[quote]pittbulll wrote:
HG Thrower wrote:
Hilarious. The standard liberal mentality. “Oh My God, someone has the unmitigated GALL to disagree with me on an issue! I must destroy them completely and ruin their ability to make a living!”
Better than the Republican ploy of calling everybody that disagrees with them a Scocialist , And I do not equate the repubicans as Consevitive as I do not consider the Dems. liberal[/quote]
Government takeovers of private institutions IS socialist. That’s the fucking definition of it! Lets check the score:
Nationalizing GM - Socialist (and unconstitutional)
Bank bailouts - Socialist (also Socialist when Bush did it BTW)
Proposed nationalized healthcare - Socialist
If the shoe fits…
Please name me a program implemented or proposed by the current administration that isnt Socialist. There may be one, but I’m not aware of it.
Here’s the definiton if you need help:
Socialism
-a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
-an economic system based on state ownership of capital
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
HG Thrower wrote:
Hilarious. The standard liberal mentality. “Oh My God, someone has the unmitigated GALL to disagree with me on an issue! I must destroy them completely and ruin their ability to make a living!”
Better than the Republican ploy of calling everybody that disagrees with them a Scocialist , And I do not equate the repubicans as Consevitive as I do not consider the Dems. liberal[/quote]
Well then if you don’t equate republicans as conservative and the dems as liberal, then pittbull you should not equate the Republicans as a monolithic structure that unanimously calls everyone who disagrees socialist. They are not, and they do not. And if you stand by your original generalized statement then you will–by definition–have hell to pay as you will be forced to acknowledge all the craziness that the Democrats are and have been responsible for, as a monolithic entity. Somehow I don’t think you’re willing to do that.
Score one for Whole Foods. I like the store and I like what their CEO had to say. The only thing I don’t like about Whole Foods is that the nearest one is 2 hours away.
[quote]Because the word “fascist” is often thrown around loosely these days, as a general term of abuse, it is good that “Liberal Fascism” begins by discussing the real Fascism, introduced into Italy after the First World War by Benito Mussolini.
The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free market economy. Their agenda included minimum wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and “rigidly secular” schools.
Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run. They were for “industrial policy,” long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States. Indeed, the whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate. Moreover, during the 1920s “progressives” in the United States and Britain recognized the kinship of their ideas with those of Mussolini, who was widely lionized by the left.[/quote]
[quote]Americans are appropriately concerned at the prospect of socialized medicine. Some advocates want exactly that, and many politicians are pushing us in that direction.
But the system we now have and the course it is on is more accurately described as fascist. Factions vie for the patronage of political-power brokers.[/quote]
[quote]borrek wrote:
Grow up, douche. I guess the only valid way to disagree with someone on healthcare is by screaming over them at a townhall meeting?[/quote]
Only way they seem to listen. and yes, I’ll be that guy quizzing my congressman on the say, 10th amendment like in WV. guy didn’t even know what it meant.
The boycott itself doesn’t bother me. I have no investment, emotional or otherwise, in WholeFoods and I really don’t care if they’re boycotted. Political organizing has and always will be a viable way to speak, whether its boycotting or whatever else. What got to me was the other stuff.[/quote]
Well, I do have an investment in Whole Foods, and I need the liberals to keep shopping there. :>
Any beef I have is that it is that the boycott isn’t proportional to the issue. The CEO - who runs a great health care program for his own employees, as it turns out - offers an alternative to proposed legislation that isn’t sufficiently “progressive” enough, and left-wingers decide Whole Foods doesn’t deserve their money.
Runs counter to that whole “tolerance” vibe, but now I am simply dwelling on the obvious.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
They don’t have to boycott anything. I would ban them from the store if I was CEO.[/quote]
why are you so mad that they’re proposing a boycott? Its their right.
Yea im sure that would be smart move, ban your customers. Most of what you can get at whole foods is a lot harder to track down elsewhere, the same people on the internet boycott probably still shop there.
The only thing worthwhile at whole foods is the apple juice in the glass jugs when its on sale (great for making mead and cider btw!). Good thing San Diego has Henry’s markets and a well organized farmer’s market.
I have mixed feelings on voting with your pocketbook. I took my kids to Cracker Barrel for dinner this week, despite knowing they have a history of gay discrimination. I still like their food, but do I really want to support an organization that doesn’t act in my best interest?
Out of curiosity, I looked it up and discovered that Cracker Barrel reversed their gay discrimination policy, largely as a result of the criticism they received (and presumably, from the loss in profits from people eating elsewhere). So I guess voting with your pocketbook can make a difference, and I can see making a little sacrifice for a cause that you consider important.
[quote]forlife wrote:
I have mixed feelings on voting with your pocketbook. I took my kids to Cracker Barrel for dinner this week, despite knowing they have a history of gay discrimination. I still like their food, but do I really want to support an organization that doesn’t act in my best interest?
Out of curiosity, I looked it up and discovered that Cracker Barrel reversed their gay discrimination policy, largely as a result of the criticism they received (and presumably, from the loss in profits from people eating elsewhere). So I guess voting with your pocketbook can make a difference, and I can see making a little sacrifice for a cause that you consider important.[/quote]
Yes, it is much better if people can vote in politicians who will force the property owners not to discriminate against you. Though, better punishment is for them to go broke because people vote with the wallet. Sorry, I am a man…I call it a “wallet”.
you mean the public option? do you realize there is a pretty significant difference?
and before anyone trolls out the death panels, im not in favor of it.[/quote]
All the versions of the proposed bill nationalize parts of the system in one way or another, with the public option being the most obvious. The end result of any of these bills will be the insolvency of the private health insurance system, prompting the government to step in and nationalize, just like they did with the banking and auto industries. Which, BTW the Dem leadership has made it clear is their end goal (single payer, and Barney Frank is on record saying exactly that). Thus, socialist.
And FWIW, I don’t believe the “death panels” are written or intended in the bills, but something similar (rationing) will result as an unintended consequence.
[quote]belligerent wrote:
borrek wrote:
Grow up, douche. I guess the only valid way to disagree with someone on healthcare is by screaming over them at a townhall meeting?
You are fucking retarded, and it’s due to genetics, not “educational” factors.[/quote]
Golly Belle, I can only wish I had hit the genetic lottery like you did. Sadly, like all but one or two black people, I am genetically inferior to one with an IQ such as yours.
[quote]borrek wrote:
belligerent wrote:
borrek wrote:
Grow up, douche. I guess the only valid way to disagree with someone on healthcare is by screaming over them at a townhall meeting?
You are fucking retarded, and it’s due to genetics, not “educational” factors.
Golly Belle, I can only wish I had hit the genetic lottery like you did. Sadly, like all but one or two black people, I am genetically inferior to one with an IQ such as yours.
[/quote]
Oh yay! showing racism is so much more intelligent. Do all liberals really focus on race as much as you?
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I mean, think about it. You heard the word retarded and apparently for some reason black people popped into your head. Talk about a Freudian slip.[/quote]
I think he was being sarcastic and referencing the thread about race having an inpact on IQ. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.
