Sometimes I get involved in these
discussions and I spend a lot of time writing and researching the responses I make.
So, once again I am presenting one of those responses because so much of
interest was covered there. This guy is Ok and I love going around with him. We
talk about some pretty serious stuff and we don’t pull punches. I hope you
enjoy the read. I had a great time writing it. This one starts with conspiracy
Theory and runs on to cover Socialism, the Constitution and several other
things along the way. So come read, laugh, love, cry, and all this by just
clicking the little button that says:
Good morning to you too. Dude, I’m not really angry; just motivated. I
present for your approval; my fourth response.
C-man: Wow, three
responses, I must have hit a sensitive nerve there to send you on such an
angry, wild and unsubstantiated rant. Your basic argument is you’re smart and
I’m dumb, Liberals are good and conservatives are evil.
RE: Not at all. I
don’t in any way consider you dumb. I suppose I must think I have at least a
modicum of intelligence or I wouldn’t be doing this. I hope typing is no
indicator though or I’m in deep trouble.
I think that you are laboring under the weight of false doctrine and
lies perpetrated by your leaders and a warped sense of right and wrong
necessary for acceptance of the doctrine. Probably implanted when you were
abducted by those aliens back in 89.
C-man: You come off
sounding like one of those conspiracy
theorist when you say things like the .
Wikipedia-“ A conspiracy theory explains an event
as being the result of an alleged plot by a covert group or organization or,
more broadly, the idea that important political, social or economic events are
the products of secret plots that are largely unknown to
the general public.”
RE: I’m not sure
that Conspiracy theorists are all bad. It seems to me that we employ conspiracy
theorists to work for us all the time. We pay people to look at world events
and make predictions from the patterns they are able to discern within those
We call these people “Intelligence Analysts”.
Wikipedia-“In most of its operations, the CIA is by
definition a conspiracy, using covert actions and secret plans, many of which
are of the most unsavory kind. What are covert operations if not conspiracies?
At the same time, the CIA is an institution, a structural part of the national
security state. In sum, the agency is an institutionalized conspiracy.”Michael Parenti
RE: It is also
important to remember that Conspiracy Theorists are only Theorists until the
theories are confirmed by events. Then they’re Prophets.
Wikipedia-Katherine K. Young
states “the fact remains, however, that not all conspiracies are imagined
by paranoids. Historians show that every real conspiracy has had at least four
characteristic features: groups, not isolated individuals; illegal or sinister
aims, not ones that would benefit society as a whole; orchestrated acts, not a
series of spontaneous and haphazard ones; and secret planning, not public discussion.”
“Some historians have put forward the idea that more recently the
United States has become the home of conspiracy theories because so many
high-level prominent conspiracies have been undertaken and uncovered since the
The existence of such
real conspiracies coupled with the denial of any conspiracies what so ever even
though the government itself promoted conspiracy theories (such as Communism
plans to take over the world) helps feed the belief in conspiracy theories.
RE: I don’t think
it unusual to theorize about conspiracies. There have been so many over
years I am surprised you guys still have the Chutzpah to make fun of
Wikipedia-“Governments, particularly the United States
government, have been accused of carrying out false flag coups
d’état, in order to install friendly governments in foreign countries.
Some of these have since been
acknowledged – such as Operation
Ajax (1953), a covert coup to topple the democratically elected leaders
Another coup that some believe may have been actively supported by the United
States government is the 2002 Venezuelan coup d’état attempt.”
RE: From what I
can tell, it seems pretty clear that a majority of the American people agree
with me. They don’t seem to think that conspiracies are so theoretical. Seeking
and discerning a pattern in current and historical events is an age old
tradition that has yielded answers to many intelligence questions and crimes as
well. Attempts to convince the people that conspiracies don’t exist appear to
be futile. The people have moved beyond the kind of naiveté’ that allows them
to be deluded by assurances that the kids are ok. The availability of
information and the ability to see patterns in events has made the public
sensitive to possible conspiracies.
Wikipedia-According to psychologists,
a person who believes in one conspiracy theory tends to believe in others; a person
who does not believe in one conspiracy theory tends not to believe another.
RE: As an example
of a conspiracy theory that the public believes in. JFK’s Assassination. Here
is one where the government has spent the last 50 years continuously spinning
an elaborate web of lies, distortions, and tampered evidence to disprove the
Conspiracy ”Theory” that multiple gunman were used. After all of that effort
the following polls reveal something of the people’s opinion. If you add this
data to the psychologist’s statement above you can see that conspiracy theories
are not so looked down on by the American people as they are by you. Of course
the standard government line is to deny these theories and I guess if you are a
conservative; supporting the standard government line is part of the deal you
signed……………………………….in blood………………………………………………..with Satan………………………………………at the
crossroads was it? Hmmmmm. Come on Fess up.
Wikipedia-Three polls conducted in 2003 suggest that
there is widespread disbelief (between 68% and 83% of respondents) among the
U.S. public about the official story of a lone gunman. An ABC News
random telephone poll found that just 32% (plus or minus 3%) of
Americans believe that Lee
Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, while
68% do not believe Oswald acted alone.
The “Discovery Channel” poll (sampling method not given) reveals that
only 21% believe Oswald acted alone, while 79% do not believe Oswald acted
(self-selected responses) details that only 17% of respondents believe that Lee
Harvey Oswald acted alone in the assassination of John F. Kennedy, while 83% do
not believe Oswald acted alone.
C-man: “American people
have never elected a President”. Who elects them then, let me guess “big
business” right? If that is your answer, then it’s ridiculous because you don’t
give the Americans enough credit. When I go to vote there isn’t anyone there
telling me how to vote, I’m under my own free will as are all Americans. If
that isn’t your answer and think our votes don’t matter and the President is
“picked” then please elaborate, I would love to hear that whopper!
RE: The President
is elected by the Electors from each state. These Electors are supposed to vote
in accord with the vote of the people but in 27 states there are no
restrictions placed upon these electors. They may vote as they think best
whether in agreement with the people or not. In 24 states the Electors are
required by pledge or by law to vote in accord with the people but there is no
mechanism to enforce these pledges and laws. So an Elector can vote anyway he
chooses with no fear of retribution. Once the Elector has voted, nothing can
change it. No complaints even if the public were allowed to follow the progress
of the vote. In most states the public are never even aware that Electors have
been chosen much less who they are. While it is true that we have never had an
election where the Electors chose a president in opposition to the general
vote, but the presidential election of
1968 ended with Richard Nixon receiving 301 electoral votes to Hubert
Humphrey’s 191. Yet, Nixon had only received 511,944 more popular
votes than Humphrey, equating to less than 1% of the national total. Almost.
But even when the Electors all do their job, because most states award electors
on a winner take all basis, the voice of the hundreds of thousands of voters
who voted for the losing candidate in that state lose their voice. The actual
election never knows that forty percent of a state voted for candidate A
because the only data they have to work with is that the whole state voted as
if unanimously for Candidate B since he got the 60% he gets all the electors. The
American people have never elected a President. The Electors elect the
president. And the will of the American people is never expressed; only the
will of the majority in each state. Great for political wrangling and
electioneering but very bad for an election by the people. Very bad. It makes
it technically non-existent. Even though this has never resulted in the
election of a candidate who did not win the popular election, it could easily
happen any time. Say, at the time of a critical election where the liberals
have found a real leader and the conservatives are finally showing their true
colors and running a uniformed Fascist. Or how about when the real liberals
manage to run the Great Liberator, whoever he may be. Seriously, you can see it
would only take once, at the right time and the entire idea of freedom could go
down the tubes. This is not an election by the people.
C-man: I’m not sure what
part of the Constitution says the Federal Government is responsible for taking
care of its citizens, maybe I missed that part can you point that out to me,
maybe it was the 28th amendment.
RE: No; not the
28th. The 28th amendment is the one that says “Congress
shall make no law abridging the accumulation of wealth by any person or entity
even when that accumulation threatens to collapse the economy.”
Must be another one……let me look………………………Oh Yeh. I remember.
The concept that the government is responsible to care for the people begins
with the 9th amendment which reads as follows:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
RE: So, this
shows that the people retain rights not mentioned by the Constitution.
Now in the Declaration of Independence
we state the following:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are
created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
RE: So, rights
that belonged to man prior to the writing of the Constitution and recognized by
the Constitution as valid.
That among these
are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
RE: So the
constitution recognizes that all people have a RIGHT to “The Pursuit of
Now this next part is Key so pay close attention.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted
among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,
RE: Ah; now we
are getting to the crux of the matter. Let’s rearrange the words so they are
Governments are instituted among Men to secure these rights
Governments are instituted among Men from the consent of the
RE: Now I admit. I’m no Constitutional scholar.
I’m just a Simple Country Philosopher, but isn’t that the same as saying
Governments, which derive their just powers from the consent
of the governed,
are instituted among Men to secure the unalienable Rights of
Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
RE: Before you
accuse me of playing some Slippery Liberal Left-Wing trick; the Preamble to the
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the
Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
RE: Now as I
said; I’m just a Simple Country Philosopher but it seems to me that if the
people have the right to the pursuit of happiness and governments are
instituted to secure that right; and the government derives its power from the
people; then it must be for the people that these rights are secured. And then
if the people have the right to the pursuit of happiness; wouldn’t locking them
into an economic system that doesn’t allow them to earn enough money to do that
be denying them of their Constitutional rights? Or did I read it wrong? Let’s
look again. Nope I think I got it right. We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,
that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,
RE: So Then it is
correct to say:
All men are endowed by their Creator with certain
RE: The pursuit
of Happiness being one. Now as I said. I’m just a Simple Country Philosopher
but it seems to me that is exactly what locking them into an economic system
like that is doing. Denying the people their Constitutional right to the
Pursuit of Happiness. The government should be concerned with this because the
people instituted the government to protect and secure our rights for us. Now
when the writers of the Constitution said “We” do you really suppose they were
speaking of Goldman/Sachs or any other multi-billion dollar corporation? I
don’t think so. I think that in 1776 they were speaking of those from whom they
derived their power. The people; not the corporations.
RE: Of course it
is possible that you share Mitt Romney’s view that “Corporations are people
too.” In which case I’d like to have General Dynamics over for Christmas
dinner. I hear they can afford some bangin’ presents.
RE: Now I really
don’t think that a majority…….or even a minority of the people of whom I so
often speak are likely to make enough money to pursue a fast car much less
happiness. Because (and these are two important points so don’t nod off on me
now Man) First point: I understand that there are many people who are able to
achieve the worthy goal of which we speak. I also understand that there are
many more that are able to achieve that goal with some help. Education or Training
or “Other”. But there are those, and quite a few who, are never going to
achieve that goal under the present system. They will never be able to pursue
happiness. When they try, all they will find is Misery; in a land where the
people set up a government and gave it a mandate to: establish
Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common
defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to
ourselves. And nobody is
suggesting that we pop a few million in their account so they can invest it and
aspire to super-wealth. Just assure them
the ability to live and pursue happiness. I know that is a vague sort of term.
It always has been because as you have so often pointed out. The American Dream
is different for everyone. I don’t disagree. My only point of contention is the
notion that working and struggling all your life for little gain doesn’t
qualify as a variant of that dream.
After reading all of the preceding quotes and really thinking about it; do you
believe that the intention of the Founding Fathers was to set up a government
that would allow its people to forgo the dream and live in poverty and
industrial enslavement? I don’t think so. The people of the nation at that time
came from Europe and from lives of subservience to monarchs and petty lords who
often were willing to allow such things as famine and poverty to afflict the
people through selfish desire for wealth and power. They ravaged and exploited
their people at will. That was exactly the type of life they were fleeing from
when they came here. The idea of a different government; a kinder, gentler
government that cared for its people by offering opportunity and freedom to
pursue happiness; whether that meant wealth or just comfort and food. Probably
at the time, they felt that anyone and everyone would be able to prosper to
their desired level here because it was new and a very fashionable idea. But as
time went on the reality that along with wealth and success comes poverty and
failure for some surely became clear. At first and for a long time, private
charity was the only relief for these people. They suffered and starved often,
waiting for private charity to do something because the problem had become so
much larger than the private charities could handle. Then someone looked at the
situation and the notion that a kinder gentler government would try to stop
starvation and exposure etc. But still these people suffer because all we are
willing to give them is subsistence, not the promised dream. And when I read
the Documents that provide the blueprint for our nation, I don’t see poverty
and misery as one of the things the Founding Fathers wished or would allow if
they were here with us today. I will admit that they probably expected more of
the wealthy people than they have been willing to give but that is why the
Congress was given the authority to make laws. To protect the people. Not to
oppress and impoverish them as seems to be the trend over the last hundred
years or so. Except when great public pressure was brought to bear on them to
do something such as give women the vote or enact civil rights legislation.
C-man: I’m sorry to burst
your bubble but big business isn’t the leader of our party,
RE: I have often
made the point and so have you that candidates owe contributors favorable
consideration, to say the least.
Mindless devotion may be more accurate so I think the following data
tells us who runs your party.
I have color coded
the corporations that show up on multiple lists. (Take a good look. If the
colors won’t transfer I’ll e-mail this as an attachment so you can get a better
look.) The Red asterisks indicate
corporations that were on John McCain’s 2007 list and were part of the
Sub-prime Mortgage scandal and also show up on Obama’s lists. I think it is
also important to remember that these are only the top ten. If we look further
down the current lists I think it likely we would find other such duplications
between the Parties.
Mitt Romney – Top ten Contributors Rick Perry’s Top ten
|Goldman Sachs||$354,700||Ryan LLC||$197,800|
|Credit Suisse Group||$195,250||Murray Energy||$66,803|
|HIG Capital||$176,500||Contran Corp||$50,000|
|Barclays||$155,250|| Ernst &
|Kirkland & Ellis||$129,100|| Clayton Williams
|Bank of America||$121,500||State of Texas||$41,750|
|EMC Corp||$117,300|| McNa Dental
|JPMorgan Chase & Co||$109,750|| Global Mine
|The Villages||$92,500||Primoris Services||$27,500|
|Vivint Inc||$88,250|| Allen, Boone et
|Sullivan & Cromwell||$78,750||Reschini Group||$27,500|
|Marriott International||$75,837||JPMorgan Chase & Co||$27,050|
|Bain Capital||$69,500|| Locke Lord
Bissell & Liddell LLP
|UBS AG||$64,250||Texas Oncology||$22,950|
|Wells Fargo||$63,000|| Phillips
|Blackstone Group||$57,300||MMC Group||$22,500|
|Citigroup Inc||$56,550|| Universal
|KKR & Co||$53,900|| Morgan
Herman Cain’s Top ten Contributors Newt Gingrich’s Top Ten
|Wausau Homes||$9,800||Rock-Tenn Co||$25,000|
|Wells Fargo||$8,300||Poet LLC||$17,000|
|Houston Texans||$7,400|| First Fiscal
|Cold Spring Granite||$6,000|| State Mutual
|Cinco Natural Gas||$5,200|| American Fruits
|Ggam LLC||$5,000||Windway Capital||$9,600|
|Barron Collier Comp||$5,000||Streck Inc||$7,500|
|Third Security||$5,000||Blackstone Group||$7,000|
|Whitaker Oil||$5,000|| Richardson
|Wynn Resorts||$5,000||Wirco Inc||$6,000|
|Creative Dimensions||$5,000||Wells Fargo||$5,900|
|JM Smucker Co||$5,000||AFLAC Inc||$5,000|
|Hilton Hotels||$5,000|| J Smith Lanier
|Infinity Oil & Gas||$5,000|| American
|Ames Research Laboratory||$5,000||Clark Consulting||$5,000|
|Arb Corp||$5,000|| United Health
|Fox, Paine & Co||$5,000||Citizens United||$5,000|
|Greenhill & Co||$5,000||Alticor Corp||$5,000|
|Jones Petroleum||$5,000|| McKenna, Long
Ron Paul’s Top Ten
John McCain’s Top Ten Contributors 2008
|US Air Force||$23,437|| Merrill Lynch(BOA)
|US Army||$23,053||JPMorgan Chase & Co||$343,505|
|US Navy||$16,973||Citigroup Inc||$338,202|
|Mason Capital Management||$14,000|| Morgan
|Microsoft Corp||$13,398|| Goldman
|Boeing Co||$10,620||US Government||$202,929|
|$10,391|| AT&T Inc
|Lockheed Martin||$9,507|| Wachovia
|Overland Sheepskin||$9,500||UBS AG||$187,493|
|IBM Corp||$8,294|| Credit
|US Government||$8,207|| PricewaterhouseCoopers
|Corriente Advisors||$7,500||US Army||$169,020|
|Greenstreet Co||$7,500|| Bank of America
|AT&T Inc||$7,329|| Gibson, Dunn
|Northrop Grumman||$7,022||Blank Rome LLP||$155,226|
|Intel Corp||$6,855|| Greenberg
|Federal Express Corp||$6,255|| US Dept of
|United Technologies||$6,115||FedEx Corp||$131,974|
|DUNN Capital Management||$6,000|| Lehman
|Entergy Corp||$5,950|| Ernst &
Top McCain 2007 Contributors
(Subprime Scandal) (Class 3 asset questions) $145,050******
2 Blank Rome LLP – (attorneys) $141,400
3 Greenberg Traurig – (1750 lawyers) $129,987
4 Merrill Lynch(BOA) (Subprime Scandal) (Class 3 asset questions) $119,675*****
Goldman Sachs (Subprime Scandal) (Class 3 asset questions) $111,050*******
6 IDT Corp – (telecommunications) $80,150
7 Pinnacle West Capital $77,850
of New York Mellon (Subprime Scandal) $74,000
Morgan Chase & Co
(Subprime Scandal) (Class 3 asset questions) $72,100*********
10 Irvine Co Apartment Community $68,400
11 Broadcasting Media Partners $67,800
12 MGM Mirage $66,100
13 Credit Suisse Group $63,350
Lehman Brothers (Subprime Scandal) $61,450
Bridgewater Assoc $58,300
16 Cisco Systems $56,850
17 Triwest Healthcare Alliance $54,250
18 FedEx Corp $52,100
Wachovia Corp (Subprime Scandal) $52,100
20 Morgan Stanley – (Subprime Scandal) (Class 3 asset questions) $51,950*********
Isn’t President Obama
the recipient of the largest campaign donations made by “big business” in all
RE: Now look at the stellar record of the President and
let’s see who runs his party.
Barak Obama’s Top Ten Contributors
Obama’s Top Ten Contributors
|Microsoft Corp||$170,323|| University of
|Comcast Corp||$116,155||******Goldman Sachs||$1,013,091|
|Harvard University||$94,225|| Harvard
|Google Inc||$90,166||Microsoft Corp||$852,167|
|University of California||$83,679||Google Inc||$814,540|
|DLA Piper||$79,375||******JPMorgan Chase & Co||$808,799|
|Chopper Trading||$64,815||******Citigroup Inc||$736,771|
|Skadden, Arps et al||$64,162||Time Warner||$624,618|
|Stanford University||$62,928|| Sidley Austin
|Ballard, Spahr et al||$61,300|| Stanford
|Time Warner||$60,050|| National
|US Government||$57,430||WilmerHale LLP||$550,668|
|National Amusements Inc||$57,100|| Columbia
|Latham & Watkins||$54,582|| Skadden,
Arps et al
|Arnold & Porter||$51,200||UBS AG||$532,674|
|*****Goldman Sachs||$49,124||IBM Corp||$532,372|
|Exelon Corp||$48,625|| General
|Mayer Brown LLP||$46,700||US Government||$513,308|
|Columbia University||$45,097|| Latham &
RE: Well look at
that. It would appear that many of the same companies that run the Republican
Party also run the Democratic Party So where is; or what is that two party
system? It doesn’t exist. Conspiracy Theorist? Hmmmm
Who runs the Republican Party? Corporations
Who runs the Democratic Party? Corporations
Who runs the Political System? Corporations
Who runs the Nation?
Liberals accuse Conservatives of it; Conservatives accuse
Liberals of it. They’re both right. Every time we talk you suggest that Obama
is my hero. I do like Obama more than Mitt or any other republican candidate
although I suspect Mitt Romney is a lot more Liberal than your party would
think ideal. But Barak Obama isn’t the great Liberator (so to speak). I don’t
think we’re going to find a candidate who fits that bill. What I think is that
we need an “American Renaissance”. A change in many areas of our society. Yes,
it would redistribute some wealth but not so much that any harm would be done
to the wealthy. First though, what we need to do is find a way to create jobs a
train people so they are able to do a job that is not so far short of “the
dream” so that less needs to be made up for less people. I am all for
encouraging work and savings and investment but only if it is feasible for all
of our people.
However, I am not willing to count out those who for
whatever reason are not able to achieve that level. Let’s bring them up to that
level. Make them a viable part of the economy as well and at the same time show
generosity and compassion.
I do support Obama’s Jobs Plan for reasons I detailed in a
response to Dawn previously. One big reason is that the American Infrastructure
is going to require money. Now a lot of money. Wait ten years and the amount
will be gigantic. We may as well put people to work now and get it done cheap.
It’s rather a fortunate situation if you think about it. We need jobs. We need
Bridges etc. As I pointed out to Dawn, government jobs programs have a pretty
good record of success. The WPA was my example:
“The Works Progress Administration (renamed during
1939 as the Work Projects Administration; WPA) was the largest
and most ambitious New Deal agency, employing millions of unskilled
workers to carry out public works projects,
including the construction of public buildings and roads, and operated large
arts, drama, media, and literacy projects. It fed children and redistributed
food, clothing, and housing. Almost every community in the United States had a
park, bridge or school constructed by the agency, which especially benefited
rural and Western areas. The budget at the outset of the WPA in 1935 was $1.4
billion a year (about 6.7 percent of the 1935 GDP), and in total it spent $13.4
At its peak in 1938 it provided paid jobs for three million unemployed men (and
some women), as well as youth in a separate division,” Wikipedia
C-man: 1. The leader of
our party is the idea of limited government and individual responsibility,
seems like something both parties should be behind.
C-man: 2. Let me ask you
does an individual have any personal responsibility or is there always someone
else to blame for where you end up in life?
The first seems moot
now but the second is valid.
responsibility is a great concept. And I approve of it. In a perfect world
everyone would exhibit personal responsibility. I also believe that our
educational system is in need of a great reorganization and that is one part of
what I call the “American Renaissance”. If our schools were organized to change
as the needs of the children change. If children were taught in ways that
helped them to learn rather than forced them to memorize obsolete texts that
contain information they know is no longer to be trusted. If the love of
exploration and learning was encouraged rather than the fear of a twelve year sentence to a soul crushing
regimented force feeding. If all of these things came about. Perhaps we would
have more success teaching the concept of Personal Responsibility. No perhaps
about it. There are other things we can do but already I have gone longer than
I intended and to be honest; I don’t have a detailed plan for this. But I am
pretty sure of the questions even if I don’t have the answers to it all. And
that’s a start.
C-man: You talk a good
game about “freedom being a really big idea” in which you say a man should be
able to walk outside butt naked and if we don’t like it then don’t look or
build a fence so you don’t have to see that person naked. I guess you only want
freedom for certain things right,
RE: Yes, darn you. I was only hoping you wouldn’t
ask that particular question. Now that you have seen through my clever ruse I
may as well admit that my entire chest of political opinions and philosophy is
based on my desire to assert my right to stand naked in my yard smoking
marijuana. Don’t forget the Marijuana in my pocket.
C-man: You want to decide
how much money a person’s skill is by instituting a cap or regulation on just
how much one can earn. That seems far freedom maybe it’s an even bigger idea
then even you can comprehend my friend.
RE: Now hold on
there Conservaconfused. I never suggested a cap on anything. I suggested a
floor not a ceiling.
C-man: You also say that
there should be some regulation to keep businesses from passing on the higher
cost of business to their customers, well that is called socialism and it
doesn’t work just ask Stalin how that went for him.
RE: I would, but
his mum won’t ‘ave ‘im to the phone will she?
So I thought we would just continue without him. I admit a limited
knowledge of Socialism as a Philosophy. Most of my experience with the word is when
it is used to scare small children anytime a conservative speaks about giving
something to someone else without a profit.
But let’s take a look at Socialism. Since I am being called
Socialist, it shouldn’t be too hard for me to find a type that I could support.
I mean, it is important that we understand just what the conservatives think we
want. And at all costs I didn’t want any
of those imaginary scenarios and “I bet you” statistics that I offer with no
proof other than some emotional feeling I have.
/ˈsoʊʃəlɪzəm/ is an economic
system in which the means of production are commonly
owned and controlled cooperatively;
or a political philosophy advocating such a
As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social
relations and self-management; relatively equal
power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management
of economic and political affairs.
RE: No; the
general description doesn’t seem like what I suggest.
Main article: Planned
A planned economy combines public ownership of
the means of production with centralised state planning. This
model is usually associated with the centralised Soviet-style
command economy. In a centrally planned economy,
decisions regarding the quantity of goods and services to be produced are
planned in advance by a planning agency. This type of economic system was often
combined with a single-party political system, and is thus associated with the Communist states of the
RE: Nope. Not here.
Main article: Decentrally planned economy
A self-managed, decentralized planned economy,
is based upon autonomous self-regulating economic actors and a decentralized
mechanism of allocation and decision-making. Historically, this manifested
itself in proposals for worker-cooperatives and bottom-up planning through workplace democracy. A degree of self-management was practiced in the economic system
of the Socialist
Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which
contrasts to the centralized planning of enterprises in Soviet-style planned
RE: Or here
See also: Economic
A state-directed economy is a system where
either the state or worker cooperatives own the means of production, but
economic activity is directed to some degree by a government agency or planning
ministry through coordinating mechanisms such as indicative planning and dirigisme. This differs from a centralised planned economy (or a command
economy) in that micro-economic decision making, such as quantity to be
produced and output requirements, are left to managers and workers in the state
and cooperative enterprises rather than being mandated by a comprehensive
economic plan from a centralised planning board. However, the state will plan
long-term strategic investment and seek to coordinate at least some aspects of
production. It is possible for a state-directed economy to have elements of
both a market and planned economy. For example, investment decisions may be
semi-planned by the state, but decisions regarding production may be determined
by the market mechanism.
Main article: Market
Market socialism consists of publicly owned or
cooperatively owned enterprises operating in a market economy. It is a system
that utilizes the market and monetary prices for the
allocation and accounting of the means of production, thereby retaining the process of capital accumulation. The profit generated would be used to directly remunerate
employees or finance public institutions. In
state-oriented forms of market socialism, in which state enterprises attempt to
maximise profit, the profits can be used to fund government programs and
services through a social dividend, eliminating or
greatly diminishing the need for various forms of taxation that exist in
capitalist systems. Yugoslavia implemented a market socialist economy based on
cooperatives and worker self-management
RE: No. Not here either. All of these descriptions seem to want to
nationalize business and control production to accommodate strict consumption
RE: Well as I
am just a Simple Country Philosopher so I was a bit confused as to why you
would say such a thing. Then I found it. Something I could agree with.
Socialist for sure but not as extreme. It allows for a combination of the
Socialist and Capitalist.
“Socialists hold that capitalism is an illegitimate economic
system, since it serves the interests of the wealthy and allows the exploitation of lower
classes. As such, they wish to replace it completely or at least make
substantial modifications to it, in order to create a more just society that
would guarantee a certain basic standard of living. A primary
goal of socialism an economic arrangement that would serve the interests of
society as a whole.”
All Socialism quotes are from Wikipedia.
not so bad huh?
capitalism is an illegitimate economic system– I don’t
think it’s illegitimate. I do think that when Capitalism is allowed to run
amuck, the result is what we have today, which is a system that……
allows the exploitation of lower
classes- Now when the lower classes realize that they are being exploited,
change is bound to occur. In the past, radical change to a pure Socialism has
caused the downfall of nations. We certainly don’t want a government run by
someone like Uncle Joe. We don’t want to nationalize industry. We don’t want to
regulate production and consumption. We already have enough of that. Corn,
tobacco, and other crop subsidies are Socialist policies. So we don’t want to
change to pure Socialism. What we need as I see it is a Capitalist system but
it, – I don’t think the modifications would be
substantial. I think they would be
minor. But with some changes and some Socialist policies we can, by keeping the
Capitalist system and adding in a little Socialism we can………
create a more
just society– A society that allows its most
talented Capitalists to work their magic for the benefit of the society as a
whole but allows Socialist policy to redistribute some of the capital for the
benefit of the lower classes. Such a combination…..
would guarantee a
certain basic standard of living – And
there’s that floor I talked about. I admit that the changes would be a bit of a
pill for the money mongers to swallow but once the change was made and the
Capitalists got used to the system, the combination of the two systems would
allow us to develop…..
an economic arrangement that would serve the interests of society
as a whole. – In this way, all Americans could benefit from the Capitalist
system by using Socialist policies to prevent massive money hoarding and the
impoverishment of the masses. All Americans can live that dream I speak of.
But it can’t happen as long as we hold those old, Cold War fears.
Socialism is a difficult system to operate if asked to stand alone. So far most
nations who have tried it have failed. But I don’t believe that the reason they
failed was as much the Socialist system as the greed and power hunger of those
who lead the Socialist state. Soviet Socialism was no example of Socialism. So
let’s not say ask Uncle Joe. Uncle Joe was a tyrannical mass murderer who
twisted and used the system for his own ends of power and control. Just as an
example; In a nation run by a system designed to fairly distribute food, Stalin
engineered the starvation of millions of Ukrainians by shipping all of the
wheat they grew to other areas and allowing them nothing. That is not a
Socialist policy. That is evil run amuck.
If we just calm down and recognize that both Capitalism and
Socialism have good things to offer us, we can design a combination that would
bring greater prosperity to all Americans while still allowing the free market
you so love and believe in.
C-man: It seems like Liberals
only read the part of history that they like because when you turn the economy
into a socialist economy the end result isn’t everyone ends up living this
great happy middle class life style. The end result is everyone ends up living
in poverty and tyranny with no way to change their life except to try to escape
their country by risking their lives.
RE: History? You
read History? Humph. Me too. I love History. Shall we discuss the results and
the future prospects of societies where the vast majority of the wealth is in
the hands of the few while the many stumble along with a tiny portion of the
wealth? No I think we’ve been there. So let’s talk about History in general.
History is the story of people. People who did well and those who did not. If
we study the mistakes of the past, we can, if we use our heads, avoid those
mistakes. So, do I only read the parts of history I like? No. I read it all. I
only recommend using the parts I like. The ones that were good ideas. The
successful parts. It would be foolish of me to recommend to you that we repeat
the mistakes of the past; wouldn’t it? And if I need to tell you that……then I
suggest you do some more reading because the consequences of repeating the
mistakes from History are so severe; especially in this age, that those who do
not learn from History; and then repeat it; may not have the ability to control
the forces set loose. However; I don’t limit myself to ideas that are labeled
in a politically correct manner. In other words, the source of a great idea
doesn’t concern me. Taking the best ideas from the vast array of examples we
can examine seems the logical way to proceed if one is truly seeking justice
and equality for all people. Take the best policies from various past political
attempts and form something better than any of the individual philosophies
could ever hope to. Admiring and using ideas from one segment of a society does
not equate to a total transformation of your society. Just a tweaking.
You would think that by now Liberals would understand that when government
sticks it’s nose into the free market it only creates unintended consequences,
such is the case of the “Community Reinvestment Act” which is biggest cause of
the recession we are in.
RE: I don’t
really understand how the CRA can be blamed for the recession we are currently
in. The CRA was enacted in 1977. The bill requires banks to stop refusing loans
on the basis of the location of the property in question thus ending the
practice of “Redlining” that marked off large areas of cities as unacceptable
risk regardless of the qualifications of the borrower. This bill was not intended
to be used as an excuse for poor lending practices and the banks involved were
all warned long before the problem arose that lending in these old Redlined
areas should only be done as long as it was in line with good lending policies,
to people who could afford to repay the loans. This bill resulted in a rebirth
of many urban areas and saw great success for the 30 years between its
enactment and the Sub-Prime Mortgage Crisis of 2008. That crisis and the
attending economic damage was caused by the POOR lending practices of the
banks. No one forced those banks to make those loans. The banker’s own greed
and avarice caused them to do so.
C-man: Big businesses are
not entitled to make profits they are entitled to give it their best shot and
let the chips fall where they may as in the case of Apple, great products meant
RE: I agree. Now
if we could only get Big Business to understand that, we might be able to stop
the bail-outs and the political corruption they use to ensure their success. Is
that what you mean by a Free Market? I get it now. A Free Market is one where
the wealthy can use their money to influence the market to their advantage but
where anytime the less wealthy try to influence the market, by government
intervention or public outcry, to assure their continued participation in the
market and survival as sentient beings; they are labeled Socialist or
Communist. “Free Market” Ok, I take it back. Perhaps capitalism really is an
illegitimate economic system then. Well, I still think we can legitimize it by
injecting a modicum of Socialism here and there.
C-man: I like how you
give these imaginary scenarios and “I bet you” statistics that you offer no
proof other than some emotional feeling you have. Please give me actual
empirical data not some “bet” that everyone is actually a Liberal.
Conservadoubter, here you go. The table below shows the percentage of voters
and non-voters that consider themselves Conservatives. Liberals and Moderates.
So many wishy-washy people out there.
As you can see 54% of non-voters say they lean towards the
Only 30% lean Republican. Now this term, Moderate. Kind of
vague but I think we can get a pretty good idea of its meaning for our
Voters who describe themselves as centrist often mean
that they are moderate in their political views, advocating neither extreme left-wing politics nor right-wing politics. In the US, it is
claimed that 70% of the electorate occupy this position.
In politics, centrism is the ideal or the practice of
promoting policies that lie different from the standard political
left and political right. Most commonly, this is
visualized as part of the one-dimensional political spectrum of left-right politics, with centrism landing
in the middle between left-wing politics and right-wing politics. Centrist ideologies tend to focus around policies such as progressive taxation, civil liberties/human rights, economic liberalism and social liberalism.—Wikipedia
From text accompanying the tables below:
Who are these likely
nonvoters who constitute a majority of the American public this year?
significantly less Republican in their party affiliation than are likely
voters, and more supportive of an activist federal government.3
Despite their more
difficult economic circumstances, nonvoters express greater satisfaction with
national conditions than do likely voters, and are more likely to approve of
Barack Obama‘s job performance.
Across a range of topics,
nonvoters generally express more liberal views than do likely voters, though
there are some exceptions.
Fewer nonvoters than
voters describe their own political philosophy as conservative (31% for
nonvoters, 46% for voters).
And while 52% of nonvoters
express a preference for a bigger government providing more services, most
likely voters (61%) prefer a smaller government providing fewer services.
Nonvoters are slightly
less supportive of the decision to go to war in Afghanistan, with 47% calling
it the right decision compared with 58% among likely voters.
Nonvoting does not appear
to be a byproduct of contentment with the political system.
Somewhat more nonvoters
than voters say they are basically content with the federal government (25%
among nonvoters, 16% among likely voters), but this is a decidedly minority
Fully half of nonvoters
are frustrated with government and 19% say they are angry.
Similarly, most nonvoters
(73%) say they can trust the government in Washington to do what’s right only
some of the time, or never. This is about the same level of distrust expressed
by voters (76%).
RE: Sounds much more Liberal than Conservative to
me. Still pretty vague though. I know how you love statistics and charts and
the like, so I have included these for your entertainment.
Except from the:
New York Times July 7, 2011, 10:17 am
By NATE SILVER
Party is dependent, to an extent unprecedented in recent political history, on a single ideological group. That
group, of course, is conservatives.
It isn’t a bad thing to be in favor with conservatives: by some definitions
they make up about 40 percent of voters. But the terms ‘Republican’ and
‘conservative’ are growing closer and closer to being synonyms; fewer and fewer
nonconservatives vote Republican, and fewer
and fewer Republican voters are not conservative. The chart, culled from exit poll
data, shows the ideological disposition of those people who voted Republican
for the House of Representatives in the elections of 1984 through 2010. Until
fairly recently, about half of the people who voted Republican for Congress
(not all of whom are registered Republicans) identified themselves as
conservative, and the other half as moderate or, less commonly, liberal. But
lately the ratio has been skewing: in last year’s elections, 67 percent of
those who voted Republican said they were conservative, up from 58 percent two
years earlier and 48 percent ten years ago.
RE: So, it seems less and less Moderates are voting Republican which
is to say Conservative so I don’t think it would be unfair to say that more Moderates
are sympathetic to the Liberal side than the Conservative; especially in light
of the statement and the empirical data
C-man: The same applies
to government, everyone has the right to vote for a candidate that they think
represents their views the best. If people want to change things there are ways
to do it like VOTE or don’t buy products from these evil companies that don’t
pay the wages you think they should pay. Customers of Net Flix didn’t like when
they almost doubled their prices and many of them dropped the service in
protest of the price change, if enough people do that then the business will be
forced to change or they will go bankrupt.
RE: I really
don’t think anything will be served by my replying to such a ridiculous
statement. The time for subtle economic pressure is long past. The value of the
vote is also long past. About 235 years past.
C-man: If you don’t vote
then you can’t complain about the system, PERIOD.
RE: Well…… Let’s
just take a look; shall we?
Constitution of The
We the People of the
States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure
domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do
ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Congress shall make no
law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
Government for a redress of grievances.
All persons born or
naturalized in the
United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the
United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or
enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of
the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The right of citizens
of the United
States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any
State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
The right of citizens
of the United
States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice
for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative
in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State
by reason of failure to pay poll tax or other tax.
The right of citizens
of the United
States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or
abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.
RE: Well, it
looks like every passage that is concerned with voting. I see where a citizen
can’t be prohibited from voting. But I don’t see one that says a citizen must
vote. How about you? If a citizen does not vote; doesn’t he still have to live
under the authority of the government that won the election?
I see the Constitution was written by “We, the people”. I
failed to see where it said, “We, the voting people. I did happen to notice
this little thing back there in the 1st amendment that says, “Congress shall make no law; abridging the freedom of speech”. Of
course, I’m just a Simple Country Philosopher but it seems to me that the
Supreme court has ruled on various occasions that “Free Speech” is not limited
to verbal communication but can be considered to cover any act of protest or
art or various other types of self-expression. Even voting is considered an act
of “Free Speech”. And so is the act of not voting. Vote or don’t. In this
country it has no bearing on your right to complain; or does it? Let’s take a
Congress shall make
no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition
Government for a redress of grievances.
Nope I don’t see that part you alluded to at all. I’m pretty
sure the Founding Fathers knew how to write, “voting” in between “the” and
“people” had they wished to. Or even, “except for those people who failed to
vote” right there at the end. Yeh, I don’t think I can buy that, “If you don’t vote then you can’t complain
about the system, PERIOD” stuff. I mean, how do you know? If you get sick
and can’t get to vote, how do we know you even intended to? If you didn’t
intend to, should we then deny you all of your rights or just the right to Free
Speech and Redress of Grievances? If you
intended to but couldn’t; is that ok? Can you keep your rights? Should we all
walk around with badges that say voter or non-voter so police and other people
know whether they have to allow you your rights. If you don’t vote; does the
government then have the authority to quarter troops in your home during
peacetime? Can they just come into any non-voters home and search and seize to
their heart’s content if you didn’t show up for the election?
And Hey. Don’t get me wrong. I’m all for voting. Looking at
current trends; the more voters who turn out; the better chance we have of a
Democratic victory. Whoopee! Well it’s the only choice right now.
However I can’t support your statement. PERIOD
C-man: I’m really not
worried or even trying to convince you that I or any other Conservative is a
good person, I know who I am as a person and how I treat others, I don’t need
your blessing to make me feel like a good guy.
RE: I understand
that. But …….well……”Bless you, my bald headed, mustachioed,
Conservafriend” Heh, heh, heh. Seriously
Man, I don’t think you are a bad guy. Even if you don’t care. I actually think
you are a sincere person who really believes what he says………..I’m not sure why?
I was watching Bill Maher this morning and he made a comment that struck me and
reminded me of you. He said he could understand why the 1% support the
Republican Party. But he couldn’t understand how they have held on to the
support of the rest of their believers. I would even stretch that and say 20%.
But if you fall anywhere in the bottom 80%; it’s really time to find another
answer, or I fear you will soon find yourself in the same position as the rest
of us “used to be middle class” peons.
C-man: Which policies
that I promote and or support are so harmful to people, please let me in on the
conspiracy to hurt people by the Republican party.
RE: I don’t believe that you intentionally
support policies that are directly harmful. The Republican Party has a
general agenda of harmful policies. I think you know which ones I mean. I won’t
go in depth here. The policies that support the 1% and the banks and Big
Corporations to the detriment of the masses.
The policies that would expand the rape of our land and air
The policies that restrict the rights of the people in
direct opposition to the Constitution.
The policies that maintain the status quo in our electoral
The policies that allow such actions as Police violence
against American Patriots exercising their God given rights. (Yes, this goes
for the Democrats as well) They shame me. Especially when their collusion is so
obvious and blatant. (BUT-like I said: Who runs the Political System? Corporations. Who runs the Nation?
Shall I go on. It can only get worse. I haven’t even begun
to talk about foreign aid or human rights or war mongering or torture or the
assassination of US citizens or………………………………………………
That’s about all I have. I hope you found this specific
enough with enough empirical data to choke a horse.
The last thing that I want to say is that there is a passage
from the Declaration of Independence that is so often ignored or
forgotten but which is, as valid today as when it was written. The manner and
tone can be controlled and hopefully will be but the time is fast approaching
when the American people will remember what it says. They will enact that piece
of the Declaration. They will design change. Good or Bad. It is coming.
We hold these truths
to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among
these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these
rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from
the consent of the governed, –That
whenever any Form of Government becomes
destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles
and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to
effect their Safety and Happiness.