So I suppose I will have to answer the question the lefties will not...

[Lukey]

Why is it that when a conservative is extolling the capitalist system, he or she NEVER needs to go on to say "of course, it must be done within the collectivist concepts that define our society?" I have NEVER heard that once. Well, it's simply because that isn't a radical position that needs to be mitigated.

Yet, we have many examples of President Obama praising collectivism and redistribution where he always goes on to say "of course markets are good too." And his supporters always point to that part of his speech and say "see - he's just a good capitalist...like you." Bullshit! That's his "gift." It's documented by others and he has bragged about it himself on numerous occasions. He has a way of talking about issues in a way that everyone listening to him walks away thinking he agrees with them. And that's a useful gift, isn't it? But, lets face it - no one has to disguise what they really believe (and that's what he is doing), or what they are really trying to do, if they are pushing the Constitution or capitalism...

 

[NightSwimmer]

It's all black or white to you, isn't it Lukey?



You need some more color in your life. You're too one-dimensional.

 

[jammer]

Escaped from your alternate reality universe where people give a crap about your rantings again didn't you Lukey? Go join boltlady in being afraid, very, very afraid.

 

[TomFitz]

Why is it that when a conservative is extolling the capitalist system, he or she NEVER needs to go on to say "of course, it must be done within the collectivist concepts that define our society?"

A straw man, known in the UK as an Aunt Sally, is a type of argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.[

Hope that helps!

 

[TomFitz]

Why is it that when a conservative is extolling the capitalist system, he or she NEVER needs to go on to say "of course, it must be done within the collectivist concepts that define our society?"

Maybe conservatives are just greedy, short sighted and selfish! ( I don't really think that, but it's a possiblity!)

 

[GordonGecko]

Lukey, WHERE in this world is "pure capitalism with no 'collectivism'????

My argument with you is....you're a Utopian and desire some ideal that has never worked or worked for long.

 

[NightSwimmer]

Maybe conservatives are just greedy, short sighted and selfish! ( I don't really think that, but it's a possiblity!)

I'm going with organic brain damage until I see some evidence to the contrary.

 

[Lukey]

Lukey, WHERE in this world is "pure capitalism with no 'collectivism'????

My argument with you is....you're a Utopian and desire some ideal that has never worked or worked for long.

I'm just asking a simple question. Of course every society (even the most capitalist) has some socialist aspects (be it progressive taxation or a social safety net or both). So why is it that those who are the most ardent supporters of free market capitalism (even in that context) NEVER feel obligated, by societal norm or nod to popular opinion or whatever, to couch their praise of free market capitalism in terms of our collectivist "sensibilities?" Why? Why? Why? You know and you won't answer...

 

[Craig]

I'm just asking a simple question. Of course every society (even the most capitalist) has some socialist aspects (be it progressive taxation or a social safety net or both). So why is it that those who are the most ardent supporters of free market capitalism (even in that context) NEVER feel obligated, by societal norm or nod to popular opinion or whatever, to couch their praise of free market capitalism in terms of our collectivist "sensibilities?" Why? Why? Why? You know and you won't answer...

Of course every society (even the most capitalist) has some socialist aspects


Their obligation is to try and convince 100% of the people that they too can be part of the 1%. This ridiculous concept actually works on quite a few people.

We the people...in order to form a more perfect union...

Damn collectivists...

 

[Lukey]

Of course every society (even the most capitalist) has some socialist aspects


Their obligation is to try and convince 100% of the people that they too can be part of the 1%. This ridiculous concept actually works on quite a few people.

We the people...in order to form a more perfect union...

Damn collectivists...

So why did our socialist founding fathers put all that pesky limited government check and balance language in if their goal was to have the President sit in the Oval Office and decide how much of other people's money he was going to give away?

 

[NightSwimmer]

I'm just asking a simple question. Of course every society (even the most capitalist) has some socialist aspects (be it progressive taxation or a social safety net or both). So why is it that those who are the most ardent supporters of free market capitalism (even in that context) NEVER feel obligated, by societal norm or nod to popular opinion or whatever, to couch their praise of free market capitalism in terms of our collectivist "sensibilities?" Why? Why? Why? You know and you won't answer...

Because they are in denial of reality. Your own response reveals the logical conundrum.

 

[Craig]

So why did our socialist founding fathers put all that pesky limited government check and balance language in if their goal was to have the President sit in the Oval Office and decide how much of other people's money he was going to give away?

Building another strawman?

You describe the budget process. Am I supposed to be outraged by your choice of words?

 

[Lukey]

Building another strawman?

You describe the budget process. Am I supposed to be outraged by your choice of words?

It is simply a fact that you progressives have been at war with the Constitution for 100 years. It is also a fact that since Obama was elected President you all have decided to just declare victory and move on into territory completely foreign (alien is perhaps a better term) to our founding fathers as if it was their ultimate intent for us all along. I might suggest that it is you all who are building a straw reality...

 

[Craig]

It is simply a fact that you progressives have been at war with the Constitution for 100 years. It is also a fact that since Obama was elected President you all have decided to just declare victory and move on into territory completely foreign (alien is perhaps a better term) to our founding fathers as if it was their ultimate intent for us all along. I might suggest that it is you all who are building a straw reality...

Suggest whatever you need to suggest.

At war with the constitution...Interesting phrase. I could easily contend that legislators in general are at war with the document. Amendments are submitted constantly, therefore, a rampant dissatisfaction with the document exists, clearly. From Flag protection amendments to marriage amendments to abortion amendments...we've seen such attempts from various lawmakers. The vaunted founding fathers did not weigh in on these circumstances...but did foresee a need for changes. But...changes result in ludicrous statements as "at war with the Constitution"...

While I appreciate the FFs....I cannot help but realize the world was a very different place in 1789. They, a non monolithic group, were not perfect...and neither was their vision, nor their document.

 

[Lukey]

Suggest whatever you need to suggest.

At war with the constitution...Interesting phrase. I could easily contend that legislators in general are at war with the document. Amendments are submitted constantly, therefore, a rampant dissatisfaction with the document exists, clearly. From Flag protection amendments to marriage amendments to abortion amendments...we've seen such attempts from various lawmakers. The vaunted founding fathers did not weigh in on these circumstances...but did foresee a need for changes. But...changes result in ludicrous statements as "at war with the Constitution"...

While I appreciate the FFs....I cannot help but realize the world was a very different place in 1789. They, a non monolithic group, were not perfect...and neither was their vision, nor their document.

Ah, but apparently the progressive agenda is - lets face it, you guys act like you all are infallible...

 

[Craig]

Ah, but apparently the progressive agenda is - lets face it, you guys act like you all are infallible...

From the man who cannot be proven wrong!!!!!! Unbelievable.

There has been one relative constant in the nation...and that is the expansion of these so called guaranteed rights. Progress. From the end of slavery to suffrage to gay marriage, the nation moves in that direction. That part is correct...and of course, missteps occur along the way. The progressive agenda is inclusive, your regressive agenda is exclusive. You are on the wrong side of United States history.

 

[Lukey]

From the man who cannot be proven wrong!!!!!! Unbelievable.

There has been one relative constant in the nation...and that is the expansion of these so called guaranteed rights. Progress. From the end of slavery to suffrage to gay marriage, the nation moves in that direction. That part is correct...and of course, missteps occur along the way. The progressive agenda is inclusive, your regressive agenda is exclusive. You are on the wrong side of United States history.

When was the last time you guys bothered to get an Amendment passed to facilitate your "progress" toward socialism???

 

[Craig]

When was the last time you guys bothered to get an Amendment passed to permit your march to socialism???

Uh...didn't you JUST write that ALL societies are SOCIALIST to some degree? Now I'm supposed to be askeeeeeeeerrd because you wrote the word socialist.

Those checks and balances must have been removed by the Supreme Court...huh?

 

[Lukey]

Uh...didn't you JUST write that ALL societies are SOCIALIST to some degree? Now I'm supposed to be askeeeeeeeerrd because you wrote the word socialist.

Those checks and balances must have been removed by the Supreme Court...huh?

Duh - did you miss the ACA ruling?

 

[Craig]

Duh - did you miss the ACA ruling?

So your disagreement with a ruling from the Conservative Roberts Court means the baby has been tossed out with the bath water. Got it.