Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Fox's Fair and Balanced approach goes bad...

jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 12:11:26 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 12:03:31 AM, Lasagna wrote:
this is actually pretty good... watching their jaws drop as they realized they just ufcked up bad.



I started an old forum called "Liberals Talk About Fox News Way Too Much"

This is what I was talking about
President of DDO
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 12:19:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I started an old forum called "Liberals Talk About Fox News Way Too Much"


This is what I was talking about

Embarrassed?
Rob
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:04:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 12:03:31 AM, Lasagna wrote:
this is actually pretty good... watching their jaws drop as they realized they just ufcked up bad.



After he leaves they said they do nor endores his opinions about Obama being Hitler (even though in reality they have similar economic, and environmental philosophies, and both favor centralization of government, and hate being questioned, love propaganda, and giving speeches about BS)
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:06:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 3:04:52 AM, DanT wrote:
At 10/5/2011 12:03:31 AM, Lasagna wrote:
this is actually pretty good... watching their jaws drop as they realized they just ufcked up bad.



After he leaves they said they do nor endores his opinions about Obama being Hitler (even though in reality they have similar economic, and environmental philosophies, and both favor centralization of government, and hate being questioned, love propaganda, and giving speeches about BS)

Sorry about the typos I'm on my iPhone...
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 9:07:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/5/2011 12:19:02 AM, Lasagna wrote:
I started an old forum called "Liberals Talk About Fox News Way Too Much"


This is what I was talking about

Embarrassed?

No, I could spend all day posting silly things that happen on MSNBC, but I don't.

I just don't find it interesting or relevant.
President of DDO
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:16:48 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
First time I've seen the video rather than just heard the clip. You can so tell that HWJ just doesn't give a damn.

Though this should end all that nonsence about all the Tea Party signs of Obama as Hitler being from LaRouche democrats. They found a few that were and suddenly they began saying that every single one of them was an imposter.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/5/2011 3:41:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I watched the video, and I don't even know what point you're trying to make. They brought in a guy as a political commentator to have a political opinion on the issue, but the actual hosts remained neutral throughout. A similie is just a similie; I think the comparison is meant to show opposites, not evil.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:23:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I just think it is hilarous that Fox, trying to maintain the shield of "Fair and Balanced," tries to bring in a guy with conservative views to make a few well-placed conservative points - only for him to turn out to be a full-fledged conservative who embarrasses the isht out of them. Watching the jaws drop was great.
Rob
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 11:24:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
...oh and watching them squirm afterwards and try to change the subject to football was great too. I know you guys couldn't sense any of it ELL OH ELL
Rob
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/6/2011 2:08:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/6/2011 11:23:19 AM, Lasagna wrote:
I just think it is hilarous that Fox, trying to maintain the shield of "Fair and Balanced," tries to bring in a guy with conservative views to make a few well-placed conservative points - only for him to turn out to be a full-fledged conservative who embarrasses the isht out of them. Watching the jaws drop was great.

News flash No Media Network is Fair Balanced. They are ALL bias.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 1:38:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I don't understand the point. Is the contention that true fairness requires all guests to be carefully screened so that they say nothing disagreeable? MSNBC does a good job of making sure there is no dissent, so is that the way a network should be run?

Perhaps the problem is that Leftists believe that it is impossible to be so far to the Left to be out of bounds. Castro, Mao ... no problem, they're legit. for example, Eleanor Roosevelt warmly embraced Joseph Stalin but refused to shake hands with Senator McCarthy. But conservatives do recognize out-of-bounds behavior.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 1:48:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 1:38:57 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I don't understand the point. Is the contention that true fairness requires all guests to be carefully screened so that they say nothing disagreeable? MSNBC does a good job of making sure there is no dissent, so is that the way a network should be run?

Perhaps the problem is that Leftists believe that it is impossible to be so far to the Left to be out of bounds. Castro, Mao ... no problem, they're legit. for example, Eleanor Roosevelt warmly embraced Joseph Stalin but refused to shake hands with Senator McCarthy. But conservatives do recognize out-of-bounds behavior.

The main problem with conservatives is their fear. Fear of liberals. It is not that liberals go out of bounds but rather conservative politicians planting fear in the minds of the American people that liberals are going to turn this into a socialist country and "re-distribute" wealth which is a baseless assertion that fails to take into account the intentions behind the views of liberals.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 3:18:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 1:48:07 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 1:38:57 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I don't understand the point. Is the contention that true fairness requires all guests to be carefully screened so that they say nothing disagreeable? MSNBC does a good job of making sure there is no dissent, so is that the way a network should be run?

Perhaps the problem is that Leftists believe that it is impossible to be so far to the Left to be out of bounds. Castro, Mao ... no problem, they're legit. for example, Eleanor Roosevelt warmly embraced Joseph Stalin but refused to shake hands with Senator McCarthy. But conservatives do recognize out-of-bounds behavior.

The main problem with conservatives is their fear. Fear of liberals. It is not that liberals go out of bounds but rather conservative politicians planting fear in the minds of the American people that liberals are going to turn this into a socialist country and "re-distribute" wealth which is a baseless assertion that fails to take into account the intentions behind the views of liberals.

Why would good intentions change anything? The road to hell is paved with them.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 3:27:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 3:18:33 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/7/2011 1:48:07 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 1:38:57 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I don't understand the point. Is the contention that true fairness requires all guests to be carefully screened so that they say nothing disagreeable? MSNBC does a good job of making sure there is no dissent, so is that the way a network should be run?

Perhaps the problem is that Leftists believe that it is impossible to be so far to the Left to be out of bounds. Castro, Mao ... no problem, they're legit. for example, Eleanor Roosevelt warmly embraced Joseph Stalin but refused to shake hands with Senator McCarthy. But conservatives do recognize out-of-bounds behavior.

The main problem with conservatives is their fear. Fear of liberals. It is not that liberals go out of bounds but rather conservative politicians planting fear in the minds of the American people that liberals are going to turn this into a socialist country and "re-distribute" wealth which is a baseless assertion that fails to take into account the intentions behind the views of liberals.

Why would good intentions change anything? The road to hell is paved with them.

So is the road back.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 3:43:40 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 3:18:33 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/7/2011 1:48:07 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 1:38:57 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I don't understand the point. Is the contention that true fairness requires all guests to be carefully screened so that they say nothing disagreeable? MSNBC does a good job of making sure there is no dissent, so is that the way a network should be run?

Perhaps the problem is that Leftists believe that it is impossible to be so far to the Left to be out of bounds. Castro, Mao ... no problem, they're legit. for example, Eleanor Roosevelt warmly embraced Joseph Stalin but refused to shake hands with Senator McCarthy. But conservatives do recognize out-of-bounds behavior.

The main problem with conservatives is their fear. Fear of liberals. It is not that liberals go out of bounds but rather conservative politicians planting fear in the minds of the American people that liberals are going to turn this into a socialist country and "re-distribute" wealth which is a baseless assertion that fails to take into account the intentions behind the views of liberals.

Why would good intentions change anything? The road to hell is paved with them.

I am not talking about "good" or "bad" intentions. I am saying that the intent behind liberals increasing taxes on businesses and reducing taxes on the middle-class is not socialism neither is it intended to be socialism.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 4:31:41 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 3:43:40 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 3:18:33 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/7/2011 1:48:07 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 1:38:57 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I don't understand the point. Is the contention that true fairness requires all guests to be carefully screened so that they say nothing disagreeable? MSNBC does a good job of making sure there is no dissent, so is that the way a network should be run?

Perhaps the problem is that Leftists believe that it is impossible to be so far to the Left to be out of bounds. Castro, Mao ... no problem, they're legit. for example, Eleanor Roosevelt warmly embraced Joseph Stalin but refused to shake hands with Senator McCarthy. But conservatives do recognize out-of-bounds behavior.

The main problem with conservatives is their fear. Fear of liberals. It is not that liberals go out of bounds but rather conservative politicians planting fear in the minds of the American people that liberals are going to turn this into a socialist country and "re-distribute" wealth which is a baseless assertion that fails to take into account the intentions behind the views of liberals.

Why would good intentions change anything? The road to hell is paved with them.

I am not talking about "good" or "bad" intentions. I am saying that the intent behind liberals increasing taxes on businesses and reducing taxes on the middle-class is not socialism neither is it intended to be socialism.

Oh, so liberals want to violently take the property of a small group of people, ignoring thousands of years of economic knowledge in the process...

But, this okay because their INTENT isn't socialism....

Glad you cleared that up
President of DDO
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 5:12:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 3:43:40 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I am not talking about "good" or "bad" intentions. I am saying that the intent behind liberals increasing taxes on businesses and reducing taxes on the middle-class is not socialism neither is it intended to be socialism.

That's semantics. It rests on defining "socialism" as "government control of the means of production." The modern concept is to control nearly everything that business does through massive government regulation -- indirect control rather than direct control. Then businesses can be said to be free even though government tightly controls what they make, how it's made, how much profit is allowed, and every nearly every detail of the operations. The idea is that really smart people --liberals--- know how to do things best, so the world will be a better place if all the things liberals deem good are forced on to others.

Obama said explicitly that his goal was to "spread the wealth around." Redistribution of wealth "from each according to his ability,to each according to his need" is a lasting principle of the socialist ideal.

It has never worked and it never will. How do liberals explain why East Germany failed and West Germany succeeded, or any other failure of socialism compared to free enterprise. Liberals think that the comparisons are not valid because "we don't want that." Sorry, East Germans wanted prosperity and so do North Koreans and every over socialist regime. The other option is that the failed socialist rulers are not as smart as Western liberals, so they make mistakes. That's wrong as well, and is racist at root. Government control inevitably brings poverty, and the only equality of wealth is near-universal poverty.
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 5:35:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 5:12:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/7/2011 3:43:40 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I am not talking about "good" or "bad" intentions. I am saying that the intent behind liberals increasing taxes on businesses and reducing taxes on the middle-class is not socialism neither is it intended to be socialism.

That's semantics. It rests on defining "socialism" as "government control of the means of production." The modern concept is to control nearly everything that business does through massive government regulation -- indirect control rather than direct control. Then businesses can be said to be free even though government tightly controls what they make, how it's made, how much profit is allowed, and every nearly every detail of the operations. The idea is that really smart people --liberals--- know how to do things best, so the world will be a better place if all the things liberals deem good are forced on to others.

Obama said explicitly that his goal was to "spread the wealth around." Redistribution of wealth "from each according to his ability,to each according to his need" is a lasting principle of the socialist ideal.

It has never worked and it never will. How do liberals explain why East Germany failed and West Germany succeeded, or any other failure of socialism compared to free enterprise. Liberals think that the comparisons are not valid because "we don't want that." Sorry, East Germans wanted prosperity and so do North Koreans and every over socialist regime. The other option is that the failed socialist rulers are not as smart as Western liberals, so they make mistakes. That's wrong as well, and is racist at root. Government control inevitably brings poverty, and the only equality of wealth is near-universal poverty.

Obama's response to Joe the plumber:
"Over the last 15 years, when you weren't making 250, you would have been given a tax cut from me, so you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code. So there are two ways of looking at it – I mean one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful through hard work – you don't want to be taxed as much."

This clearly shows that Obama wants to help Americans achieve the American dream of starting a business quicker. Part of the essence of capitalism is that anyone can start a business and Obama clearly supports that. The quote about "redistributing wealth" was taken out of context by Republicans and harped on about until some people started believing that Obama was a Socialist. But thankfully the media quickly realized the mistake and pointed out how the McCain campaign was the dirtiest smear campaign in recent history.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 5:38:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 1:48:07 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 1:38:57 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I don't understand the point. Is the contention that true fairness requires all guests to be carefully screened so that they say nothing disagreeable? MSNBC does a good job of making sure there is no dissent, so is that the way a network should be run?

Perhaps the problem is that Leftists believe that it is impossible to be so far to the Left to be out of bounds. Castro, Mao ... no problem, they're legit. for example, Eleanor Roosevelt warmly embraced Joseph Stalin but refused to shake hands with Senator McCarthy. But conservatives do recognize out-of-bounds behavior.

The main problem with conservatives is their fear. Fear of liberals.

Two way street. If I remember correctly the Obama Administration called the Tea Party, Gun owners, and various other people, "potential terrorists"; and that was just year 1.

It is not that liberals go out of bounds but rather conservative politicians planting fear in the minds of the American people that liberals are going to turn this into a socialist country and "re-distribute" wealth

Didn't Obama say he wanted to quote, "spread the wealth around"

which is a baseless assertion that fails to take into account the intentions behind the views of liberals.

Not really. Democratic Politicians actually say it themselves. (See attached video)
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 5:39:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 5:35:01 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 5:12:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/7/2011 3:43:40 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I am not talking about "good" or "bad" intentions. I am saying that the intent behind liberals increasing taxes on businesses and reducing taxes on the middle-class is not socialism neither is it intended to be socialism.

That's semantics. It rests on defining "socialism" as "government control of the means of production." The modern concept is to control nearly everything that business does through massive government regulation -- indirect control rather than direct control. Then businesses can be said to be free even though government tightly controls what they make, how it's made, how much profit is allowed, and every nearly every detail of the operations. The idea is that really smart people --liberals--- know how to do things best, so the world will be a better place if all the things liberals deem good are forced on to others.

Obama said explicitly that his goal was to "spread the wealth around." Redistribution of wealth "from each according to his ability,to each according to his need" is a lasting principle of the socialist ideal.

It has never worked and it never will. How do liberals explain why East Germany failed and West Germany succeeded, or any other failure of socialism compared to free enterprise. Liberals think that the comparisons are not valid because "we don't want that." Sorry, East Germans wanted prosperity and so do North Koreans and every over socialist regime. The other option is that the failed socialist rulers are not as smart as Western liberals, so they make mistakes. That's wrong as well, and is racist at root. Government control inevitably brings poverty, and the only equality of wealth is near-universal poverty.

Obama's response to Joe the plumber:
"Over the last 15 years, when you weren't making 250, you would have been given a tax cut from me, so you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code. So there are two ways of looking at it – I mean one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful through hard work – you don't want to be taxed as much."

This clearly shows that Obama wants to help Americans achieve the American dream of starting a business quicker. Part of the essence of capitalism is that anyone can start a business and Obama clearly supports that. The quote about "redistributing wealth" was taken out of context by Republicans and harped on about until some people started believing that Obama was a Socialist. But thankfully the media quickly realized the mistake and pointed out how the McCain campaign was the dirtiest smear campaign in recent history.


Also, I flatly disagree with the "modern" definition of socialism. Why can't republicans just call it "increased government regulations" instead of socialism?
Ans: They need a buzzword to practice their scare tactics with, and "socialism" perfectly fits the bill as a buzzword since most Americans despise it.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 5:39:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 5:35:01 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 5:12:00 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 10/7/2011 3:43:40 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
I am not talking about "good" or "bad" intentions. I am saying that the intent behind liberals increasing taxes on businesses and reducing taxes on the middle-class is not socialism neither is it intended to be socialism.

That's semantics. It rests on defining "socialism" as "government control of the means of production." The modern concept is to control nearly everything that business does through massive government regulation -- indirect control rather than direct control. Then businesses can be said to be free even though government tightly controls what they make, how it's made, how much profit is allowed, and every nearly every detail of the operations. The idea is that really smart people --liberals--- know how to do things best, so the world will be a better place if all the things liberals deem good are forced on to others.

Obama said explicitly that his goal was to "spread the wealth around." Redistribution of wealth "from each according to his ability,to each according to his need" is a lasting principle of the socialist ideal.

It has never worked and it never will. How do liberals explain why East Germany failed and West Germany succeeded, or any other failure of socialism compared to free enterprise. Liberals think that the comparisons are not valid because "we don't want that." Sorry, East Germans wanted prosperity and so do North Koreans and every over socialist regime. The other option is that the failed socialist rulers are not as smart as Western liberals, so they make mistakes. That's wrong as well, and is racist at root. Government control inevitably brings poverty, and the only equality of wealth is near-universal poverty.

Obama's response to Joe the plumber:
"Over the last 15 years, when you weren't making 250, you would have been given a tax cut from me, so you'd actually have more money, which means you would have saved more, which means you would have gotten to the point where you could build your small business quicker than under the current tax code. So there are two ways of looking at it – I mean one way of looking at it is, now that you've become more successful through hard work – you don't want to be taxed as much."

This clearly shows that Obama wants to help Americans achieve the American dream of starting a business quicker. Part of the essence of capitalism is that anyone can start a business and Obama clearly supports that. The quote about "redistributing wealth" was taken out of context by Republicans and harped on about until some people started believing that Obama was a Socialist. But thankfully the media quickly realized the mistake and pointed out how the McCain campaign was the dirtiest smear campaign in recent history.

F_16, you never cease to amaze me...

"This clearly shows that Obama wants to help Americans achieve the American dream of starting a business quicker. Part of the essence of capitalism is that anyone can start a business and Obama clearly supports that"

You have outdone yourself here... This is so far from anything any capitalists have ever advocated it truly amazes me
President of DDO
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 5:42:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 5:39:04 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

F_16, you never cease to amaze me...

Why? because his reply was so accurate?

"This clearly shows that Obama wants to help Americans achieve the American dream of starting a business quicker. Part of the essence of capitalism is that anyone can start a business and Obama clearly supports that"

You have outdone yourself here... This is so far from anything any capitalists have ever advocated it truly amazes me

You know,...what one should REALLY be amazed about is how responses of vacuous astonishment can be used to substitute legitimate rebuttals.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 5:44:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 5:42:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/7/2011 5:39:04 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

F_16, you never cease to amaze me...

Why? because his reply was so accurate?

"This clearly shows that Obama wants to help Americans achieve the American dream of starting a business quicker. Part of the essence of capitalism is that anyone can start a business and Obama clearly supports that"

You have outdone yourself here... This is so far from anything any capitalists have ever advocated it truly amazes me

You know,...what one should REALLY be amazed about is how responses of vacuous astonishment can be used to substitute legitimate rebuttals.

It really was a pretty stupid comment he was making.

I am tired of "progressives" trying to advance these awful economic proposals in the name of "intent"
President of DDO
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 5:51:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Sigh.

My entire circle of friends are liberal (whereas I'm socially lib and econ. conserv.), and all they can says is "Fox News this" and "Fox News that," as though they think it's an accurate representation of real conservatives.

Honestly guys--does one news station really matter?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
Posts: 18,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 5:52:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 5:44:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 5:42:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/7/2011 5:39:04 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

F_16, you never cease to amaze me...

Why? because his reply was so accurate?

"This clearly shows that Obama wants to help Americans achieve the American dream of starting a business quicker. Part of the essence of capitalism is that anyone can start a business and Obama clearly supports that"

You have outdone yourself here... This is so far from anything any capitalists have ever advocated it truly amazes me

You know,...what one should REALLY be amazed about is how responses of vacuous astonishment can be used to substitute legitimate rebuttals.

It really was a pretty stupid comment he was making.

I am tired of "progressives" trying to advance these awful economic proposals in the name of "intent"

That makes no sense. My point is that what Obama is doing isn't Socialism.

Socialism: is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. - Wikipedia

How is Obama socialist?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 5:58:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 5:51:17 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Sigh.

My entire circle of friends are liberal (whereas I'm socially lib and econ. conserv.), and all they can says is "Fox News this" and "Fox News that," as though they think it's an accurate representation of real conservatives.

Honestly guys--does one news station really matter?

Yes it does. Those news stations are SOLELY responsible for the economic and political education of millions of Americans. If they do not accurately represent the conservative and liberal ideologies which they flamboyantly purport, then what does? Why would one not talk about the direct source of conservative or liberal ignorance in the nation?
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 6:13:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 5:52:27 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
At 10/7/2011 5:44:43 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 5:42:33 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 10/7/2011 5:39:04 PM, jimtimmy wrote:

F_16, you never cease to amaze me...

Why? because his reply was so accurate?

"This clearly shows that Obama wants to help Americans achieve the American dream of starting a business quicker. Part of the essence of capitalism is that anyone can start a business and Obama clearly supports that"

You have outdone yourself here... This is so far from anything any capitalists have ever advocated it truly amazes me

You know,...what one should REALLY be amazed about is how responses of vacuous astonishment can be used to substitute legitimate rebuttals.

It really was a pretty stupid comment he was making.

I am tired of "progressives" trying to advance these awful economic proposals in the name of "intent"

That makes no sense. My point is that what Obama is doing isn't Socialism.

Socialism: is an economic system in which the means of production are either state owned or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively; or a political philosophy advocating such a system. - Wikipedia

How is Obama socialist?

He has tried to further redistributive tax and spending policies that take large amounts from upper income Americans and spend it on lower income Americans...

He has dramatically expanded government control of industry... Through HC "reform" and all kinds of new regulations... And, his attempts to dramatically increase intervention in the energy industry...
President of DDO
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/7/2011 6:23:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/7/2011 5:39:04 PM, jimtimmy wrote:
At 10/7/2011 5:39:00 PM, F-16_Fighting_Falcon wrote:
The quote about "redistributing wealth" was taken out of context by Republicans and harped on about until some people started believing that Obama was a Socialist.

1.) Socialism isn't the redistribution of wealth, Keynesian Economics is.
2.) Keynesian Economics is at the core of Social Liberal Economics
3.) Allot of Liberal Politicians favor socialism over Keynesian economics
4.) Socialism is Government ownership of Industry
5.) Obamacare is by definition State Socialist
6.) F-16 said Obama never said anything about redistribution wealth, but he did.

But thankfully the media quickly realized the mistake and pointed out how the McCain campaign was the dirtiest smear campaign in recent history.

Tell that to President Jackson, I'm sure he'll disagree. The 1828 elections was pretty damn dirty.


This clearly shows that Obama wants to help Americans achieve the American dream of starting a business quicker. Part of the essence of capitalism is that anyone can start a business and Obama clearly supports that

LMAO Pure BS

That is again Keynesian Economics, and has nothing to do with socialism vs capitalism. The opposite of Keynesianism is laissez-faire, which is french for "let do".
laissez-faire is when Government says out of the economy.
Keynesianism is when the Government tries to stimulate the economy, through government programs.

Capitalism is Private ownership of capital
Socialism is Public ownership of capital
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle