Great post, but why make it? 1) Because it's a good post.
2) Because I find it necessary to keep reminding people that we need to hammer this message home.
Marxism is a beautiful lie. There are still people all over the world convinced that it'll work, and who are active in trying to make it work, despite all evidence to the contrary. "It hasn't really been tried." "The right people weren't in charge." "Capitalists suborned the government." Etc., etc.
Markadelphia once said that I have a "Randian" take on socialism. He's right. She lived it. She hated it. I do too. And anyone who believes Marx's beautiful lie needs to be bludgeoned bloody with clue-by-four.
It frustrates me that nobody uttering the phrase "the right people weren't in charge" seems to realize that if the system requires the right people to be in charge to work without bloody and horrible results, the system is fatally flawed.
Over the years I've collected a significant number of quotes to use in my email signatures. The one that popped up for an email I sent this morning was particularly timely and appropriate:
"Let no man turn aside, ever so slightly, from the broad path of honour, on the plausible pretence that he is justified by the goodness of his end. All good ends can be worked out by good means."
— Charles Dickens
Of all the people who should be decrying the evils that Marxism leads man to, Dali Lama #14 should be one. WTF? Marxism solves neither the problem of greed, corruption, or evil; it just changes how each operates.
Except that Rand's piece was a work of fiction born out of her horrible experiences in Russia. I recently had the occasion to visit a high school in the western suburbs and saw that Atlas Shrugged was in a glass case, along with some other books, with a sign above it that said "Science Fiction Classics." What a horrible time to be without my camera... 8-)
Kevin, we are not Russia. We never will be. Your belief system has drawn a connection between liberals in this country and Marxism. There is none. In short, you are wrong. I don't expect you to see this because I think you are pathologically committed to this paranoid delusion. The images of skulls that you put up is little different than my avatar on here. This is John Bircher land, Kevin, and it simply isn't balanced nor is it even close to being factually correct. As Mastiff said a long time ago, you have let your emotional mind reach a conclusion rather than your rational mind.
I trust capitalism, self-interest, and Adam Smith's "invisible hand." We have the track records of both, and I KNOW which one works.
Actually, it doesn't. You've said it yourself...it's a horrible system but it is the best one there is out there. I agree. But that doesn't mean that we have to believe that any sort of government power is immediately Marxism. Or that anyone to the left of you is a Marxist. Bernie Sanders is a democratic Socialist which is based on the capitalist mode of production. I don't expect you to understand this, though, as you have Marxist Tourettes much in the same way Glenn Beck has Nazi Tourettes.
President Obama would be along the same lines ideologically as President Eisenhower. So would Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. Ike would have been called a Marxist by you, had you been alive, immediately following his MIC speech. Wasn't he attacking the free market, after all? They are all moderates, Kevin. And I'm going to keep saying it as long as you remain delusional. Call me Marxy and tease me all you want. It won't matter. I'm right and you know that I am. Barack Obama isn't Lord Sauron and our country...our reality...isn't framed within the context of military science fiction. Or Rand's rage.
And, honestly, I can't understand why you are worried. The spill in the Gulf has shown quite clearly how little power the goverment truly has today. I'm not the only that has noticed it.
The disaster has demonstrated the enduring laxity of federal regulation of offshore operations and has shown the government to be almost wholly at the mercy of BP, the company leasing the rig, to provide the technology, personnel and equipment to stop the bleeding well.
Rand and Friedman followers unite! Your dream has been achieved! Everything remotely related to government control is now Marxist!!!
I'd say it's working out pretty well, eh? Trust and track record indeed...
"Except that Rand's piece was a work of fiction born out of her horrible experiences in Russia."
WE have told YOU, many times, that it is fiction, teacher boy. Your reading comprehension still on the fritz is it?
"As Mastiff said a long time ago, you have let your emotional mind reach a conclusion rather than your rational mind."
That's YOU, hypocrisy boy. Once again, we see your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert, yet again, that Kevin is what you don't like being accused of.
"But that doesn't mean that we have to believe that any sort of government power is immediately Marxism."
OOH! A straw man! Quick, get the popcorn!
It's your Standard Response #6, yet again, fuckwit. How original.
"Or that anyone to the left of you is a Marxist."
Another straw man!
"I don't expect you to understand this, though, as you have Marxist Tourettes much in the same way Glenn Beck has Nazi Tourettes."
Says the teacher who simply will not use a dictionary.
"President Obama would be along the same lines ideologically as President Eisenhower."
Really? Eisenhower was a leader, a soldier, a diplomat, a capitalist, and a Republican. Obamateur is not a leader, loathes the military, gaffes repeatedly and embarrasses the whole nation at diplomacy, is a socialist, and is a Democrat. Can you possibly trash your credibility any more?
"And, honestly, I can't understand why you are worried. The spill in the Gulf has shown quite clearly how little power the goverment truly has today."
You would have us believe that no finger of shame should be pointed in Obamateur's direction regarding the oil spill because the feddle gubmint has so little power, by golly. Now, just how many times, in how many ways, and about how many issues did YOU point the finger of blame at George W, as if the feddle gubmint was all-powerful and ol' George was responsible for everyy goddamned thing that happened everywhere in the world, all the time?
Yet again, you demonstrate that you hold Republicans and President Bush to one set of standards, but ol' Barry is blameless for anything bad that happens 'cause you hold him to another set of standards. Yet again, you demonstrate your limitless hypocrisy.
And you have repeatedly accused us of employing double standards simply because you don't like the standards we employ! Goddamn, teacher boy, does hypocrisy come in a worse form than you have just demonstrated?
Oh, and teacher boy, the notion that you "honestly" state something is laughable. You are fundamentally dishonest to a degree one doesn't find even among used car salesman. Honestly.
"Rand and Friedman followers unite! Your dream has been achieved! Everything remotely related to government control is now Marxist!!!"
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response, in which you deliberately miss the point and lay on one straw man after another.
Overall, what we have here is your Standard Response #10, the "Brave Sir Robin" response. The monsters got too close, so you disappeared for a few days, only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters.
Same old shit, different day, little boy. You don't fool anyone, you don't impress anyone, and you just can't learn, can you?
Eisenhower was a leader, a soldier, a diplomat, a capitalist, and a Republican. Obamateur is not a leader, loathes the military, gaffes repeatedly and embarrasses the whole nation at diplomacy, is a socialist, and is a Democrat.
Furthermore, Eisenhower was enough of a gentleman and understood the need for unity that when Kennedy went and fucked up at Bay of Pigs, Eisenhower publicly backed him unreservedly, and we still don't know what he said to him (apparently tearing strips off of him away from the press and other poeple.)
Because he knew that being Presidental was far more than getting elected to the office.
Hell, Kennedy, who tarnished the office a fair bit, understood that more than Obama.
But Mark should be careful of tossing around ideologies (but he's too clueless.) Kennedy's stances today put him to the right of most Republican politicians. And his fix for a sagging economy was a ....
Really? Eisenhower was a leader, a soldier, a diplomat, a capitalist, and a Republican. Obamateur is not a leader, loathes the military, gaffes repeatedly and embarrasses the whole nation at diplomacy, is a socialist, and is a Democrat. Can you possibly trash your credibility any more?
I'm surprised that you think all of these things about Ike, DJ. According to the rules set out by you and other Cult members here, he was a socialist (91 percent tax rate on upper income bracket) and fascist bent on destroying the free market (MIC speech). He also sent federal troops to interfere with state's rights. So, it's your credibility that is pretty pathetic considering the dichotomy between your opinion on Ike and your...ahem...beliefs.
But just for fun, let's take a look at your points one by one...
loathes the military
I suppose I could point to the increase defense spending or the increase in veteran's benefits that McCain shat all over. But, a picture is worth a thousand words
On what exactly? I won't deny that he's made mistakes. Unlike your ilk, he actually admits them and takes responsibility for them. And gaffes...you think this is a good path to go down after W?
embarrasses the whole nation at diplomacy
Yeah, that was bad when he signed that treaty with the Russians. And now has both them and China on board with tougher sanctions against Iran. And, again, do you really want to go down that path? But nice Rove btw ;)
is a socialist
Um, Colonel Flagg? Check and make sure that some loco weed wasn't mixed in with your feed. While you are at it, explain to me how a socialist is supported by as many private concerns as our president is. Sarah Palin just said that it's Obama's relationship with Big Oil that is part of the problem with the BP thing. Could it be true?
Say it with me, DJ....regulation and oversight do not mean socialism...regulation and oversight do not mean socialism......regulation and oversight do not mean socialism.....regulation and oversight do not mean socialism.....Let's see if we can break that Cult programming.
and is a Democrat.
True. And today that means, according to Susan Eisenhower, an Eisenhower Republican.
Unix-I'm not sure what your position is on the Bay of Pigs but the reason why it was FUBAR was not because of Kennedy. Start with Dulles, Cabell and Bissell.
"I'm surprised that you think all of these things about Ike, DJ."
Overall, you don't know Jack Shit about me, teacher boy.
My father served directly under Eisenhower during 1945, as a liason officer between SHAEF (Eisenhower's headquarters) and 12th Army Group (Bradley's headquarters). He knew both of them personally and described both of them, directly to me, as being strong Republicans who hated socialism and fascism. He had credibility. You don't.
"According to the rules set out by you and other Cult members here, he was a socialist (91 percent tax rate on upper income bracket) ..."
Still won't define "cult", will you, aphasia boy?
We have tried and tried to teach you that Congress sets tax rates, not Presidents. Congress makes laws; Presidents only get to veto them or sign them into law. You simply will not learn this.
Now, go check those historical top marginal tax rates by year. You'll find that the top marginal rate of 91% was set by legislation passed during 1951, which was during the Truman Administration. Truman was a Democrat. It was finally lowered by legislation passed during 1963, which was during the Kennedy Administration. Kennedy was a Democrat. Eisenhower never had the opportunity to lower it because Congress never passed legislation to lower it during his administration.
So, because Congress never passed legislation to lower it from 91%, you would have us believe that our rules require us to label him a Socialist? Are your reasoning skills really that blitheringly stupid?
"... fascist bent on destroying the free market (MIC speech)."
We've been through this, teacher boy. You just will not learn, will you?
"I can feel the loathing from here."
You could visibly see it at his first State of the Union Address. Watch who he shook hands with and who he didn't shake hands with. Watch his expression as he worked the "grip and grin" line. He loathes the military as much as the military loathes him.
"I won't deny that he's made mistakes. Unlike your ilk, he actually admits them and takes responsibility for them."
You pathetic, hypocritical shithead. We are the ones who admit our mistakes, right here in Kevin's parlor. You cannot admit error, remember?
"And gaffes...you think this is a good path to go down after W?"
Certainly. They are many, they are pathetic, and they show him to be a fucking amateur. Don't you watch the news? We've talked about his gaffes as they happened. Your reading comprehension sinks ever lower, doesn't it?
Here, go read 'em for yourself: http://obamasgaffes.blogspot.com/ Also, try a bit of humor: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-isms.htm
Here is a simple example of his diplomatic skills: He gave the Queen of England a set of DVD's which contained videos of his speeches and were in the format used here (NTSC) instead of the format used there (PAL). Go read about the gift the Queen gave to him. Such a gift should reflect our country and a consideration of who receives it, but no, with him, it's about HIM. Every goddamned thing is about HIM. His gift to the Queen was shabby beyond imagining and it reflects horribly on both him and his staff. He's an AMATEUR in the field of diplomacy, teacher boy, and he is a continuing embarrassment to our country (except, perhaps, to fuckwits like you).
"is a socialist"
We've been there over and over, liar boy. You have stated in plain English that you are a liberal and that you are not a liberal. Again, your credibility on such issues is ZERO.
"is a Democrat"
According to his professed beliefs, which are available in his own writings, as we have demonstrated to you, that means he is a socialist.
Teacher boy, if you ever come down with Alzheimer's, who is gonna know?
Marxaphasia:Um, Colonel Flagg? Check and make sure that some loco weed wasn't mixed in with your feed.
Oh, this is gonna be fun!!!! 8-)
Ever hear of the Chicago DSA? (Democratic Socialists of America) Their website can be found here. Notice how they define themselves:
"Our mission is to establish democratic socialism as a political force in the United States and around the world by training and mobilizing socialist activists to participate in a vibrant and diverse socialist organization at both the local and the national level."
They have an archive of their newsletters on their web site, including issue #38, and issue #42. (I'll look at others, but I'll just start with these for now.) The Chicago DSA took great interest in the a party called the New Party:
"On Saturday, January 14, the New Party in Chicago took another step in its effort to establish itself as a political force by holding a major outreach meeting directed at Chicago's Left. About 100 people, with sizable delegations from DSA and CoC among others, heard Bruce Colburn and Elaine Bernard preach the gospel of the New Party. The audience was also introduced to the New Party's first candidate in Chicago, Michael Chandler, who is running for Alderman in Chicago's west side 24th ward. The meeting was held at the meeting hall of SEIU Local 880, a local that is tackling the extremely difficult task of organizing home health care workers in Illinois. SEIU Local 880 and ACORN share office space."
— Issue 38
(Side note: The Chicago DSA describes ACORN as "the single 800 pound gorilla in the Chicago New Party".)
So what does Barak Obama have to do with the New Party? They were his party when he ran for Illinois State Senator (he won, BTW):
"About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. … Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.
"The political entourage included … and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat."
— Issue 42
(This explains why ACORN and SEIU are his political allies.)
So Barak Obama had to sign a contract stipulating a formal association with the New Party in order to get their endorsement. This was not some outside party throwing their support to Obama. He was politically in bed with them. Interestingly enough, the same article described the makeup of the New Party:
"Indeed it was an exciting evening because the NP has two crucial components. First, the NP is a true "Rainbow Coalition" consisting of both young and aged African-Americans, Hispanics and Caucasians. Although ACORN and SEIU Local 880 were the harbingers of the NP there was a strong presence of CoC and DSA (15% DSA)."
— Issue 42
CoC stands for Committees of Correspondence, a "splinter group" from the Communist Party. In other words, even though ACORN was the main backer of the New Party, the party was also being backed by part of the Communist Party, and the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America.
But the Chicago DSA didn't merely offer some support to the New Party, they were working on a formal relationship:
"The June 8th Chicago DSA Membership Convention…
"The only controversial business at the meeting was a proposal that Chicago DSA affiliate with the New Party. Ultimately, the meeting voted to, in effect, explore affiliation with both the New Party and the Labor Party."
— Issue #47
They never got the chance to follow through because "fusion" parties like the New Party were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in 1997.
But still, the question remains, why would the Chicago DSA, with the stated goal of "mov[ing] the U.S. and the world toward social democracy" choose to affiliate with the New Party? Because they shared the same ideology, stated in different terms.
"Over three hundred people attended the first of two Town Meetings on Economic Insecurity on February 25 in Ida Noyes Hall at the University of Chicago. Entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America", the meeting was sponsored by the UofC DSA Youth Section, Chicago DSA and University Democrats.
…
"One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama's campaign is "what does it take to create productive communities", not just consumptive communities.
…
"A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the "social wage" approach used by many social democratic labor parties."
— Issue #45
In fact, the socialists liked what he was saying so much that they actively endorsed him:
"Chicago DSA Endorsements in the March 19th Primary Election
…
"Barak Obama
"Barak Obama is running to gain the Democratic ballot line for Illinois Senate 13th District. The 13th District is Alice Palmer's old district, encompassing parts of Hyde Park and South Shore."
So tell me Marxy, why would a political party committed to spreading socialism endorse someone who did not espouse socialism?
Unix-I'm not sure what your position is on the Bay of Pigs but the reason why it was FUBAR was not because of Kennedy. Start with Dulles, Cabell and Bissell.
Dimwit, it doesn't matter what my "position" is.
The point is it was a colassal fuckup. And yes, it was FUBARed because of Kennedy. You obviously don't know what happened there. (Big surprise.)
Eisenhower could have taken Kennedy to the woodshed for the damage he did to the US. He didn't. Compare and contrast this with the behavior of Democrats in any war a Republican headed the administration. Yes. All the way back to the Civil War.
But he didn't. Publicly. Apparently he privately gave him a stern lecture. Apparently. No records exist of this. Nobody "leaked" the truth.
While we're talking about WWII Generals, have you figured out why I used MacArthur to describe you?
Are you smoking crack, Marky? How is Eisenhower's warning about the Military-Industrial Complex in any any way anti-free market? After, what in the world is truly free market about companies making equipment to strict government standards and requirements for purely governmental use? To the extent the companies and the military (and their congressional masters) colluded on who would build what for what price, that wasn't free market at all. Your arguments would be much more effective, Mark, if you actuaslly understood the terms you're throeing around.
Translation: Nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing to see here. Move along. No you did not see that huge explosion. It didn't happen. Move along. No, there are no Americans in Iraq. It's all fiction. Nothing to see here. Move along.
"Rand's piece was a work of fiction born out of her horrible experiences in Russia."
Of courseit's fiction! We know that. We've said that. It's only the little Nazi in your head that says otherwise.
But it's a particular type of fiction known as a parable. And since you have such trouble with word meanings, here is what parable means:
"noun. 1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson."
Unfortunately, Ayn Rand forgot about the "short" part of the definition, and instead, wrote a seriously long winded, ham handed parable using pathetic storytelling and shallow, two-dimensional characters. But it's still a parable intended to demonstrate Why. Socialism. CANNOT. Work.
Because Marxy has such trouble with word meanings, here is what socialism means:
"An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists."
And once again, Marxy argues with the little Nazi inside his head when he writes:
"But that doesn't mean that we have to believe that any sort of government power is immediately Marxism."
But we didn't say "Marxism", did we Marxaphasia? We said "SOCIALISM", because that's what the word "SOCIALISM" MEANS!!!
Sigh, I don't know why I bother, but once more into the breach.
Markadelphia,
Do you honestly believe that more Federal government oversight would have prevented the BP oil leak? So government officals can never be bribed to look the other way, right? Do you think BP WANTED that oil spill? This may come as a surprise to you, but they didn't. I forget which blogger said it, but that spill is a bloody fire hose spraying money into the ocean at a rate of millions of dollars a day, not counting the cost of clean-up. If they could find a way to stop that sucker immediately they'd do so. If they had a way of preventing it from happening int he first place they'd have done so. Do you honestly believe the government has people who are more capable of plugging an oil spill than BP, Gulf, Exxon, etc do? Part of the problem here is that such a thing as never happened before, off-shore drilling really is that safe. They're literally figuring it out as they go along. Plugging a well a mile deep is different from one one-tenth that deep, or on the ground. Since it's never happened before they really don't know what to do, they're trying things that MAY work and keeping their fingers crossed.
It DOES appear that there were some short-cuts taken in inspections, safety equipment, etc and the individuals (note: INDIVIDUALS) responsible should be taken to task for it, up to and including criminal action against them.
Like, didn't the government (coast guard?) sink the boat in the first place? If they hadn't sunk the boat, the pipe wouldn't have been damaged, and they could have repaired the problem at the surface. At least that's my understanding. Whoo hoo, way to go government! If only they were in charge all the time.
[insert some paste from something he said utterly stupid]
[insert some fun-poking at him]
[insert some paste where he misuses terms, concepts, and uses the mistake to back his position]
[insert some more astonishment that he's so clueless, point him to the real definitions]
[insert some paste that he's pasted from somewhere else]
[insert some contextual rebuttal that show he shouldn't just claim that quote is all-correct]
[Counter some assertions Markadelphia's made about socialism/claiming not to be socialist/the educational system with other claims made in the same post/comment or sometimes having to refer back to a prior comment within the last week to demonstrate a total disjointment of logic]
[Insert poking fun of previous errors, running away from prior threads, commitments, or other stupidity]
[post]
[wait for reply]
[repeat above]
[notice that Mark has run away - again - from all the hard facts, and is back to projection and cargo-culting elsewhere.]
But I must object to a point of Sowell's. He writes, "Where in Adam Smith moral and socially beneficial behavior could be evoked from man only by incentives…" But this is quite wrong. Adam Smith is also the author of the Theory of Moral Sentiments, and in general was very much concerned with the place of fundamental morality in human behavior.
Indeed, one of the flaws in the modern defense of capitalism has been that we neglected this side of Smith, to our detriment.
This is a point well worth amplifying. Smith himself considered TMS to be his opus, not WoN. WoN was built upon the foundation set forth in TMS. It is emphatically NOT incentive-based behavior - which sounds much more Bentham-esque (and ultimately warped into Skinner).
"Kevin, we are not Russia. We never will be. Your belief system has drawn a connection between liberals in this country and Marxism. There is none...."
Horseshit, Teacherboy, and you know it.
Fuck you, and the Dalai Lama.
If either of you ever get within arm's reach of me, I'll burn you both down.
We can't discuss capitalism without mentioning rights. Capitalism, put simply, is nothing more and nothing less than the recognition and protection of property rights. Mine, yours and everyone else's. Equally. Any other system either fails to recognize or fails to protect property rights and is therefore criminal, and, I have to conclude, based on pure greed.
It's too bad Echo doesn't allow multiple "likes" or thumbs up or something, 'cause I'd give you more than one for that!
Oh, and Marxy… you claim to be a Christian. The concept of property rights is built in to the 10 commandments, especially the 8th ("Do not steal.") and 10th ("Do not covet…").
"Socialism, according to Karl Marx, is the transition between capitalism and communism. To achieve communism, Marx says, there must be continuing revolution in which the fundamental principal is: the end justifies the means.
For more than half a century, capitalism in the United States has taken a beating from the socialist revolution. Despite the best efforts of conservatives, since the Roosevelt era, socialists have made great strides toward converting the nation to socialism. Apparently, the majority of Americans either fail to recognize the transition, or welcome it. The enthusiastic support for Barack Obama, especially among young people, is abundant evidence.
Obama has declared that he believes every person has a “right” to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a “right” to health care.
Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot. (Hear Obama’s words here.)
The Socialist Party USA recognizes the “right” of adequate housing for everyone. Obama trained ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) workers to secure mortgages for unqualified people, in sufficient numbers to collapse the housing and home-financing industries.
The Socialist Party USA believes that “capitalism is fundamentally incompatible” with socialism. For years, Obama worked in Chicago through the Annenberg Challenge, along with Bill Ayers, to funnel more than $50 million to anti-capitalist education projects. In November, 2006, Ayers traveled to Venezuela to speak at Hugo Chavez’s Education Forum where he railed against “the failings of capitalist education,” and praised the “…Bolivarian Revolution and the profound reforms in education made by Hugo Chavez.”
The Socialist Party USA believes in open borders and six months residency as the only requirement for U.S. citizenship. Obama marched with illegal aliens in Chicago in support of “comprehensive” immigration reform. Listen to Obama’s promises to La Raza in 2007.
The Socialist Party USA calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama says “I will end this war,” with never a reference to “winning” or “victory.”
The Socialist Party USA calls for the “unconditional disarmament” by the United States. Obama has promised to dramatically reduce defense spending. Listen to his words here.
The Socialist Party USA calls for a “livable guaranteed annual income.” Obama trained ACORN members to conduct “Living Wage” campaigns in cities around the country.
The Socialist Party USA calls for a “steeply graduated” tax policy in order to redistribute wealth. Obama has promised to increase the tax burden on the rich in order to redistribute wealth to the poor. He revealed his philosophy when answering a question from a plumber who complained that he was being taxed for his success."
"The Socialist Party USA calls for a “steeply graduated” tax policy in order to redistribute wealth."
Funny, but CA has a very steeply graduated income tax. I don't see equality of wealth in this state, but I do see a state that has chronic fiscal problems driven by the severe drop-off in tax receipts during economic down-cycles. (The "unintended consequence" of fiscal reliance on high incomes).
And, once again, Markadelphia proves two things: it's absurdly easy to bait him into a comment thread, and our worldviews are so divergent that it is impossible to merely have a discussion with him, much less one of any value.
And once again, Kevin has proved that the rules that apply to me don't apply to anyone else. Or him. If I wrote a post like the one above, I'd get two to three times the normal "Tolstoy" length from DJ, Unix or Ed "proving me wrong" (see: OMG!!! If Mark is ever right about anything, cue boiling pit of sewage...and stuff.)
The world you folks live in is rapidly shrinking, isn't it?
"And once again, Kevin has proved that the rules that apply to me don't apply to anyone else. Or him."
Ah, the memories. It was only yesterday that I wrote:
"Yet again, you demonstrate that you hold Republicans and President Bush to one set of standards, but ol' Barry is blameless for anything bad that happens 'cause you hold him to another set of standards. Yet again, you demonstrate your limitless hypocrisy.
"And you have repeatedly accused us of employing double standards simply because you don't like the standards we employ! Goddamn, teacher boy, does hypocrisy come in a worse form than you have just demonstrated?"
And yet again, you validate my comments, hypocrisy boy.
A post like which one above? You mean the one where he specifically lists the points of his supporters who proclaim themselves as openly socialist or communist, and goes on to specifically list where Obama himself is on record as agreeing with those positions?
How would you know what would happen "if you wrote a post like the one above"? You've never tried. You write posts detailing the positions of a group you know we'll all disagree with, and then claim we are all exactly like that, sure. But do you use our own words to show that? No. You use "Rush Limbaugh said" as a basis for assumption that everyone to the right of Nancy Pelosi must agree with Rush 100%. You use "well obviously it was because" to "prove" that your speculations with no factual basis are in fact the truth. You use "the Bush administration did..." as a basis for assumption that everyone who disagrees with you must agree with Bush 100% on every issue. You use "a disgruntled ex-employee made a baseless accusation against Sarah Palin because she dared to do the job she was required by law to do, therefore she is a book banner". You claim ________ people must obviously believe _______, and never, ever admit that the definition of the pejorative label you're using is not the same one that Webster (or the majority or Americans) uses.
But actually saying ________ is on record supporting _________, go see for yourself, and ________ who I am taking to task for also supporting ___________ is also on record, therefore __________ who I disagree with must be in agreement with ___________ distasteful group of crazies? I don't think I've ever seen that one.
I take that back, I have. Conservatives do not support gay marriage and neither does AQ, therefore conservatives are JLAQ. Not sure, but I think that's the only place I've seen you use that method. Of course, that conventiently ignores the fact that by precisely the same standard, Barack Obama himself is JLAQ...
Sorry Mark, but your absence of credibility.... we aren't the ones who did that.
They are all moderates, Kevin. (In reference to Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi)
These are the 3 people who were the movers and shakers behind the recent healthcare bill, right? These are the ones that, while touting transparency and ethics, had to make backroom deals and pull every string they could to get a compromise between the most and least conservative factions of their own party, while cutting the opposing party out of the process altogether, right?
"Moderate" means "able to see valid points in both sides of a debate", does it not? So if Obama, Reid and Pelosi are "moderate", then it follows that either
a) There is no valid ideological position in US government to the right of Ben Nelson, Joe Sestak, or whoever you choose as the archetypal "conservative Democrat",
or
b) there are valid ideological positions in US government as far to the left of Dennis Kucinich as Limbaugh, Beck, DeMint, Bolton, Palin, or whoever you choose as the archetypal "extreme conservative Republican" is to the right of your archetypal "conservative Democrat",
or
c) the actual positions of Obama et al are far to the right of the position defined by their words and actions, and even though they were able to see valid points in the arguments of conservatives, even so far right as Limbaugh et al, they deliberately ignored them. In short, they specifically chose to betray the very moderate principles you are praising them for.
Actually, after Ed's lengthy "analysis" of socialism, I'd like to see if he could define the difference between Marxism and democratic socialism.
Bonus question (for anyone): the failure of Marxism to explain multiple aspects of culture and society is due to the fact that it is a _____ theory and not a ______ theory...that latter being grounded in reality. And why is this?
Actually, after Ed's lengthy "analysis" of socialism
...
latter being grounded in reality. And why is this?
How about you go back to the first thing there, Ed's analysis, and deal with that before attempting to LECTURE US about reality? Hmmm?
I'd like to see if he could define the difference between Marxism and democratic socialism.
I'll tell you the similarity. With both of those, they're proudly used by those espousing them, until it becomes used negatively/as a correct description, then both insist that they're not really what they were claiming just a bit before, and the people calling them that are ignorant and prejudiced.
In the meantime, you've got a lot of credibility to make up - years worth - before you can "nut up" and demand we have the sack, verbatim boy.
What the definition I posted earlier wasn't good enough? Since you obviously missed it the first time, here it is again:
"An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists."
In other words, "socialism" is to "Marxism" as "airplane" is to "jet". A jet is a particular type of airplane, and Marxism is a particular kind of socialism. I refuse to specify which kind of socialist Obama is, because I don't really know. Some of his actions and statements have been Marxist ("When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.") and some have been Fascist (telling the insurance companies exactly what coverage they must provide and at what price, how much employees can earn, etc.).
At this point, it doesn't particularly matter what kind of socialist Obama is, what is crystal clear, however, is that he IS a socialist. And no amount of word twisting on your part can change that basic fact.
Of course, I fully expect you to continue to deny the obvious, because for you to admit a significant error like this would cause you to have a heart attack from the sheer stress of breaking out of your cocoon. It might even cause a few heart attacks on our side too!
And just a reminder, since you claim to be a Christian:
"Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers."
(2 Timothy 2:14 NAS95)
"he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth,"
(1 Timothy 6:4–5 NAS95)
"Actually, after Ed's lengthy "analysis" of socialism, I'd like to see if he could define the difference between Marxism and democratic socialism."
Actually, after Ed's lengthy "indictment" of Obama as being a socialist, I'd like to see if you can justify your continued assertion that Obama is not a socialist without ignoring it.
Indeed, let's take it further. I have stated to you many times that reality is what it is regardless of whether or not you like it, and that any analysis you make of what reality is must square with ALL the relevant facts, else it cannot be correct. You have NEVER responded to these statements of mine with anything except silence. Your behavior has been to ignore them completely.
So, here's a bonus question for you, teacher boy. How can the assertion that Obama is not a socialist square with the facts of his socialist past that Ed documented here yesterday?
Well? Which of your Standard Responses will we see this time, sack boy?
If President Obama were a socialist, why does he want to open up space exploration to private competition? He has also stated many times that he has no real desire to be involved with the banks or the financial service industry and would rather spend his time dealing with foreign affairs. Just because he and Congress are attempting to regulate and oversee these industries does not make him or them socialists. The government (which is all of us btw) is charged with regulating commerce. They weren't doing that and look at the results...massive losses by many Americans should be proof enough for you. Sadly, it isn't as it is all somehow the fault of Barney Frank and Maxine Water...CRA, Fannie and Freddie.
Let's see if any of this gets through your delusion that President Obama is Hitler and wants the government take over everything and steal your guns. If it does, I will offer more examples of how he is not a socialist although one would think that the complete inadequacy of the federal government in regards to the oil spill would be even further proof.
And Ed, I hate to tell you this but Jesus Christ was a proponent of social justice. He believed that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everyone. I submit that our Savior was a socialist.
Luke 14:13-14
But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.
Matthew 25:41-45
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'
Luke 6:38
Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
And remember, in Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to get into heaven. Your purport to be a Christian, Ed. Do you agree with the words of our Lord?
Markadelphia,
One major difference, Jesus wanted His followers to give WILLINGLY and CHEERFULLY, not to have their belongings taken from them by force and distributed to others. And if you don't think taxation is taken by force, try not paying your taxes sometime, men with guns will come to your home and MAKE you pay. In fact, given the portion you highlighted above, I'd say that having your money taken by the government and given to others is exactly what Jesus DIDN'T want, he says "...whatever YOU did not do...", not "...whatever others did not force you to do...".
I recommend against using Scripture to prove your point in my presense. The fact that you know some Scripture doesn't prove you point, recall that Satan quoted Scripture when he tempted Jesus in the desert. Bad as you are, you've got a LONG way to go to measure up to the devil himself.
If Jesus had said "God wants the Romans take your stuff and trade it for earthly power", I would have denounced him for a confidence man and applauded whoever took the initiative to see to it that he *stayed* crucified, dead and buried.
I never said it was the government's job specifically. God does, indeed, love a cheerful giver. The question is, Mark D., what would Jesus think of our government today? Certainly, he despised the Romans and the taxation that went on during his time. He also despised the money counters and divisions within the temple. But our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people...a decidedly Christian feel. It's impossible to say for certain but it's my opinion that Christ would look at the great wealth in this nation and wonder why we keep getting worse in regards to the child mortality rate, for example.
Regardless of the government, Jesus was quite clear: give freely and help the poor. If everyone in this country did that and shared their wealth, any talk of government redistribution would be moot and both of us would be happy, right?
A couple of other points:
men with guns will come to your home and MAKE you pay.
Take a fucking chill pill, dude. I know people that haven't paid their taxes in years and no one has come to their homes. Now, if they had a joint in their homes I would agree with you.
I recommend against using Scripture to prove your point in my presense.
Ooo...scary. I recommend against setting yourself up as an authority on the Bible. That usually tells me that you have zero understanding of Matthew 7:1. That being said, I simply relayed the words of Christ. It's up to you to embrace them or ignore them.
Perhaps YOU should demonstrate an actual understanding of the CONTEXT of Matthew 7:1:
"For with the judgment you use, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye but don’t notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and look, there’s a log in your eye? Hypocrite! First take the log out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
(Matthew 7:2–5 HCSB)
Let's look at that first sentence again. "For with the judgement YOU use, YOU will be judged, and with the measure YOU use, it will be measured to YOU." In other words, if you ignore evidence, use faulty logic, twist words, and PRETEND you understand other's motives even though OnlyGOD Can Do So, God will use that against you. You don't fare so well on this measure.
Now read the rest. He's saying to get yourself straightened out (see wisdom, knowledge and understanding), SO THAT you will be able to help your brother ("then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.").
But our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. . . . Jesus was quite clear: give freely and help the poor. If everyone in this country did that and shared their wealth, any talk of government redistribution would be moot and both of us would be happy, right?
And we have here just another example of the Unconstrained Vision in which, if everyone were just made to care about others before themselves, we'd all be living in Utopia! But since they won't, government (which is "of the people, by the people, for the people") must do it for us(and to us). Government, you see, will work if the right people are in charge! Those would be the people who care about others more than they care about themselves.
Even though Markadelphia admits that the government is full of crooks.
What's especially ironic about his position is that those calling for "redistribution" (that's the left) give less to charity than conservatives do. We ARE the ones that give freely and cheerfully. We also tend to follow Jesus' instruction: (Even you "heathen" conservatives. ;) ;)
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of people, to be seen by them. Otherwise, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So whenever you give to the poor, don’t sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be applauded by people. I assure you: They’ve got their reward! But when you give to the poor, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
(Matthew 6:1–4 HCSB)
(Yes, Marxy, I linked to Michelle Malkin's site. Don't bother pulling out the stupid genetic fallacy again. Both parts of her article—conservatives give more and FEMA trying to hide that it's conservatives actually helping out voluntarily—can be confirmed at other sources. I only linked to Michelle for convenient "for instance.")
But our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people...a decidedly Christian feel.
God is a populist?
Yeah, that explains the Catholic Church, not to mention the Protestant notion of the elect.
Weren't you just denouncing on your own blog some right-wing-nutty Texan for talking about how God's wisdom guides our country? Then you come over here and trot THIS out? If you want to know what hypocrisy looks like, get yourself in front of a mirror.
Marxy, I do not disagree with those passages. Now, where in these passages did Jesus say that it was government's job to do these things?
Do you remember Jesus explaining the difference between what belongs to God and what belongs to government?
“Tell us, therefore, what You think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
But perceiving their malice, Jesus said, “Why are you testing Me, hypocrites? Show Me the coin used for the tax.” So they brought Him a denarius. “Whose image and inscription is this?” He asked them.
“Caesar’s,” they said to Him.
Then He said to them, “Therefore give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
(Matthew 22:17–21 HCSB)
So God's things and the government's things are different. And where does charity fall in this divide?
Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
(James 1:27 HCSB)
Also look back at where you quoted Matthew 25. Who was he talking to? Governments? No! Individuals. Religion belongs to God, not governments. Therefore, charity belongs to individuals, not governments.
Governments taking money by force (otherwise known as taxes) and giving it to someone else is not charity, nor is it "Christian".
"While it is indisputably true that modern state welfare is largely the outgrowth of Christianity’s centuries-old charity practices, it needs to be noted that there are several reasons why state welfare programs cannot be equated with Christian charity. State welfare today corresponds more to the pagan liberalitis of Rome than to Christian caritas. The latter, as noted earlier, was done out of selfless love, whereas the former was done with the objective of receiving some type of reciprocity. While a great deal of today’s state welfare is provided to assist those in need, it lacks genuine love. State welfare programs operate on the basis of coercion; funds are involuntarily gathered by means of enforced taxation, and thus they violate the spirit and method of true Christian charity. Although governmental welfare programs help many of the unfortunate, and while they might be called charity, they are not Christian charity; nor are they Christian compassion."
…
"State welfare programs are also at odds with Christian charity in that they often produce unintended harmful effects by unintentionally encouraging the loss of individual responsibility and even rewarding it. One such effect has been the continued rise in the rates of children born out of wedlock, a trend that has steadily increased from the mid–1960s to 2000. In 1960 the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 5.3 percent of all births in the United States, while in 1998 it was 33 percent, an increase of nearly 600 percent. Another unintended, harmful effect of state welfare has been the rewarding of the indolent, thus nullifying the Christian admonition: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Walter Benjamin refers to these effects as products of “imprudent charity.”
Another effect of governmental welfare programs at odds with Christian charity is that they often foster political demagoguery by pandering to the voters who are recipients of social welfare. Political demagoguery clearly violates Christian charity, not only because it uses lies and deception, but also because it benefits the selfish interests of the demagogues who, by presenting themselves as advocates of state welfare programs, reap political gain since those who are dependent on governmental handouts will vote for them in order to keep the handouts coming. Such politicians are practicing Roman liberalitis, not Christian caritas."
"Christianity, as delineated in chapter 11, fosters freedom from all forms of slavery. State welfare, on the other hand, tends to create a permanently dependent class, really a new type of slavery. The essence of slavery is being dependent on someone or some entity for one’s livelihood, and all forms of slavery demoralize human beings. Thus, enforced social welfare programs, which at first may appear altruistic and generous, are, in the long run, often detrimental. As George Gilder says, “Excessive welfare hurts its recipients, demoralizing them or reducing them to an addictive dependency that can ruin their lives.”"
…
"Finally, it must be noted that even though the present-day state welfare programs evolved out of Christian charity and compassion, they cannot be equated with Christian charity or compassion because Christ said that his followers were to give “a cup of water in my name” (Mark 9:41). State welfare programs are not offered in the name of Jesus Christ."
…
"If we fail to understand that the involuntary, coercive nature of socialism and its state socialist programs is highly incompatible with the economic practices that some of the early Christians engaged in when they voluntarily “had all things in common” (Acts 2:44 NKJV), we may think that socialism is a good way to practice Christianity. This specious thinking led F. D. Maurice in 1848 to coin the term “Christian socialism.” As said earlier, something that is done involuntarily or as a result of compulsion is no longer Christian. “Christian socialism” is an oxymoron. Socialism, as the Austrian economist F. A. Hayek has argued, fails to tell people that its promises of freedom from economic care and wants can only happen “by relieving the individual at the same time of the necessity and of the power of choice.” Dostoyevsky expressed the incompatibility of socialism and Christianity by having Miüsov, in The Brothers Karamazov, say, “The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist.”"
— Quotes are from "How Christianity Changed the World" by Alvin J. Schmidt (footnote references removed)
BTW, here's an explanation of caritas vs. liberalitis as used above:
"Christian charity differed profoundly from that of the Greco-Romans. The early Christians practiced caritas, as opposed to the liberalitas of the Romans. Caritas meant giving to relieve the recipient’s economic or physical distress without expecting anything in return, whereas liberalitas meant giving to please the recipient, who later would bestow a favor on the giver. For centuries the Roman pagans practiced liberalitas, not aritas. Only in extremely rare instances did some of the Romans give without expecting something in return. It was usually the most honorable, those who really did not need help, who received “all or most of the charity dispensed.”
The charity (caritas) of Christians also differed with regard to the motive for giving. Rome’s pagan religions provided no motive for charity. In the pagan religious practices, people were mere spectators at temple sacrifices, where they passively watched the priests perform. Some attenders gave stips (coins) to some god or goddess or for the erection of a statue (stip collata). Christians, on the other hand, were active participants in their divine services; they heard and shared with one another God’s gracious, redemptive act of love in Jesus Christ that motivated them to help and give to those in need. Their giving reflected the Apostle John’s words: “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another”(1 John 4:10–11). They also heeded the Apostle Paul’s writings to the Christians in Philippi: “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Philippians 2:4).
"If President Obama were a socialist, why does he want to open up space exploration to private competition? He has also stated many times that he has no real desire to be involved with the banks or the financial service industry and would rather spend his time dealing with foreign affairs. Just because he and Congress are attempting to regulate and oversee these industries does not make him or them socialists."
Yup, yet again, we see your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Yet again, you ignored the truth of my statement:
"I have stated to you many times that ... any analysis you make of what reality is must square with ALL the relevant facts, else it cannot be correct."
So, all that evidence that Ed showed you, evidence which is undeniable and irrefutable that Obama allied himself with socialist parties, means nothing to you. Yet again, you tried to cherry-pick this and that, and say, in effect, Obama said _______, so he can't be a socialist.
"The government ... is charged with regulating commerce."
No, the feddle gubmint is charged with regulating INTERSTATE commerce. How many times do we have to 'splain this to you, teacher boy, before you get it right? Are you REALLY that goddamned dense?
"... one would think that the complete inadequacy of the federal government in regards to the oil spill would be even further proof."
No, one would not THINK that at all. The inadequate response is proof of the incompetence of the organization, not of the idealogical orientation of its leaders.
Little boy, YOU CANNOT REASON. Why do you persist in making a fool of yourself by trying to fake it?
"This is exactly the type of rhetoric we hear from the left all the time. With their ideas of the redistribution of wealth, and a central controlling nanny state, we're told things such as: ‘You should listen to those who know better. You should care more about the community over your own desires; conservatives are just a bunch of ignorant hillbillies clinging to old ideas and must be forced into a better and more ordered society.'
"In actuality, the left is leading us right back into feudalism, where men are enslaved to lords, knowledge is left to the ruling class, and freedom and ingenuity are hindered to prevent man from reaching his full potential. This is exactly why our founders pulled us away from the ideas of Europe and gave us every right and freedom the feudalists said were wrong to have."
While the motivations behind it are social-democratic, the mechanisms involved are pure CORPORATISM.
Why does the difference matter? First, people who actually know something about the topic won't write you off as imprecise knee-jerk reactionaries. Second, people who luuurve Socialism will be taken aback when you call it what it is, Corporatism, which they profess to hate.
Don't bother learning about corporatism via Google, alas, as most of the discussion you'll find assumes that corporatism means rule by corporations. Instead, start with Peter Katzenstein's Small States in World Markets. As a bonus, you'll understand better why the liberal Democrats can't stop talking about Sweden.
The basic idea is that you incorporate (natch) all segments of society into representative groups—which at the extreme can be national organizations like in Germany and the Scandinavian countries; all labor unions into a single national labor union, all industry into a single "peak" business association, etc—which then bargain together, with government facilitating.
Roosevelt's NRA associations were corporatist. In them, industrial companies bargained with labor unions to fix wages, and in return were able to fix prices amongst themselves, with the endorsement of the government.
Characteristic of corporatism is a hostility to free competition, which can disrupt the "old boy's club" that corporatism seeks to set up; existing companies are privileged by quasi-monopoly status within their niches, or by oligopolistic agreements among each other to permit peaceful coexistence.
Similarly, all members of society must be incorporated into some representative organization, or risk throwing off the whole system. This is seen, for example, in the argument of labor unions that nonunion workers are free-riding off of them.
Government's role is to stabilize the corporatist agreement by arranging institutions to facilitate bargaining, and to suppress economic activity outside of the "old boys' club." This can take the form of government control over bank lending, to direct capital only to the established companies and throttle off newcomers.
At the extreme, government can exploit the corporatist setup as a tool of its own control over society, much as Mussolini did. Here, corporatism becomes a species of authoritarianism sometimes called "organic democracy," in which all activity must be within official clubs: government-sponsored chess clubs, for example.
Whenever a Democrat says that we should be more like Sweden, this is what he means.
Corporatism has the virtue that it creates societal stability, for a time. However, the system is very bad at adapting to new circumstances, and tends to avoid disruptive technological advancement. One study I saw found that the corporatist economies such as Germany specialize in tech research that improves on existing processes incrementally, which they do better than we in the US. This is why a lot of the mechanical engineering companies are German. On the other hand, we rock their socks in truly disruptive tech, which is why the high-tech firms are mostly American.
Mastiff, Are you saying that Corporatism isn't socialism because it's corporations and the government getting all buddy buddy and incestuous to share power? I would think it would still be socialism because it's still government power used to control the economy, though exercised at the corporate requests.
It does explain why Obama has received heavy backing from a large part of the Insurance industry. (Though I think they're idiots because Obama has already said he wants to put them out of business.) They may be thinking Corporatism, but I don't really think Obama is.
Sad to see so many supine themselves under the boot and cheerfully adjust the hobnails so they'll cause the most pain. More power to them, just stop asking me to the same, thankyouverymuch.
Not precisely, Russell. Corporatism is different because the goal is not individual-level equality, in the Socialist sense of "everyone owns everything," but for people to be subsumed into social groups powerful enough to lobby on behalf of their members.
The policy effects often overlap. Corporatism has been seized upon by the socialists as the best way in practice to achieve their social-welfare goals, even if it violates their underlying political assumptions.
It sounds as if it would completely choke off entreprenuerialism. Any innovations not directly sponsored by a faction of the GOBC are evil by definition, no?
My other major issue with the concept is that it makes knowing how to "play company politics" as universally necessary as being familiar with local traffic laws. Failure to abide by the dictates of either would result in very similar penalties.
That and of course it pitches the entire concept of individual liberty having any value at all right out the window. Okay not quite, your individual liberty matters to the extent that it allows you to choose which faction of the GOBC you wish to be a serf of.
Wow, reading comprehension isn't really your forte is it?
Luke 14:13-14, Matthew 25:41-45 and Luke 6:38are about personal and voluntary charity in the pursuit of salvation.
In other words you love your fellow man and make yourself a better man by being charitible, not by having the governement steal from you and others you to spread around.
Your salvation is an individual choice. Jesus would not force you into it. By wishing for the government to take everyones money and be charitable you are taking the choice away and without the ability to earn that salvation and become a better man in the deal.
But our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people...a decidedly Christian feel.
So even as you rail against the Texas School Board on your own blog about "separation of church and state", over here you think every American should be required by law to practice what you define as "Christian values."
I contend that liberals simply do not understand conservative arguments. They think they do, but they cannot accurately repeat them back. They are usually unable to describe them without caricature. Yet even in an MSM saturated subculture, they must have heard the opposition arguments a hundred times. What prevents the hearing?
I'm afraid my knowledge of scripture is woefully lacking, but isn't it stated directly at some point that God granted us Free Will, and we are all free to Rise or Fall? That smacks of Personal Responsibility to me. Our lives are our own, to live as we see fit. If we choose the path of Good, or the path of Evil, it is our own choice.
I don't recall ever hearing anything in scripture about being made to walk the path of Good.
I just realized that even though I gave assent to what the Bible teaches, it could be construed that I gave consent to Marxy's own version of what the Bible said:
"And remember, in Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to get into heaven. Your purport to be a Christian, Ed. Do you agree with the words of our Lord?"
Once again, and as usual, Marxy took this idea out of context. The Bible does NOT say that rich men cannot be Christians. Nor did Jesus say that in the passages he referred to.
First of all, there were many wealthy and powerful men that the Bible speaks approvingly of. The most obvious example is Abraham. Though he wasn't perfect, he obeyed God. There was also Joseph, Job, Boaz, David, Solomon, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and others. It wasn't their wealth that God approved of. Nor did their wealth and power keep them from receiving God's approval. It was (and is) trusting God that matters:
"By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed and went out to a place he was going to receive as an inheritance. He went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he stayed as a foreigner in the land of promise, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, co-heirs of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God."
(Hebrews 11:8–10 HCSB)
"All these were approved through their faith,"
(Hebrews 11:39a HCSB)
And when the Bible speaks of faith, it does not mean pious sentiments, it means an active trust that prompts actions. For example, God told Abraham to leave and go somewhere else, and he did. Job had everything but his wife stripped from him—including his health—yet refused to recant his trust in God.
Now compare these men to the full context of what Mark referred to:
"Just then someone came up and asked Him, “Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?”
"“Why do you ask Me about what is good?” He said to him. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
"“Which ones?” he asked Him.
"Jesus answered: Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother; and love your neighbor as yourself.
"“I have kept all these,” the young man told Him. “What do I still lack?”
"“If you want to be perfect,” Jesus said to him, “go, sell your belongings and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”
"When the young man heard that command, he went away grieving, because he had many possessions.
"Then Jesus said to His disciples, “I assure you: It will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven! Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
"When the disciples heard this, they were utterly astonished and asked, “Then who can be saved?”
"But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
"Then Peter responded to Him, “Look, we have left everything and followed You. So what will there be for us?”
"Jesus said to them, “I assure you: In the Messianic Age, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses, brothers or sisters, father or mother, children, or fields because of My name will receive 100 times more and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first."
(Matthew 19:16–30 HCSB)
Matthew, Mark and Luke all relate the same event (with minor differences typical of any eyewitness account). Notice what prompts Jesus' words about the rich man and the camel going through the eye of a needle: A rich young man came up to Jesus asking how to be saved. He had good works, but that wasn't enough. Jesus asked him to also give up his wealth, but he was unwilling. That young man allowed his wealth to get between him and salvation. In other words, his wealth was a higher priority than following Jesus.
Now the key verse that Mark has focused on is 19:24, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” The disciples, probably thinking that rich, glamorous, and powerful people had an edge on getting into the kingdom—after all that's what the movie stars, errrr, TV Preachers, errrr, Pharisees had been telling people their entire lives—asked the obvious question. "If the best (in their mind) of humans can't get in, then who can?" Jesus' response brings it all into focus. “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
So think about it. Can anyone get into heaven on their own merits? No. Not one single person, not even if they're as motivated and respectable as this young man appeared to be. Being rich doesn't get someone into heaven. Only God's actions can get anyone, poor or rich, into heaven.
Now compare this incident with Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount:
"“Don’t collect for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal. But collect for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves don’t break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
“No one can be a slave of two masters, since either he will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot be slaves of God and of money.”
(Matthew 6:19–24 HCSB)
The point is not whether you have money, but if money is your master, or God is.
Barnes' Notes puts it this way:
"A rich man. This rather means one who loves his riches, and makes an idol of them; or one who supremely desires to be rich. Mark says, “them that trust in riches.” While he has this feeling, it is literally impossible that he should be a Christian. For religion is the love of God, rather than the world; the love of Jesus and his cause, more than gold. Still a man may have much property, and not have this feeling. He may have great wealth, and love God more; as a poor man may have little, and love that little more than God."
(Emphases in original.)
Finally, Jesus ends by describing things that can be left to pursue the Kingdom of God, even by the poor—houses, fields, siblings, parents, children—reinforcing the idea that this isn't about wealth, but priorities.
Sorry about the lengthy sermonizing guys. I just thought it was important to make sure it was clear that the context doesn't support Mark's apparent (and common) misuse of that single verse. As DJ pointed out, examining ALL the evidence.
I know people that haven't paid their taxes in years and no one has come to their homes.
And as always, Markadelphia comes out foursquare against the rule of law. It doesn't matter what the rules are, nor does it matter whether those enforcing them are honest. If those who advance the agenda are inconvenienced, that's bad. If those who oppose the agenda are inconvenienced, that's good, and those are the only factors that apply.
Nice catch.
Also note that his "gotcha" there is "I know criminals, thus there are no police". And he thinks this scores him a rhetorical point(s) and/or in a sweeping manner, proves his genius over us, and his "understanding" is greater than ours, and we're wrong.
The next obvious question to him, that he'll run away from, is "So what happens when _everybody_ becomes a scofflaw like Geithner and the other dozens of Democrats who weren't paying their taxes?"
It's all some kinda magic to him. It really is. It "Works" and nobody knows why, but, hey, let's go monkey with stuff and it'll work BETTER!
He'll go one better than that, he thinks the entire US government budget can spend money it doesn't have forever. It doesn't matter how far in the red you go, nor whether you ever even attempt to go in the black, as long as you are perceived as a good risk, you're fine.
In short, he considers it not only acceptable, but praiseworthy, for taxation to be nothing but a con game. Why? Because there's always another sucker.
It shows in every opinion he has. Race relations, immigration, taxes, economy, energy, climate... pick one. The underlying theme is "if those I like commit a crime, the cops, the judge, the press and the public should show 'empathy' and let them get away with it, or even praise them for their courage. But if those I dislike failed to commit a crime you can punish them for, make up something if you have to, claim to know what they will do in some nebulous future, anything,so long as they get punished."
He then calls this "Critical thinking" and "based in logic." And then cites that he teaches this to kids as proof the educational system is in great shape. Well, it's not, and he admits it. But it's not because of anything systemic, and it's in great shape, while it's not.
The scary part, he somehow makes that gibe in his own head and thinks he's consistent.
I don't know if I can go over there and read that, if he's citing that Enron Advisor Krugman.
It's almost as if the public school systems have been fitting enough people to play the role as an Useful Idiot, and someone has realized there is a veritable gold mine of such Idiots to be used as political cannon fodder.
You KNOW that until you can list at least 5 types of diversication larnin', and enumerate why each of those demonstrates why Caucasian Christians are to be exploited, you CANNOT SPEAK OF PUBLIC EDUMACAJTION!
I went looking for the "Then a miracle occurs" cartoon to post in response to Marky's view of economics. I decided not to link to it, but in the process I discovered a very interesting web page:
http://www.think-logically.co.uk/lt.htm
It's a logic test. Specifically, it tests whether or not you are capable of recognizing valid and invalid deductive logic.
What do you say Mark? You claim to be a "critical thinker". Can you correctly identify the difference between valid and invalid logic? (Hint: Not premises, logic.)
There is also a second, harder test. I have to admit that I missed one question on the hard one. (93%) I won't say which one, as I don't want to give away any answers. I will say that it is a much harder test requiring very clear, precise thinking.
Here is a tidbit to whet your appetite (emphasis added):
"In fact, some of us have been wondering about Obama’s competence since before the election. That was part of the reason your humble correspondent, among others, worried about his total lack of executive experience. Sarah Palin had run the largest state in the union. Barack Obama had run . . . his campaign.
"I believe that Obama is unique in the annals of American history. It’s not any individual quality — if “quality” is the right word: perhaps “attribute” would be better — that sets him apart. It’s the combination of attributes. What are those attributes?
"Peggy Noonan touched on one: enormous, all-encompassing, stupefying incompetence. The man can pose. He can preen. He cannot, judging by his performance these last eighteen months, govern. His handling, which is to say his ostentatious mishandling of the BP oil spill, is only the latest evidence that he is wildly out of his depth."
Ah, but it gets better:
"Not to put too fine a point on it, Obama is lazy. He loves the perquisites of high office. He just doesn’t have much time for the demands.
"Incompetence. Arrogance. Left-wingery. Laziness. The final oddity is the way Obama combines laziness and ambition. For he is certainly ambitious. His efforts to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” are prosecuted by following what Governor Mitch Daniels described as a policy of “shock-and-awe” statism. Here’s how it works: when it comes to achieving his left- wing agenda, Obama is, if not quite tireless, at least dogged and uncompromising. But when it comes to serving the interests of America, he reverts back to his old Senate habit of voting present."
Well, a little more education for our resident teacher. "(W)hat would Jesus think of our government today? Certainly, he despised the Romans and the taxation that went on during his time. He also despised the money counters and divisions within the temple." Do you know what the money-changers were? The temple required a particular coinage for offerings which didn't have an image of Caesar on it (since such was considered an idol). The money-changers offered such coinage at a premium inside the temple, in effect making money off the religious requirements of the temple. Same with those who sold doves, you could bring a dove from outside the temple, perhaps the have the priests (in cahoots with the sellers) reject it as not being "without blemish", or buy one inside the temple (that would be much more expensive) that the priests would accept. This wasn't banking, it was extortion. Jesus EXPECTED people who bring animals for sacrifice, and He EXPECTED those animals to be of the highest quality, what He objected to (and the reason He drove the money-changers and those who sold doves from the temple) was the dishonesty, corruption, and graft. "It's impossible to say for certain but it's my opinion that Christ would look at the great wealth in this nation and wonder why we keep getting worse in regards to the child mortality rate, for example." OK, historical context lesson time. When Jesus walked the earth there was no such thing as capitalism. Wealth was land, if you owned land you were wealthy, the produce of that land was what fed everyone. Wealth was finite because land was finite (as an old friend told me before I bought my home, land is always a good investment, they stopped making it." ) Under Capitalism wealth increases. People say "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer", not true, the rich get richer and the poor get richer too under Capitalism. Go to India (for instance), poor people starve to death. Here the biggest health problems poor people have here are caused by (a) being too far or (b) drug or alcohol abuse. If you've got disposable income to spend on dope you're not poor. Regarding child mortality. There was a report that the infant mortality rate in the US was considerably higher than that in some nation in Europe (sorry, can't recall which). Having learned a long time ago that there are three types of lies, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, I looked into what went into those statistics. It seems that in that nation any child delivered before a certain point in a pregnancy was considered a miscarriage (even if the child showed signs of life), and as a miscarriage it didn't count as an infant mortality. In the US any child, no matter how early in the pregnancy, that shows any sign of life is considered a live birth. Since these are high-risk deliveries, most of them eventually die, and they ARE included in the mortality rates. That explains most of the difference between our infant mortality rates and Europes. I suspect (although this is merely my suspicion and I freely admit I could be wrong) that the increase in mortality rates you mention is caused by our medical technology getting better at detecting those signs of life that (in the US) determine the difference between a live birth and a still-birth for infants that will most likely eventually die.
"Although the infant mortality rate is universally accepted as an indicator of health status, international comparisons are problematic. Many underdeveloped countries do not have functional vital registration systems and infant mortality rates have to be estimated indirectly or through samples. In developed countries, comparisons of infant mortality rates are complicated by differences in medical practices and reporting requirements. These problems have raised questions about the validity of ranking infant mortality rates on an international scale."
"The live-birth definition commonly used in the FSU [Former Soviet Union] underestimated the IMR [Infant Mortality Rate] and undervalued the contributions to infant death by both maternal health and newborn care. We recommend that all republics of the FSU adopt the WHO [World Health Organization] live-birth definition so that the IMR can serve as a better indicator for MCH planning."
"U.S. infant mortality rates (deaths of infants <1 year of age per 1,000 live births) are sometimes cited as evidence of the failings of the U.S. system of health care delivery. Universal health care, it’s argued, is why babies do better in countries with socialized medicine.
"But in fact, the main factors affecting early infant survival are birth weight and prematurity. The way that these factors are reported — and how such babies are treated statistically — tells a different story than what the numbers reveal.
"Low birth weight infants are not counted against the “live birth” statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates."
"The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category — the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.
"Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality — the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.
"How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.
"In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics."
Well, a little more education for our resident teacher.
Putatively.
I still am not convinced he's not putting on airs, and insulting teachers by claiming to be one.
This wasn't banking, it was extortion. ... (and the reason He drove the money-changers and those who sold doves from the temple) was the dishonesty, corruption, and graft.
This, and your child mortality statistics are clearly beyond his ken. You're right - there's more context than Mark (adelphia) can understand. All he can do is repeat essentially bumper-sticker arguments.
It seems that in that nation any child delivered before a certain point in a pregnancy was considered a miscarriage (even if the child showed signs of life), and as a miscarriage it didn't count as an infant mortality. In the US any child, no matter how early in the pregnancy, that shows any sign of life is considered a live birth.
If the baby is born with severe defects, even a full-term baby is counted at "stillborn" in the NHS if they die before 24 hours, IIRC. "Preemie" babies often don't receive intervention.
But if you deliver a premature baby in the US, the baby will be aggressively - sometimes, IMO, too aggressively - treated and given care.
(Which makes this doubly stupid for Mark to use it as a arguing point, since he claims that the healthcare system won't treat people without money.)
>>Which makes this doubly stupid for Mark to use it as a arguing point...
Yeah, but how many times has Markadelphia trotted out some point that he thought was all full of trump and win, only to find out upon closer examination that it actually undermined his argument and supported our position?
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2010/05/intentions-and-results.html (114 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
Great post!!!
Great post, but why make it? There aren't any Marxists here...even Dennis Kucinich and Bernie Sanders are, like, Eisenhower or somebody. :-P
Great post, but why make it?
1) Because it's a good post.
2) Because I find it necessary to keep reminding people that we need to hammer this message home.
Marxism is a beautiful lie. There are still people all over the world convinced that it'll work, and who are active in trying to make it work, despite all evidence to the contrary. "It hasn't really been tried." "The right people weren't in charge." "Capitalists suborned the government." Etc., etc.
Markadelphia once said that I have a "Randian" take on socialism. He's right. She lived it. She hated it. I do too. And anyone who believes Marx's beautiful lie needs to be bludgeoned bloody with clue-by-four.
Pardon me, but my straw man appears to be on fire. :)
I bet you could douse it with a good beer -- might even want to share one with Kevin. ;)
It frustrates me that nobody uttering the phrase "the right people weren't in charge" seems to realize that if the system requires the right people to be in charge to work without bloody and horrible results, the system is fatally flawed.
LR:
But if you realize that, you wouldn't say that. To understand that is to have an epiphany. (No, Markadelphia, that doesn't have to do with woodwinds.)
How many times have I heard the phrase, "...but real Communism has never been tried!"
Unterpost: "Slavery is immoral."
Over the years I've collected a significant number of quotes to use in my email signatures. The one that popped up for an email I sent this morning was particularly timely and appropriate:
"Let no man turn aside, ever so slightly, from the broad path of honour, on the plausible pretence that he is justified by the goodness of his end. All good ends can be worked out by good means."
— Charles Dickens
Of all the people who should be decrying the evils that Marxism leads man to, Dali Lama #14 should be one. WTF? Marxism solves neither the problem of greed, corruption, or evil; it just changes how each operates.
Except that Rand's piece was a work of fiction born out of her horrible experiences in Russia. I recently had the occasion to visit a high school in the western suburbs and saw that Atlas Shrugged was in a glass case, along with some other books, with a sign above it that said "Science Fiction Classics." What a horrible time to be without my camera... 8-)
Kevin, we are not Russia. We never will be. Your belief system has drawn a connection between liberals in this country and Marxism. There is none. In short, you are wrong. I don't expect you to see this because I think you are pathologically committed to this paranoid delusion. The images of skulls that you put up is little different than my avatar on here. This is John Bircher land, Kevin, and it simply isn't balanced nor is it even close to being factually correct. As Mastiff said a long time ago, you have let your emotional mind reach a conclusion rather than your rational mind.
I trust capitalism, self-interest, and Adam Smith's "invisible hand." We have the track records of both, and I KNOW which one works.
Actually, it doesn't. You've said it yourself...it's a horrible system but it is the best one there is out there. I agree. But that doesn't mean that we have to believe that any sort of government power is immediately Marxism. Or that anyone to the left of you is a Marxist. Bernie Sanders is a democratic Socialist which is based on the capitalist mode of production. I don't expect you to understand this, though, as you have Marxist Tourettes much in the same way Glenn Beck has Nazi Tourettes.
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/05/perfect.html
President Obama would be along the same lines ideologically as President Eisenhower. So would Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi. Ike would have been called a Marxist by you, had you been alive, immediately following his MIC speech. Wasn't he attacking the free market, after all? They are all moderates, Kevin. And I'm going to keep saying it as long as you remain delusional. Call me Marxy and tease me all you want. It won't matter. I'm right and you know that I am. Barack Obama isn't Lord Sauron and our country...our reality...isn't framed within the context of military science fiction. Or Rand's rage.
And, honestly, I can't understand why you are worried. The spill in the Gulf has shown quite clearly how little power the goverment truly has today. I'm not the only that has noticed it.
http://www.startribune.com/nation/94792374.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUUsZ
The disaster has demonstrated the enduring laxity of federal regulation of offshore operations and has shown the government to be almost wholly at the mercy of BP, the company leasing the rig, to provide the technology, personnel and equipment to stop the bleeding well.
Rand and Friedman followers unite! Your dream has been achieved! Everything remotely related to government control is now Marxist!!!
I'd say it's working out pretty well, eh? Trust and track record indeed...
"Except that Rand's piece was a work of fiction born out of her horrible experiences in Russia."
WE have told YOU, many times, that it is fiction, teacher boy. Your reading comprehension still on the fritz is it?
"As Mastiff said a long time ago, you have let your emotional mind reach a conclusion rather than your rational mind."
That's YOU, hypocrisy boy. Once again, we see your Standard Response #9, the "Nuh-uh! Am not! You are!" response. You simply assert, yet again, that Kevin is what you don't like being accused of.
"But that doesn't mean that we have to believe that any sort of government power is immediately Marxism."
OOH! A straw man! Quick, get the popcorn!
It's your Standard Response #6, yet again, fuckwit. How original.
"Or that anyone to the left of you is a Marxist."
Another straw man!
"I don't expect you to understand this, though, as you have Marxist Tourettes much in the same way Glenn Beck has Nazi Tourettes."
Says the teacher who simply will not use a dictionary.
"President Obama would be along the same lines ideologically as President Eisenhower."
Really? Eisenhower was a leader, a soldier, a diplomat, a capitalist, and a Republican. Obamateur is not a leader, loathes the military, gaffes repeatedly and embarrasses the whole nation at diplomacy, is a socialist, and is a Democrat. Can you possibly trash your credibility any more?
"And, honestly, I can't understand why you are worried. The spill in the Gulf has shown quite clearly how little power the goverment truly has today."
You would have us believe that no finger of shame should be pointed in Obamateur's direction regarding the oil spill because the feddle gubmint has so little power, by golly. Now, just how many times, in how many ways, and about how many issues did YOU point the finger of blame at George W, as if the feddle gubmint was all-powerful and ol' George was responsible for everyy goddamned thing that happened everywhere in the world, all the time?
Yet again, you demonstrate that you hold Republicans and President Bush to one set of standards, but ol' Barry is blameless for anything bad that happens 'cause you hold him to another set of standards. Yet again, you demonstrate your limitless hypocrisy.
And you have repeatedly accused us of employing double standards simply because you don't like the standards we employ! Goddamn, teacher boy, does hypocrisy come in a worse form than you have just demonstrated?
Oh, and teacher boy, the notion that you "honestly" state something is laughable. You are fundamentally dishonest to a degree one doesn't find even among used car salesman. Honestly.
"Rand and Friedman followers unite! Your dream has been achieved! Everything remotely related to government control is now Marxist!!!"
Yet again, we see your Standard Response #6, the "How 'bout a little fire, Scarecrow?" response, in which you deliberately miss the point and lay on one straw man after another.
Overall, what we have here is your Standard Response #10, the "Brave Sir Robin" response. The monsters got too close, so you disappeared for a few days, only to reappear and treat everyone as if they didn't see the monsters.
Same old shit, different day, little boy. You don't fool anyone, you don't impress anyone, and you just can't learn, can you?
Eisenhower was a leader, a soldier, a diplomat, a capitalist, and a Republican. Obamateur is not a leader, loathes the military, gaffes repeatedly and embarrasses the whole nation at diplomacy, is a socialist, and is a Democrat.
Furthermore, Eisenhower was enough of a gentleman and understood the need for unity that when Kennedy went and fucked up at Bay of Pigs, Eisenhower publicly backed him unreservedly, and we still don't know what he said to him (apparently tearing strips off of him away from the press and other poeple.)
Because he knew that being Presidental was far more than getting elected to the office.
Hell, Kennedy, who tarnished the office a fair bit, understood that more than Obama.
But Mark should be careful of tossing around ideologies (but he's too clueless.) Kennedy's stances today put him to the right of most Republican politicians. And his fix for a sagging economy was a ....
Really? Eisenhower was a leader, a soldier, a diplomat, a capitalist, and a Republican. Obamateur is not a leader, loathes the military, gaffes repeatedly and embarrasses the whole nation at diplomacy, is a socialist, and is a Democrat. Can you possibly trash your credibility any more?
I'm surprised that you think all of these things about Ike, DJ. According to the rules set out by you and other Cult members here, he was a socialist (91 percent tax rate on upper income bracket) and fascist bent on destroying the free market (MIC speech). He also sent federal troops to interfere with state's rights. So, it's your credibility that is pretty pathetic considering the dichotomy between your opinion on Ike and your...ahem...beliefs.
http://www.susaneisenhower.com/2008/11/03/political-fear-mongering-the-coming-election-and-why-barack-obama-should-be-our-next-president/
I think I'll take her opinion of her own grandfather over someone who has taken leave of his senses because Barack Obama is president.
http://www.alternet.org/books/146963/how_obama%27s_election_drove_the_american_right_insane/?page=entire
But just for fun, let's take a look at your points one by one...
loathes the military
I suppose I could point to the increase defense spending or the increase in veteran's benefits that McCain shat all over. But, a picture is worth a thousand words
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zSktzKGEi4g/SdyxceL5TTI/AAAAAAAABBI/lTuM9q5mRq0/s1600-h/obamahug.jpg
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2009/04/07/obama-soldiers-cp-652898.jpg
I can feel the loathing from here.
gaffes repeatedly
On what exactly? I won't deny that he's made mistakes. Unlike your ilk, he actually admits them and takes responsibility for them. And gaffes...you think this is a good path to go down after W?
embarrasses the whole nation at diplomacy
Yeah, that was bad when he signed that treaty with the Russians. And now has both them and China on board with tougher sanctions against Iran. And, again, do you really want to go down that path? But nice Rove btw ;)
is a socialist
Um, Colonel Flagg? Check and make sure that some loco weed wasn't mixed in with your feed. While you are at it, explain to me how a socialist is supported by as many private concerns as our president is. Sarah Palin just said that it's Obama's relationship with Big Oil that is part of the problem with the BP thing. Could it be true?
Say it with me, DJ....regulation and oversight do not mean socialism...regulation and oversight do not mean socialism......regulation and oversight do not mean socialism.....regulation and oversight do not mean socialism.....Let's see if we can break that Cult programming.
and is a Democrat.
True. And today that means, according to Susan Eisenhower, an Eisenhower Republican.
Unix-I'm not sure what your position is on the Bay of Pigs but the reason why it was FUBAR was not because of Kennedy. Start with Dulles, Cabell and Bissell.
"I'm surprised that you think all of these things about Ike, DJ."
Overall, you don't know Jack Shit about me, teacher boy.
My father served directly under Eisenhower during 1945, as a liason officer between SHAEF (Eisenhower's headquarters) and 12th Army Group (Bradley's headquarters). He knew both of them personally and described both of them, directly to me, as being strong Republicans who hated socialism and fascism. He had credibility. You don't.
"According to the rules set out by you and other Cult members here, he was a socialist (91 percent tax rate on upper income bracket) ..."
Still won't define "cult", will you, aphasia boy?
We have tried and tried to teach you that Congress sets tax rates, not Presidents. Congress makes laws; Presidents only get to veto them or sign them into law. You simply will not learn this.
Now, go check those historical top marginal tax rates by year. You'll find that the top marginal rate of 91% was set by legislation passed during 1951, which was during the Truman Administration. Truman was a Democrat. It was finally lowered by legislation passed during 1963, which was during the Kennedy Administration. Kennedy was a Democrat. Eisenhower never had the opportunity to lower it because Congress never passed legislation to lower it during his administration.
So, because Congress never passed legislation to lower it from 91%, you would have us believe that our rules require us to label him a Socialist? Are your reasoning skills really that blitheringly stupid?
"... fascist bent on destroying the free market (MIC speech)."
We've been through this, teacher boy. You just will not learn, will you?
"I can feel the loathing from here."
You could visibly see it at his first State of the Union Address. Watch who he shook hands with and who he didn't shake hands with. Watch his expression as he worked the "grip and grin" line. He loathes the military as much as the military loathes him.
"I won't deny that he's made mistakes. Unlike your ilk, he actually admits them and takes responsibility for them."
You pathetic, hypocritical shithead. We are the ones who admit our mistakes, right here in Kevin's parlor. You cannot admit error, remember?
"And gaffes...you think this is a good path to go down after W?"
Certainly. They are many, they are pathetic, and they show him to be a fucking amateur. Don't you watch the news? We've talked about his gaffes as they happened. Your reading comprehension sinks ever lower, doesn't it?
Here, go read 'em for yourself: http://obamasgaffes.blogspot.com/ Also, try a bit of humor: http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/a/obama-isms.htm
Here is a simple example of his diplomatic skills: He gave the Queen of England a set of DVD's which contained videos of his speeches and were in the format used here (NTSC) instead of the format used there (PAL). Go read about the gift the Queen gave to him. Such a gift should reflect our country and a consideration of who receives it, but no, with him, it's about HIM. Every goddamned thing is about HIM. His gift to the Queen was shabby beyond imagining and it reflects horribly on both him and his staff. He's an AMATEUR in the field of diplomacy, teacher boy, and he is a continuing embarrassment to our country (except, perhaps, to fuckwits like you).
"is a socialist"
We've been there over and over, liar boy. You have stated in plain English that you are a liberal and that you are not a liberal. Again, your credibility on such issues is ZERO.
"is a Democrat"
According to his professed beliefs, which are available in his own writings, as we have demonstrated to you, that means he is a socialist.
Teacher boy, if you ever come down with Alzheimer's, who is gonna know?
DJ: is a socialist
Marxaphasia: Um, Colonel Flagg? Check and make sure that some loco weed wasn't mixed in with your feed.
Oh, this is gonna be fun!!!! 8-)
Ever hear of the Chicago DSA? (Democratic Socialists of America) Their website can be found here. Notice how they define themselves:
"Our mission is to establish democratic socialism as a political force in the United States and around the world by training and mobilizing socialist activists to participate in a vibrant and diverse socialist organization at both the local and the national level."
They have an archive of their newsletters on their web site, including issue #38, and issue #42. (I'll look at others, but I'll just start with these for now.) The Chicago DSA took great interest in the a party called the New Party:
"On Saturday, January 14, the New Party in Chicago took another step in its effort to establish itself as a political force by holding a major outreach meeting directed at Chicago's Left. About 100 people, with sizable delegations from DSA and CoC among others, heard Bruce Colburn and Elaine Bernard preach the gospel of the New Party. The audience was also introduced to the New Party's first candidate in Chicago, Michael Chandler, who is running for Alderman in Chicago's west side 24th ward. The meeting was held at the meeting hall of SEIU Local 880, a local that is tackling the extremely difficult task of organizing home health care workers in Illinois. SEIU Local 880 and ACORN share office space."
— Issue 38
(Side note: The Chicago DSA describes ACORN as "the single 800 pound gorilla in the Chicago New Party".)
So what does Barak Obama have to do with the New Party? They were his party when he ran for Illinois State Senator (he won, BTW):
"About 50 activists attended the Chicago New Party membership meeting in July. … Candidates must be approved via a NP political committee. Once approved, candidates must sign a contract with the NP. The contract mandates that they must have a visible and active relationship with the NP.
"The political entourage included … and Barack Obama, chief of staff for State Sen. Alice Palmer. Obama is running for Palmer's vacant seat."
— Issue 42
(This explains why ACORN and SEIU are his political allies.)
So Barak Obama had to sign a contract stipulating a formal association with the New Party in order to get their endorsement. This was not some outside party throwing their support to Obama. He was politically in bed with them. Interestingly enough, the same article described the makeup of the New Party:
"Indeed it was an exciting evening because the NP has two crucial components. First, the NP is a true "Rainbow Coalition" consisting of both young and aged African-Americans, Hispanics and Caucasians. Although ACORN and SEIU Local 880 were the harbingers of the NP there was a strong presence of CoC and DSA (15% DSA)."
— Issue 42
CoC stands for Committees of Correspondence, a "splinter group" from the Communist Party. In other words, even though ACORN was the main backer of the New Party, the party was also being backed by part of the Communist Party, and the Chicago Democratic Socialists of America.
But the Chicago DSA didn't merely offer some support to the New Party, they were working on a formal relationship:
"The June 8th Chicago DSA Membership Convention…
"The only controversial business at the meeting was a proposal that Chicago DSA affiliate with the New Party. Ultimately, the meeting voted to, in effect, explore affiliation with both the New Party and the Labor Party."
— Issue #47
They never got the chance to follow through because "fusion" parties like the New Party were ruled illegal by the Supreme Court in 1997.
But still, the question remains, why would the Chicago DSA, with the stated goal of "mov[ing] the U.S. and the world toward social democracy" choose to affiliate with the New Party? Because they shared the same ideology, stated in different terms.
"Over three hundred people attended the first of two Town Meetings on Economic Insecurity on February 25 in Ida Noyes Hall at the University of Chicago. Entitled "Employment and Survival in Urban America", the meeting was sponsored by the UofC DSA Youth Section, Chicago DSA and University Democrats.
…
"One of the themes that has emerged in Barack Obama's campaign is "what does it take to create productive communities", not just consumptive communities.
…
"A true welfare system would provide for medical care, child care and job training. While Barack Obama did not use this term, it sounded very much like the "social wage" approach used by many social democratic labor parties."
— Issue #45
In fact, the socialists liked what he was saying so much that they actively endorsed him:
"Chicago DSA Endorsements in the March 19th Primary Election
…
"Barak Obama
"Barak Obama is running to gain the Democratic ballot line for Illinois Senate 13th District. The 13th District is Alice Palmer's old district, encompassing parts of Hyde Park and South Shore."
So tell me Marxy, why would a political party committed to spreading socialism endorse someone who did not espouse socialism?
For more information, see here, and here, and here, and here, and here.
Unix-I'm not sure what your position is on the Bay of Pigs but the reason why it was FUBAR was not because of Kennedy. Start with Dulles, Cabell and Bissell.
Dimwit, it doesn't matter what my "position" is.
The point is it was a colassal fuckup. And yes, it was FUBARed because of Kennedy. You obviously don't know what happened there. (Big surprise.)
Eisenhower could have taken Kennedy to the woodshed for the damage he did to the US. He didn't. Compare and contrast this with the behavior of Democrats in any war a Republican headed the administration. Yes. All the way back to the Civil War.
But he didn't. Publicly. Apparently he privately gave him a stern lecture. Apparently. No records exist of this. Nobody "leaked" the truth.
While we're talking about WWII Generals, have you figured out why I used MacArthur to describe you?
According to the rules set out by [you and other Cult members here] Markadelphia.
There, fixed that for ya. Don't ever try to deny that "the Cult" is anything but a fiction of your fevered imagination.
Are you smoking crack, Marky? How is Eisenhower's warning about the Military-Industrial Complex in any any way anti-free market? After, what in the world is truly free market about companies making equipment to strict government standards and requirements for purely governmental use? To the extent the companies and the military (and their congressional masters) colluded on who would build what for what price, that wasn't free market at all. Your arguments would be much more effective, Mark, if you actuaslly understood the terms you're throeing around.
Translation: Nothing to see here. Move along. Nothing to see here. Move along. No you did not see that huge explosion. It didn't happen. Move along. No, there are no Americans in Iraq. It's all fiction. Nothing to see here. Move along.
"Rand's piece was a work of fiction born out of her horrible experiences in Russia."
Of course it's fiction! We know that. We've said that. It's only the little Nazi in your head that says otherwise.
But it's a particular type of fiction known as a parable. And since you have such trouble with word meanings, here is what parable means:
"noun. 1. a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson."
Unfortunately, Ayn Rand forgot about the "short" part of the definition, and instead, wrote a seriously long winded, ham handed parable using pathetic storytelling and shallow, two-dimensional characters. But it's still a parable intended to demonstrate Why. Socialism. CANNOT. Work.
Because Marxy has such trouble with word meanings, here is what socialism means:
"An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists."
And once again, Marxy argues with the little Nazi inside his head when he writes:
"But that doesn't mean that we have to believe that any sort of government power is immediately Marxism."
But we didn't say "Marxism", did we Marxaphasia? We said "SOCIALISM", because that's what the word "SOCIALISM" MEANS!!!
Sigh, I don't know why I bother, but once more into the breach.
Markadelphia,
Do you honestly believe that more Federal government oversight would have prevented the BP oil leak? So government officals can never be bribed to look the other way, right? Do you think BP WANTED that oil spill? This may come as a surprise to you, but they didn't. I forget which blogger said it, but that spill is a bloody fire hose spraying money into the ocean at a rate of millions of dollars a day, not counting the cost of clean-up. If they could find a way to stop that sucker immediately they'd do so. If they had a way of preventing it from happening int he first place they'd have done so. Do you honestly believe the government has people who are more capable of plugging an oil spill than BP, Gulf, Exxon, etc do? Part of the problem here is that such a thing as never happened before, off-shore drilling really is that safe. They're literally figuring it out as they go along. Plugging a well a mile deep is different from one one-tenth that deep, or on the ground. Since it's never happened before they really don't know what to do, they're trying things that MAY work and keeping their fingers crossed.
It DOES appear that there were some short-cuts taken in inspections, safety equipment, etc and the individuals (note: INDIVIDUALS) responsible should be taken to task for it, up to and including criminal action against them.
Like, didn't the government (coast guard?) sink the boat in the first place? If they hadn't sunk the boat, the pipe wouldn't have been damaged, and they could have repaired the problem at the surface. At least that's my understanding. Whoo hoo, way to go government! If only they were in charge all the time.
"I'm right and you know that I am."
Ha ha ha....that was a great laugh. Baghdad Mark is on message even as the tanks roll by.....
Markadelphia:
[insert some paste from something he said utterly stupid]
[insert some fun-poking at him]
[insert some paste where he misuses terms, concepts, and uses the mistake to back his position]
[insert some more astonishment that he's so clueless, point him to the real definitions]
[insert some paste that he's pasted from somewhere else]
[insert some contextual rebuttal that show he shouldn't just claim that quote is all-correct]
[Counter some assertions Markadelphia's made about socialism/claiming not to be socialist/the educational system with other claims made in the same post/comment or sometimes having to refer back to a prior comment within the last week to demonstrate a total disjointment of logic]
[Insert poking fun of previous errors, running away from prior threads, commitments, or other stupidity]
[post]
[wait for reply]
[repeat above]
[notice that Mark has run away - again - from all the hard facts, and is back to projection and cargo-culting elsewhere.]
That was awesome. It was informative, yet without the brain-hurt that I normally get from actually reading what he says :)
Not to interrupt from the ritual Mark-lashing...
But I must object to a point of Sowell's. He writes, "Where in Adam Smith moral and socially beneficial behavior could be evoked from man only by incentives…" But this is quite wrong. Adam Smith is also the author of the Theory of Moral Sentiments, and in general was very much concerned with the place of fundamental morality in human behavior.
Indeed, one of the flaws in the modern defense of capitalism has been that we neglected this side of Smith, to our detriment.
This is a point well worth amplifying. Smith himself considered TMS to be his opus, not WoN. WoN was built upon the foundation set forth in TMS. It is emphatically NOT incentive-based behavior - which sounds much more Bentham-esque (and ultimately warped into Skinner).
Except that Rand's piece was a work of fiction...
As were the UN IPCC reports, as it turns out. As was "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan", as it turns out.
And your point is?
"Kevin, we are not Russia. We never will be. Your belief system has drawn a connection between liberals in this country and Marxism. There is none...."
Horseshit, Teacherboy, and you know it.
Fuck you, and the Dalai Lama.
If either of you ever get within arm's reach of me, I'll burn you both down.
Your religion is Marxism and it is evil.
End of fucking story.
We can't discuss capitalism without mentioning rights. Capitalism, put simply, is nothing more and nothing less than the recognition and protection of property rights. Mine, yours and everyone else's. Equally. Any other system either fails to recognize or fails to protect property rights and is therefore criminal, and, I have to conclude, based on pure greed.
It's too bad Echo doesn't allow multiple "likes" or thumbs up or something, 'cause I'd give you more than one for that!
Oh, and Marxy… you claim to be a Christian. The concept of property rights is built in to the 10 commandments, especially the 8th ("Do not steal.") and 10th ("Do not covet…").
Is Obama a socialist?
"Socialism, according to Karl Marx, is the transition between capitalism and communism. To achieve communism, Marx says, there must be continuing revolution in which the fundamental principal is: the end justifies the means.
For more than half a century, capitalism in the United States has taken a beating from the socialist revolution. Despite the best efforts of conservatives, since the Roosevelt era, socialists have made great strides toward converting the nation to socialism. Apparently, the majority of Americans either fail to recognize the transition, or welcome it. The enthusiastic support for Barack Obama, especially among young people, is abundant evidence.
Obama has declared that he believes every person has a “right” to health care. The Socialist Party USA believes every person has a “right” to health care.
Obama believes that labor unions should be allowed to organize without a secret ballot. The Socialist Party USA calls for unions to be recognized without a secret ballot. (Hear Obama’s words here.)
The Socialist Party USA recognizes the “right” of adequate housing for everyone. Obama trained ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) workers to secure mortgages for unqualified people, in sufficient numbers to collapse the housing and home-financing industries.
The Socialist Party USA believes that “capitalism is fundamentally incompatible” with socialism. For years, Obama worked in Chicago through the Annenberg Challenge, along with Bill Ayers, to funnel more than $50 million to anti-capitalist education projects. In November, 2006, Ayers traveled to Venezuela to speak at Hugo Chavez’s Education Forum where he railed against “the failings of capitalist education,” and praised the “…Bolivarian Revolution and the profound reforms in education made by Hugo Chavez.”
The Socialist Party USA believes in open borders and six months residency as the only requirement for U.S. citizenship. Obama marched with illegal aliens in Chicago in support of “comprehensive” immigration reform. Listen to Obama’s promises to La Raza in 2007.
The Socialist Party USA calls for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq. Obama says “I will end this war,” with never a reference to “winning” or “victory.”
The Socialist Party USA calls for the “unconditional disarmament” by the United States. Obama has promised to dramatically reduce defense spending. Listen to his words here.
The Socialist Party USA calls for a “livable guaranteed annual income.” Obama trained ACORN members to conduct “Living Wage” campaigns in cities around the country.
The Socialist Party USA calls for a “steeply graduated” tax policy in order to redistribute wealth. Obama has promised to increase the tax burden on the rich in order to redistribute wealth to the poor. He revealed his philosophy when answering a question from a plumber who complained that he was being taxed for his success."
There's more.
I feel sick.
"The Socialist Party USA calls for a “steeply graduated” tax policy in order to redistribute wealth."
Funny, but CA has a very steeply graduated income tax. I don't see equality of wealth in this state, but I do see a state that has chronic fiscal problems driven by the severe drop-off in tax receipts during economic down-cycles. (The "unintended consequence" of fiscal reliance on high incomes).
And, once again, Markadelphia proves two things: it's absurdly easy to bait him into a comment thread, and our worldviews are so divergent that it is impossible to merely have a discussion with him, much less one of any value.
I'm not sure he *has* a definable worldview.
Sure he does, it is just fundamentally and irredeemably narcissistic - what he feels is right is all that matters.
And once again, Kevin has proved that the rules that apply to me don't apply to anyone else. Or him. If I wrote a post like the one above, I'd get two to three times the normal "Tolstoy" length from DJ, Unix or Ed "proving me wrong" (see: OMG!!! If Mark is ever right about anything, cue boiling pit of sewage...and stuff.)
The world you folks live in is rapidly shrinking, isn't it?
How come you don't just answer the questions asked of you directly?
"And once again, Kevin has proved that the rules that apply to me don't apply to anyone else. Or him."
Ah, the memories. It was only yesterday that I wrote:
"Yet again, you demonstrate that you hold Republicans and President Bush to one set of standards, but ol' Barry is blameless for anything bad that happens 'cause you hold him to another set of standards. Yet again, you demonstrate your limitless hypocrisy.
"And you have repeatedly accused us of employing double standards simply because you don't like the standards we employ! Goddamn, teacher boy, does hypocrisy come in a worse form than you have just demonstrated?"
And yet again, you validate my comments, hypocrisy boy.
A post like which one above? You mean the one where he specifically lists the points of his supporters who proclaim themselves as openly socialist or communist, and goes on to specifically list where Obama himself is on record as agreeing with those positions?
How would you know what would happen "if you wrote a post like the one above"? You've never tried. You write posts detailing the positions of a group you know we'll all disagree with, and then claim we are all exactly like that, sure. But do you use our own words to show that? No. You use "Rush Limbaugh said" as a basis for assumption that everyone to the right of Nancy Pelosi must agree with Rush 100%. You use "well obviously it was because" to "prove" that your speculations with no factual basis are in fact the truth. You use "the Bush administration did..." as a basis for assumption that everyone who disagrees with you must agree with Bush 100% on every issue. You use "a disgruntled ex-employee made a baseless accusation against Sarah Palin because she dared to do the job she was required by law to do, therefore she is a book banner". You claim ________ people must obviously believe _______, and never, ever admit that the definition of the pejorative label you're using is not the same one that Webster (or the majority or Americans) uses.
But actually saying ________ is on record supporting _________, go see for yourself, and ________ who I am taking to task for also supporting ___________ is also on record, therefore __________ who I disagree with must be in agreement with ___________ distasteful group of crazies? I don't think I've ever seen that one.
I take that back, I have. Conservatives do not support gay marriage and neither does AQ, therefore conservatives are JLAQ. Not sure, but I think that's the only place I've seen you use that method. Of course, that conventiently ignores the fact that by precisely the same standard, Barack Obama himself is JLAQ...
Sorry Mark, but your absence of credibility.... we aren't the ones who did that.
And once again, Marxaphasia proves that if he doesn't like the evidence, he just ignores it.
That's not quite fair, Ed.
He'll sneer at your attempt later, and insist that he "answered" it previously. That's not really "ignoring" except by Marxian values of definition.
They are all moderates, Kevin. (In reference to Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi)
These are the 3 people who were the movers and shakers behind the recent healthcare bill, right? These are the ones that, while touting transparency and ethics, had to make backroom deals and pull every string they could to get a compromise between the most and least conservative factions of their own party, while cutting the opposing party out of the process altogether, right?
"Moderate" means "able to see valid points in both sides of a debate", does it not? So if Obama, Reid and Pelosi are "moderate", then it follows that either
a) There is no valid ideological position in US government to the right of Ben Nelson, Joe Sestak, or whoever you choose as the archetypal "conservative Democrat",
or
b) there are valid ideological positions in US government as far to the left of Dennis Kucinich as Limbaugh, Beck, DeMint, Bolton, Palin, or whoever you choose as the archetypal "extreme conservative Republican" is to the right of your archetypal "conservative Democrat",
or
c) the actual positions of Obama et al are far to the right of the position defined by their words and actions, and even though they were able to see valid points in the arguments of conservatives, even so far right as Limbaugh et al, they deliberately ignored them. In short, they specifically chose to betray the very moderate principles you are praising them for.
Which are you suggesting, Mark?
DIFFERENT RULES!!! DIFFERENT RULES!!!
Actually, after Ed's lengthy "analysis" of socialism, I'd like to see if he could define the difference between Marxism and democratic socialism.
Bonus question (for anyone): the failure of Marxism to explain multiple aspects of culture and society is due to the fact that it is a _____ theory and not a ______ theory...that latter being grounded in reality. And why is this?
Actually, after Ed's lengthy "analysis" of socialism
...
latter being grounded in reality. And why is this?
How about you go back to the first thing there, Ed's analysis, and deal with that before attempting to LECTURE US about reality? Hmmm?
I'd like to see if he could define the difference between Marxism and democratic socialism.
I'll tell you the similarity. With both of those, they're proudly used by those espousing them, until it becomes used negatively/as a correct description, then both insist that they're not really what they were claiming just a bit before, and the people calling them that are ignorant and prejudiced.
In the meantime, you've got a lot of credibility to make up - years worth - before you can "nut up" and demand we have the sack, verbatim boy.
I'd like to see if he could define the difference between Marxism and democratic socialism.
We're still waiting for you to define definition.
What the definition I posted earlier wasn't good enough? Since you obviously missed it the first time, here it is again:
"An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity. There are many varieties of socialism. Some socialists tolerate capitalism, as long as the government maintains the dominant influence over the economy; others insist on an abolition of private enterprise. All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists."
In other words, "socialism" is to "Marxism" as "airplane" is to "jet". A jet is a particular type of airplane, and Marxism is a particular kind of socialism. I refuse to specify which kind of socialist Obama is, because I don't really know. Some of his actions and statements have been Marxist ("When you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.") and some have been Fascist (telling the insurance companies exactly what coverage they must provide and at what price, how much employees can earn, etc.).
At this point, it doesn't particularly matter what kind of socialist Obama is, what is crystal clear, however, is that he IS a socialist. And no amount of word twisting on your part can change that basic fact.
Of course, I fully expect you to continue to deny the obvious, because for you to admit a significant error like this would cause you to have a heart attack from the sheer stress of breaking out of your cocoon. It might even cause a few heart attacks on our side too!
And just a reminder, since you claim to be a Christian:
"Remind them of these things, and solemnly charge them in the presence of God not to wrangle about words, which is useless and leads to the ruin of the hearers."
(2 Timothy 2:14 NAS95)
"he is conceited and understands nothing; but he has a morbid interest in controversial questions and disputes about words, out of which arise envy, strife, abusive language, evil suspicions, and constant friction between men of depraved mind and deprived of the truth,"
(1 Timothy 6:4–5 NAS95)
"Actually, after Ed's lengthy "analysis" of socialism, I'd like to see if he could define the difference between Marxism and democratic socialism."
Actually, after Ed's lengthy "indictment" of Obama as being a socialist, I'd like to see if you can justify your continued assertion that Obama is not a socialist without ignoring it.
Indeed, let's take it further. I have stated to you many times that reality is what it is regardless of whether or not you like it, and that any analysis you make of what reality is must square with ALL the relevant facts, else it cannot be correct. You have NEVER responded to these statements of mine with anything except silence. Your behavior has been to ignore them completely.
So, here's a bonus question for you, teacher boy. How can the assertion that Obama is not a socialist square with the facts of his socialist past that Ed documented here yesterday?
Well? Which of your Standard Responses will we see this time, sack boy?
If President Obama were a socialist, why does he want to open up space exploration to private competition? He has also stated many times that he has no real desire to be involved with the banks or the financial service industry and would rather spend his time dealing with foreign affairs. Just because he and Congress are attempting to regulate and oversee these industries does not make him or them socialists. The government (which is all of us btw) is charged with regulating commerce. They weren't doing that and look at the results...massive losses by many Americans should be proof enough for you. Sadly, it isn't as it is all somehow the fault of Barney Frank and Maxine Water...CRA, Fannie and Freddie.
Let's see if any of this gets through your delusion that President Obama is Hitler and wants the government take over everything and steal your guns. If it does, I will offer more examples of how he is not a socialist although one would think that the complete inadequacy of the federal government in regards to the oil spill would be even further proof.
And Ed, I hate to tell you this but Jesus Christ was a proponent of social justice. He believed that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everyone. I submit that our Savior was a socialist.
Luke 14:13-14
But when you give a banquet, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed. Although they cannot repay you, you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.
Matthew 25:41-45
Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'
Luke 6:38
Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
And remember, in Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to get into heaven. Your purport to be a Christian, Ed. Do you agree with the words of our Lord?
Markadelphia,
One major difference, Jesus wanted His followers to give WILLINGLY and CHEERFULLY, not to have their belongings taken from them by force and distributed to others. And if you don't think taxation is taken by force, try not paying your taxes sometime, men with guns will come to your home and MAKE you pay. In fact, given the portion you highlighted above, I'd say that having your money taken by the government and given to others is exactly what Jesus DIDN'T want, he says "...whatever YOU did not do...", not "...whatever others did not force you to do...".
I recommend against using Scripture to prove your point in my presense. The fact that you know some Scripture doesn't prove you point, recall that Satan quoted Scripture when he tempted Jesus in the desert. Bad as you are, you've got a LONG way to go to measure up to the devil himself.
Leave it to Markadelphia to interpret those passages as meaning "It's the government's job."
If Jesus had said "God wants the Romans take your stuff and trade it for earthly power", I would have denounced him for a confidence man and applauded whoever took the initiative to see to it that he *stayed* crucified, dead and buried.
I never said it was the government's job specifically. God does, indeed, love a cheerful giver. The question is, Mark D., what would Jesus think of our government today? Certainly, he despised the Romans and the taxation that went on during his time. He also despised the money counters and divisions within the temple. But our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people...a decidedly Christian feel. It's impossible to say for certain but it's my opinion that Christ would look at the great wealth in this nation and wonder why we keep getting worse in regards to the child mortality rate, for example.
Regardless of the government, Jesus was quite clear: give freely and help the poor. If everyone in this country did that and shared their wealth, any talk of government redistribution would be moot and both of us would be happy, right?
A couple of other points:
men with guns will come to your home and MAKE you pay.
Take a fucking chill pill, dude. I know people that haven't paid their taxes in years and no one has come to their homes. Now, if they had a joint in their homes I would agree with you.
I recommend against using Scripture to prove your point in my presense.
Ooo...scary. I recommend against setting yourself up as an authority on the Bible. That usually tells me that you have zero understanding of Matthew 7:1. That being said, I simply relayed the words of Christ. It's up to you to embrace them or ignore them.
Perhaps YOU should demonstrate an actual understanding of the CONTEXT of Matthew 7:1:
"For with the judgment you use, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye but don’t notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ and look, there’s a log in your eye? Hypocrite! First take the log out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye."
(Matthew 7:2–5 HCSB)
Let's look at that first sentence again. "For with the judgement YOU use, YOU will be judged, and with the measure YOU use, it will be measured to YOU." In other words, if you ignore evidence, use faulty logic, twist words, and PRETEND you understand other's motives even though Only GOD Can Do So, God will use that against you. You don't fare so well on this measure.
Now read the rest. He's saying to get yourself straightened out (see wisdom, knowledge and understanding), SO THAT you will be able to help your brother ("then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.").
But our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people. . . . Jesus was quite clear: give freely and help the poor. If everyone in this country did that and shared their wealth, any talk of government redistribution would be moot and both of us would be happy, right?
And we have here just another example of the Unconstrained Vision in which, if everyone were just made to care about others before themselves, we'd all be living in Utopia! But since they won't, government (which is "of the people, by the people, for the people") must do it for us (and to us). Government, you see, will work if the right people are in charge! Those would be the people who care about others more than they care about themselves.
Even though Markadelphia admits that the government is full of crooks.
Truly, the "logic" he uses makes my brain ache.
Kevin,
What's especially ironic about his position is that those calling for "redistribution" (that's the left) give less to charity than conservatives do. We ARE the ones that give freely and cheerfully. We also tend to follow Jesus' instruction: (Even you "heathen" conservatives. ;) ;)
“Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of people, to be seen by them. Otherwise, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So whenever you give to the poor, don’t sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be applauded by people. I assure you: They’ve got their reward! But when you give to the poor, don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.”
(Matthew 6:1–4 HCSB)
::: sigh :::
Echo was only supposed to put ONE winking smiley and one parenthesis.
For example:
http://michellemalkin.com/2010/05/19/fema-attempts-to-whitewash-faith-based-volunteers/
(Yes, Marxy, I linked to Michelle Malkin's site. Don't bother pulling out the stupid genetic fallacy again. Both parts of her article—conservatives give more and FEMA trying to hide that it's conservatives actually helping out voluntarily—can be confirmed at other sources. I only linked to Michelle for convenient "for instance.")
But our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people...a decidedly Christian feel.
God is a populist?
Yeah, that explains the Catholic Church, not to mention the Protestant notion of the elect.
Weren't you just denouncing on your own blog some right-wing-nutty Texan for talking about how God's wisdom guides our country? Then you come over here and trot THIS out? If you want to know what hypocrisy looks like, get yourself in front of a mirror.
The devil can quote Scripture for his purposes.
So can garden-variety degenerates.
What Kevin said!
Marxy, I do not disagree with those passages. Now, where in these passages did Jesus say that it was government's job to do these things?
Do you remember Jesus explaining the difference between what belongs to God and what belongs to government?
“Tell us, therefore, what You think. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”
But perceiving their malice, Jesus said, “Why are you testing Me, hypocrites? Show Me the coin used for the tax.” So they brought Him a denarius. “Whose image and inscription is this?” He asked them.
“Caesar’s,” they said to Him.
Then He said to them, “Therefore give back to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.”
(Matthew 22:17–21 HCSB)
So God's things and the government's things are different. And where does charity fall in this divide?
Pure and undefiled religion before our God and Father is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself unstained by the world.
(James 1:27 HCSB)
Also look back at where you quoted Matthew 25. Who was he talking to? Governments? No! Individuals. Religion belongs to God, not governments. Therefore, charity belongs to individuals, not governments.
Governments taking money by force (otherwise known as taxes) and giving it to someone else is not charity, nor is it "Christian".
"While it is indisputably true that modern state welfare is largely the outgrowth of Christianity’s centuries-old charity practices, it needs to be noted that there are several reasons why state welfare programs cannot be equated with Christian charity. State welfare today corresponds more to the pagan liberalitis of Rome than to Christian caritas. The latter, as noted earlier, was done out of selfless love, whereas the former was done with the objective of receiving some type of reciprocity. While a great deal of today’s state welfare is provided to assist those in need, it lacks genuine love. State welfare programs operate on the basis of coercion; funds are involuntarily gathered by means of enforced taxation, and thus they violate the spirit and method of true Christian charity. Although governmental welfare programs help many of the unfortunate, and while they might be called charity, they are not Christian charity; nor are they Christian compassion."
…
"State welfare programs are also at odds with Christian charity in that they often produce unintended harmful effects by unintentionally encouraging the loss of individual responsibility and even rewarding it. One such effect has been the continued rise in the rates of children born out of wedlock, a trend that has steadily increased from the mid–1960s to 2000. In 1960 the out-of-wedlock birth rate was 5.3 percent of all births in the United States, while in 1998 it was 33 percent, an increase of nearly 600 percent. Another unintended, harmful effect of state welfare has been the rewarding of the indolent, thus nullifying the Christian admonition: “If a man will not work, he shall not eat” (2 Thessalonians 3:10). Walter Benjamin refers to these effects as products of “imprudent charity.”
Another effect of governmental welfare programs at odds with Christian charity is that they often foster political demagoguery by pandering to the voters who are recipients of social welfare. Political demagoguery clearly violates Christian charity, not only because it uses lies and deception, but also because it benefits the selfish interests of the demagogues who, by presenting themselves as advocates of state welfare programs, reap political gain since those who are dependent on governmental handouts will vote for them in order to keep the handouts coming. Such politicians are practicing Roman liberalitis, not Christian caritas."
"Christianity, as delineated in chapter 11, fosters freedom from all forms of slavery. State welfare, on the other hand, tends to create a permanently dependent class, really a new type of slavery. The essence of slavery is being dependent on someone or some entity for one’s livelihood, and all forms of slavery demoralize human beings. Thus, enforced social welfare programs, which at first may appear altruistic and generous, are, in the long run, often detrimental. As George Gilder says, “Excessive welfare hurts its recipients, demoralizing them or reducing them to an addictive dependency that can ruin their lives.”"
…
"Finally, it must be noted that even though the present-day state welfare programs evolved out of Christian charity and compassion, they cannot be equated with Christian charity or compassion because Christ said that his followers were to give “a cup of water in my name” (Mark 9:41). State welfare programs are not offered in the name of Jesus Christ."
…
"If we fail to understand that the involuntary, coercive nature of socialism and its state socialist programs is highly incompatible with the economic practices that some of the early Christians engaged in when they voluntarily “had all things in common” (Acts 2:44 NKJV), we may think that socialism is a good way to practice Christianity. This specious thinking led F. D. Maurice in 1848 to coin the term “Christian socialism.” As said earlier, something that is done involuntarily or as a result of compulsion is no longer Christian. “Christian socialism” is an oxymoron. Socialism, as the Austrian economist F. A. Hayek has argued, fails to tell people that its promises of freedom from economic care and wants can only happen “by relieving the individual at the same time of the necessity and of the power of choice.” Dostoyevsky expressed the incompatibility of socialism and Christianity by having Miüsov, in The Brothers Karamazov, say, “The socialist who is a Christian is more to be dreaded than a socialist who is an atheist.”"
— Quotes are from "How Christianity Changed the World" by Alvin J. Schmidt (footnote references removed)
BTW, here's an explanation of caritas vs. liberalitis as used above:
"Christian charity differed profoundly from that of the Greco-Romans. The early Christians practiced caritas, as opposed to the liberalitas of the Romans. Caritas meant giving to relieve the recipient’s economic or physical distress without expecting anything in return, whereas liberalitas meant giving to please the recipient, who later would bestow a favor on the giver. For centuries the Roman pagans practiced liberalitas, not aritas. Only in extremely rare instances did some of the Romans give without expecting something in return. It was usually the most honorable, those who really did not need help, who received “all or most of the charity dispensed.”
The charity (caritas) of Christians also differed with regard to the motive for giving. Rome’s pagan religions provided no motive for charity. In the pagan religious practices, people were mere spectators at temple sacrifices, where they passively watched the priests perform. Some attenders gave stips (coins) to some god or goddess or for the erection of a statue (stip collata). Christians, on the other hand, were active participants in their divine services; they heard and shared with one another God’s gracious, redemptive act of love in Jesus Christ that motivated them to help and give to those in need. Their giving reflected the Apostle John’s words: “This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another”(1 John 4:10–11). They also heeded the Apostle Paul’s writings to the Christians in Philippi: “Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others” (Philippians 2:4).
"If President Obama were a socialist, why does he want to open up space exploration to private competition? He has also stated many times that he has no real desire to be involved with the banks or the financial service industry and would rather spend his time dealing with foreign affairs. Just because he and Congress are attempting to regulate and oversee these industries does not make him or them socialists."
Yup, yet again, we see your Standard Response #7, the "Who you gonna believe, me or your lyin' camera?" response. Yet again, you ignored the truth of my statement:
"I have stated to you many times that ... any analysis you make of what reality is must square with ALL the relevant facts, else it cannot be correct."
So, all that evidence that Ed showed you, evidence which is undeniable and irrefutable that Obama allied himself with socialist parties, means nothing to you. Yet again, you tried to cherry-pick this and that, and say, in effect, Obama said _______, so he can't be a socialist.
"The government ... is charged with regulating commerce."
No, the feddle gubmint is charged with regulating INTERSTATE commerce. How many times do we have to 'splain this to you, teacher boy, before you get it right? Are you REALLY that goddamned dense?
"... one would think that the complete inadequacy of the federal government in regards to the oil spill would be even further proof."
No, one would not THINK that at all. The inadequate response is proof of the incompetence of the organization, not of the idealogical orientation of its leaders.
Little boy, YOU CANNOT REASON. Why do you persist in making a fool of yourself by trying to fake it?
Here's an interesting article:
Socialism: The New Feudalism
"This is exactly the type of rhetoric we hear from the left all the time. With their ideas of the redistribution of wealth, and a central controlling nanny state, we're told things such as: ‘You should listen to those who know better. You should care more about the community over your own desires; conservatives are just a bunch of ignorant hillbillies clinging to old ideas and must be forced into a better and more ordered society.'
"In actuality, the left is leading us right back into feudalism, where men are enslaved to lords, knowledge is left to the ruling class, and freedom and ingenuity are hindered to prevent man from reaching his full potential. This is exactly why our founders pulled us away from the ideas of Europe and gave us every right and freedom the feudalists said were wrong to have."
People. I'm serious. STOP CALLING IT SOCIALISM!!
While the motivations behind it are social-democratic, the mechanisms involved are pure CORPORATISM.
Why does the difference matter? First, people who actually know something about the topic won't write you off as imprecise knee-jerk reactionaries. Second, people who luuurve Socialism will be taken aback when you call it what it is, Corporatism, which they profess to hate.
Don't bother learning about corporatism via Google, alas, as most of the discussion you'll find assumes that corporatism means rule by corporations. Instead, start with Peter Katzenstein's Small States in World Markets. As a bonus, you'll understand better why the liberal Democrats can't stop talking about Sweden.
Dammit!!!
Small States in World Markets
Explain the meaning of "corporatism" for us, would you? Use small words.
The basic idea is that you incorporate (natch) all segments of society into representative groups—which at the extreme can be national organizations like in Germany and the Scandinavian countries; all labor unions into a single national labor union, all industry into a single "peak" business association, etc—which then bargain together, with government facilitating.
Roosevelt's NRA associations were corporatist. In them, industrial companies bargained with labor unions to fix wages, and in return were able to fix prices amongst themselves, with the endorsement of the government.
Characteristic of corporatism is a hostility to free competition, which can disrupt the "old boy's club" that corporatism seeks to set up; existing companies are privileged by quasi-monopoly status within their niches, or by oligopolistic agreements among each other to permit peaceful coexistence.
Similarly, all members of society must be incorporated into some representative organization, or risk throwing off the whole system. This is seen, for example, in the argument of labor unions that nonunion workers are free-riding off of them.
Government's role is to stabilize the corporatist agreement by arranging institutions to facilitate bargaining, and to suppress economic activity outside of the "old boys' club." This can take the form of government control over bank lending, to direct capital only to the established companies and throttle off newcomers.
At the extreme, government can exploit the corporatist setup as a tool of its own control over society, much as Mussolini did. Here, corporatism becomes a species of authoritarianism sometimes called "organic democracy," in which all activity must be within official clubs: government-sponsored chess clubs, for example.
Whenever a Democrat says that we should be more like Sweden, this is what he means.
Corporatism has the virtue that it creates societal stability, for a time. However, the system is very bad at adapting to new circumstances, and tends to avoid disruptive technological advancement. One study I saw found that the corporatist economies such as Germany specialize in tech research that improves on existing processes incrementally, which they do better than we in the US. This is why a lot of the mechanical engineering companies are German. On the other hand, we rock their socks in truly disruptive tech, which is why the high-tech firms are mostly American.
So you're saying that Corporatism is the much-vaunted "Third Way" then?
Slavery is Freedom!
No, no, no - according to Markadaffya, a MORTGAGE is slavery.
Mastiff, Are you saying that Corporatism isn't socialism because it's corporations and the government getting all buddy buddy and incestuous to share power? I would think it would still be socialism because it's still government power used to control the economy, though exercised at the corporate requests.
It does explain why Obama has received heavy backing from a large part of the Insurance industry. (Though I think they're idiots because Obama has already said he wants to put them out of business.) They may be thinking Corporatism, but I don't really think Obama is.
Regardless, the boot is on the face.
Sad to see so many supine themselves under the boot and cheerfully adjust the hobnails so they'll cause the most pain. More power to them, just stop asking me to the same, thankyouverymuch.
Not precisely, Russell. Corporatism is different because the goal is not individual-level equality, in the Socialist sense of "everyone owns everything," but for people to be subsumed into social groups powerful enough to lobby on behalf of their members.
The policy effects often overlap. Corporatism has been seized upon by the socialists as the best way in practice to achieve their social-welfare goals, even if it violates their underlying political assumptions.
Er, I meant Ed.
Hmmm...
It sounds as if it would completely choke off entreprenuerialism. Any innovations not directly sponsored by a faction of the GOBC are evil by definition, no?
My other major issue with the concept is that it makes knowing how to "play company politics" as universally necessary as being familiar with local traffic laws. Failure to abide by the dictates of either would result in very similar penalties.
That and of course it pitches the entire concept of individual liberty having any value at all right out the window. Okay not quite, your individual liberty matters to the extent that it allows you to choose which faction of the GOBC you wish to be a serf of.
Oooo, I can hardly wait.
*DONT_KNOW*
Perzackly. Corporatism is the use of the political means to obtain economic rents at the expense of the less well connected.
Who's your defreezer?
"Jesus Christ was a proponent of social justice"
Wow, reading comprehension isn't really your forte is it?
Luke 14:13-14, Matthew 25:41-45 and Luke 6:38 are about personal and voluntary charity in the pursuit of salvation.
In other words you love your fellow man and make yourself a better man by being charitible, not by having the governement steal from you and others you to spread around.
Your salvation is an individual choice. Jesus would not force you into it. By wishing for the government to take everyones money and be charitable you are taking the choice away and without the ability to earn that salvation and become a better man in the deal.
"any talk of government redistribution would be moot"
It should be moot anyway:
"Each one must do just as he has purposed in his heart, not grudgingly or under compulsion, for God loves a cheerful giver."
(2 Corinthians 9:7 NAS95)
Redistribution IS compulsion.
Now compare that verse to this statement by, guess who:
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
But our government is of the people, by the people, and for the people...a decidedly Christian feel.
So even as you rail against the Texas School Board on your own blog about "separation of church and state", over here you think every American should be required by law to practice what you define as "Christian values."
Doesn't that make you JLAQ, by your definition?
"Doesn't that make you JLAQ, by your definition?"
No, it's just his Retort of the Moment meme kicking in again. What he blithers doesn't count past the moment, y'see.
I contend that liberals simply do not understand conservative arguments. They think they do, but they cannot accurately repeat them back. They are usually unable to describe them without caricature. Yet even in an MSM saturated subculture, they must have heard the opposition arguments a hundred times. What prevents the hearing?
http://assistantvillageidiot.blogspot.com/2010/05/liberalism-and-reasoning.html
I'm afraid my knowledge of scripture is woefully lacking, but isn't it stated directly at some point that God granted us Free Will, and we are all free to Rise or Fall? That smacks of Personal Responsibility to me. Our lives are our own, to live as we see fit. If we choose the path of Good, or the path of Evil, it is our own choice.
I don't recall ever hearing anything in scripture about being made to walk the path of Good.
I just realized that even though I gave assent to what the Bible teaches, it could be construed that I gave consent to Marxy's own version of what the Bible said:
"And remember, in Matthew, Mark and Luke, Jesus said that it was easier for a camel to go through a needle's eye than for a rich man to get into heaven. Your purport to be a Christian, Ed. Do you agree with the words of our Lord?"
Once again, and as usual, Marxy took this idea out of context. The Bible does NOT say that rich men cannot be Christians. Nor did Jesus say that in the passages he referred to.
First of all, there were many wealthy and powerful men that the Bible speaks approvingly of. The most obvious example is Abraham. Though he wasn't perfect, he obeyed God. There was also Joseph, Job, Boaz, David, Solomon, Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus, and others. It wasn't their wealth that God approved of. Nor did their wealth and power keep them from receiving God's approval. It was (and is) trusting God that matters:
"By faith Abraham, when he was called, obeyed and went out to a place he was going to receive as an inheritance. He went out, not knowing where he was going. By faith he stayed as a foreigner in the land of promise, living in tents with Isaac and Jacob, co-heirs of the same promise. For he was looking forward to the city that has foundations, whose architect and builder is God."
(Hebrews 11:8–10 HCSB)
"All these were approved through their faith,"
(Hebrews 11:39a HCSB)
And when the Bible speaks of faith, it does not mean pious sentiments, it means an active trust that prompts actions. For example, God told Abraham to leave and go somewhere else, and he did. Job had everything but his wife stripped from him—including his health—yet refused to recant his trust in God.
Now compare these men to the full context of what Mark referred to:
"Just then someone came up and asked Him, “Teacher, what good must I do to have eternal life?”
"“Why do you ask Me about what is good?” He said to him. “There is only One who is good. If you want to enter into life, keep the commandments.”
"“Which ones?” he asked Him.
"Jesus answered: Do not murder; do not commit adultery; do not steal; do not bear false witness; honor your father and your mother; and love your neighbor as yourself.
"“I have kept all these,” the young man told Him. “What do I still lack?”
"“If you want to be perfect,” Jesus said to him, “go, sell your belongings and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow Me.”
"When the young man heard that command, he went away grieving, because he had many possessions.
"Then Jesus said to His disciples, “I assure you: It will be hard for a rich person to enter the kingdom of heaven! Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.”
"When the disciples heard this, they were utterly astonished and asked, “Then who can be saved?”
"But Jesus looked at them and said, “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
"Then Peter responded to Him, “Look, we have left everything and followed You. So what will there be for us?”
"Jesus said to them, “I assure you: In the Messianic Age, when the Son of Man sits on His glorious throne, you who have followed Me will also sit on 12 thrones, judging the 12 tribes of Israel. And everyone who has left houses, brothers or sisters, father or mother, children, or fields because of My name will receive 100 times more and will inherit eternal life. But many who are first will be last, and the last first."
(Matthew 19:16–30 HCSB)
Matthew, Mark and Luke all relate the same event (with minor differences typical of any eyewitness account). Notice what prompts Jesus' words about the rich man and the camel going through the eye of a needle: A rich young man came up to Jesus asking how to be saved. He had good works, but that wasn't enough. Jesus asked him to also give up his wealth, but he was unwilling. That young man allowed his wealth to get between him and salvation. In other words, his wealth was a higher priority than following Jesus.
Now the key verse that Mark has focused on is 19:24, “Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” The disciples, probably thinking that rich, glamorous, and powerful people had an edge on getting into the kingdom—after all that's what the movie stars, errrr, TV Preachers, errrr, Pharisees had been telling people their entire lives—asked the obvious question. "If the best (in their mind) of humans can't get in, then who can?" Jesus' response brings it all into focus. “With men this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
So think about it. Can anyone get into heaven on their own merits? No. Not one single person, not even if they're as motivated and respectable as this young man appeared to be. Being rich doesn't get someone into heaven. Only God's actions can get anyone, poor or rich, into heaven.
Now compare this incident with Jesus' teachings in the Sermon on the Mount:
"“Don’t collect for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy and where thieves break in and steal. But collect for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves don’t break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
“No one can be a slave of two masters, since either he will hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot be slaves of God and of money.”
(Matthew 6:19–24 HCSB)
The point is not whether you have money, but if money is your master, or God is.
Barnes' Notes puts it this way:
"A rich man. This rather means one who loves his riches, and makes an idol of them; or one who supremely desires to be rich. Mark says, “them that trust in riches.” While he has this feeling, it is literally impossible that he should be a Christian. For religion is the love of God, rather than the world; the love of Jesus and his cause, more than gold. Still a man may have much property, and not have this feeling. He may have great wealth, and love God more; as a poor man may have little, and love that little more than God."
(Emphases in original.)
Finally, Jesus ends by describing things that can be left to pursue the Kingdom of God, even by the poor—houses, fields, siblings, parents, children—reinforcing the idea that this isn't about wealth, but priorities.
Sorry about the lengthy sermonizing guys. I just thought it was important to make sure it was clear that the context doesn't support Mark's apparent (and common) misuse of that single verse. As DJ pointed out, examining ALL the evidence.
No problem here, Ed. Nice comments.
After all, in the other thread he stopped ignoring, (as opposed to the others he ran away from), he informed me that my "ignorance is biblical".
I'm not sure what he means by that, but I know better than to ask.
Correction: That passage I quoted as Matthew 6:19-24 was actually Matthew 6:19-21, 24.
I know people that haven't paid their taxes in years and no one has come to their homes.
And as always, Markadelphia comes out foursquare against the rule of law. It doesn't matter what the rules are, nor does it matter whether those enforcing them are honest. If those who advance the agenda are inconvenienced, that's bad. If those who oppose the agenda are inconvenienced, that's good, and those are the only factors that apply.
GoF:
Nice catch.
Also note that his "gotcha" there is "I know criminals, thus there are no police". And he thinks this scores him a rhetorical point(s) and/or in a sweeping manner, proves his genius over us, and his "understanding" is greater than ours, and we're wrong.
The next obvious question to him, that he'll run away from, is "So what happens when _everybody_ becomes a scofflaw like Geithner and the other dozens of Democrats who weren't paying their taxes?"
It's all some kinda magic to him. It really is. It "Works" and nobody knows why, but, hey, let's go monkey with stuff and it'll work BETTER!
He'll go one better than that, he thinks the entire US government budget can spend money it doesn't have forever. It doesn't matter how far in the red you go, nor whether you ever even attempt to go in the black, as long as you are perceived as a good risk, you're fine.
In short, he considers it not only acceptable, but praiseworthy, for taxation to be nothing but a con game. Why? Because there's always another sucker.
But don't take my word for it:
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2010/05/krugman-go-go.html
It shows in every opinion he has. Race relations, immigration, taxes, economy, energy, climate... pick one. The underlying theme is "if those I like commit a crime, the cops, the judge, the press and the public should show 'empathy' and let them get away with it, or even praise them for their courage. But if those I dislike failed to commit a crime you can punish them for, make up something if you have to, claim to know what they will do in some nebulous future, anything, so long as they get punished."
GOF:
He then calls this "Critical thinking" and "based in logic." And then cites that he teaches this to kids as proof the educational system is in great shape. Well, it's not, and he admits it. But it's not because of anything systemic, and it's in great shape, while it's not.
The scary part, he somehow makes that gibe in his own head and thinks he's consistent.
I don't know if I can go over there and read that, if he's citing that Enron Advisor Krugman.
He would be quite at home in a dictatorship, right up until the goons come for him.
The Useful Idiots always are. And they're always surprised when the goons come.
And then they blame the non-useful idiots for not going along, not doing it hard enough, or right enough, and making the system fail!
It's almost as if the public school systems have been fitting enough people to play the role as an Useful Idiot, and someone has realized there is a veritable gold mine of such Idiots to be used as political cannon fodder.
Nah, that's just crazy talk!
Hope! Change!
Russell!
You KNOW that until you can list at least 5 types of diversication larnin', and enumerate why each of those demonstrates why Caucasian Christians are to be exploited, you CANNOT SPEAK OF PUBLIC EDUMACAJTION!
This exchange from the comments to the post GOF linked to says All That We Ever Need To Know About Markadelphia:
DW: If we keep running deficits, we will go broke.
Today, Tomorrow, 1000 years from now. No difference.
Agreed?
Markadelphia: No.
FAIL!
I went looking for the "Then a miracle occurs" cartoon to post in response to Marky's view of economics. I decided not to link to it, but in the process I discovered a very interesting web page:
http://www.think-logically.co.uk/lt.htm
It's a logic test. Specifically, it tests whether or not you are capable of recognizing valid and invalid deductive logic.
What do you say Mark? You claim to be a "critical thinker". Can you correctly identify the difference between valid and invalid logic? (Hint: Not premises, logic.)
For the record, I got 100% on the first try.
There is also a second, harder test. I have to admit that I missed one question on the hard one. (93%) I won't say which one, as I don't want to give away any answers. I will say that it is a much harder test requiring very clear, precise thinking.
100% on both tests. Piece o' cake.
Today, we have a bullseye. It wasn't difficult; even a blind shooter could hit it point-blank:
http://pajamasmedia.com/rogerkimball/2010/05/31/the-secret-ingredient-in-the-obama-formula-for-success/?singlepage=true
Here is a tidbit to whet your appetite (emphasis added):
"In fact, some of us have been wondering about Obama’s competence since before the election. That was part of the reason your humble correspondent, among others, worried about his total lack of executive experience. Sarah Palin had run the largest state in the union. Barack Obama had run . . . his campaign.
"I believe that Obama is unique in the annals of American history. It’s not any individual quality — if “quality” is the right word: perhaps “attribute” would be better — that sets him apart. It’s the combination of attributes. What are those attributes?
"Peggy Noonan touched on one: enormous, all-encompassing, stupefying incompetence. The man can pose. He can preen. He cannot, judging by his performance these last eighteen months, govern. His handling, which is to say his ostentatious mishandling of the BP oil spill, is only the latest evidence that he is wildly out of his depth."
Ah, but it gets better:
"Not to put too fine a point on it, Obama is lazy. He loves the perquisites of high office. He just doesn’t have much time for the demands.
"Incompetence. Arrogance. Left-wingery. Laziness. The final oddity is the way Obama combines laziness and ambition. For he is certainly ambitious. His efforts to “fundamentally transform the United States of America” are prosecuted by following what Governor Mitch Daniels described as a policy of “shock-and-awe” statism. Here’s how it works: when it comes to achieving his left- wing agenda, Obama is, if not quite tireless, at least dogged and uncompromising. But when it comes to serving the interests of America, he reverts back to his old Senate habit of voting present."
Hmmm ...
President "Present".
Catchy, ain't it?
Well, a little more education for our resident teacher.
"(W)hat would Jesus think of our government today? Certainly, he despised the Romans and the taxation that went on during his time. He also despised the money counters and divisions within the temple."
Do you know what the money-changers were? The temple required a particular coinage for offerings which didn't have an image of Caesar on it (since such was considered an idol). The money-changers offered such coinage at a premium inside the temple, in effect making money off the religious requirements of the temple. Same with those who sold doves, you could bring a dove from outside the temple, perhaps the have the priests (in cahoots with the sellers) reject it as not being "without blemish", or buy one inside the temple (that would be much more expensive) that the priests would accept. This wasn't banking, it was extortion. Jesus EXPECTED people who bring animals for sacrifice, and He EXPECTED those animals to be of the highest quality, what He objected to (and the reason He drove the money-changers and those who sold doves from the temple) was the dishonesty, corruption, and graft.
"It's impossible to say for certain but it's my opinion that Christ would look at the great wealth in this nation and wonder why we keep getting worse in regards to the child mortality rate, for example."
OK, historical context lesson time. When Jesus walked the earth there was no such thing as capitalism. Wealth was land, if you owned land you were wealthy, the produce of that land was what fed everyone. Wealth was finite because land was finite (as an old friend told me before I bought my home, land is always a good investment, they stopped making it." ) Under Capitalism wealth increases. People say "The rich get richer, the poor get poorer", not true, the rich get richer and the poor get richer too under Capitalism. Go to India (for instance), poor people starve to death. Here the biggest health problems poor people have here are caused by (a) being too far or (b) drug or alcohol abuse. If you've got disposable income to spend on dope you're not poor.
Regarding child mortality. There was a report that the infant mortality rate in the US was considerably higher than that in some nation in Europe (sorry, can't recall which). Having learned a long time ago that there are three types of lies, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics, I looked into what went into those statistics. It seems that in that nation any child delivered before a certain point in a pregnancy was considered a miscarriage (even if the child showed signs of life), and as a miscarriage it didn't count as an infant mortality. In the US any child, no matter how early in the pregnancy, that shows any sign of life is considered a live birth. Since these are high-risk deliveries, most of them eventually die, and they ARE included in the mortality rates. That explains most of the difference between our infant mortality rates and Europes. I suspect (although this is merely my suspicion and I freely admit I could be wrong) that the increase in mortality rates you mention is caused by our medical technology getting better at detecting those signs of life that (in the US) determine the difference between a live birth and a still-birth for infants that will most likely eventually die.
I did a little digging on infant mortality rates. There is some interesting information out there. For example, some states have rates as low as 5.1.
There's also this from the CBO:
"Although the infant mortality rate is universally accepted as an indicator of health status, international comparisons are problematic. Many underdeveloped countries do not have functional vital registration systems and infant mortality rates have to be estimated indirectly or through samples. In developed countries, comparisons of infant mortality rates are complicated by differences in medical practices and reporting requirements. These problems have raised questions about the validity of ranking infant mortality rates on an international scale."
I also found this from the American Academy of Pediatrics:
"The live-birth definition commonly used in the FSU [Former Soviet Union] underestimated the IMR [Infant Mortality Rate] and undervalued the contributions to infant death by both maternal health and newborn care. We recommend that all republics of the FSU adopt the WHO [World Health Organization] live-birth definition so that the IMR can serve as a better indicator for MCH planning."
And two more articles:
Infant Mortality Comparisons a Statistical Miscarriage
"U.S. infant mortality rates (deaths of infants <1 year of age per 1,000 live births) are sometimes cited as evidence of the failings of the U.S. system of health care delivery. Universal health care, it’s argued, is why babies do better in countries with socialized medicine.
"But in fact, the main factors affecting early infant survival are birth weight and prematurity. The way that these factors are reported — and how such babies are treated statistically — tells a different story than what the numbers reveal.
"Low birth weight infants are not counted against the “live birth” statistics for many countries reporting low infant mortality rates."
Cuba vs. the United States on Infant Mortality
"The primary reason Cuba has a lower infant mortality rate than the United States is that the United States is a world leader in an odd category — the percentage of infants who die on their birthday. In any given year in the United States anywhere from 30-40 percent of infants die before they are even a day old.
"Why? Because the United States also easily has the most intensive system of emergency intervention to keep low birth weight and premature infants alive in the world. The United States is, for example, one of only a handful countries that keeps detailed statistics on early fetal mortality — the survival rate of infants who are born as early as the 20th week of gestation.
"How does this skew the statistics? Because in the United States if an infant is born weighing only 400 grams and not breathing, a doctor will likely spend lot of time and money trying to revive that infant. If the infant does not survive — and the mortality rate for such infants is in excess of 50 percent — that sequence of events will be recorded as a live birth and then a death.
"In many countries, however, (including many European countries) such severe medical intervention would not be attempted and, moreover, regardless of whether or not it was, this would be recorded as a fetal death rather than a live birth. That unfortunate infant would never show up in infant mortality statistics."
Well, a little more education for our resident teacher.
Putatively.
I still am not convinced he's not putting on airs, and insulting teachers by claiming to be one.
This wasn't banking, it was extortion. ... (and the reason He drove the money-changers and those who sold doves from the temple) was the dishonesty, corruption, and graft.
This, and your child mortality statistics are clearly beyond his ken. You're right - there's more context than Mark (adelphia) can understand. All he can do is repeat essentially bumper-sticker arguments.
It seems that in that nation any child delivered before a certain point in a pregnancy was considered a miscarriage (even if the child showed signs of life), and as a miscarriage it didn't count as an infant mortality. In the US any child, no matter how early in the pregnancy, that shows any sign of life is considered a live birth.
If the baby is born with severe defects, even a full-term baby is counted at "stillborn" in the NHS if they die before 24 hours, IIRC. "Preemie" babies often don't receive intervention.
But if you deliver a premature baby in the US, the baby will be aggressively - sometimes, IMO, too aggressively - treated and given care.
(Which makes this doubly stupid for Mark to use it as a arguing point, since he claims that the healthcare system won't treat people without money.)
>>Which makes this doubly stupid for Mark to use it as a arguing point...
Yeah, but how many times has Markadelphia trotted out some point that he thought was all full of trump and win, only to find out upon closer examination that it actually undermined his argument and supported our position?
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>