BS: Palin's current thread

Subject: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 10:49 AM

Since the other thread has been closed, but Sarah is still (unfortunately) with us, a bit of clarification.

I only have two points to make. Both should be unassailable.

1)   Sarah is a real danger, not just a target for Mudcatters' bons mots.

2)   Only tangentially related, but since "socialism" is one of Sarah's scare words, we should all be clear, that for instance Sweden is not a 'socialist" country.   It has elements of both socialism and capitalism.   And in large part it is capitalism, much despised on Mudcat, which makes the socialist aspects of Sweden financially possible.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 10:58 AM

Ron:

Ahem. A good many of us make our livings in the capitalist system, so I think you should frame your accusations more precisely. Capitalism is disliked by some here, I suppose, but I think it is a great system for creating jobs and sharing profits. Of course, like any system it is open to extreme abuse, which is really where the rancor comes from.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 01:43 PM

Whether Sweden is a socialist country or not depends on one's definition of "socialism." If it is somewhere between laissez-faire capitalism and communism, and is moving in a communist direction, it would be socialist by most definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Amos
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 01:51 PM

Rig,

The definition of socialism is not all that watery.

political theory advocating state ownership of industry
an economic system based on state ownership of capital

There ya go. You'll find that private enterprise is alive and well in Sweden.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 01:57 PM

Yes, Amos..but for that to happen here, there are just too many people who are not about ready to abandon our Constitution....willingly. So it is, being shredded piece by piece, and being made to non-effect. This is certainly pissing more and more people off, I may add....and both the left and right tend to disregard whatever part of it, that gets in their respective agendas way!....I think an honest observation would bring you to the same conclusion.....Meanwhile,...



...Stick to music!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 02:02 PM

Amos - I think what you describe is communism, socialism isn't there yet.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 02:17 PM

Why do I get the distinct feeling that I'd trust Amos's knowledge more than that of Rig?

"so·cial·ism
   /ˈsoʊʃəˌlɪzəm/ Show Spelled[soh-shuh-liz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."

"Socialism and communism are ideological doctrines that have many similarities as well as many differences. It is difficult to discern the true differences between socialism and communism, as various societies have tried different types of both systems in myriad forms, and many ideologues with different agendas have defined both systems in biased terms. Some general points distinguishing the two concepts, however, can still be identified."

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-difference-between-socialism-and-communism.htm

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 02:57 PM

A new thread supposed to be about dear Sarah, but unfortunately left open to all that socialism-capitalist-communist stuff.

Forget it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 03:20 PM

""So it is, being shredded piece by piece, and being made to non-effect.""

Now let me see, somebody has no respect for the United States Constitution.

Who could that be, I wonder?

"Don't tell me about the Constitution, it's only a Godamm piece of paper......."    George Walker Bush.

Can you say:-

"The Patriot Act"
"Homeland Security"
"Illegal wiretaps"
"Illegal Surveillance"

And to cap it off?

"Lying to Congress"
"Lying to the Senate"
"Lying to the citizens of the USA"

All to have an excuse for an illegal WAR!

Now, what were you saying about Obama, and the US Constitution?

Don T

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 03:25 PM

"Why do I get the distinct feeling that I'd trust Amos's knowledge more than that of Rig?"


             You need to check your pulse, and then read your own posted definitions.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 03:29 PM

"Don't tell me about the Constitution, it's only a Goddamn piece of paper" - George Walker Bush UNTRUE

Shitass poster!

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: mousethief
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 06:19 PM

Easy to say. You got a website I can look at?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Apr 10 - 07:06 PM

The claimed Constitution remark has little or no credibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 01:47 AM

"Palin's current thread"

Is she unravelling?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Joe Offer
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 03:17 AM

Now, waitaminit before you all take this thread back to Sarah. Isn't a member-owned collective a socialist enterprise? Isn't a kibbutz a socialist entity that is not state-owned? Isn't employee ownership a socialist concept? [Although I did work for a so-called "employee-owned" corporation where employees had no say-so, and I thought it was a sham].

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 06:50 AM

Joe....

perhaps you need an Aspirin, a nice hot cup of tea, ad a good lie down?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: kendall
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 07:33 AM

Neither socialism, communism or capitalism by themselves will work. There must be a combination. We have that combination but it is weighed heavily on the side of capitalism. Some greed is necessary because it is human nature to want to "Get ahead" of the others. But, that same greed is what leads to such financial breakdowns of our system.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 07:52 AM

Theodore Roosevelt had this all figured out in 1900- and the majority of the Republican Party - according to Georgie Bush "The party of the Haves and Have Mores" has been fighting it ever since-

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 09:03 AM

Isn't employee ownership a socialist concept?

No, it's a syndicalist concept.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 10:34 AM

"I only have two points to make. Both should be unassailable."

LOL!

You're such a wit, Ron. ;-D

Face it, man....EVERYTHING is assailable on Mudcat. Everything. Some intemperate bastard will assail it. You could state that water is made of H2O here or that chickens aren't elephants and someone would probably show up to argue with you about it.

But is Palin dangerous? Well, yeah, probably. We can't be 100% sure she is...she might be what's called "a flash in the pan", but probably.

And your comments about Sweden are quite apt. Every modern society combines elements of socialism and capitalism in order to function effectively. It is only in the USA that the word "socialism" is routinely used to scare people, and that appears to be because a lot of them simply don't understand what it means. It's used as a boogeyman to scare people who benefit from socialist institutions every day of their lives.

I think it is an error to assume that people here "hate capitalism". It might apply to one or two people here, but certainly not most of us. I like small-scale traditional capitalism, for instance, and I also like socialism in combination with small-scale captalism....but I don't like inadequately regulated international capitalism on a mega-corporate scale, because it destroys the environment, destroys small-scale traditional capitalism, and starts wars.

I am opposed to what might better be labelled "corporatism" than "capitalism".

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Arkie
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 11:03 AM

The current use of Socialism is to scare people and also as a distraction from what is actually happening to the so called capitalism in the Unites States and worldwide. Right or wrong I have assumed that in our practice of capitalism the economy was based upon providing a product or service with competition as a control. Because of changes in regulations and laws, the economy is now based upon the manipulation of money and speculation and competition is a minute factor. Laws have been rewritten to provide federal protection to big companies when they guess wrong which takes personal risk out of speculation and shifts the risk to the government hence the people.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 11:47 AM

It's all part of the EVOLUTION of Capitalism Arkie.....That is where I think the great Hawk is mistaken.

Small scale Capitalism inevitably leads to Global Capitalism


Slash and Burn!!    Start again.   Sarah will lead us to the Barricades!

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 11:54 AM

"""Don't tell me about the Constitution, it's only a Goddamn piece of paper" - George Walker Bush UNTRUE""

Even supposing you are right, that was only one part of the post.

Shithead response from you Q!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 12:01 PM

""I am opposed to what might better be labelled "corporatism" than "capitalism".""

Precisely LH, we've been in accord on that concept for a long time, and the more people who can be educated to recognise the difference, the sooner we'll all be fighting the same real enemy.

The self employed local gardener, or plumber, is a capitalist, and I don't think there's much mileage in getting rid of him.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Little Hawk
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 02:05 PM

Righto. It's best to leave small local entrepreneurs such as the farmer, the grocer, and the guitar player (!) alone to pursue their small scale capitalism in their own unique way. It's when a group of incredibly rich financiers get together with lawyers and bankers and create unreal shell games to make even more money that capitalism goes totally berserk...and that's corporatism.

I don't know if Sarah Palin understands the difference, but it's quite clear that people who are scared by the word "socialism" don't.

Now, if it were possible to create a moneyless society here on Earth like that depicted on the Star Trek series....one where everyone's material needs were provided, where everyone got an excellent education, and where everyone got a decent job, and where hard work was rewared with a promotion (a more interesting job) rather than being given a bigger salary....well, that would be pure socialism with genuine social justice and equality, and I'd love to see a situation like that.

But it's not going to happen. Not a chance. It's a dream that we will never see...at least not in our mortal lifetimes.

There's no way the corporate ferengi presently running the show would ever allow that to happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 02:43 PM

Quotation mark after quotation mark, all without meaning.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 03:06 PM

Ah, but IF we want a future free from slavery, we must unlearn all we have absorbed politically in the last three hundred years.

Trading two thirds of our lives for the means to exist, will not be an option.

"Social justice and equality" are simply words in this society.
Encouraging us to fight for these these ephemeral concepts is a favourite diversionary tactic of the Capitalists....also remember the great "democracy scam"
I think everyone should be getting wise to that by now.

Equality never existed, never will exist on earth, any ideology which tries to persuade us that it can provide equality is knowingly lying.
Nature provides life and the means to survive, it has never provided equality...our species contains, the strong, the weak, the intelligent,the stupid, the healthy, the sick, the best we can hope for, is a society which has the time and the selflessness to care for those who are unable to care for themselves.

Capitalism has come to the end of the road, the people have all been exploited, the resources depleted, the planet poisoned.
The primitive societies which lasted for thousands of years all absorbed or wiped out in the search for a "better life"

The real problem is, that because of our greed and selfishness people everywhere expect an un sustainable standard of living, and because of the Capitalist system are foolishly convinced that such a lifestyle is both attainable and sustainable.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: akenaton
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 03:07 PM

Q....lighten up....its only Don!

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 26 Apr 10 - 05:37 PM

Palin is in no way a "danger" - she's a not-too-bright demagogue with delusions of grandeur.

The danger is in the form of the mindless idiots who believe the lies, fairy-tales and misinformation she puts out, and may act on it.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 09:48 AM

"Palin is in no way a 'danger'. "    Right. Just like other masterful demagogues have not been threats.

Yet again: it depends almost entirely on the economy. If US voters in general do not feel their personal economic position has improved from their current position--with about 9.7% unemployment--by the 2012 election, or even before---- she stands a good chance of winning that election.

Especially since even when the unemployed are re-hired, the jobs lost are well-paying manufacturing jobs; the new jobs are poorer-paying service jobs.   Unemployment statistics will not in themselves tell the whole story.

There are also plenty of non-liberal women who feel it is time for a woman president.

She already is in the strongest position of any potential Republican candidate for that party's nomination--as I have explained in detail elsewhere.    If anybody does not agree, please give us the name of a stronger candidate--especially for the Iowa caucus and others where conservatives are likely to dominate.

Clue:   don't try Romney:   as I pointed out in another thread, he will have the joy of trying desperately to differentiate "Romneycare" in Massachusetts from the "Obamacare" loathed by the Right.

I wish Sarah were not in so strong a position--and I hope my predictions do not pan out. But so far all the opposing arguments boil down to wishful thinking--which has won remarkably few elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 09:49 AM

"the new jobs are often poorer-paying service jobs."

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Greg F.
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 11:47 AM

"Palin is in no way a 'danger'. "    Right. Just like other masterful demagogues have not been threats.

Read the second sentance, Simple Seeker.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 03:15 PM

It takes two to tango. In this case a demagogue and his or her listeners.   My argument stands and has not been addressed.

By the way, it sure would be nice if somebody actually came up with a name more likely to get the Republican nomination than Sarah. If it's not too much trouble.

So far none of my facts have been challenged and no other name than Sarah has been provided.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 28 Apr 10 - 06:16 PM

""Quotation mark after quotation mark, all without meaning.""


So for your benefit, I will explain.

The quotation marks show where I am quoting your inanities.

The bits not in quotes are my responses to them.

If you are unable to extract the meanings, I could reduce them to words of two syllables or less, but I'm afraid I can't be arsed.

The people here whose opinions I give a damn about seem to be able to understand me well enough.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: kendall
Date: 29 Apr 10 - 07:54 AM

Sigh

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: John P
Date: 29 Apr 10 - 03:52 PM

The whole socialism scare, based on the health care overhaul, is really, really stupid. Saying that any enterprise we work on and fund collectively is by definition a socialist enterprise means that the police, the US Army, Congress, and the Republican Party (including Sarah Palin) are socialist.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Apr 10 - 09:27 PM

You're right, John, it is stupid.   Unfortunately, there are an amazing number of people who respond to simplistic statements, scare words--and propaganda.

The worst part is that a lot of them vote.   And Sarah is a demagogue par excellence.

That is why she is in fact a grave danger.   Anybody who doesn't see this has evidently learned nothing from recent experience (e.g.   Reagan and GWB).





Separate statement entirely, not aimed at you whatsoever, John, since I think you realize the seriousness of the Palin threat.:

I am always willing to admit error. If any poster can come up with a plausible candidate other than Sarah for the Republican 2012 nomination I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear. Of course the poster should have a cogent argument as to why his candidate will defeat Sarah in the primaries..

There is of course a chance that Sarah will choose not to run. But so far all the signs point in the opposite direction.

So far to oppose all the indications she will run--and likely get the Republican nomination-- all we have is a classic ex cathedra statement, typically completely unsupported, that she is "in no way a danger". I'm sorry to have to say that, in politics, wishing does not make it so.   Any poster who feels Sarah is not a danger is cordially invited to pull his head out of the sand. Doing so earlier rather than later would be advisable.

If she does run and gets the Republican nomination for the 2012 election, that election will , as I've said before, turn largely on the economy.   If the economy has not substantially recovered from the current 9.7% unemployment--and more importantly if voters don't see their personal position as better than it is now-- Sarah stands a good chance of being elected president.

Unfortunately.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Apr 10 - 09:29 PM

"...2012 nomination, I'm sure..."

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: kendall
Date: 29 Apr 10 - 10:53 PM

According to the Mayan calendar it is all over for the human race in 2012 anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 12:18 AM

Better that than Sarah Palin as president.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 06:49 PM

I see no problem with a partial socialism. I see no problem with a partial capitalism either.
The U.S. has been a leading example of both of these before.

Palin is a personality that appeals to jingoism and simplistic statements.
As a result, this must be taken seriously. It really doesn't matter what
she does or doesn't know. She is an extremist mouthpiece and a conduit
for reactionary rage. She is Joe McCarthy in a dress.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 06:52 PM

""If any poster can come up with a plausible candidate other than Sarah for the Republican 2012 nomination I'm sure we'd all be glad to hear.""

That is really scary.

No more plausible candidate, and no less plausible candidate either.

God help the USA.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Riginslinger
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:22 PM

What goD?

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: mousethief
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 07:27 PM

Ron Paul? I'm seeing his name in more and more places now.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 09:53 PM

Ron Paul is considered by many Republicans to be a loose cannon--and no Republican. Consider how he was lauded in the 2008 campaign here on Mudcat.   That in itself should give you his chances to be Republican nominee.

There is in fact a split between Libertarians and Republicans. Some overlap--but some stark differences.

Consider also the two likely top issues in the Iowa caucus: abortion and gun rights.   Do you think Ron Paul can best Sarah in both of these?

Then there's the charisma factor:   I'm sorry to say I'd have to put my money on Sarah.   Look, there are even already women saying: "I have Sarah Palin values"---revolting as that might seem, it's a fact.   How many voters would say something similar about Ron Paul?

Check out reviews of her book, and check her website. People need to get off Mudcat and realize we are not the world.   You need to know what the opposition is thinking--or at least regurgitating.

These are true believers she has. And now she has money too.

It is, bluntly, scary.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 09:59 PM

One more thing. At one point it seemed she might be rejected by Tea Party firebrands who recoil at her support of Republicans.   I checked her Boston tea party coverage carefully, but could not find evidence the Tea Partiers are turning away from her for this reason.   In large part the Republican primaries may be dominated by Tea Partiers. Obviously that's speculation.

But those are her people.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Ron Davies
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 10:34 PM

One ray of hope in all this gloom. Obama has latched onto a winner in the current campaign against Wall St.    That's the way to ride the same populist wave Sarah is riding.

To the degree Obama successfully paints Republicans as in the thrall of Wall St, he will be able to limit Democratic losses in the fall--which he has to do to be able to get anything done in the next 2 years.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Apr 10 - 11:21 PM

Throughout its history, the United States has always had a blend of socialism and capitalism. That didn't start with Obama by any stretch of the imagination. These days we have a new kind of capitalist/socialist mix in which private corporations privatize profits and socialize risk. That didn't start with Obama, either. It started with Reagan.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: Riginslinger
Date: 01 May 10 - 08:01 PM

Carol - I certainly agree with out on that one. Whoever was running Ronald Reagan is at the root of most of the problems the US is experiencing today.

Subject: RE: BS: Palin's current thread
From: kendall
Date: 02 May 10 - 06:00 AM

Well said, Carol.