In my universe there is no socialist threat from the government, least of all Obama, who is possibly to the right of George W. Bush on almost every policy.

Obama is a leftist socialist, and what we see today is exactly the resulting outcome of socialism, crony government and lack of prosperity. If not Obama then who? Somehow someday a true socialist is going to lead this nation into utopia? That’s the real laugh (LOL). It never has and never will happen.

let your dear readers look at the facts and they will see that the standard of living in the US has been going down, not up. Wealth has been moving up the food chain, not down it. There are more people living below the poverty line than ever before. Millions of homeowners are under water and in foreclosure. Unemployment is at Depression levels.

So who has been redistributing the nation’s wealth and where has it been going? Has it been evaporating? Have the poor conspired to steal it from the rich but still live as paupers to stay under the radar?

What parallel universe do you live in? In my universe there is no socialist threat from the government, least of all Obama, who is possibly to the right of George W. Bush on almost every policy. His tools Geithner and Summers are toadies with ties that go back a decade with Wall Street insiders. The only people who postulate a socialist plot are people like Glenn Beck who are trying to make money off of it and the people who have been used by him. Which are you? I see you’re trying to make money off of lying to people by hawking Conservativo-wear, so it must be the latter.

I don’t have to “declare victory”. I think I’ll just let you live in a fantasy world where up is down, left is right, and so on. I’m happy to try to help persons such as yourself comprehend the world around you, but some people just can’t be helped.

And you don’t WANT to help us, either, as we face the real possibility of environmental catastrophes, complete economic failure, two useless wars, and the plight of the unemployed who are losing their homes and getting ready to lose their patience. Instead of helping, you want to stand at the sideline like a little puppy yelping “socialist socialist socialist” like some kind of demented mantra which you may or may not believe but if you can get other people to buy your shirt you’ll be happy.

The ship you’re on is the political version of the Titanic. We all know it’s going to slip in, and you want to make damn sure everyone knows it was the socialists who did it.

LOL

I’m going to let my dear readers decide whether I’m crazy for saying that socialism is about wealth redistribution and that’s exactly what those in the Obama Administration are working toward more of, or whether W. W. Wexler is crazy for saying that it’s not the case.

Show me the clip where Obama and his economic advisers made a statement of public policy where we are all going to now have some kind of wealth distribution scheme. You’re being ridiculous. Unless you are totally devoid of intellectual honesty, a point which I am beginning to ponder, you can’t seriously believe that an off-the-cuff comment made to “Joe the Plumber” during a campaign rally can be considered to be public policy. OR do you? If so, please get HELP.

I’m not accusing you of resisting all government services and institutions, I’m TELLING you what socialism is not. You’re attempting to re-define it into your narrow point of view that it is income re-distribution, which it is definitely not. Can we talk honestly, please?

I’m glad you mentioned the USA PATRIOT Act, which has and always will be a serious erosion of American’s liberties. Your side (I don’t know about you personally) seem to think it’s OK, all the while out there waving pocket Constitutions and pictures of Obama as Hitler.

Do you actually understand the purpose of the Constitution or are you being obtuse? The Constitution has been amended 27 times including the Bill of Rights that Bush pretty much trashed at will. But that’s not the point here. We’re talking about what’s socialism and what’s not, and what’s in the Constitution.

Maybe you should read the Preamble. Read what the purpose of government is. Promote the general welfare. Sound familiar? That’s the part of the Constitution you want to ignore. That part and the part that states that darkies are only 3/5 of a human being. What you try to do is make the case that unless it’s stated in the Constitution, it can’t be done.

Tenthers… please read. http://catbus.tumblr.com/post/177220857/radical-right-the-rights-tenther-constitution

DISTORTING THE DOCUMENT: Tenthers derive their narrow vision of the Constitution from a strained reading of the Tenth Amendment, which provides that the Constitution contains an itemized list of federal powers and anything not contained in that list is beyond Congress’ authority. In the tenthers’ eyes, Congress’ powers must all be read too narrowly to allow most federal statutes to exist. However, the tenther constitution bears little resemblance to the words of the document itself. Contrary to tenther claims that federal spending programs like Medicare or Social Security are unconstitutional, Article I of the Constitution empowers Congress to “lay and collect taxes” and to “provide for…the general welfare of the United States,” which unambiguously authorizes it to spend money in ways that benefit the nation. Similarly, Congress’ broad authority to enact regulatory schemes that “substantially affect interstate commerce” easily encompasses laws like the federal minimum wage and the requirement that businesses do not discriminate on the basis of race. As Roosevelt chided tenther-like conservatives from his era, “The Constitution of 1787 did not make our democracy impotent.”

A LEGACY OF RADICALISM: Sadly, tentherism’s assault on democracy is nothing new; indeed, retreat to outlandish constitutional theories is a favorite tactic of the right during times of historic upheaval. Tenther “state sovereignty resolutions” are little more than new names for the “interposition resolutions” enacted by southern states in the immediate wake of Brown v. Board of Education, which claimed that the federal government exceeded its constitutional authority when it extended the Constitution’s promise of “equal protection of the laws” to the American South. Tenther claims that health reform is unconstitutional — because the Constitution does not specifically use the words “health care” — echo the infamous Southern Manifesto’s argument that Brown was wrong because the “Constitution does not mention education.” Much of the intellectual framework for tenther assaults on economic regulation comes from discredited Depression-era Supreme Court decisions that struck down essential provisions of the New Deal on the grounds that they exceeded Congress’ lawful authority. Indeed, conservatives even justified the greatest act of treason in American history, the Civil War, by claiming that that the Constitution permits each state to leave the union at will. Now that America is slowly emerging from its most recent crisis, tenthers once again hope to exploit the nation’s fears to fuel a radical constitutional agenda.

There are certain tasks that are best fit for government rather than private enterprise. For example, the government does a pretty good job at police and fire departments, public libraries and schools, the military (well, OK, maybe not so much the military). But even the epic FAIL of the military has been policy, not the readiness of our troops, their weapons systems, etc.

The implication that resistance to socialism means resistance to all government services and intervention is yet another straw man argument. I’ve seen it a million times. See here and here.

As you can see, the simplistic babbling of “Um, it’s not in the CONSTITUTION, MAN” is just a moron’s copout.

Why have a constitution then?

Why did the lefties use the “um, it’s not in the CONSTITUTION MAN” argument with respect to the patriot act? I suppose when you personally like what the government is doing, then it’s a moron’s cop-out, but when you don’t then it’s unconstitutional.

At least the patriot act was passed into law by Congress, unlike the oil drilling moratorium, which can be struck down as unconstitutional just by that fact alone.

Because of the dramatic changes in the world political, economic, technological, and communications, there have been more tasks that have cropped up that the Founders never dreamed of.

The Constitution has two mechanism to deal with “the dramatic changes in the world”:
1. New amendments. Yes they are difficult to pass, but they’d be more urgently need and passed more readily if the government didn’t just ignore the Constitution anyway.
2. The 10th Amendment. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

There you go again.
You just can’t be happy unless you’re taking a 15 second sound bite to “prove” your argument rather than actually proving it. This paucity of intellectual honesty shows that you don’t actually care about the issue at hand, you just think that you can “prove” it with a sound bite.

Really? So somehow you saying that “the lie is that anyone has suggested that wealth should be redistributed in the US,” and me showing video clips of Obama and his appointee saying just that is not proof and illegitimate.

And if that wasn’t part of the issue at hand, why did you present it saying that “the whole premise that socialism is a ‘wealth distribution scheme’ is based on a straw man argument.” Nah, it’s a minor unimportant part. It’s only that the whole premise of the other side’s argument rests upon it.

You just can’t be happy unless you’re taking a 15 second sound bite to “prove” your argument rather than actually proving it. This paucity of intellectual honesty shows that you don’t actually care about the issue at hand, you just think that you can “prove” it with a sound bite.

Since you basically ignored my entire post, and instead attempted to steal the argument with two sound bites, I’m going to declare victory. That is, unless you want to get off your sorry tucus and give it a real shot like someone with a cranium full of firing synapses. You’re not worthy of the nonsense you posted. How about some sense?

For example, instead of dwelling on socialism as a “wealth distribution scheme”, which it is NOT, why don’t you address any of the points I’ve made about what socialism really is and how we do or do not need it to solve problems of the 21st century? Yes, I know that would be too much like a discussion but maybe you could try it, just once? Rather than pulling a cheap trick?

What do you think? You have my rapt attention.

-Wexler

The whole premise that socialism is a “wealth distribution scheme” is based on a straw man argument. For those of you who don’t already understand what that is, just substitute “lie”.

Socialism and wealth distribution? *SARCASM* I don’t know what you’re talking about. They’re of no relation. *SARCASM*

The lie is that anyone has suggested that wealth should be redistributed in the US.

Really? Nobody suggested that?

Barack Obama: “I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”

And how about Obama appointee Donald Berwick: “any healthcare funding plan that is just, equitable, civilized, and humane, must, must, redistribute wealth from the richer among us to the poorer and less fortunate.”

For example, nobody has suggested that everyone should be paid the same amount of money for work. Nobody has said that wealth shouldn’t be accumulated. Nobody has said that the government should own all private enterprise.

That’s the straw man argument, a “lie” for those who don’t understand. Nobody suggested that socialism is only a problem when it’s at a 100%.

For those of you who don’t already understand what that is, just substitute “lie”. The lie is that anyone has suggested that wealth should be redistributed in the US. For example, nobody has suggested that everyone should be paid the same amount of money for work. Nobody has said that wealth shouldn’t be accumulated. Nobody has said that the government should own all private enterprise.

Nope. Those are the lies of crackpot jugheads who are trying to distract you from what the real issues are by making it into something it’s not about. What is it REALLY about, then?

There are certain tasks that are best fit for government rather than private enterprise. For example, the government does a pretty good job at police and fire departments, public libraries and schools, the military (well, OK, maybe not so much the military). But even the epic FAIL of the military has been policy, not the readiness of our troops, their weapons systems, etc.

Because of the dramatic changes in the world political, economic, technological, and communications, there have been more tasks that have cropped up that the Founders never dreamed of. For example, who would have thought back in the mid 1700s that we might have 10,000 aircraft in the air during any given week. Or who would have thought back then that we could drill holes in the bottom of the sea that could destroy the ecosystem of the Gulf with one accident? Who would have thought that hundreds of new consumer products would be introduced every day, with varying degrees of engineering expertise behind them and some with lethal errors? OR the MRI, or the link between tobacco and cancer, or nuclear waste dumps, and so on and so on.

As you can see, the simplistic babbling of “Um, it’s not in the CONSTITUTION, MAN” is just a moron’s copout. So is the straw man argument of putting a “socialist” or “liberal” label on it and hope that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh can make it go away. No, the fact is that those problems need real solutions instead of dishonest and foolhardy divisive non-arguments that are just designed to protect the interests of the HAVES over the HAVE NOTS.

Oh, now I’m talking about CLASS WARFARE???? Yeah, I am. The upper class has been waging war on the lower class and they are winning. They are driving the mean wage down. They have shipped our jobs overseas. Follow the money, it’s moving UP THE FOOD CHAIN, not any other way.

So I’ve gotten off track a bit, I even get fooled into the false dichotomy now and then. What we really need is for people who have good heads on their shoulders to sit down with real proposals for solutions. We don’t need mindless yammering about whether it’s “socialist” or not. Good grief, to hear Beck and Limbaugh talk about it, EVERYTHING is “socialist”.

Their chicken little act is growing old, and they have goaded the right into some strategic blunders that are going to change the course of history this November. The blockage of real Wall Street re-regulation and extension of unemployment benefits are the death knell for the GOP. Glenn Beck can kiss his kiester aloha over trying to hold a white supremacist rally on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on the anniversary of Dr. King’s “I have a dream” speech. The backlash will be furious.

My advice is biblical, even though I’m an atheist. Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind. America is getting very angry, and it’s not at the “socialists”. It’s at the people at the top of the food chain that are pulling everybody’s chain.

-Wexler