment, industrializing our food supply, and stealing from the middle class to give to the rich, then I AM PROUD TO BE A SOCIALIST.

Well said!

[Nesster]

Jeff:

As usual your long winded quote proves nothing...

Nesster:

You're going to be so unhappy in a few over 100 days... The US population have realized what a stupid mistake they made letting their emotions over George dictate their logic over who should be in power. I think it will be a very long time before the Democrats of today have even a semblance of power in DC... As it should be.

Sure, go ahead and ignore the fact that your arguments hold no water and are insulting to boot. Go on believing that anyone not rabidly tea partyish or reactionary is socialist and anti private enterprise and anti capitalist. Go on believing what the US Chamber of Commerce uses for fund raising scary stories is true and actually will improve conditions for our country.

You are likely to be right about the next elections, Republicans will gain ground, but then they will have to DO something. Several of the noobs will get caught with their hands in the till, or otherwise 'sinning' in precisely the way they accuse the people currently in government. There will be a lot of stupidity, and the Republicans will keep doing only what they think will get them elected in another 2 years. The Republican leadership has devolved into 'tell me what to say and I'll say it' fear of their own wac right wing. Nothing will come of it all, thank God. (Yes, liberals and Democrats do believe in God also, though I'm certain you'll think that's hypocritical too.)

I won't be too unhappy, we still have Obama and we will still likely hold a majority. I will be unhappy if the Republicans remain in their Do Nothing Know Nothing bunker, it is sad to see grown men, leaders of this country, run away fearful of their own sponsored bills from a year or two ago. Yes, that's showing real leadership.

Whatever the politics, people will vote on character. In '08 it was clear who had the character to lead, who didn't freeze when we were facing disaster. I felt pain for Bush and McCain, sitting there scared, not knowing what to do, finger in mouth, while Obama was cool calm and had a plan. Agree with him on most things or not, Obama has character, he has balls, he has principles, and he is willing to do what it takes to govern - including compromise bills with what used to be Republican policies. Agree with them or not, the Republicans do not have anyone able or willing to do this now, and people do see that. Who have you got? Who do I trust to do the right things, to take appropriate action, to not freeze, to be able to apply some subtlety and craft when meeting with foreign leaders? I hear a lot of crickets is what I hear. The Republican leaders have turned tail and run from themselves for fear of the Tea Party. Or they quit to cash in on TV or lobbying, or because they couldn't stomach a loss to a know-nothing bozo in a primary.

Character and leadership means a lot, Reagan for whatever his faults had it, Bush did not (but had more than Gore, maybe), McCain froze and now is a sad shadow of himself... who do you have?

[gokenin]

I won't be too unhappy, we still have Obama and we will still likely hold a majority. I will be unhappy if the Republicans remain in their Do Nothing Know Nothing bunker, it is sad to see grown men, leaders of this country, run away fearful of their own sponsored bills from a year or two ago. Yes, that's showing real leadership.

Whatever the politics, people will vote on character. In '08 it was clear who had the character to lead, who didn't freeze when we were facing disaster. I felt pain for Bush and McCain, sitting there scared, not knowing what to do, finger in mouth, while Obama was cool calm and had a plan. Agree with him on most things or not, Obama has character, he has balls, he has principles, and he is willing to do what it takes to govern - including compromise bills with what used to be Republican policies. Agree with them or not, the Republicans do not have anyone able or willing to do this now, and people do see that. Who have you got? Who do I trust to do the right things, to take appropriate action, to not freeze, to be able to apply some subtlety and craft when meeting with foreign leaders? I hear a lot of crickets is what I hear. The Republican leaders have turned tail and run from themselves for fear of the Tea Party. Or they quit to cash in on TV or lobbying, or because they couldn't stomach a loss to a know-nothing bozo in a primary.

Character and leadership means a lot, Reagan for whatever his faults had it, Bush did not (but had more than Gore, maybe), McCain froze and now is a sad shadow of himself... who do you have?

In 2008 Obama may have had a plan but do you ever remember it being articulated? Obama followed the same road that my beloved governor Patrick forged here say nothing but say that together we can bring about change we can believe in again there was no great plan laid out of what he planned on doing as President if he had would he have been elected?
I dont remember where I saw it but there was a commentatory that said Obama may have been willing to cooperate with the Republicans at first in his hope of a unified governing but he failed. The Democrats led by Reed and Pelosi forced the agenda that they had wanted for the longest times and forced Obama to move into a more partisan posturing that he can't escape from.
I have no idea where the next Republican challenger will come from and I agree we need to move away fromt he extreme right that the party has moved to but I dont see that happening in the near future. When it comes to imcumbents being scared of loosing I think that would go for both parties these days,America is still in feeding frenzy of anti-incumbant mania that I don't see ending soon and as will all emotional voting it makes no logical sense.

jon

[Nesster]

In 2008 Obama may have had a plan but do you ever remember it being articulated? Obama followed the same road that my beloved governor Patrick forged here say nothing but say that together we can bring about change we can believe in again there was no great plan laid out of what he planned on doing as President if he had would he have been elected?
I dont remember where I saw it but there was a commentatory that said Obama may have been willing to cooperate with the Republicans at first in his hope of a unified governing but he failed. The Democrats led by Reed and Pelosi forced the agenda that they had wanted for the longest times and forced Obama to move into a more partisan posturing that he can't escape from.
I have no idea where the next Republican challenger will come from and I agree we need to move away fromt he extreme right that the party has moved to but I dont see that happening in the near future. When it comes to imcumbents being scared of loosing I think that would go for both parties these days,America is still in feeding frenzy of anti-incumbant mania that I don't see ending soon and as will all emotional voting it makes no logical sense.

jon

jon, actually Obama did have plans, and did articulate them. The left wing of the Democratic party didn't exactly want to listen, and the Republicans naturally simplified him to some slogans. He's always been a liberal centrist, which drives the left wing nuts.

I understand what you say about Reed and Pelosi, though I think there's a lot of 'I was just doing this (pumping fist out) and they walked into it' with the Republicans. I.e. the tactical decision was made not to negotiate.

My understanding of how Washington used to work was all the public fighting and posturing was eventually set aside for some serious negotiation and deal making, in order to mutually steer to the center and do some good for America. The perception I have is that the Republican party at this moment doesn't do that, for whatever reason.

I really do wish for a good Republican leader to emerge, several of them, who can articulate policy and stand up to the Republican right. The country will be better off.

[gokenin]

In all fairness I don't think either party is really willing to go back to the old way of haggling out a deal these days. The Democrats have found that they can say the Republicans are nothing but obstructionists so they need to be thrown out. The Republicans have seen that they can say that the Democrats are spending us into oblivion and we will stop it and the Dems need to be thrown out. I also know that the odds of a viable third party appearing in America as slim to nonexistant so the only thing we can do is sit back and wait for the feeding frenzy of public animosity to subside and maybe we can have a return to a government that actually governs for the good of all.

[GingeM]

So... The USA needs to be split into two halves...

Everyone who wants to work can go to one half and all the hangers-on can go to the other half...

Now we only need to debate whether it's north or south...

[johnmflores]

Johnmflores:

Every country that has gone down the Socialist path has ended up with the system effectively destroyed and everyone worse off... You proud of being a part of that

Are you aware that we ended the first decade of this century with no change in median household income, no change in median home price, the stock market at the same level, unemployment near 10% (while underemployment was closer to 20%), an appreciably greater divide between rich and poor, and all economic indicators pointing to a slow, jobless recovery if we are lucky or a double-dip recession if we're not. How's that free-market economy thingy working out for you?

[szurinaga]

So... The USA needs to be split into two halves...

Everyone who wants to work can go to one half and all the hangers-on can go to the other half...

Now we only need to debate whether it's north or south...

Do you pay Social Security? Do you use the public Library? Do your kids go to public school? Do you believe in the FDA to make sure your food is clean and healty? Do you believe in disability if you injure yourself while working and can no longer make an income?

My eye if you say you don't do anything of these things (except for your children because maybe you haven't found someone to have kids with you). YOU are the one who is a hanger-on

:
Wait a minute, you're from Canada, why the Hell are you even sticking your nose in this?

[FlashCube]

Good list, though it's missing some more socialist programs:
Police forces
State militia
US Armed Forces
Municipal water systems
Municipal sewer systems
Municipal refuse collection
School systems
Public libraries

and so on.

And apparently, now that socialism encompasses 'government regulation, or aid to, or rescue of an industry or company': savings and loans, railroads, steel industry, auto industry, oil industry, the utilities, drug companies, petrochemical industry, semiconductor industry, the internet, Fox News (depends on government aided satellite technology, for a start), the Republican Party, the state of Alaska, American farmers and agribusiness...

Nice try but these sort of things are provided for under Article I Section 8.

For example:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;
. . .

To establish post offices and post roads;To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;


. . .

Teddy Roosevelt said that Big Labor can be as dangerous as Big Business (i.e. Corporations). I think we have a 4 way mega problem.

1. Mega Corporations
2. Big Labor
3. Big Government
4. Political Parties whose agenda supersedes anything else. I'm referring to the actual DNC & RNC and not necessarily the average person that claims to be a Dem or Rep.