Open Thread: Can a Free Market Support a Democratic Socialist Society?
In recent years, America has become increasingly socialized through a welfare state with entitlements seen as rights, mostly paid for by the rich through the redistribution of wealth. Such a state is seemingly the goal of President Obama and fellow liberal Democrats, who relish in the ideas of a more European-style centralized government.
Last week, many labeled the debt negotiations in Congress as a failure of the American political system, laying much of the blame on Tea Party Republicans who were reluctant to compromise on their principles. One of their main convictions was in cutting away unnecessary social programs, which have put an unsustainable burden on the economy. Do you think the US can continue to support socialized programs, or will socialization lead to the economic calamities currently seen across much of Europe? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.
Americans, who are generally more resilient in resisting state infringement than Europeans, could have the wherewithal to bounce back from a downgraded credit rating, especially with the fiscally conservative Tea Party fighting for them in Congress. As Janet Daley explains in the Telegraph,
Contrary to what the Obama Democrats claimed, the face-off in Congress did not mean that the nation’s politics were “dysfunctional”. The politics of the US were functioning precisely as the Founding Fathers intended: the legislature was acting as a check on the power of the executive.
The Tea Party faction within the Republican party was demanding that, before any further steps were taken, there must be a debate about where all this was going. They had seen the future toward which they were being pushed, and it didn’t work. They were convinced that the entitlement culture and benefits programmes which the Democrats were determined to preserve and extend with tax rises could only lead to the diminution of that robust economic freedom that had created the American historical miracle.
The experience of Europeans should be an example to Americans. As many European countries attempt to sustain social democratic programs, they are finding that a capitalist economy can no longer support an ever-expanding social welfare state.
At the same time, citizens have come to expect the entitlements they have paid into their whole lives. Some politicians are finally realizing that social programs cannot last forever, especially with the wealthy already being taxed at exorbitant levels.
The frustrations against the Tea Party were rooted in the thinking that the US can continue supporting the welfare and entitlement programs at ever increasing rates as it has for the past 50 years. Instead, the frustration should be targeted against those who accept the idea that the broken programs will be sustainable much farther into the future.
To what extent do you think a free market economy can support social programs like welfare and entitlements? Do you think the US can continue supporting such programs?
- NB Staff's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Doesn't Take a Rockest Scientist to See That...
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:33am.
The US is headed into the same crapper that Europe is wallowing in. The nanny state has taken hold, and if you look inside almost any of the recent polling on the debt ceiling debate, you will find the following thinking...
"Gore any ox but mine..."
Gone is the American commitment to something bigger than self. It's all about ME, ME, ME and what is MINE, MINE, MINE!!!
This is not really the most complicated issue we have ever faced. Slash all spending by 5-10% per year, while you flatten the tax code and generate more revenue.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
Obama and the Democrats are
Submitted by ForeverOnTheRight on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:57am.
Obama and the Democrats are trying to put us on an unsustainable economical path. We have become a nation of people who see themselves entitled to things that have not been earned. Once you put someone on an entitlement program is it difficult to wean them off especially when there is no alternative. My concern is that more and more Americans feel entitled, not just to government programs but entitled to things they have not earned period! With a general entitlement mentality it is easier to push entitlement programs.
Obama has not done anything right so far other than pulling the trigger on Bin Laddin, and that was a an open book test with the correct answer underlined!
Every dollar taken from the
Submitted by ex buff e-dub on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:40am.
Every dollar taken from the private sector and termed "revenue", and every dollar spent by the same government is like another barnacle on the ship of state, introducing more and more drag. Time to bring this baby into port and drydock her. Scrape off all the barnacles.
"Can a Free Market Support a
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:40am.
"Can a Free Market Support a Democratic Socialist Society?"
Look no further than the stock market today for your answer.
Quite Frankly, "Social Programs" Has Always Been.....
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:41am.
The Democrats' methadone. They claim to care, but in truth they try to bribe with their promises of free money while they paint the fiscal conservatives as a bunch of granny-haters.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
The USA is screwed until the
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:49am.
The USA is screwed until the people realize who is doing the screwing. Stop spending and cut government to the bone.
Straight Face?
Submitted by jimspice on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:49am.
"...the wealthy already being taxed at exorbitant levels."
How can you write this with a straight face? Taxes are at an 80 year low, and we tax at levels lower than every western democracy except Mexico and Chile.
When 47% of the population pays no taxes---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:06am.
someone is being taxed exorbitantly.
Not you, though, apparently.
MD
Hate to burst your bubble w/Pesky Facts
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:26pm.
Oops. Top 1% are paying a whole lot more than their "fair share" Sparky.
You're entitled to your own (wrong) opinion, but not your own facts.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Hi J!
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:05am.
How you been? Just thought I'd do a drive by post. :-) and share some more of those pesky facts. I did a little research and number crunching and here is what I found.
The top 50% pay 97% of all federal individual income taxes. The top 5% pay over half. But there is more to the story.
Tax revenue for the federal government is 45% individual income tax. That means that 42% of ALL federal taxes come from the top 50%. Over 25% of all federal revenue comes from the top 5% (That's just direct income tax)
Next lets look at corporate income tax. Corporate income taxes make up about 12% of federal revenue. But that is only half the story. They also pay half of the payroll tax. That would be another 18%. So corporations pay approx 30% of all federal tax receipts. (actually higher since the employees have a "loophole" 2% deduction)
So between corporations and the top 5%, they pay almost 60% of the taxes including SS and Medicare.
7% comes from excise tax and other sources. I assume other sources means special fees, tariffs and such.
Now lets look at payroll taxes. Social security and Medicare. They withhold 7.65% (-2% right now) from every single persons paycheck, up to 106K. That means a person making 50K pays about 3800$ a year. A person making 106K pays almost 8000$ and a person making 1 Million pays 8000$. But what a lot of people don't realize is that the employer has to match those payments.
Payroll taxes make up 36% of the tax receipts. half of which are paid for by the corporation. So individuals pay about 18% of these taxes. Now keep in mind that everybody pays this, and the top 10% pay a flat rate of around 8000. (Now I'm going to make an educated guess) The top 50% pay most of this too, the bottom 50% probably less than 1/4 of that. They probably pay about 5% of the total federal tax receipts (including payroll taxes)
So lets review.
The top 50% and the rich, and corporations pay over 80% of the federal tax receipts.
The bottom 50% pay less than 10% and many of them get money from the government in some form or another. So it's actually negative.
How on earth can anyone even possibly think that the wealthy don't pay their fair share in taxes? Only rich tax cheats like Rangel, Daschle, and Geithner don't pay their fair share. Oh, and one more fact. Democrat tax cheats outnumber Republican tax cheats 72% to 28%.
We Are The 53%
Denny ! ! ! !---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:36am.
Good to see a post by you; and an informative one, as I would expect.
How goes it, little brother?
MD
MD
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:43am.
Long time no see!
It goes well. Except of course the recent weekend news. I am shuddering to think how bad our IRA's were hit this week. It's freaking hot here, but I get a whole week off starting Thursday. It'll be nice to spend extra time with the kids. Hang out at the beach. Go hunting for Giant Stag beetles in the mountains. Stuff like dat.
We Are The 53%
Xlnt , Denny---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:51am.
Enjoy your time off with the girls; stay cool: stay safe.
Hope those Giant Stag beetles aren't big enough to put a saddle on.
Rumor has it that after three years cooped up in that compound with four wives, Bin Laden called Seal Team Six himself.
MD
MD
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 1:56am.
Cheers, check out my tag line now, I finished editing it.
I'm going to try and comment here more, but my job has gotten a bit busier. That and for some reason the language and quality of comments have gone down a bit. I notice you've been artful as always with skewering trolls. My troll club has been getting rusty, maybe I should oil it up and start skewering again.
We Are The 53%
Denny---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:15am.
I knew you had gotten busier with teaching; I guess working a bit too much is better than not working, eh?
Love that troll club of yours.
Yeah, the language is a bit coarser these days, and while I contribute more to that than I should; my New Years resolution for 2012 shall be to utilize #$(&*&$^^%, rats, fooey, sonuvabeehiver, and on a really bad day, poopy-head. :o)
I may suffer the occasional relapse when dealing with some of the more virulent strains of streptococcus bastardus trollii; you know how that goes.
Hope to have you and your club in the area as much as you can be.
MD
* good job on the tag line edit
No worries MD
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:31am.
Your usage is fine. It's the lame posts that just basically call subject of the story a %#$ or a @#$%# and don't have any other point get old and lame.
Your usage is in a trollie smashing way. Perfectly exceptable.
All right, back to work. Catch ya later.
We Are The 53%
"Straight Face?"
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:29pm.
"Taxes are at an 80 year low"
What part of two trillion plus in taxes collected every year is actually LOW?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
and Bambi just added to the problem.
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:50pm.
We, "the rich," have lost $2 trillion in wealth in the last three days because of Bambi's socialist paradise plans.
By the rich, I mean ANYBODY who has an IRA or any sort of pension plan that invests in the stock market. Of course, the SEIU gets any losses repaid by "stimulus" money, but the rest of us are screwed.
Here's the best part! If you play your cards right, you shift funds from one mutual fund to another almost identical fund, and book a ton of "losses." Then you can use those "losses" to reduce the amount of taxes you have to send to the bastards running us in the ground in the next few years, since you can carry "losses" forward.
That means that tax revenues will go down, so the democrats can scream about needing to raise tax RATES to collect more money, thereby driving the economy further into the crapper, thus reducing tax collections , and on, and on, and on!
Are these guys smart or what?!?!
I'm sitting here listening to Rush waiting for Bambi to start a news conference He had schedules for 1:30! Maybe the mook is waiting for the market to be down 500 before he starts.
Because it's true
Submitted by ckc1227 on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 4:39pm.
"How can you write this with a straight face?"
No one should be paying a 35% or higher tax rate. Furthermore, when did we appoint the rest of the world as the authority on what taxes should be? Just because they screw their people even more doesn't mean we aren't screwing people here.
Can a free market support a
Submitted by ThatDude on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:53am.
Can a free market support a democratic socialist society? A short answer is no. It has been forced to do so for a long while. The problem isn't that the free market has to support some socialistic programs, it's that it has to support a growing list of entitlements. Each of these entitlements will grow by large amounts every year. As a final nail in the coffin, the "free market" has to pay all this (plus bureaucratic overhead) whilst regulations and laws prevent them from growing or operating efficiently.
Do you think the US can continue to support socialized programs?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:54am.
Hell no. Neither can a communist or fascist system.
It's called "human nature." There are a lot of people who will not pull their share of the load if they don't have to. Sooner or later the others will get tired of carrying their sorry a$$es and refuse to do it any longer.
But on a happier note, President For Life Obama finally issued a statement about the totally political and unfair downgrade of His credit rating by S&P that they say was caused by too much debt:
"Ahhh ..... ughhh .... ughhhhh ... ahhhh ... they are WRONG! You KNOW? Thank you. (What?) Ahhh ... oh YEAH! I'm sorry about ahhhh .... ughhh ... you know .... the Navy people who go killed in ... ahhhh ... ahhhh .... (where?) ... yeah, RIGHT. Aff-gonn-e-STAHN! But I ... ahhhh ... ugh ... wanna remind you, that ... ahhhh .... ahhh ... I was NOT, like directing this OPERATION!!
Remember next year, "we the people" get to rate the President. If not for yourself, do the right thing for our military.
The real question is, can
Submitted by ThisnThat on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:55am.
The real question is, can America survive when all the major news outlets are socialist or communist?
BTW, driving to work today, I listed to MSNBC for a few minutes. They were ragging on Backman attending Church, listening to a Pastor say that homosexuality is abnormal. MSNBC's complaints?
They are bound and determined to get all the Republican candidates to say that queers are good, and that men buggering each other is the natural state of affairs.
__________
“Didn't win the Medal of Honor? Didn't even serve? Then lie about it. We'll support you." — 9th Circuit Court
Maybe she's like Bambi ...
Submitted by Newsbubba on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:00am.
... who sat in da Rev Wright's church of "What's Happenin' Now" for 20 years, and didn't hear shiite!
It could happen.
And Don't Forget the Rise of the Federal Employees...
Submitted by Motormouth KOS on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:00am.
By 2009, there were 383,000 federal civilian workers with salaries of more than $100,000, 66,000 with salaries of more than $150,000, and 22,000 with salaries of more than $170,000. Between late 2007 and mid-2009, the number of federal workers earning more than $150,000 more than doubled, even as the economy fell into a deep recession during that period.
The Obamination... A crisis leading to a catastrophe..(please donate to MRC)
Simple Answer
Submitted by Wineguy13 on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:06am.
...is no. The motivations which drive the market are different from those which drive the institutions of the state. This differential perverts the market, which will lead to inefficiencies. Since institutions have inertia, they will compound the problems as they react to market fluctuations (eg-unemployment goes up-state introduces unemployment compensation (perverts market pressure to be employed) - labor market rebounds up to the amount of newly formed 'institutional unemployment' because of the disincentive to work brought on by the dole. - The dole has inertia and will stick around long after whatever perceived need vanishes. In this cycle of institutional creep, the market continues to be subverted (as above), cajoled (electric vehicle subsidies), and flouted (QE1&2). Eventually the masses lose confidence in the market (although what they see is not the free market at all), and consciously move toward some sort of planning. Unfortunately, societies are always quick to give people with no stake in the outcome of the market, the power to influence the society's direction. 47% or so of 'us' don't pay taxes, a pathetic college student who supports Obama to the hilt, effectively cancels out a hard-working entrepreneur when it comes time to cast ballots. Motor voter was a sneaky way to enfranchise vast numbers of voters who would never have taken the time to find out when & where to vote, but since they essentially vote for a living...
It is ever thus, there are always more takers than makers. In a socialist society they use their vote to rob you.
Margaret Thatcher had their number
Submitted by Roy Rogers on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:09am.
Liberals spend like Socialists
Looks like we are at that
Submitted by ninerdog on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:04pm.
Looks like we are at that point don't ya think
Sure we can support socialism, too.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:12am.
Why just in the past week we've learned we can afford free contraceptives for all and free cell phones for food stamp recipients.
Next week, all unemployed women and those on on welfare will also be receiving monthly a $50 gift card to Victoria's Secret.
John Maynard Keynes
Submitted by papagiorgio200 on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:24am.
Some quotes regarding John Maynard Keynes. John Maynard Keynes hailed the Soviet Union in a 1936 radio interview as,
And in a preface he wrote to the 1936 German edition of his General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, Keynes stated that his economic theory,
Another Keynes quote lets the individual in on the result of his theories, which most nations use (i.e., central banking; e.g., the Federal Reserve Bank)
This quote above is what happens with Keynesian economics! An unseen taxation of citizens, on top of normal taxation.
Read more: http://religiopoliticaltalk.com/quotes-i/#ixzz1US2hNQBy
We've been living in a
Submitted by Gat New York on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:32am.
We've been living in a Democratic Socialist country since the New Deal. What's changed other than getting worse?
What the Tea Party symbolizes is the first major move back to free market capitalism and the democracy envisioned by the founders.
Of course, those that would
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:55am.
Of course, those that would claim to be champions of the free market are also the same who wish to see alcohol prohibited and would like to continue prohibition of other controlled substances.
The Paulbot weighs in
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:31pm.
.....with yet another attempted insult to NBers.
Smoke another doobie and chill out.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Would it not be easier, Satch
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:37pm.
to just terminate all law enforcement?
Hey!!!!
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:42pm.
What do you mean, "terminate"?????? :)
LOL NC
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:52pm.
Not between Virginia and South Carolina, of course, but everywhere else. ;-)
Whew!
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:52pm.
Thanks for that! I was starting to sweat that one for a minute!!.
P.S. Thanks for your service to our country!!!
That's a different argument,
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:35pm.
That's a different argument, although both wind up towards the same goal: individual liberty.
The ridiculous "War on Drugs" has been going on for forty years. Do you know that if you took the $69 billion spent/year on the war and invested it in 1971, the year the "war" started, at 5% compound interest, you'd have over $8.8 trillion dollars? That's more than half of the U.S. debt.
And when have I ever defended
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:08pm.
....the "War on Drugs"?
Kindly cite, or STHU.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Another post with profanity.
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:36pm.
Another post with profanity. That's going to upset Radical.
And where did I ever say you defended the War on Drugs? In fact, where did I even mention your name in this thread?
Impressed Incestmo*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:43pm.
You are offended by shut the hell up?.. the same guy that promotes incest as a right, the same guy that throws insults, name calling , and idiocy at NB? Your presence here is a daily insult and now you have shown that you are also a hypocrite.
Gosh Darn, Caj!
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:49pm.
Or GD, Caj! (I meant Heck! Heck I tell ya!).
I'm sure he IS offended by STHU, as he hears it 95 times a day, here.
Can you imagine what an insufferable bore he must be in "meat space", as the Vet says?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I'm not offended at all. It's
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 4:28pm.
I'm not offended at all. It's a just a sad commentary on Blonde . And to correct your misconceptions, I have never said incest is a right, nor have I ever defended it. I do not call people names. I have no control over whether someone feels insulted by a comment I've made, and I can't think of any that were intentional. There may have been some in the course of an antagonistic discussion, but I don't recall. It's unfortunate that you and some others have a problem with any view that runs counter to your own or challenges yours.
satchmo LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES LIES
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 5:16pm.
Satchmo LIES: I have never said incest is a right, nor have I ever defended it
Satchmo: I couldn't care less if Palin or anyone else were screwing their adult son. As long as it's consensual, it's none of my business. It certainly isn't government's.
Not the governments business means there should be NO LAWS AGAINST IT.
defend: b (1): to maintain or support in the face of argument or hostile criticism <defend a theory> (2): to prove (as a doctoral thesis) valid by answering questions in an oral exam
+++++++
Satchmo LIES: I do not call people names ...insulted by a comment I've made, and I can't think of any that were intentional.
Yeah coward. I am the one with no respect for anyone here.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 07/25/2011 - 5:07pm.
Oh dear, I am so stone cold busted. What will I do....
Satchmo ---
To me: ...coming from one who calls people a liar yet deliberately misstates and misrepresents the views of others...
To NC Cop: You're a thug with a badge; an excuser, enabler, and footsoldier of tyranny. Nothing more.
To me: You are a liar and the biggest troll and biggest liar on this site. Ironic since you call everyone else a liar (and it's clear you don't know what constitutes a lie), but then you are a paranoid delusional who lacks an intellectual capacity for reason.
To MrShy --- That would be you who has lied three times in one post.
To me --- How about you try to act like an adult?
To Wrathful Brunette --- Why are you lying?
To Unsane --- There you go again with your lies and deliberate misrepresentations. It's a shame.
To Cobraman --- More intellectual dishonesty. This is exactly how you behaved last time.
To SickofLibs --- I notice that your posts are often personal attacks or distortions ( or other logical fallacies).
To matthewdean --- Obviously it matters to bigots..
I have never said incest is a
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:02pm.
I have never said incest is a right nor have I ever defended it. I have said it is disgusting and irrational, and I have also said that it is not the government's business nor anyone else's who consenting adults choose as a sexual partner. That is not a defense of incest.
Pointing out when someone lies and labeling them a liar is not name calling. You are, in fact a liar, because you do deliberately misrepresent what is actually said. I do not lie, no matter how loose you play with the definition (for example, if someone says something that's incorrect, then it's a lie according to you).
None of the above you cite are examples of insults, save the one to NC Cop, which occurred in an antagonistic discussion, which I already acknowledged.
I mean this with all sincerety: get some professional help for your mental health.
The troll lies even after getting caught in a lie.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:15pm.
Those orange letters I made are LINKS back to the original posts.
Stupid DOUBLES DOWN AGAIN.
Satchmo: I couldn't care less if Palin or anyone else were screwing their adult son. As long as it's consensual, it's none of my business. It certainly isn't government's.
Satchmo LIES: I have never said incest is a right, nor have I ever defended it.
Satchmo DoubleDown dares to be banned: I have never said incest is a right nor have I ever defended it.
Repeating a lie makes it true how again?
defend: b (1): to maintain or support in the face of argument or hostile criticism <defend a theory>
support: 2a (1): to promote the interests or cause of (2): to uphold or defend as valid or right : advocate <supports fair play> (3): to argue or vote for <supported the motion to lower taxes>
ADVOCATE ADVOCATE ADVOCATE ADVOCATE
ADVOCATING FOR THE REMOVAL OF LAWS AGAINST SOMETHING IS DEFENDING AND SUPPORTING IT.
Why do we continue to allow this troll to stay and tell lie after lie?
Pray troll. Pray hard.
21. Lie, Lie, lie, lie, lie.
If you do it often enough you may create the appearance of truth (this also applies to life in general).
One down . 18 to go. Call me a liar again you lying coward.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:02pm.
I had a list of the nastiest lies and stupid of the Lying Satchmo troll. Defending incest was one of them. The lying sissy satchmo troll said they were not correct but refused to say how. Looks like he just accidentally fell into one here. Here is one ----
sissy Satchmo: You got 1 out of 19 correct (the one regarding Lincoln).
me: Tell us all what is the truth on any one you are claiming is a lie. Then I will pull the actual quote. You do that little sissy. Guaranteed, right here, right now. You will not point out any single one and say I misread what you wrote. And why is that little mollycoddle sissy? Because you know you will get smacked right upside the head with the truth.
The coward has spent nearly a month running like the sissy he is every single time I tell him to say what I got wrong. A cut and run lying little sissy, it is all he is. Whoops. Stupid can't even keep track of all his lies. Looks like he accidentally backed into one today.
sissy Satchmo LIES here today: I have never said incest is a right, nor have I ever defended it
Satchmo: I couldn't care less if Palin or anyone else were screwing their adult son. As long as it's consensual, it's none of my business. It certainly isn't government's.
Not the government's business means there should be NO LAWS AGAINST IT.
defend: b (1): to maintain or support in the face of argument or hostile criticism <defend a theory> (2): to prove (as a doctoral thesis) valid by answering questions in an oral exam
BUSTED YOU LYING COWARD. You are too stupid to post here. Go the hell away.
It is not a defense of the
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:07pm.
It is not a defense of the act of incest; it is a defense of freedom. You're too thick to understand the difference.
So, you not saying it should be a right,
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:14pm.
Just free?
Everyone enjoying the LYING TROLL again?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:21pm.
THE LYING TROLL: It is not a defense of the act of incest...
I never said it was LIAR.
advocate removing all abortion and incest laws
LAWS LAWS LAWS LAWS.
.I am not even going to go into the definition of the word defend again LIAR.
BAN
THIS
LYING
TROLL.
Oh, I dont know
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:31pm.
The dumb as dirt help my self esteem tremendously
Sorry Satch
Submitted by cocodrie on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:16pm.
You demodrat liberals would have used that 8.8 trillion as an excuse to double up on spending and we would be 8.8 trillion deeper in debt.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
You? You're making some poor
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:44pm.
You? You're making some poor assumptions.
"... although both wind up towards the same goal..."
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:32pm.
So, would you support abolition of all law enforcement?
I wouldn't call it abolition,
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:47pm.
I wouldn't call it abolition, but dissolvement. Certainly at the federal level I do. As for communities, I lean toward yes. The private sector can do much better.
Ok Satch
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:56pm.
I wasn't speaking about how law enforcement would be paid or to whom they would be accountable, but it seems by your answer that some form of law enforcement is reasonable. Is that a fair statement?
If it is, could you describe what set of laws should be enforced? Is there a document somewhere that exists or should a new one be created?
Satch got beat up by a cop at
Submitted by NC Cop on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:59pm.
Satch got beat up by a cop at some point in his life. He has a high level of disrespect for them.
Which, considering the source, I take as a point of great pride.
Yeah, that point has been made before, NC.
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 3:07pm.
Or, he got arrested for incest or he got a ticket for speeding and the cop didn't advise him of his rights or something. Now, that wouldn't be surprising.
And, I also take it as a point of great pride.
NC Cop---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 3:09pm.
had you administered said thumping, I would be extremely jealous.
Thank you, sir, for your service.
MD
And I wasn't speaking about
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 4:32pm.
And I wasn't speaking about law enforcement, so there. Like I said when you first replied, this is a completely different argument you are making, and one unrelated to my point, which is not about law enforcement, but rather one about laws that restrict freedom amd restrict the free market, and are supported and embraced by those who claim to be conservatives and free market champions.
Satch
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 4:40pm.
That's fair, I'm just trying to establish which laws should be enforced -whether they exist now or should be created. You seem to espouse enforcement come from the private sector, and was trying to confirm that based upon your comments.
You like to accuse me of straw man arguments so I'm being very careful not to do that. I'm asking you directly- are the laws that should be enforced written somewhere, or do they need to be developed? Furthermore, what mechanism should be used for enforcement?
Obviously any non-immoral law
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 5:11pm.
Obviously any non-immoral law should be enforced. Again, though, the problem isn't enforcement, the problem is the law, and countless laws need to be repealed. I don't know what you're getting at with "or should be created". Laws prohibit, they do not allow. The only laws needed (and there is an argument about whether they're even needed) are those that would punish any transgression against someone's life, liberty, or property through force or fraud. For the most part, they already exist.
Yes, law enforcement - rather, police- can be a product of the free market where any individual can freely participate and freely choose not to participate. I don't understand why freedom is such a hard concept for people to grasp.
Satchmo the troll wants to repeal the laws against abortion.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 5:22pm.
All laws including late term abortion. Satchmo advocates removing abortion laws including banning abortion right up to the due date of the baby.
Satchmo: ...fetuses are the property of the mother.
Satchmo again: ...the fetus is the property of the mother.
Satchmo: ...government does not own your body, and therefore has no right to tell a person that they must terminate a fetus, carry it to full term, or to its birth.
Hear that? The fetus is the property of the mother and the government cannot interfere should she want to abort in the 8th month.
Mike Bratton: ...do developing children shed the status of "property" and become sovereign individuals? Third trimester? Birth canal? Birth? A month after being born?
Satchmo's answer: Birth.
So only birth ends the mother's right to throw away the property inside her.
Mike Bratton: If a child is eight-and-a-half months into gestation, able to live outside the womb if necessity required it? Still property?
Satchmo: ...ask youself if your hypothetical is in utero or not, and you'll have your answer.
Satchmo: Birth is birth.The condition is in utero versus not in utero.
An eight and a half month old fetus is still property as long as it is in utero. And property can be sold or thrown in the trash.
Satchmo: No, a fetus does not have property rights. I said our bodies are our property, and by extension fetuses are property of the mother
More lies.
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 7:01pm.
More lies.
Definition of a LIE - Directly quoting a troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:12pm.
Every single one of those is a direct quote you frigging lying TROLL.
Everyone having a happy good time reading the continued non-stop lies of this troll?
We have an official request to ban this piece of dren. Go there and let the admins know how much you appreciate having your eyes burned with this trolls constant lies.
Yet none of those direct
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:29pm.
Yet none of those direct quotes say anything about "removing abortion laws including banning abortion right up to the due date of the baby," because nowhere did I ever say that. This is a prime example of your lies: puling quotes regarding one thing and trying to apply them to something you've entirely made up.
When caught in a lie, LIE LIE LIE LIE LIE.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:48pm.
Satchmo: ...government does not own your body, and therefore has no right to tell a person that they must terminate a fetus, carry it to full term, or to its birth.
Government has NO RIGHT, that means NO LAWS. Government has NO RIGHT to tell a person to carry a fetus until FULL TERM, or its BIRTH.
If government has no right to tell a person to carry a baby until its birth, then that means that person can ABORT THE DAY BEFORE THE BABY IS DUE.
LIAR. LIAR. LIAR. LIAR.
Why does Satchmo say the government has no right?
Satchmo again: ...the fetus is the property of the mother.
And when does that property right terminate?
Mike Bratton: ...do developing children shed the status of "property" and become sovereign individuals? Third trimester? Birth canal? Birth? A month after being born?
Satchmo's answer: Birth
Up yours you frelling LIAR.
Vet
Submitted by MightyMouth on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:01pm.
Apparently Snatch doesn't know about the laws...
Follow the links provided, liar.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:21pm.
It's all there in black and orange... your words. Or are you going to now claim your account was hacked?
Hmmm... maybe it really was hacked during the last time you were banned. And the hacker went in, made all those posts in your name and backdated everything. Yeah, try that.
Vet, I'm curious,
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 7:54pm.
how can someone who defends a professor who commits incest then lie and deny he did? How can he claim that direct quotes are lies?
This troll of NB's, Incestmo the Pervmo, is certainly not logical, or even truthful. That he's allowed to hang around and spread his stench is the puzzle without solution, apparently.
But the most puzzling statement was the "law enforcement - rather, police- can be a product of the free market where any individual can freely participate and freely choose not to participate". does that mean that society is a participatory sport, or is it just a "tune in, turn on, and drop out" thing? After all, society don't need no stinkin' laws about drugs, right?
The tenor of Satchmo's denials---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 8:03pm.
might well indicate that he is a pathological liar.
I believe Dr. Sam may have covered that.
Incestmo's responses just show him to be a pervert.
Pervmo's responses make him sound like someone to avoid at a family reunion.
Or any kind of reunion.
SatchelMouth's posts are probably coming from a closet liberal. (h/t Willis_Leon_ for the charge of liberalism )
MD
My opinion....don't ban Incestmo
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:20pm.
Because, really....we'd only have to identify Dead Ted (yet again)....in order to have so much fun kicking troll ass.
(oops....I'm sure I'll get another "Blonde Cussing" meanie post, from Pervmo for that.)
I know, I'm a freakin' B****. But ya'll know that already, yes?
This, my friends, is what being a pure Libertarian is all about.
INCEST.
FREE DRUGS.
TROLLING.
Party on, Incestmo!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I am torn
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:27pm.
It was kinda nice around before Satch2. Well the variety of trolls was better anyway.
Satch is simply running off the classy trolls?
We beg to differ.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:30pm.
This troll needs to get to work on his second account. He is too stupid to just walk away. We have a steve05 in the making here. It will prolly take 5 or 6 accounts to finally get through to his tiny brain that he is quite stupid and the internet is not a place to show off his stupid. The population at large is much more intelligent than him and his stupid should remain nearly unknown when it comes to the final history of this planet as written by the Skinner Overlords once they take over.
The troll has said nothing, did nothing, nor made nothing of any import on this planet and needs to remain the lonely little nothing he started out to be and currently is.
As usual....
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:24pm.
The troll brings an argument, an argument not an established fact, and presents it as though it is an established fact the is the only, ONLY, and best, BEST, way to operate.
As we learned with the Christian Slater film, Kuffs, the San Francisco charter does have private police protection, an exception to the rule of government running the Police departments. Again, THIS IS THE EXCEPTION TO THE RULE. The entire planet. Every single government on the planet, 6 BILLION people, have found that government does best enforcing the laws government makes. There is the tiniest sliver, wafer thin, WAFER THIN, that Police departments can be privatized. And that is all it is, an argument, an idea, that clearly almost no one supports.
But as usual, this nasty viscious troll comes here and presents it as the ONLY SOLUTION to a problem that does not really exist.
BAN
THIS
DAMN
TROLL.
WE HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS TO DISCUSS HERE. AND PRIVATIZING THE POLICE AIN'T ONE OF THEM.
Christian Slater and
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:33pm.
Christian Slater and Kuffs?
Now that is funny.
Yes. Retard. Kuffs.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:29pm.
You are advocating a private police force. Are you not Retard? Kuffs was a movie about a guy that inherited a PRIVATE POLICE FORCE. Retard. Noes. pliz don't call iz me retard. Pliz. Iz notz.
Brad is the owner of a Patrol Special police franchise, a civilian auxiliary police force.
Next website -
Unfortunately Brad is killed and George is suddenly the owner of Brad's "patrol special" district.
Next website -
Kuffs (1992): A young man winds up in charge of a police station.
Next website -
George received a job proposal instead: join Brad's well-regarded Patrol Special team. Not real keen on the idea, George nonetheless becomes the new owner of the business when Brad is heartlessly gunned down in the line of duty.
Everyone enjoying this Retard troll that thinks a perfectly appropriate analogy is too mother loving funny?
Seriously, how stupid are you troll? I tell everyone here your argument has the tiniest bit of merit, and your response is to mock the one example where Hollywood presented a private police force in fairly good light?
Your brand of stupid is quite rare isn't it? So Stupid it gets in the way of helping you actually make some kind of cogent point.
ENJOY
THIS
TROLL
EVERYONE.
HE
HAS
THE
RIGHT
TO
TROLL
ON
YOU.
ENJOY YOUR TROLL.
Satch
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 10:33pm.
And therein lies the issue and brings me back to your comment on "the Drug War". The underlying reason why drugs must remain illegal, and why law enforcement must pursue those who violate use and distribution laws, is because invariably, excessive drug use by individuals results in the the loss of life, liberty, or property of those around the user or distributer. That is the issue that so many legalization advocates like to ignore.
Addicts, and most people who use anything more than marijuana are either already there, or on the short trip, are almost always unable to control their day-to-day lives like the rest of us. They can't hold a job because their at-work performance is either sub-par, their attendance is sub-par, or their employer tests for -and terminates drug users because they're a liability risk. And procuring drugs at any level is far from free.
So here's what happens: Users steal. They often rob their family and friends. They shoplift and pawn for cash. They physically mug someone for cash or goods that can be sold or traded for drugs. They go to the doctor for fake illnesses in order to get pain killers. And often they become abusive to those around them. This sometimes results in the loss of life- and often results in the loss of liberty and property.
Drug use, even if legal (and probably moreso just due to the sheer numbers that would choose to partake) would continue to reek havoc on the rest of society. How then could you justify abandoning enforcement of the current laws that combat this problem? (And please, don't just reply back that drug use does not lead to the things that I mentioned, or even that the occurances are rare; any police officer can tell you otherwise, and I'm sure if pressed, I could find stat after stat to back me up.)
[Edit- I bolded the question, in case you missed it...]
Mind if I jump in, BK? I do treat substance abusers.
Submitted by drsamherman on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:08pm.
The simple facts (from both NIAAA and NIDA) are:
1) Alcoholism and opioid abuse (the two most common substances abused) cost the American economy over $500 billion/year - that is their estimate - not mine - it includes direct medical costs and indirect costs like loss of work, productivity, costs to family and most importantly costs to the justice system for non-substance related crimes (assault/battery, deaths due to drunk driving, thievery, etc.)
2) Prescription opioid abuse has surpassed illegal opioid narcotics (e.g. heroin) as the #1 source of opioid dependence - use of prescription opioids is up precipitously as is the abuse of those drugs - they are legal narcotics for valid medical reasons (e.g. pain due to cancer, terminal diseases) but they are also the #1 class of diverted drugs (medications not intended for who takes them)
3) Alcohol is associated with more violent crimes than any other substance - deaths due to drunk driving, assault and battery, etc. - it is also associated with abuse of more than one substance to the point where alcohol and marijuana are considered "gateway" drugs to more serious drugs of abuse
4) ANY doc who has ever treated severe opioid overdose or alcohol intoxication knows what damage these substances can do to the family, friends and to the public at large from abusers
I don't make the laws, but I am charged with upholding and obeying them in my practice. I do not prescribe medications which I believe could ever lead to abuse. All of my addicted patients are referred to appropriate addiction specialists with appropriate board certification in the area. I will be damned if anyone EVER tells me that alcohol and opioid abuse are not huge problems in society. I have seen, first hand, what damage they can do not only to the patients, but to the family and innocents. Of course, nobody who ever advocates for organizations like NORML ever had to tell a parent that their child just wrapped the car around a tree or killed another person because they could not obtain their Oxycontin fix.
Opioids and other scheduled drugs are controlled for the precise reason that they are addictive physically and detoxification is life-threatening to the physically dependent patient.
Now someone please tell this 4-decade veteran of treating addicts how complete tolerance will automatically eliminate this problem.
Thanks Dr Sam
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:11pm.
I've experienced addiction in my own family for many years with more than one family member. I've never been an addict myself, but I was abused by my father who was an addict, and victimized in other ways by other family members who were also addicts. I also ran a business in new home construction for many years and dealt with employees who I've fired for coming to work under the influence or who's off-hours substance abuse problems have made their work performance untenable. Users are a liability to any employer, whether they use on or off the job.
As a result of being so close to several addicts, I've gone through some pretty extensive family counseling. I've learned a great deal about this problem both in counseling and as a result of my own research. I understand the social implications of corralling with other users, and how in short order, the addict alienates anyone he knows who does not also use. He creates a circle of friends who's only real commonality is abusing drugs or alcohol. Both rug and alcohol abusers inevitably begin a spiral into uncontrollable behavior that is guided entirely by the need to address their next fix. They rob, steal, abuse, and generally disintegrate all relationships with those who do not share their goal of getting high -or low, whichever the case may be. Not to mention the number of new cases of dual diagnoses.
Legalization would do nothing but create a huge multiplier for these behaviors. People who currently refrain from using -especially young people- will lose their inhibitions once the threat of punishment is removed. We'll create an even less productive society wherein even fewer will be supporting the greater. Costs for the results of such actions will skyrocket, making the $500B annually look like a drop in the bucket. I don't condone the abuse of alcohol either, though to your point of alcohol being associated with more violent crimes- I suspect a lot of that has to do with the ease in testing for alcohol over other types of drugs and the often combined use of alcohol among drug users. Someone ripped on X who crashes his car on the way home from a bar is more likely to be categorized as an alcohol-related statistic than a drug-related one. Same thing for domestic violence. I know of several people who abuse perscription drugs and also drink- when police come to a home on a DV call and a half-bottle of whiskey is found on the table, they don't usually check the medicine cabinet for the half-bottle of Oxy's. These too are more likely to be categorized as alcohol-related crimes even if the amount of alcohol used may not have altered the users behavior alone.
I understand why people like Satchmo fall for the line that 'marijuana is just like alcohol and alcohol is legal so why not pot?' I understand the irrational comparisons to prohibition, because that is all they've got to compare it too. They conveniently leave out the relative strength of pot now, as compared to as recently as a couple decades ago, and they flat out deny the gateway effect -all because these facts don't support their argument. But their's is a false argument. It belies fact in almost every aspect. And specifically to Satchmo's point regarding law enforcement, it belies the fact that almost all convicts in prison for marijuana possession are there for other convictions as well, including firearm offenses, parole and/or probation violations, other included offenses, and/or have pleaded to possession as a lesser included offense. Very few - something like 2% of convicts are in prison for simple possession only, and the majority of those are pled cases or recidivists.
I appreciate your weighing in to this discussion and given my experience, I especially appreciate your working with -and trying to help those afflicted by their abuse of dangerous chemicals. Isn't it funny how so many advocates for ingesting harmful chemicals either through inhalation or direct injection are dead-set against things like DDT or Styrofoam? It is such a shame the damage done to the human brain through the use of these dangerous substances.
Well said Bk*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:54pm.
It appears you and I lived the same life. In order to help other children from living that life is one of the reasons I became a social worker. Bless you mon ami.
Your premise is unequivocally
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 12:56pm.
Your premise is unequivocally false. If we were to apply your logic elsewhere, then we must ban cars, guns, alcohol, etc. Drug use does not cause the loss of life, liberty, or property. In fact, prohibition directly causes crime rates to rise. For example, during Prohibition, the murder rate jumped and when Prohibition was repealed, the murder rate steadily declined over the following years.
Your second paragraph is a red herring. So what if a person can't hold a job or even get hired? The argument isn't why people should use drugs or that there are no adverse effects, the argument is that prohibition does not work and billions - trillions - of taxpayer dollars are wasted fighting something that will never be eliminated.
End the prohibition on drugs, and I guarantee you all of your crime concerns would plummet. I don't care if you don't like the argument or if you don't want to hear it; it is a fact, and history has proven it.
And you haven't been reading very well or paying attention at all: I have not once stated that we should abandon enforcement of current laws. I said that the drug laws should be repealed. That is not selective enforcement of the law.
When will I learn
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 2:15pm.
I honestly try Satch, to give you a fair shake here, but your dancing around the issues and inability to provide anything more than skewed opinion seems to be a terminal problem. Whenever you're faced with a reasonable and rational argument, you claim I'm arguing some phantom position that you never stated or intended. In fact, what you're doing is walking back your positions. I guess that's why so many here are frustrated with you on a regular basis. And I assume that that is the role you prefer to play.
Good luck in your isolation.
One, you haven't presented a
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:15pm.
One, you haven't presented a reasonable or rational argument, and two, I am not walking back a single position. Nowhere have I said anything about abandonment of enforcing laws. For the thousandth time, I am talking about repealing laws. That you to continue to frame things around selectively enforcing laws or abandoning the enforcement of some laws - especially since I've corrected you more than once - is your fault, not mine. As far as dancing around, how many posts did you make before you finally said what you were getting at?
I'm done Satch
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:22pm.
Begone.
Of course you are. Maybe some
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:48pm.
Of course you are. Maybe some day you'll quit making things up and fooling yourself into believing that's a "fair shake". I doubt it, though.
Maybe some day people here
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:53pm.
Maybe some day people here will stop viewing you as a lying troll. I doubt it, though.
Somebody contact the County Roadkill Officer.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 5:45pm.
There are pieces of this carcass strewn all over the place.
OMO, BK
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:51pm.
You've opened a can of worms this time.
Me.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
But it was intended Blonde*
Submitted by cajun2 on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 3:00pm.
Inciteful remarks is what Incestmo does best in order to garner the attention he so craves that he totally lacks in "meatspace".
Do not encourage the poor thing. He suffers from maladjustive attention mechanism disorder. He requires negative attention in order to obtain the punishment/ attention he feels he deserves.
Let's not feed this one. Leave him to drsamherman.
Too true, Caj
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 3:18pm.
Here, have some popcorn.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Of course I don't have to fill out the subject line.
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:42pm.
I HAVE A RIGHT TO TROLL.
You will, I SAID WILL, read my Stupid twice every single time I post.
Still waiting for you to tell the entire planet what lie I told about you? Making accusations - easy for the PaulTard. Backing them up - Wha? Huh? Who?
It works in the Netherlands, right?
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:39pm.
Yea, let's just eliminate all drug laws, and then we can collect taxes on the sales of those drugs, and our economy will be saved! It works in the Netherlands, doesn't it? Oh, wait, their government's finances are in worse shape than ours is! Oh well, at least the population can smoke a bowl of Hashish and zone out.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I didn't say anything about
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:50pm.
I didn't say anything about collecting taxes. You are, of course, displaying a logical fallacy of causation, post hoc ergo proper hoc (and of course the straw man fallacy).
But thanks for proving my point.
propter
Submitted by Wineguy13 on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:58pm.
But if you are expecting formal debating techniques, you need to look elsewhere. If you are trying to intimidate by using Latin, use spellcheck too.
Free's Score Card
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:09pm.
Pervmo: 0
WineGuy: 10
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
If it were illegal to use the phrase "straw man"---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:04pm.
SatchelMouth would be unable to post.
MD
nice ironic fail
Submitted by Wineguy13 on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:51pm.
There are quite a few libertarians on NB, but even those who favor the restrictions you cite, there is no hypocrisy here. Once you have agreed as a society that some things will be prohibited eg-alcohol, drugs, etc, the negotiation is simply a matter of degree. There is a market for sex with five year old boys, kidneys, and murder, but not a free market.
Your logic is a little sophomoric, raise your game if your wish to opine please
There is a market for sex
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:45pm.
There is a market for sex with five year old boys, kidneys, and murder, but not a free market. Depends on the locale.
Touche'
Submitted by Wineguy13 on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:54pm.
point taken
Speaking of fail, you are
Submitted by Satchmo on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 4:38pm.
Speaking of fail, you are going to try and lecture on libertarians, but then use child rape as an example? Yours is the one that is sophmoric. How about actually responding to the point?
The epitome of lying, dodging, ducking---
Submitted by matthewdean on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:04pm.
and running; also a practitioner of boomerang debate (I know you are, but what am I?), supporter of incest (only if it's consensual, though), and world-class record holding denier of defeat by charging his opponent with utilizing the dreaded "straw man" argument.
Also a card carrying Paulbot.
A dork, a drip, and a doofus; but nonetheless licensed to carry a dildo (for consensual purposes only.)
Satchmo (who I am not replying to because he is a troll), stand up and take a bow.
MD
I will regret this,
Submitted by Wineguy13 on Tue, 08/09/2011 - 3:16pm.
It should be obvious to anyone reading your riposte' that you missed the point of my reply or are incapable of grasping it. Let me illustrate how my reply to your original post was on point:
You seem to be pointing up an instance (incorrectly) of hypocrisy in the 'champions of the free market' being the ones who are in favor of prohibition of alcohol & 'controlled substances'. My response was to point out that many libertarians champion the free market, AND are in favor of individual liberty in these two examples you cited. Secondly, those (many NB readers) who champion the free market yet wish to prohibit the availability of things such as alcohol & 'controlled substances', are not so unusual. I then used three examples to illustrate my point, which you missed or chose to ignore. The examples I used were meant to be extreme to make my point without having to be overly loquacious. Many societies will prohibit things they mutually agree are detrimental to their society, and yet embrace the free exercise of a market for things which they agree are beneficial. Indeed, that is the free market the original open thread addressed.
Thus my reply was absolutely on point, addressed the deficiencies in your assertion, and chided you for being a little slow, or lazy.
Q.E.D.
I could have used myriad examples of things which are prohibited in the vast majority of societies, for instance-Ivory, monkey brains, ritual torture, would these have offended you less? Are you so dense as to think I am suggesting that libertarians are child rapists, simply because both words or ideas appear in the same post? You can't be that stupid, so I assume you are lazy. I won't respond to you further, and doubt you will read this, but hopefully everyone else will simply ignore you.
All of this could have been avoided had you simply realized that many readers of Newsbusters are libertarian in philosophy, but you chose a knee-jerk path, and I have wasted enough of my time with this, although it was my choice.
Everyone enjoying the Satchmo troll again?
Submitted by The Vet on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:23pm.
HE HAS A RIGHT TO TROLL. Only he ain't trolling. No. Juz being a good little citizen harassing posters on a conservative site over something they have zero control or input. BUT HE HAS A RIGHT TO BLAME YOU. IT IS ALL YOUR FAULT! SUCK ON THAT MONKEYMEN! SUCK IT. SATCHMO HAS A RIGHT TO TROLL.
Yet another thread sodomized by Incestmo.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:18pm.
And this is tolerated why?
~God forbid
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:34pm.
that anyone should think NB is "intolerant of opposing viewpoints".
.
This country has one chance left to survive as it was founded
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:06pm.
We must get the moochers, leeches, and ticks out of the voting booth once and for all, at least at the national level.
There is a 50/50 chance that we may yet still survive this hideous president, but unless and until we stop allowing the non-productive to waddle into the voting booth and vote themselves other people's money, we have absolutely no chance whatsoever.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Yep
Submitted by JLin on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:49pm.
Amen brother.
So Dave, me being retired and
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:48pm.
So Dave, me being retired and nonproductive, does that mean I lose my vote? The devil is in the details.
Little Debs of the Wasserman Crime Family
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:36pm.
Rules mean nothing to the democrats....least of all to Little Debs. How very nice of her to promote the Teamsters on a taxpayer funded mailer.
Also note, COMCAST has it's own Little Debs (free) Channel On Demand. Just another reason to get a satellite dish, eh?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
That's a no, from me. A
Submitted by jessieH on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 12:48pm.
That's a no, from me. A Democratic socialist society controls the economy, well, tries to control the economy. A free market can not survive. Luckily, any socialist society can't survive in a free market. This Nation proved that. This country thrives with a free market. We just made a few mistakes, over the years, mostly by electing liberal, socialist people into our government. History proves that. Electing lawyers was another mistake. Bottom feeders that love loopholes. Businessmen, that's what's missing in our gov't.. That's what's needed.
Recent History Suggests
Submitted by Comrade Jim on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:14pm.
That a free market may be able to support a socialist welfare state up to about a point where the State is sucking approximately 18% of GDP out of the market. After that we see today what happens. There is another factor. Socialistic welfare states tend to strangle the market with over-regulations, bans, coercion, shakedowns, intimidation, etc. This all tends to kill jobs, stop business expansion, inhibit research and development, slow innovation. All at the same time, on the welfare side of the coin, welfare kills the human spirit, corrodes the human character, kills human motivation.
In other words Socialistic Welfare States suck the life out of the market and damage the vital ingredients of the market, namely individuals.
On the 18% number: This may not be a stable long-term number. Also the lower the number the healthier and more robust the country will be when economic crises ripple through the world. Obviously, zero socialism is best of all possible mixes.
Anybody else watching the stream of the empty POTUS podium?
Submitted by SickofLibs on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:15pm.
Can't this SOB do ANYTHING on time? EVER?
~Yeah
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:35pm.
He can F up the country in record time.
No. Socialism is the bane of Mankind.
Submitted by JLin on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 1:45pm.
It must be outlawed just as Nazism is outlawed around the world. You cannot totally eliminate theft of taxpayer funds for purely political ends but you can kill-off most of it.
This was expected.
Submitted by JLin on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:02pm.
The world scam that is Socialism could only continue just so long as America remained free and her economy reasonably unencumbered. Now that the Communists running her government have the upper hand, their destructive actions have crippled the American economy and by extension, exposed the fundamental flaws in Western socialist democracies.
Barack Obama is a dilletente Marxist unqualified to serve in a clerks position much less the Presidency of the United States. He is nothing more than a self-absorbed celebrity spokesmodel and must be removed from power.
More Waivers...this time for Teachers Unions
Submitted by Blonde on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 2:18pm.
Found on the most excellent CNS.
OMO! It's just TOO HARD to improve education....so let's just issue some waivers for those underperforming schools.
Nothing like faux accountability for the unions.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
It IS too hard, Blonde,
Submitted by UpNorth on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 3:11pm.
they're busy helping the kiddies cheat on standardized tests, so they can move on to indoctrination in the class room.
No.
Submitted by IdahoJim on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 5:02pm.
The people that create wealth are doing it for themselves, their families, their investors and stockholders. They are not creating wealth for the social benefit of the masses.
If you can't work, we give you a hand. If you won't work, we give you the back of our hand.
IdahoJim
http://idahoandy.net
"Can a Free Market Support a
Submitted by milootoole on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:27pm.
"Can a Free Market Support a Democratic Socialist Society?" Part 1
Simple answer---NO. Eventually, with no change the system, country, state, will go casters up.
"The experience of Europeans should be an example to Americans. As many European countries attempt to sustain social democratic programs, they are finding that a capitalist economy can no longer support an ever-expanding social welfare state."
It should be an example. It is not.
The arguments put forth for defending some social Democrat programs need better explanation. Example-- When Obamacare was argued and all the shortcomings of the program were exposed--long term wait for services, possible death panel decision, etc., lack of certain types of treatments, the socialists reached into their bag and pulled out--- LONGEVITY--!! So, if you live a years longer in painful misery, that is a better system?? And what the heck does free or paid for care have to do with it?? Bogus.
I could go into many facets of the socialist programs and debate most of them. Why spend the time.
The real issue is if you wish to be able to debate these issues, you darned well better defend the Bill of Rights to do it.
England has no 2nd amendment and no guns and is being overrun with Muslims. Denmark, , Belgium and other lowland countries arrest people for hate speech when they merely express an opinion.
These stories are to be seen around the world and almost every one of the locations that are in trouble are socialist countries.
Can a Free Market Support a Democratic Socialist Society?
Submitted by milootoole on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:51pm.
Can a Free Market Support a Democratic Socialist Society? Part 2
What is a free market???
Having visited this site off and on fro a long time, I know some on this site see it, it is the ability to buy things cheap. It is the ancient law of comparative advantage without the modification for changes in the world in technology since days of old. It is sometimes Keynesian and sometimes--"I really don't care as long as I can buy the biggest HDTV made at a cheaper price". It is NAFTA, CAFTA and perhaps even some Kafka.
It is socialism applied to the business model. No patriotism, only materialism. As jobs disappear the ugly face of Socialism rises higher and higher because there is less and less private market jobs and more and more government created jobs. To be old fashioned about it--fewer and fewer people are growing things , building things, producing things and more and more people are regulating and monitoring the (non) production of those in the private sector. Some will argue that this is due to improved technology. That is only partly true. It is due to "Free Trade" as it is practiced today.
A "Free Market" as it is practiced today works well for the few, the elite. It does little to nothing for the backbone of America, known as the middle class. It enriches other nations. Some "great thinkers" believe that we must distribute our wealth to other nations by moving our jobs there. That will ensure a peaceful, productive world. All the while there is not one thought for their own nation and their own people. Why, I bet there are some here who are unemployed and have been for a long period of time. How's that free market working for you?? How about the welders being imported for work in Louisiana working for you?? How does the creation of 117,00 jobs last month while importing 125,000 workers work for you?? A net of minus 8, 000 jobs. Is that what a free market is supposed to mean?? Well that's what has happened.
The concept of the free market should include the well being of our own native population first. To deny your tribe for personal gain is treason in most societies.
It si my striong belief that a socialist society will breed the attitude that permeates out entitlement population today. Why should I work for eight dollars an hour when I can get seven for sitting home and free or almost free health care, WIC and any number of other benefits. Also, one I partially agree with, "Why should I work when my country allows illegals to come in, have babies and collect all the benefits that are supposed to be for Americans? There is no big gain for me there.
Socialism is the final acceptance of the loss of the will of the people to be truly free.
They are contradictory
Submitted by Boudin on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 6:59pm.
Fact is, our Fed makes more money off of virtually any product in production then the producers. And they subsidize the failures. So there is no longer a free market.
boudin
Submitted by milootoole on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 7:10pm.
I agree. That is another truth.
Rhetorical-- So why do the talking heads on both sides always talk about the "free market"?
Obama
Submitted by bkeyser on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 8:58pm.
downgraded.
Dave's parting shot: Man shoots himself in his Obama
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 08/08/2011 - 9:23pm.
That must have really hurt.
Y'all have a good one, as I am going to load up the simulator and go flying.
My BP is so high, it feels as though my left eye is going to blow out of it's socket.
Think I'll go practice some ILS landings in major thunderstorms.
I could use the relaxation. :-^)
Night, all.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Better question for the times is...
Submitted by hayate1 on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 4:40am.
Can a free market support a free and relatively unified nation? Or will it cause it's disintegration without a large federal presence to intervene when the inevitable accesses of the free market occur?
What if there were no social safety nets and entitlement programs nor a government with the flexibility to borrow money for bailouts 4 years ago? Mass bankruptcies, defunct banks, companies, millions of homeless, starving people roaming around..
"Facts are not decided by how many people believe them. Truth is not determined by how loudly it is shouted."
Oh look boys and girls.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:06am.
A wayward troll wandered off from the night pack. It is probably scared and lonely so we must be extra quiet. We don't want to startle it.
As you can see, it is mumbling and making very little sense. Look at it. "Free market supports unified nation" Huh? "accesses of free market" Wha? "No social safety net" Oh like the entire planet up to 1930's? Like that boys and girls? Thousands and Thousands and Thousands of years.
You can see how scared and lonely and stupid it is. Let's throw some rocks now so it will think it is raining and seek the shelter of the troll night pack. Now boys and girls. Start chucking.
Oh and boys and girls, be careful on the way home, don't want those "accesses" of the free market to get you.
Better question for the times is....
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 6:00am.
Maybe someone as dense and stupid as hater1 ought to just concentrate on getting the french fries out of the fryer on time. That is what the Ding is for. Timer goes off. Ding. Time to get the fries out.
Leave major grappling problems to the intelligent educated folks that are busy unifying the nation and taming the accesses of the market.
Ding.
Whoops. Failed again. Off in space as usual.
Hey Stupid. You leave the problems facing the country to us. You concentrate on mastering English, your first and only language before you attempt the hard stuff.
The Horror! The Spectacle! Coming soon to a theater near you!
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 6:26am.
Mass bankruptcies, defunct banks, companies, millions of homeless, starving people roaming around.. Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria! Zombies! Calamity! Flying Dragons breathing fire!
Stupid
A film by H.A.Yate1
Subtitles by Subtitles R' Us, makers of the Idiot to English translator.
So... Those homeless. Those starving. The ones roaming around.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 8:11am.
Are they roaming from town to town? Cuz that is my gig. I'm the type of guy who will never settle down. Where pretty girls are, well, you know that I'm around. I kiss 'em and and I love 'em 'cause to me they're all the same. I hug 'em and I sqeeze 'em. They don't even know my name. They call me the wanderer. Yeah, the wanderer. I roam around around around.
Idiot.
Surely you meant---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:20am.
when the inevitable excesses, not 'accesses' of the free market occur; as that is the only word, even though you are completely loopy, that would make any sense in the context of that sentence.
Have you been living in Paul Krugman's house for the last three years?
MD
What about the unified nation?
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 5:51am.
...free market support a free and relatively unified nation....
We are relatively unified. Lost a few states when we were not so unified during that Civil War thingy. They are kinda statishly now. Not really a state really sorta. So we are just relatively unified now.
unify -- to make into a unit or a coherent whole
Let's go boys. Grab some rope. We are gonna grab Alaska and Hawaii and drag 'em on in. Tired of them strollin' around on the periphery.
What about the companies?
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/10/2011 - 6:04am.
With no social safety net, we are subjected to the horrors of the companies.
Mass bankruptcies, defunct banks, companies, millions of homeless, starving people roaming around..
Ahhhhh. A company. Shoot before it multiplies!