The Constitution Club

The Imperial Presidency, Government Motors and Gangster Government

with 13 comments

13 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

1. Uhhh, yeah, about that. How can I put this in a polite way? Facts have a well-known liberal bias.

   But thanks for playing, Michele.

   

   Andre the Defiant

   July 11, 2009 at 10:59 am

   Reply
2. Holy frickin’ cow I think Andre has reemerged from whatever stupor he’s been wallowing in for the last year.

   

   Dave the Sage

   July 11, 2009 at 2:50 pm

   Reply
3. It’s Old Home Week here at ConClub!

   

   hairybeast

   July 12, 2009 at 12:51 am

   Reply
4. What can I say, Bachmann is always good moonbat bait.

   

   Andre the Defiant

   July 12, 2009 at 1:46 pm

   Reply
5. She made a helluva point.

   

   Dave the Sage

   July 12, 2009 at 7:32 pm

   Reply
6. I must have missed that part. The cronyism she decried is pure nonsense, as the party who had his dealership saved never gave a penny to either Sen. Klobuchar or the DFL party (and in fact gave thousands to both Bachmann and the GOP), and the idea that somehow closing some dealerships is anti-American is just silly. If the government hadn’t become involved they would all be closed via liquidation.

   What was the helluva point that I missed?

   BTW, just to put things in perspective, here’s a handy graph to understand how far our new socialist overlords have truly gone. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

   

   Andre the Defiant

   July 12, 2009 at 10:21 pm

   Reply
7. I’m just happy to have the Defiant One back… for now

   

   DFV the Scribe

   July 14, 2009 at 10:23 pm

   Reply
8. Andre if one reads your link fully one finds this..

   There is a serious discussion to be had here, and I think Jon Henke is having it: Socialism, like farenheit, comes in degrees. Sure, a government that nationalizes GM is “more socialist” than one that does not, even if it doesn’t mean we’re living “under socialism.” But differences of degree shouldn’t obscure differences of kind, and as Tim Fernholz says, “it’s clear that putting the government in charge of private production is not the Obama administration’s guiding philosophy.”

   I would take some issue with the last two sentences; but the point is well made. It also invalidates the premise of his little diddy. It is a very poorly thought out post. I guess he is conflicted.

   It is disingenuous for a man as intelligent as you to act as if limiting socialism to government ownership of the means of production as either accurate or fair. Getting your six shooter out and blasting away at ham-handed hyperbole is one thing. Acting as if that proves the total absence of something is snarkingly cute. It just is not accurate.

   Socialism also consists of social engineering, market creation and direction, certain types of regulatory policies. I embrace Marx’s Capitalist pejorative. Isn’t it time you embraced your little pinko “Socialist” one?

   

   pg - your humble messenger

   July 15, 2009 at 8:46 am

   Reply
9. It is disingenuous for a man as intelligent as you to act as if limiting socialism to government ownership of the means of production as either accurate or fair.

   Apart from the teeny tiny fact that that’s its definition, of course.

   Socialism also consists of social engineering, market creation and direction, certain types of regulatory policies.

   According to wingnuts.

   Back in the medieval days, monks used to get around the prohibition on meat during Lent by classifying newly-born rabbits as fish, which allowed them to be eaten.

   Needless to say, rabbits are not fish. “Social engineering, market creation and direction, certain types of regulatory policies” are not socialism.

   

   Phoenician in a time of Romans

   July 15, 2009 at 4:12 pm

   Reply
   • My comment was not addressed to you. You made no point. Your supposed definition limiting socialism does not exist. All you have been, per your usual, is argumentative.

     

     pg - your humble messenger

     July 15, 2009 at 8:57 pm

     Reply
10. Apart from the teeny tiny fact that that’s its definition, of course.

    Well no it really isn’t…

    Socialism refers to any one of various theories of economic organization advocating public or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation.[1] Modern socialism originated in the late 18th-century intellectual and working class political movement that criticized the effects of industrialization and private ownership on society. Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution and become the transitional stage from capitalism to communism.[2][3]

    The utopian socialists, including Robert Owen, tried to found self-sustaining socialist communities within a capitalist society. Henri de Saint Simon, the first individual to coin the term socialism, was the original thinker who advocated technocracy and industrial planning. The first socialists predicted a world improved by harnessing technology and combining it with better social organization, and many contemporary socialists share this belief.[4][5] Early socialist thinkers tended to favor an authentic meritocracy combined with rational social planning, while many modern socialists have a more egalitarian approach.

    Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, creates an unequal society, and does not provide equal opportunities for everyone in society. Therefore socialists advocate the creation of a society in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly based on the amount of work expended in production, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how and to what extent this could be achieved.

    Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and program; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalization, sometimes opposing each other. Another dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and the revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalization of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy. Socialists inspired by the Soviet model of economic development have advocated the creation of centrally planned economies directed by a state that owns all the means of production. Others, including Yugoslavian, Hungarian, German and Chinese Communists in the 1970s and 1980s, instituted various forms of market socialism, combining co-operative and state ownership models with the free market exchange and free price system (but not free prices for the means of production).[6]

    Social democrats propose selective nationalization of key national industries in mixed economies, with private ownership of property and of profit-making business. Social democrats also promote tax-funded welfare programs and regulation of markets. Many social democrats, particularly in European welfare states, refer to themselves as “socialists”, introducing a degree of ambiguity to the understanding of what the term means.

    

    pg - your humble messenger

    July 15, 2009 at 9:06 pm

    Reply
    • Reread the very first sentence of what you quote.

      You are confusing the tactics advocated by socialists among others with socialism itself. It would be like stating that “conservatism” was defined by an opposition to the President appointing minority judges…

      

      Phoenician in a time of Romans

      July 20, 2009 at 6:46 pm

      Reply
11. This IS what America has come to…PATHETIC

    o well, people SUCK!

    

    Lisa

    July 20, 2009 at 2:36 pm

    Reply