Last Updated:April 17 @ 10:14 am

Limbaugh: Obama Is Fresh Out of Ideas

By David Limbaugh

One of the most striking facts about the course of the Obama presidency so far is that Obama has no constructive solutions for anything, which is one reason he campaigned on vague promises. It's why he established bogus metrics, such as "saved or created jobs."

It's also why he's always pointing the finger of blame on others for his policy failures. Everyone knows by now that Obama's reckless and corrupt stimulus package failed to restrain unemployment as he had promised and that instead of accepting responsibility for it, he blamed Bush.

He also played another familiar liberal card: He insisted his stimulus bill would have worked if he had been allowed to spend more money. So he started pushing for a second stimulus, all while increasing the government's regulatory stranglehold on business and cramming Obamacare down our throats.

All of which is to say -- with added emphasis -- that Obama is fresh out of ideas. Worse, he's the immovable force standing in the way of those who do have constructive proposals.

He didn't even submit a plan during the debt ceiling negotiations, and his party's Senate majority hasn't presented a budget for more than 800 days. We have a spending and entitlement problem, but Obama's ideology precludes him from addressing either. It drives him, instead, to insist on increasing taxes on the rich. But raising rates would further smother the economy and not significantly increase revenues.

The GOP is far from perfect, but it has presented serious proposals to address the debt crisis, which include capping discretionary spending, restructuring entitlements, passing a balanced budget amendment and reforming the tax code. These plans could work, but the Democrats have steadfastly and shamelessly opposed them and ridiculed their proponents, such as Rep. Paul Ryan.

During the debt ceiling negotiations, we've seen more of the same. Obama's Democrats are refusing to sign on to real cuts (only reductions on the rate of spending increases) and even more resistant to meaningful entitlement reform.

If a compromise passes, it will only be because Republicans have concluded, accurately or not, that it's the best they can get in their effort to reduce the bleeding until 2012, when they hope to regain firm control of both political branches. No matter how they spin it, it will not be a good deal; the only question is how bad it will be.

Republicans fear that if they don't take the deal and the budget ceiling is not lifted, disastrous economic and political consequences will ensue: Our economy will collapse and Republicans will be blamed and lose the 2012 elections, and then any chance of saving the nation from financial catastrophe will be lost.

I am not convinced that a debt ceiling impasse would result in the predicted Armageddon or that signing on to a dubious bill would enhance the GOP's 2012 electoral prospects. But I am convinced that if we don't start working this debt down -- as opposed to whittling away at the rates of increase while the debt continues to expand -- we will experience real financial collapse, and sooner than we may think.

I'm also concerned that if this deal goes through, Obama will try to make the case that Republicans own the compromise bill as if they wrote it (because in part they did) and thereafter the terrible economy and the continuously exploding debt. If Republicans are so worried that Obama would successfully blame them for fallout from a ceiling impasse, why aren't they worried about being blamed if the compromise doesn't stop the growth of the debt, which it won't?

Indeed, no matter how inept Obama is at many things, he is a master at propaganda and negative campaigning. That's all he's got. The only policies he can bring himself to support cannot work. So as 2012 approaches, don't look for Obama to emphasize his record. Look for more deflection and scapegoating.

There is a historical parallel to Obama's approach. History professors agree that during his rise to power, Hitler built a coalition based on a negative assault on the Weimar Republic instead of a positive set of ideas or programs. His propaganda gurus introduced the idea of perpetual campaigning, in which they would focus on technique, not content.

In no other way am I comparing Obama to Nazis, but I am struck by the propaganda and campaigning parallels. Obama has no ideas except to foment phony crises, exploit real ones and demonize and scapegoat business, corporations, "the wealthy," insurance companies, oil companies, Republicans in general and -- President Bush.

Unlike some conservatives, I am confident that most people now see through Obama and are prepared to reject him as divisive, destructive and wholly without any solutions to our very serious problems. Republicans need to overcome the fear that now appears to be paralyzing them.

---

David Limbaugh is a writer, author and attorney. His latest book, "Crimes Against Liberty," was No. 1 on the New York Times best-seller list for nonfiction for its first two weeks. Follow him on Twitter @davidlimbaugh and his website at www.DavidLimbaugh.com.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 9.5/10 (39 votes cast)
Limbaugh: Obama Is Fresh Out of Ideas, 9.5 out of 10 based on 39 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

100 Comments

  1. inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
    August 2, 2011 @ 8:46 am

    So just when DID Obama and his Socialists ever have any real fiscal arrows in their quiver, or anything other than blanks in their economic government guns, in a wacky world of Blank Checks written against the non-collateral of Bankrupt Socialist ideas?

    Socialism has never created anything but Debt because the basic tenant of Socialism is the re-distribution of wealth, and the creation of Debt, not the creation of wealth. It is a Progressive propagation and empowerment of the weakling parasites sucking the lifeblood of the strong past the point of killing the very Host that enables them to live.

    It is time every American defines themselves as to which camp they belong. Are you a HOST who sets the table by working and earning for a living, or a Parasite who consumes the table and just VOTES for a living?

    LET THE AMERICAN EARNERS BE THE SPENDERS AND FEEDERS

    And let Hunger be the motivation for the parasites to reform before their “TAX the Rich class” of society suck us all dry of financial health and jobs.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (25 votes cast)
  2. onewildmanComment by onewildman
    August 2, 2011 @ 9:13 am

    Fresh out of ideas. When did Obama have an idea that wasn’t thought up and written down on a teleprompter so he could call it his own. Someone else does his thinking for him and they load him up and pull the string. he’s says stuff like “Tax the rich” or The rich don’t pay their share” oh and of coarse there is the ever popular “We need to compromise” for those who don’t know that statement means do what I want. There are many more I could list but don’t have time. 
     
    IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! !

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (20 votes cast)
    • uvajon97Comment by uvajon97
      August 2, 2011 @ 10:25 am

      IMPEACH OBAMA YESTERDAY!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (16 votes cast)
  3. Srini VaradarajanComment by Srini Varadarajan
    August 2, 2011 @ 10:16 am

    David, when did 0bama HAVE any original ideas?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (16 votes cast)
  4. mikehComment by mikeh
    August 2, 2011 @ 10:18 am

    If you remove “: Obama” from the headline it makes sense.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.6/5 (21 votes cast)
    • uvajon97Comment by uvajon97
      August 2, 2011 @ 10:56 am

      if u remove obama from the white house it would make much more sense

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (20 votes cast)
  5. librabobComment by librabob
    August 2, 2011 @ 11:09 am

    The GOP needs to learn rather quickly how to effectively use propaganda against their opponents in the upcoming elections. The Obama political machine should not be underestimated. He and his party are very good at frightening minorities and the elderly, deflecting blame and distorting truth. They have been very successful within their own party faithfuls in painting the Republican Party as extremists, racists and dangerous gun toting religious fanatics who only care about rich white people, Wall Street and Corporate America. You better believe that will be their only message in 2012. They will probably have a billion dollars to pound that theme home to the american people month after month. Their targets this time will be Hispanics, the elderly, women, union workers, the unemployed or underemployed, college kids and basically anyone who receives a monthly government check or pays no taxes. I just hope the GOP can come up with a good strategy to counter all the lies, distortions and fear tactics they will utilize. It’s going to get very very ugly in 2012!            

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (15 votes cast)
    • Liberty4310Comment by Liberty4310
      August 2, 2011 @ 11:44 am

      Yes, as long as our candidate isn’t a “gentleman” like John McCain.  We need someone hard hitting.  This above it all attitude has got to go.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (12 votes cast)
    • SapientComment by Sapient
      August 3, 2011 @ 4:10 pm

      Mikeh
      Re:  “What do the Norwegian “socialists” and the National “socialist” have in common. Hmmm, well they are both political parties, they are both European in origin, but neither seem relevant. Oddly enough, I think the official name of the Norwegian party isn’t even Socialist. But a bunch of folks on the BB have attached that badge.”

      Sorry, I couldn’t help but notice that you said a lot but did not answer the question…

      So, again, what do socialists of ALL stripes have in common…the sine qua non that separates them from all others…from capitalists, for example.  Surely there are common beliefs and principles…

      What is, for example, the source and purpose of government; of law, of morality, of human rights, property rights, equality, justice, etc?
      What is tyranny? What is freedom?

      In that view, how are they defined? where do these come from?

      You know, stuff like that?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 4:40 pm

      When we are talking about Norway and calling it “socialist” I think most of the rights and freedoms are pretty much the same as the US. They skew slightly more toward social rights and slightly further from individual rights as compared to the US as I understand it. My only personal experience is not with Norway, but another “socialist” country that used to be the model everybody pointed to as a success story. And there the differences in things like individual freedoms would be very recognizable to most Americans. There were a few variations here or there, day to day life would be pretty at home for most Americans. 

      “What is, for example, the source and purpose of government; of law, of morality, of human rights, property rights, equality, justice, etc?
      How are they defined? What is tyranny? What is freedom?”

      How do you answer a question like “what is freedom?” Justice? etc. Each one would take people much smarter than us months to give a decent answer. Some of my neighbors think blasting their music so loud that I can hear it in my house from two blocks away is “freedom.” Same goes with the meth-n-mullet Harley crowd who rattle my windows as they go by. But for me they are taking away my freedoms. Where do their freedoms end and mine begin?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • SapientComment by Sapient
      August 3, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

      Mikeh
      You see, we don’t have that problem here in the US.

      Our nation is designed around the truths that individual rights are bestowed upon us by our Creator when He gave us life itself.  Among those are the right to life, and with it the right to defend that life–ie self defense; the right to liberty; the pursuit of happiness; and the right to the product of life and effort..your property.

      Those are ABOVE the needs of others, even the majority to take away. They are inalienable, non negotiable.

      Government is instituted, by us, delegating to it, from us, the powers we deem it needs to enable us to enjoy the fruit of living together, and at the same time protect those God given individual rights. Its powers and responsibilities are delineated in the Constitution…a social compact.

      Freedom is ours, individually, respecting the freedoms of another.

      Tyranny is the use of delegated power for other than its delegated purposes.

      “A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either.” ~Thomas Paine, America’s Godfather.

      Now, that is the Conservative view…bet that is not the socialist view is it.

      The funny thing, is that we don’t mind telling people what we believe so they can evaluate it for what it is.

      So, you are up…

      God bless

      “You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man’s age-old dream — the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order — or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, “The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits.”
      - Ronald Reagan

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 6:10 pm

       
      God gave us rights that include “the right to protect your property?” Is that in the writings of any mainstream religion? And this Freedom, how is it that it was only bestowed upon some under law at the time of our founding? Was god not there in the beginning? And where was god before and after all that? So many millions enslaved, murdered tortured in ancient times into the recent past, why?

      This is a bit awkward but it seems some of my beliefs are closer to formal Christian positions than many here. And as you probably guessed, I’m not. But just as an example here’s a few newsbites from the world’s larges Christian group

      “Benedict XVI criticizes the “cruelty” of capitalism and colonialism and the power of the wealthy over the poor in his first book as pope released on Friday.”

      Or: The St. Gabriel Possenti Society, a Virginia-based organization devoted to protecting the individual’s right to self-defense, criticized statements by Archbishop Celestino Migliore, the Holy See’s representative at the UN, endorsing “the promotion of disarmament” and calling for stiffer international controls on the sale and possession of firearms.

      Or: Pope Benedict XVI called on world governments, at his international papal conference at the Vatican, to insure universal access to health care, which he described as an “inalienable right”. The Pontiff decried the great inequalities in health care which he perceived to exist in many parts of the world, and said that a moral obligation exists to provide at least minimum levels of care for all people, regardless of a person’s status or ability to pay.

      Of course many of the values espoused as mainstream on all sorts of topics are full of contradiction:

      *The US is all about freedom but slaves were legal for over a century
      *Guns will keep us free but we had slaves for over a century
      *The founders were all about capitalism (even before Adam Smith!), but somehow forgot and made the post office an official monopoly
      *Socialism is antisemitic but was pretty much thought up by and popular with Jews   etc etc.
       

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  6. mikehComment by mikeh
    August 2, 2011 @ 11:10 am

    Impeach him for what? Because you don’t like him?

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.7/5 (12 votes cast)
    • Mort_fComment by Mort_f
      August 2, 2011 @ 11:37 am

      There is a long litany of charges that can and should be applied. Basically it is failure to uphold the Laws of this country, and specifically to go beyond just ignoring the laws.Malfeasance is an appropriate term.

      A partial list would include his Libya actions, his thumbing his nose at the Defense of Marriage Act, the ATF fiasco, the Black panthers in Philadelphis, funding declared terrorist organizations,etc. Not a day goes by that HE or his lackeys play a game with Constitutionally mandated laws.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (18 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 2, 2011 @ 11:56 am

      He has violated the War powers act for one. Their are many more, this is the most recent one. But being a liberal you will most likely refuse to believe. just like your refusal to admit that blogs were full of people calling for Bush and Cheney to die. Even Bil Maher and Anderson Cooper made comments that wished death to Bush. i have not been to any liberal blogs that were not full of hate and death wishes for Bush, Cheney and Palin.
       
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.7/5 (14 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 2, 2011 @ 11:56 am

      Hey Mort,

      There are lots of Republicans, and huge wealthy interests that want to bring Obama down. So why isn’t the Supreme Court involved in judging his extra-constitutional activities? They lean right of center, and there is plenty of money on the other side for lawyers. Perhaps only readers of this BB know the real truth?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.0/5 (8 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 2, 2011 @ 11:59 am

      Mr Onewildman,

      I will concede you one thing, I suspect there were blogs wishing death upon Bush. I just never saw any of them. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.0/5 (8 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 2, 2011 @ 12:02 pm

      mikeh you’re ignorance shows. The Supreme Court dose not have the job of going out and look for cases they have to work their way through the system.
       
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.6/5 (10 votes cast)
    • Liberty4310Comment by Liberty4310
      August 2, 2011 @ 12:03 pm

      micah, your Supreme Court reference confirms that you are ignorant.  The court cannot simply decide to take sides in the absence of someone bringing a case to the court and that doesn’t happen until an issue has worked its way up through lower courts via the appeals process.  I suggest you read up on civics before spouting off.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (10 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      August 2, 2011 @ 2:37 pm

      Once Obama is out of office and we can find just where our $787 billion in lost stimulus money went ,the heads will begin to roll, starting with the Community Organ Grinders pet monkey Joe Biden who was trusted with the Job of seeing it was well placed, then Obama himself for malfeasance in office. Just follow the money! Just follow how a poverty stricken community organizer rises to millionaire in a matter of 4 years without have a real job.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (10 votes cast)
  7. Liberty4310Comment by Liberty4310
    August 2, 2011 @ 11:57 am

    By failing to stand fast for either the Paul Ryan plan or Cut, Cap and Balance, the Republicans gave up the high ground.  If they believe this milk toast compromise that passed will enable them to fight another day, they are dreaming.  The fact is, rightly or wrongly, the Republicans will be blamed for any economic failures in the next year and a half and many will suffer at the ballot box.  By failing to stand fast, they blew their chances to succeed.

    The Democrats in general, and Obama in particular, are expert propagandists.  Of course, their ideas are so simple that they lend themselves to easy sound bites.  They seem to have a think tank making up the daily talking points and every one of them runs with them.  Republicans have never been enough in tune with each other to come up with similar talking points or sound bites and they wouldn’t follow through if there was such a think tank.  I genuinly fear for the future of this country.  It isn’t a pretty picture.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (14 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 2, 2011 @ 12:08 pm

      Liberty, I’m going to disagree with you in perhaps a more flattering way than I usually disagree with folks on this BB. The ONE THING the right has had going for it was they had a pretty simple unified message. Basically as I see the US right wing’s philosophy will fit on a bumper sticker. Government is bad* *except defense and maybe SS and my one pet program. You ever see any of these nutjob liberal bumper stickers? You’ll see a rusty 1993 Suburu covered in stickers that look more like an eye chart. If you had the five minutes to read them all you’d be simultaneously confused, disgusted and annoyed that you wasted five minutes of your life!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.3/5 (6 votes cast)
  8. SapientComment by Sapient
    August 2, 2011 @ 12:40 pm

    David
    Good piece, except for:

    Re: “All of which is to say — with added emphasis — that Obama is fresh out of ideas. Worse, he’s the immovable force standing in the way of those who do have constructive proposals.”

    I could not disagree more.

    You of all people have documented who and what this guy is, and know also that there is another valid explanation for what we see–other than that he is out of ideas, is inept, etc… That explanation is simply that Obama and his ilk have many workable ideas, they just happen to be consistently destructive ones for America…not bad ones mind you, destructive ones.

    Name one that hasn’t been to some degree or another.

    Obama etal are struggling to implement those destructive ideas and policies in spite of the resistance they meet. What they implement, works quite well…its destructive. A little bit or a lot.

    Conservatives have said many times over, “Liberals need to grow up. This is a dangerous world and America has enemies.”

    Well, its now time for Conservatives to grow up and realize all of that is true, and one of those enemies is sitting in the White House.

    God speed

    Arch villain Goldfinger to Agent 007 James Bond: “In Chicago, Mr. Bond, they have a saying: once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, the third time is enemy action.”

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (8 votes cast)
    • SapientComment by Sapient
      August 3, 2011 @ 3:48 pm

      Mikeh

      Re:  “So Sapient, are you trying to say that there s a relevant correlation between the Norwegian Labor Party aka “socialists” who were just victims of a terror attack and the NAZI’s beyond the name “socialist.” Is the correlation relevant in an argument? ”

      The question is not how two groups might differ, but what they have in common.

      So, you tell me…

      What does one have to believe to be correctly identified by the name socialist?  What core beliefs and principles do these two groups, or any other, have in common that enable them to be correctly identified by that appellation…and in fact, one that they chose to present themselves to the world?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 4:05 pm

      What do the Norwegian “socialists” and the National “socialist” have in common. Hmmm, well they are both political parties, they are both European in origin, but neither seem relevant. Oddly enough, I think the official name of the Norwegian party isn’t even Socialist. But a bunch of folks on the BB have attached that badge. 

      I think on a far right of center board like this, the attempt is similar to the Reductio ad Hitlerum use …. basically guilt by association. In the context of US politics “socialism” is used to paint countries, politicians and ideas with what we used to refer to as socialist back in the cold war days. So when somebody says socialist here, they are thinking run down, poor, repressed, not democratically elected, inefficient like the photos they saw of rural USSR in National Geo. Where as the truth in some cases like Scandinavia by most measures they score better than even the US.

      But it’s hard for many on the right to admit that a country they want to paint as “socialist” looks pretty good. Clean, well kept, very free and democratic, with good public services, lower crime etc. It’s important to make sure people not see these examples because they might get the idea to try them here. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.3/5 (3 votes cast)
  9. esltcherComment by esltcher
    August 2, 2011 @ 1:54 pm

    There is a historical parallel to Obama’s approach. History professors agree that during his rise to power, Hitler built a coalition based on a negative assault on the Weimar Republic instead of a positive set of ideas or programs. His propaganda gurus introduced the idea of perpetual campaigning, in which they would focus on technique, not content.
    In no other way am I comparing Obama to Nazis, but I am struck by the propaganda and campaigning parallels. Obama has no ideas except to foment phony crises, exploit real ones and demonize and scapegoat business, corporations, “the wealthy,” insurance companies, oil companies, Republicans in general and — President Bush.

    Well, if you are not trying to compare Obama to Hitler and the Nazis, why bring it up.  You wanted it in there to manipulate minds as you accuse President Obama of doing.  Find a better example that does not inflame those of us who actually had long gone relatives and friends who lived during that era.  You wrecked your whole commentary, which was so good, with this, in my opinion.  Really, be ashamed of yourself.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 1.6/5 (7 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 2, 2011 @ 2:08 pm

      Agreed. All this name calling is sounding bi-polar. One minute the other side is being compared to NAZIs, the next minute it muslin loving communists. 

      Aside from being offensive, it shows how little some people understand….NAZIs were on the RIGHT, communists on the LEFT. Islamic fundamentalists hate godless communists and find some sympathy with Christians, and practicing Jews who share alot. If I pull all of the insults thrown at me here together I think I’d end up being a Godless Jewish Socialist Norwegian Communist who loves muslins and gays (alright I added a few extras in there for effect, but you get the idea.) 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.6/5 (7 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 2, 2011 @ 2:11 pm

      esltcher, The truth is the truth and Obama is using the same techniques as Hitler and you can’t change that fact only Obama can. The only person who should be ashamed is Obama and all his liberal friends and the mainstream media. 
       
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (8 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 2, 2011 @ 2:23 pm

      Mr Wildman,

      What????! Obama and Hitler are on the same path?!

      Let’s see, they both financed the building of freeways I guess. But aside from that the things that made Hitler such an awful chapter in human history was largely….well genocide. Killing of millions of innocent people. Most of them a convenient scapegoats: ethnic minorities (Jews and Roma), and opposing political groups (mostly communists and  socialists who were Jew friendly, as well as some other smaller groups like monarchists, Jehova’s witness etc.)

      Do you really think that Obama is going to start sending off Jews to gas chambers? Or invade communist countries and kill or enslave them (not many left really anyhow)?!  

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.8/5 (5 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 2, 2011 @ 3:49 pm

      Mikeh, First Obama has financed no new freeways. Second Nazis were socialist not conservatives as you have stated showing again your ignorance of history. The National Socialist German Workers Party were the Nazis. Look it up for yourself. Obama is following the same political path. Demonize those who disagree with you, national health plan his desire to take away gun rights. I never compared Obama to Hitler only the politics and they way he operates. but people like you always try to twist a different meaning from peoples statements.
        The last statement also show your childishness by making ludicrous comments.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.4/5 (8 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 2, 2011 @ 4:28 pm

      Mr Wildman,

      Who were the victims of the Hitler regime? The did call themselves the NAZI party- short for National Socialist, that is true. But they led from the right on Nationalism, against ethnic minorities. They killed off Jews, (associated with the left in Europe, just as they are here in the US), they also killed off many of their indigenous Communists and Socialists in addition to those they could kill or enslave while conquering large parts of Europe.

      Socialist, as hard as it is for you folks to believe, was once a very popular label. Think of it like Democracy was until recently. Another example might be to ask you what Irish Republicans have in common with the US Republican party. The “Irish” part in front makes the “Republican” mean something entirely different.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.6/5 (7 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 2, 2011 @ 4:39 pm

      mikeh the only people who ever thought socialism was a good name were the fools who tried and failed. No Nazis did not rule from the right. people on the right think for themselves that was not acceptable thing to do you were told what to think and do. If not you were arrested and or killed. Due to contrary belief there is no such thing as a right wing Nazi, that is pure bull made up by liberals who want to disguise the fact that socialism was the Nazi political system.
       I would to say I have been to Europe and find it funny that for such a great place as you seam to think it is there are tens of thousands of them that enter the visa lotto to come to America. Maybe you should move there since you think its so great.
       
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.5/5 (8 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 2, 2011 @ 4:53 pm

      Mr Wildman,

      If you don’t believe me, just take a look at the US Holocaust Museum’s info. I pasted a snippet below. 

      The US even was home to some famous Communists who escaped NAZI Germany, for example Berthold Brecht. And as stupid as many of you may think communists and socialists must be there have been a number of well regarded Americans who have worn those titles. For example a couple of well known secular German-American Jews like Albert Einstein or J Robert Oppenheimer. Hard to call either of them dumb.

      ————
      (from the US Holocaust Museum)
       The brutal treatment of Soviet POWs by the Germans violated every standard of warfare. Existing sources suggest that some 5.7 million Soviet army personnel fell into German hands during World War II. As of January 1945, the German army reported that only about 930,000 Soviet POWs remained in German custody. The German army released about one million Soviet POWs as auxiliaries of the German army and the SS. About half a million Soviet POWs had escaped German custody or had been liberated by the Soviet army as it advanced westward through eastern Europe into Germany. The remaining 3.3 million, or about 57 percent of those taken prisoner, were dead by the end of the war. Second only to the Jews, Soviet prisoners of war were the largest group of victims of Nazi racial policy.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.8/5 (5 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 3, 2011 @ 8:27 am

      mikeh, First communism and socialism are not the same thing on top of that there are two kinds of communism. The first Communism with a capital “C” which is a form of government the second communism spelled with a lower case “c” is a form  economics. Hitler was afraid of Communism because it promotes violent overthrow of the government to become Communism also known as Marxist Communism. That still does not change things Nazis were socialist. Pre-Nazi Germany was conservative but that changed with Hitler.
       
       You can search the internet and you will not find that Hitler being described as a conservative except by people like you who had poor history education. you will find scores of information about Nazi Germany being a socialist form of government with a dictator.
       
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 10:37 am

      Here’s a famous quote you may have already heard:

      First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

      At least from where I sit, all those groups are *not* conservative. 

      (taken from the Virtual Jewish Library, full text below:)

       Martin Niemoeller(1892-1984)Martin Niemoeller was a Protestant pastor born January 14, 1892, in Lippstadt, Westphalia. He was a submarine commander in World War I. He was anti-communist and initially supported the Nazis until the church was made subordinate to state authority.In 1934, he started the Pastors’ Emergency League to defend the church. Hitler became angered by Niemoeller’s rebellious sermons and popularity and had him arrested on July 1, 1937. He was tried the following year and sentenced to seven months in prison and fined.After his release, Hitler ordered him arrested again. he spent the next seven years in concentration camps in “protective custody.“ He was liberated in 1945 and was elected President of the Protestant church in Hesse and Nassau in 1947. He held the title until 1964. He was also a President of the World Council of Churches in the 1960’s.Niemoeller was a pacifist who spoke out against nuclear weapons. He is best known for his powerful statement about the failure of Germans to speak out against the Nazis:“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”He died in Wiesbaden on March 6, 1984.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.5/5 (2 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 3, 2011 @ 11:11 am

      mikeh Hitler only arrested political members who were against his polices. One statement by one person doesn’t represent all the things that were happening.  All the written history says you are wrong and have a very distorted of history and no knowledge of the truth. You can find thousands of papers written by historians about Hitler and they all concur that Hitler was a socialist.
       
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 11:58 am

      So Hitler was a Socialist like Obama? Got it. Despite my ethnicity, race and politics, I’m not afraid Obama is going to send me or anybody else to the gas ovens. Some folks are just so teeming with hate for Obama, they have to put Hitler together in the same sentence. Hitler is like Obama because the both like sauerkraut? Who cares. The narrative of Hitler is he KILLED MILLIONS OF INNOCENT PEOPLE. Obama will not do the same, there’s no reasoned way to combine the two. I too love sauerkraut and beer, I once owned a VW beetle, took photos on Agfa film etc….those aren’t the important lessons of Hitler’s atrocities. 
       You say all historians call Hitler a socialist? He called himself a National Socialist: part of the right wing. The things the US right didn’t historically like about the left were not liked by Hitler or the NAZIs: gays, women’s equality, minorities, pacifism, tolerance of other religions, basically liberalism. Some of that has softened in the last few decades. And again, I have no fear that GWB was going to feed Americans into gas ovens. He wasn’t a NAZI. He wasn’t like a NAZI. He was a very bad president. And I’d even go so far as to compliment him on one minor thing, that he tried to stop the right from attacking American Muslims after the 11 Sep. Attacks.
      Below are a few summaries from Google Book Search for Hitler and “Right Wing”, oddly enough there were thousands of results : (had to remove them, as this site blocks the text I pasted)

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 12:29 pm

      Conservative vrs Liberal

      Just to clarify, the way I think we all see the two divided is like this

      (generally) the left or liberal view is

      more tolerant of minorities
      more tolarant of immigration
      less interested in military power
      are not as opposed to homosexuality
      think women should work at the same jobs as men
      believe in closer social equality
      less friendly to big business
      less averse to high taxes (at least in recent years- in US)
      less likely to be religious and are more likely if they are to be non-Christian
      more forgiving of crime and criminals
      favoring more and sometimes extremely strong gun control
      generally more ok with more government

      ———————–

      Right, or conservatives are (generally)
      more likely to be religious especially Christian
      more likely to oppose taxes
      less tolerant of crime and willing to take extreme actions against criminals
      less tolerant of immigration
      favoring larger military and more use of it
      favoring private gun ownership with little or no oversight 
      think women should not hold certain jobs, and are ok that pay isn’t equal for the same work
      generally think government should be smaller

      Do you all agree?

       Of course in general we think of the right and conservatives being represented in the US by the Republican Party, and the left and liberals by the Democratic Party (that having been said, generally a liberal like me would rather vote for a Republican from Vermont then a Democrat from parts of the rural South.)

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Mort_fComment by Mort_f
      August 3, 2011 @ 1:10 pm

      At one time I would have considered myself a Liberal, but then that descriptive word was bastardized to have lost its original meaning.

      Liberal should mean ‘do your thing, and let me do mine’. As long as you do not encroach on my space, I will not encroach on yours. And as a ‘liberal’, I will absolutely defend your rights to operate as you see fit. The only restriction should be that it is within the bounds of the US Constitution.

      As a ‘Liberal’, I believe that the USA can accept a population increase by immigration, but by controlled immigration. Meaning that we can absorb a certain amount each year. But we should not allow flagrant violations. As a sympathetic ‘liberal’ we should allow exceptions when dire straits are evident and proven.

      As a ‘Liberal’ homosexuality is just another ‘so what’. I measure persons by their own relationship to me. Again, ‘do your own thing’. I am neither offended, nor threatened by it. But I have no use for the government telling me what I can, or cannot, do or think.

      The female sex? They can be an Amazon or a dilletante. It is up to them, individually. Again, keep government out of it.

      Religion? Very simply, you have yours, and I have mine. Possibly the two will never meet. But religion should be strictly a private matter. I absolutely object to government funding of ‘faith based charities’. I will go even further in proposing that religions should not be exempt from taxation. Just think of all those religion owned properties that are off the tax rolls.

      On one of that list I will agree. He who governs least, governs best. Is that ‘Liberal’ or ‘Conservative’. As I said, the dictionary definitions have lost their meaning.

      And to mikeh, He who will not see is blinder than He who cannot see.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 1:18 pm

      Funny, we actually agree on a few things! However the spouting out Hitler, NAZI, and socialist- those seem to have lost their meanings too, just like Liberal and Conservative. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • SapientComment by Sapient
      August 3, 2011 @ 1:29 pm

      Mikeh

      Re:  “Funny, we actually agree on a few things! However the spouting out Hitler, NAZI, and socialist- those seem to have lost their meanings too, just like Liberal and Conservative.” 

      The problem is that those terms have not lost their meaning at all. They have very specific definitions. Always have, and still do.

      There are now, and always have been, those who attempt to distort and camouflage those meanings so the world might forget that they are all cut from the same bolt of Godless cloth,

      You may rest assured there are many of us who are old enough to not only remember what these things really are, but have seen them up close and personal. We are not fooled by what you say.

      Not on my watch you don’t.

      2+2=4
      “This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.” –Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 3, 2011 @ 2:13 pm

      mikeh you are the most juvenile person I have dealt with on this site. you argument have all the substance of a twelve year old. First I never compared Obama to Hitler just the style of politics. Hitlers choice to send Jews and others to death camps has nothing to do with socialism it was the personal choice of a mad man. For some reason you think socialism means killing Jews. I realized that you just don’t like the truth because it doesn’t fit in with your world view. No matter how much you try to distort the truth it has not changed, just as the definition of socialism and conservatism have not changed.
       
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 2:27 pm

      I’m juvenile? I didn’t start comparing a BLACK DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED US PRESIDENT to Hitler, a tyrant who murdered millions of racial minorities!

       Reductio ad Hitlerum

      From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaReductio ad Hitlerum, also argumentum ad Hitlerum, (Latin for “reduction to” and “argument to” and dog Latin for “Hitler” respectively) is an ad hominem or ad misericordiam argument, and is an informal fallacy. It is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone’s origin rather than its current meaning or context. The suggested logic is one of guilt by association, a classic confusion of correlation and causality, as if to say that anything that Adolf Hitler did, no one else should do, for it will obviously or eventually lead to genocide.Its name is a pun on reductio ad absurdum, and was coined by an academic ethicist, Leo Strauss, in 1953. Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card,[1] by analogy to playing the race card. The tactic is often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.[1] 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.3/5 (3 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 2:53 pm

      If Obama is being compared to NAZIs, and we are scared of “socialist” Norway such labels really are useless! 

      Sapient wrote:

      “The problem is that those terms have not lost their meaning at all. They have very specific definitions. Always have, and still do”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • SapientComment by Sapient
      August 3, 2011 @ 3:06 pm

      Mikeh

      Re:  “If Obama is being compared to NAZIs, and we are scared of “socialist” Norway such labels really are useless! ”

      Useless, unless socialism and Nazism have the same roots, and the same historical tendency toward the same ultimate end–then it would be precisely diagnostic.

      Now, just so I know, you wouldn’t be one of those folks that believes we no longer need to learn from history would you? Or are the elite among us so enlighten that we can just ignore those lessons and forge ahead?

      FWIW:

      “We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution.  The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents.  They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle.  We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.”  James Madison’s  Memorial and Remonstrance (1785)

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 3:40 pm

      So Sapient, are you trying to say that there s a relevant correlation between the Norwegian Labor Party aka “socialists” who were just victims of a terror attack and the NAZI’s beyond the name “socialist.” Is the correlation relevant in an argument? 

      The lessons I take away from the NAZI regime isn’t that they were too tolerant to an unpopular minority, or too peaceful to their neighbors. Frankly they seem to behave as polar opposites. I don’t think the Norwegian “socialists” are killing anybody, their handicapped are well taken care of by the state, Jews are welcome there, they don’t have any territorial ambitions outside their recognized border. How different could the two “socialists” be?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 3, 2011 @ 4:01 pm

      mikeh, First off I never compared Obama to Hitler I compared his style of politics. You are the one who keeps comparing Obama to Hitler. Second Obama is not Black he is half black and half white. Third i did not use the Nazi card as you refer to and it was Political historians who made the comparison of Hitlers style of politics to Obamas style of politics they both are thugs and used thug tactics and demonize anyone who disagreed with them.
       By the way Hitler was democratically elected and was not a member of the German Conservative party. “Engaging in this fallacy is sometimes known as playing the Nazi card,[1] by analogy to playing the race card. The tactic is often used to derail arguments, because such comparisons tend to distract and anger the opponent.[1]” . This is what the liberals did in the sixties to smear and slander republican. One more tidbit for yo Marten Luther King was a Republican. He would not be a member of the slaver party (Democrats). Republicans didn’t need any arm twisting to pass the equal rights act or the voting act. The democrats on the other hand were against it and LBJ had to twist arms to get them on board. Check out the numbers for yourself.
       You keep accusing people of saying things that were not in their comments. quit putting words in other peoples comments that simply not there. One more thing using the capitals to shout out your message so how juvenile you really are. 
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 4:18 pm

      Wildman- you think the only other person in human history with a political style similar to Obama is the one responsible for the most mass murder in human history?!  

      you wrote:
      “You keep accusing people of saying things that were not in their comments. ”

      you also wrote
      “First off I never compared Obama to Hitler I compared his style of politics.”

      Right there in the second sentance you are comparing Obama to Hitler. Obama’s style of politics to Hitler’s. What else are you going to compare with Obama and Hitler, their hair? Their taste in music? It doesn’t matter beyond
      what else you throw in a statement if you include Hitler you are guilt guilt by association.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Comment by LuLu
      August 3, 2011 @ 4:20 pm

      Let’s take a closer look at socialist Norway and anti-Semitism.
       
      Wikipedia does a pretty good job with the long and ugly history of anti-Semitism in Norway.  It’s shocking.
      See it here.
       
      For a recent modern day example we can turn to liberal activist Alan Dershowitz.
       
      Norway to Jews: You’re Not Welcome Here
       
      For a self examination let’s go to Norway Voices.
       
      Anti-Semitism in Norway – 3

      And
       
      Anti-Semitism in Norway -1
       
      Remember Hitler’s youth?  Take a good look at this.
       
       
      Summer Camp? Antisemitic Indoctrination Training Center
       
      A simple Google search will render hundreds of articles on current problems with anti-Semitism in socialist Scandinavian and European countries. Anti-Semitism is rising worldwide, including here in America, so it seems appropriate to take a look at these movements and compare them, rather than US politicians, to Hitler’s Germany.

      Something very ugly, that has been seen before, is on the rise in Norway.

      mikey, you have served a purpose after all. I knew this was going on in Europe but Scandinavia has been off my radar screen. It won’t be in future.

       
       

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 3, 2011 @ 4:39 pm

      Mikeh you really are dense. You know I was in no comparing Obama the person with Hitler the person. You seem to think they are the same thing and they are not. You continue to put words in your comments that I did not say. “Wildman- you think the only other person in human history with a political style similar to Obama is the one responsible for the most mass murder in human history?!” I never said that, you did. people here say what they mean and do not have any hidden message. You can’t handle the truth so you put words that people have not written in post. Look at the ratings people give you. They don’t give low ratings because you are liberal they give you low ratings because you don’t have a clue of what you are talking about.
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Comment by LuLu
      August 3, 2011 @ 4:49 pm

      Then there is this from a Norwegian source….
       

      Oslo – Norwegian Lawmaker Denies Holocaust

      Oslo – A Norwegian Labour Party Sami MP has caused outrage within his own ranks by denying that the Holocaust ever happened. Fellow politicians are calling for the resignation of Anders Mathisen, who is advocating changing history books after apparently spending months researching WWII concentration camps.
      “There is no evidence the gas chambers or mass graves existed. Even reputable Holocaust historians have admitted it cannot be established,” Mathisen told the Finnmarken newspaper , while challenging readers to prove that his views are inaccurate.

       
      And this
       

      Mathisen showed no remorse for his comments on his Facebook page, writing that he is proud to call himself an anti-Semite if it means “not accepting lies and nonsense”. In addition, he has separately claimed that the public has been brainwashed into the believing in the Holocaust by films like Schindler’s List.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 5:05 pm

      Jews are officially welcome in Norway. There are very few of them and they are well integrated. Anti-antisemitism has been a problem in much of the world. Blaming “socialism” in general for anti-antisemitism is pretty silly. For example Israel has a “socialist” Labor Party. When I think of Yiddish in America, my first thought is of the Socialist Paper Forwaerts that I think is still printed. 

      oh, and here’s a snippet about Jews and liberal causes:

      The term “Jewish left” describes Jews who identify with or support left wing, occasionally liberal causes, consciously as Jews, either as individuals or through organizations. There is no one organization or movement which constitutes the “Jewish left,” however. Jews have been major forces in the history of the labor movement, the Settlement house movement, the women’s rights movement, anti-racist work, and anti-fascist organizing of many forms in Europe, the United States and modern-day Israel.The Jewish people have a rich history of involvement in socialism, Marxism, and Western liberalism. Although the expression “on the left” covers a range of politics, many well-known figures “on the left” have been of Jews, for instance, Karl Marx, Moses Hess, Herbert Marcuse, Murray Bookchin, Saul Alinsky, Tristan Tzara, Leon Trotsky, Leon Blum, Judith Butler, Noam Chomsky, Eric Hobsbawm, Harold Laski, Betty Friedan, Abbie Hoffman, or Howard Zinn, who were born into Jewish families and have various degrees of connection to Jewish communities, Jewish culture, Jewish tradition or the Jewish religion in its many variants. It also includes such people as rabbis Michael Lerner and Arthur Waskow: religiously devout and culturally identified Jews. It includes as well many secular, cosmopolitan people who nonetheless remain connected to Jewish culture, such as Rosa Luxemburg, Emma Goldman, Rose Schneiderman, Muriel Rukeyser and Susan Sontag. Views regarding Zionism among those either identified or self-identified as being among the Jewish left can be quite varied, and are often independent of their other political and social views.While there is a slight increase of Jews “on the left” connecting their politics to their spirituality,[citation needed] this is a somewhat new phenomenon, when contrasted with the long history of secular socialist and communist Jewish activist history (e.g., The Workmen’s Circle/Arbeter Ring) as well as Jewish anarchist activism which was not only explicitly secular but had from time to time denounced religion. From the late 1880s through the mid-1950s, there was a range of Jewish left newspapers (and other publications) in Yiddish that covered the spectrum of Jewish left-wing political and cultural expression in Eastern and Central Europe, as well as both North and South America, and in Mandate Palestine’s Yishuv, as well as the early years of the State of Israel. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • Comment by LuLu
      August 3, 2011 @ 5:54 pm

      Socialist mikey says Jews are ‘officially’ welcome in wonderful, socialist Norway.
       
      Ha! They better not let their guard down in a country that has a party dedicated to the PLO and working hard to educate the country’s youth in anti-Semitism.
       
      Now mikey, it’s you that keep holding up socialism as the perfect form of government and Norway as the perfect example.  This political party and this anti-Semetic attitude have a big part in Norway.

      You can post all the BS you want but it isn’t blowing anyone away. You are the least able troll I’ve ever seen posting here. You just keep laying trap after trap for yourself. You best go back to the re-education camp and take a few more classes.
       

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • SapientComment by Sapient
      August 3, 2011 @ 6:03 pm

      Mikeh
      Re:  “Aside from being offensive, it shows how little some people understand….NAZIs were on the RIGHT, communists on the LEFT.”

      How is it that Naziism is on the Right, when the Right is for small government, non intrusive limited government, and inalienable individual rights, the very opposite of Naziism / National SOCIALISM?

      That little ditty was exposed long ago as untrue.  Nazism and Communism / Socialism have MUCH in common with each other, and NOTHING in common with the right.
       
      Try again.
       

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 9:32 pm

      Lulu,

      I have a sneaking suspicion you are not “a member of the tribe” and afraid to visit or live in Norway. If you find a place without antisemitism let me know. Bonus points for no other bigotry. Guess we already know there is some bigotry in Norway, as some here blame the victims, the left and Muslims were killed en masse to what seems like a cheering American right wing.

      Might be worth noting that places like Saudi Arabia have ZERO Jewish citizens, and ZERO representation of any form of “socialism”. Perhaps more than a coincidence. Don’t think that fundamentalist Islamic state is very fond of Communism either.

      The European leaders of Jewish heritage I can think of off the top of my head are also Socialists, (with a big S) like Gregor Gysi formerly of the SED later turning into the PDS, or (had to look this name up to remind me) mayor Solomon in Freiburg of the Green Party (if you call Dems “socialists” Green has to count too, right?)

      Lulu, do all these Jewish “socialists” hate themselves, or what’s your take on why Jews invent “scientific socialism” endorse various forms of leftist politics for millennia? From the way you talk I’d expect folks the likes of Einstein and Oppenheimer to campaign for Reagan (if they were alive.) But both were members of “socialist” (actually should have used the big S for that?) parties. Of the few public Jewish politicians of note in Europe are as best as I know on the left (I could be wrong, I don’t know many.) 

      And here in the US, the so despised politicians on the BB like Barbara Boxer, and Dianne Feinstein are also from the left and of Jewish background. Italy has swung pretty hard to the right – but they don’t seem particularly Jewish friendly. Is there a Yiddish language newspaper for the right in the US? The Socialists (with a big S) have published a Socialist newspaper in that Germanic dialect peppered with Hebrew and written with Hebrew letters for over a century if memory serves.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.3/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Comment by LuLu
      August 3, 2011 @ 10:26 pm

      Yes, we are gradually uncovering the ugly side of socialism and Norway as people respond to your posts with facts.
       
      No need to sneak with suspicion. I am not Jewish and I cannot explain the psychology of Jewish liberals. I suspect no one can really explain a liberal without following the religion of liberalism also.
       
      Several conservative Jewish friends have offered a couple of explanations, the main thrust being a desire by liberal Jews to distance themselves from their heritage in an effort to appease their persecutors, perhaps an unconscious effort.
       
      An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.  Of course, it eats him anyway, last or not. 
       
      Yes, we can agree that Norway is probably less anti-Semetic than Saudi.  Now, there’s another thing you can tout in favor of socialist Norway. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 4, 2011 @ 12:10 pm

      Lulu,

      As for Anti antisemitism in Norway .. honestly I think our problem here is that you and many others here want to bring down Norway because they are the closest thing to the old socialism you were familiar with. Correct me if I’m wrong, but were you concerned with antisemitism in Norway last month before we had this discussion? Or did we get in an argument here and then you went down a list of things you might be able to find wrong with the place? Did you look up the crime stats and life expectancy and other indicators and realize they looked really good, then look for other issues?

      Frankly I’ve been seriously puzzled by the newly found friendship the US right has found in the Jewish people. Jews in the US overwhelmingly vote democratic and have for many decades. Jews were drastically disproportionately represented in the real Socialist (with a big S) and Communist (with  a big C) movements in the US. Many of the big names who once wore the title of Socialist in the US you’d recognize as Jewish (as posted previously.)

      The US right is quick to point to Israel as an example for all sorts of things, but for some reason I never hear about Israel’s “socialist” health care from your side, or any of the other very “socialist” programs that are also very common in Europe.

      For example, those links you sent, you can find blog after blog of antisemitic problems around the world that include the US. Here’s a blurb for example (and I could just keep going if you want) United States Main article: Antisemitism in the United StatesSee also: History of antisemitism in the United States.According to an Anti-Defamation League survey, 14 percent of U.S. residents had antisemitic views. The 2005 survey found that “35 percent of foreign-born Hispanics” and “36 percent of African-Americans hold strong antisemitic beliefs, four times more than the 9 percent for whites”.[72]On April 3, 2006, the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights announced its finding that incidents of antisemitism are a “serious problem” on college campuses throughout the United States. The Commission recommended that the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights protect college students from antisemitism through vigorous enforcement of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and further recommended that Congress clarify that Title VI applies to discrimination against Jewish students.[73]On September 19, 2006, Yale University founded the Yale Initiative for the Interdisciplinary Study of Anti-Semitism (YIISA), the first North American university-based center for study of the subject, as part of its Institution for Social and Policy Studies. Director Charles Small of the Center cited the increase in antisemitism worldwide in recent years as generating a “need to understand the current manifestation of this disease”.[74] In June 2011, Yale voted to close this initiative. After carrying out a routine review, the faculty review committee said that the initiative had not met its research and teaching standards. Donald Green, who heads Yale’s Institution for Social and Policy Studies, the body under whose aegis the antisemitism initiative was run, said that it had not had many papers published in the relevant leading journals or attracted many students. As with other programs that had been in a similar situation, the initiative had therefore been cancelled.[75][76] This decision has been criticized by figures such as former U.S. Commission on Civil Rights Staff Director Kenneth L. Marcus, who is now the director of the Initiative to Combat Anti-Semitism and Anti-Israelism in America’s Educational Systems at the Institute for Jewish and Community Research, and Deborah Lipstadt, who described the decision as “weird” and “strange.”[77] Antony Lerman has supported Yale’s decision, describing the YIISA as a politicized initiative that was devoted to the promotion of Israel rather than to serious research on antisemitism.[78]A 2009 study published in Boston Review found that nearly 25 percent of non-Jewish Americans blamed Jews for the financial crisis of 2008–2009, with a higher percentage among Democrats than Republicans.[79 

      Calling people and countries “socialist” over and over again doesn’t tell the story. Is everything perfect anywhere? No. Is the US the best at everything? No. Is the US the worst place ever? Hell no. Could we learn from the way successful countries do things- we sure should try!

      Funny thing is that most everybody here on this BB all they can do is in one way or another shout “socialist” at everything. If I were on your side of the argument be pointing out some relevant facts, that a rational person could concede to. It is nearly impossible to paint Norway as a bad place. But you could point to less successful places that were socialist. You could also rightfully point out that Norway is a tiny nation and part of their prosperity is based on an oil boom. That’s not a model we can emulate. But you’d be hard pressed to say their social or physical infrastructure is inferior to ours. Things like health figures aren’t just made up. The murder rate really is just a fraction of that of the US, etc. 

      When you looked at the list of how a country performs Norway does really well at most everything. You might not like the weather, or the food, or the nightlife. But saying you’d be safer (on average) in the US would be false (from crime or accident or other risk), saying you’d live shorter (on average) would also be false.  Of course there are exceptions to the average of everything: I’m sure that thousands of Japanese (who live very long healthy lives on average) die at 50 years. There’s just enough of them who live even longer to make the average so high.

      And whenever I post facts here, all I seem to get is name calling back. Do people live longer in Norway? Are there fewer murders per capita in Norway? Yes, but nobody here will cede to that, they just move on as if they disagree, but can’t cite a fact to contradict my claim. And it’s with every discussion on this BB I’ve had…I found it funny in another posting railing against the new CAFE standards I pointed out that I drive a car that if I could buy today that already meets the 2025 CAFE MPG – and it’s the same car I drive now but a Diesel. I mentioned that I’m big (6’2″ and 24olbs) and it’s comfortable for me. Major church leaderships endorse concepts like universal health care, gun control and weaker immigration laws. But as far as I can tell there is a consensus here that god is in favor of free market capitalism, and had a special plan for the US that he didn’t for other countries prior and would keep out Muslims and Mexicans. Several people have tried to conflate Hitler and Obama with of course no relevant facts to back them up. If Obama said the earth revolves around the sun, I think half the folks here would find some way to either disagree. Thanks to Sapeint and Jona for at least being civil about the whole thing though….

      Getting back to Norway, I just noticed that Google Maps has Street View for some cities in Norway. Why don’t you spend some time and find the rough parts of town.

      And prepare yourself for the mass exodus of Scandinavians fleeing “socialism” for freedom here in the USA. It’s undoubtedly going to be hard getting used to all the logenberry syrup and lutkefisk. We’ll just do our best so we can free another people from repression.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • Comment by LuLu
      August 5, 2011 @ 10:59 am

      Socialist mikey, your comments are becoming more bizarre with each post but I will take a moment away from that plot to bring down Norway to post the only information you need. Please print it out and tape it to your mirror. 
       

      CAPITALISM 
      an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.

      SOCIALISM
         
      1.
      a theory or system of social organization  that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

      2.
      procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.

      3.
      (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.

      COMMUNISM
         
      1.
      a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

      2.
      ( often initial capital letter ) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.

      3.
      ( initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

      4.
      communalism.

      Once and for all REALIZE that I am NOT interested in moving from Number 1 to Number 3 via Number 2.  Anyone who IS interested in that is nothing more than a parasite sucking on the teat of more productive men and women.

      Now go whine to Sapient that I called you a parasite, girlyboy.  Oops, there’s another one. Ha!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 5, 2011 @ 11:31 am

      Thanks for hurling the insults, Lulu ;-)

      I see you too can paste from the dictionary. So who (besides yours truly) is “socialist”? We’ve established you think Norway is, but how? They have both private enterprise and public mixed in one economy. That’s true of the US as well. And it was true before Obama. Your definition says “chiefly” for capitalism. Your definition of socialism doesn’t give any indication how much of the economy should be in government hands. Much of the land in the US is public too. Tell me which of these nations are “socialist” by your definition:

      The USA 5 years ago
      The USA today
      Norway
      Germany
      Canada
      Israel

      And feel free to honestly answer the other question….was Norway and it’s antisemitism keeping you up at night before we started this discussion?

      What I find bizarre is that we got here from many here on GOPUSA blaming the victims of a terror attack. A right wing Christian attacked a bunch of leftist youth in a crusade against Islam. And we roll into…but the kids should have been packing heat, not at some “NAZI” youth ralley in a country that has lots of Islamic immigrants!???!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  10. RadmanComment by Radman
    August 2, 2011 @ 2:28 pm

    The recent fight over raising the debt ceiling above $14.3 trillion is a perfectly focused example of how leftists approach any debate with conservatives:   
    “They do not argue, because they cannot win an argument.  Logic and rationality are foreign languages to them.  They try to throw their opposition off-balance by deliberately engineering a crisis (in this case, the phony threat of a default) and then demanding conservatives respond to it — with the “solution” they supported all along.” – Interview with Ben Johnson, Floyd Reports, Dec.16, 2010

    Our country is unquestionably in deep finacial distress; and it will get worse until we can remove Obama from the White House and “flip the Senate” like we did in the House.  We cannot permit Obama to succeed with his “fundamental transformation” of America to European-style socialism, which as Thomas Sowell has said, “has a record of failure so blatant htat only an intellectual could ignore or evade it.”

    “A democracy will continue to exist until the time that voters discover they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury.  From that moment on, the majority always vote for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”  Alexander Tyler, circa 1787.  We’re almost there! 

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (3 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 2, 2011 @ 2:35 pm

      How has European “socialism” been such a failure? You look at some of the most “socialist” economies in Europe today and they enjoy some of the best quality of life of any nation on earth. Look at Scandanavia, Germany, France, Netherlands, they’re wealthy, healthy, some still have enviable growth rates. And of course all of the countries I just listed remain vibrant democracies. The way so many folks here insult Europe as “socialist” you’re just giving socialism a good name.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.2/5 (6 votes cast)
    • RadmanComment by Radman
      August 2, 2011 @ 3:33 pm

      Mikeh:  Europe is hardly the model to which America should aspire.  Did you forget about what has happened in Greece, arguably the most socialist country in western Europe?  The European Union is having to bail out a whole nation; and several others aren’t doing too well economically either.  If you are so enamored with BHO’s borrow- and-spend, scapegoat-the-job-producer policies, I’m sure that there are numerous websites where you can comment, “commune” and quaff the leftist “Kool-Aid. 

      “Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word:  ‘equality.’  But notice the difference:  while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” –   Alexis de Tocqueville 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.6/5 (9 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 2, 2011 @ 4:19 pm

      Radman,

      Sure, Greece is having problems right now. But even in the predicament they are now, they are still better off then about 2/3 of the world. And the very, very best places to live by most any measure include a bunch of so called “socialist” European countries.  All of Scandinavia, central European nations the likes of Germany, France, Netherlands etc. I’m not saying we have to be just like them, but I would not be pointing to these places as scary socialist countries that would be awful to live in. I think every country and Scandinavia outscores the US with lower crime, longer life expectancy, better health, etc. If conservatives want to point to how bad life is in that part of the world, they’ve lost the argument. 

      There are some pretty rotten places in the world that call themselves socialist. Few of them are in Europe, and none on my list. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 1.6/5 (7 votes cast)
    • texasbrokerComment by texasbroker
      August 3, 2011 @ 12:21 am

      NOW THE POS potus is saying the Republicans “created” the damn CRISIS!
      He lectured the “terrorists” today in his bs at the white house after the senate vote. What a LIAR!
      He put geitner up to making his damn case about a “crisis” after HE CREATED IT!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • RadmanComment by Radman
      August 4, 2011 @ 1:10 pm

      Mikeh: There are a number of countries that describe themselves as something they are NOT!  North Korea and a number of African countries come to mind immediately; these dictatorships are certainly NOT “Democratic (or even Socialist Republics.”  The USSR is no more, but the socialism that mutated to communism there didn’t work out too well for the vast majority of the Russian people…or the various peoples of other Eastern European countries that Moscow’s dictatorship controlled.  Further, America has financially propped up several of the Western European countries since the end of WW II (to impede the western push of communism).  If we were to pick up “all our marbles” today and go home, I venture to guess that those socialist countries would immediately find themselves in a heap of fiscal trouble…and their citizenry would no longer enjoy the same “quality of life.” 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 4, 2011 @ 2:14 pm

      Radman,

      Totally agree with you on the misleading names of countries: How democratic is the Democratic Republic of Congo? Honestly I don’t know, I’d have to look it up, but it certainly isn’t what comes to mind when I think of truly democratic countries. However…since I ended up hear all peeved about the Norway bashing I’ll use them as an example.  Voter turnout was 75% which seems pretty enviable. They also have a greater number of political parties represented in parliament (7, hey you guys might even like some of them, there’s a Conservative Party and a Christian Party!)

      I’m pretty sure Norway receives no direct aid from the US, but would be curious to see any proof if you have any. So in that case, I don’t think we have any marbles to take. There are some big US bases in countries like Germany, which might make a small dent in their economy. But I think those bases prove very useful for the US, and I doubt we’ll be leaving soon. These relationships with our allies aren’t all one sided. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  11. mcrankComment by mcrank
    August 2, 2011 @ 5:09 pm

    I would like to think he would have regrets—but that’s probably asking a lot.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
  12. Spiny NormanComment by Spiny Norman
    August 3, 2011 @ 1:46 pm

    Uuummmmmmmm. . . just a niggly (OH MY GOD I’M A RACIST!) little point here:  you can’t be “out” of something you never had.  Obama never had any ideas to begin with; I doubt he’s ever had an original thought in his life.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  13. SapientComment by Sapient
    August 3, 2011 @ 6:20 pm

    Mikeh
    I am staring a whole new thread for us..

    There is MUCH to answer in your post…too much for one response, so i will need you to ask one at a time, fair enough?

    Lets start here:

    Re: God gave us rights that include “the right to protect your property?” Is that in the writings of any mainstream religion? 

    It is obvious that you are NOT familiar with natural rights or Bible interpretation / application…you should read up on it.

    Yep…what do the words “Thou shall not steal” mean if not that you have a right to your property?

    Thou shall not kill…if not a right to your life?

     

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 3, 2011 @ 9:02 pm

      Hey Sapient,

      Some of your comments appear to contradict what I understand of Christianity. Of course Christianity contradicts itself (not that one wouldn’t expect all sorts of issues of that sort on a document that was written long after the all alleged incidents.) In any case, I don’t read the bible as you have guessed and guess that if the biggest church in the world is in favor of strong gun control, it is in compatible with 75% (at least) of the views of the US right. I think that is colloquially referred to as “cafeteria Catholicism”, where people stick to the parts they like, and ignore the rest.

      Is any taxation acceptable to religion? I think many officially religious countries have taxes. Even one I lived in many years ago had an additional tax that religious people paid in addition to the country’s tax. As noted, I’m not religious and adhere to that rule much like virtually everybody in made up “socialism” and even the evil socialism that those here on the BB imagine. In fact, in places like “socialist” less religious Norway most crimes are lower on the whole than less “socialist” USA and as well as a  long list of more religious and less “socialist” parts of the world. 

      As I’m sure you know, I’m familiar with the bible’s one shouldn’t steal line. But I think mainstream opinion doesn’t consider taxation (at least *with* representation) theft. Mainstream churches such as the Catholic Church expect governments to provide the population with things like health care through taxation. 

      Agree or disagree? 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • SapientComment by Sapient
      August 3, 2011 @ 10:38 pm

      Mikeh

      Re: “Mainstream churches such as the Catholic Church expect governments to provide the population with things like health care through taxation. Agree or disagree?”

      Absolutely not.

      Government is NOT in the benevolence business in any nation…nor can it be for it has nothing of its own…it is rather, FORCE pure and simple.

      What government “gives,” it first takes from someone else, by force, by definition. Now, that is either plunder or slavery of someone on behalf of someone else if it is not for a “common” function where ALL benefit.

      The question that should be asked of every proposed government “benevolence” is “at whose expense should someone have it?”

      This is rife with corruption….as the old saying goes:

      “if you rob Peter to pay Paul…you’ll get Paul’s vote.”

      That is just one of the problems with it…but the reason socialism is so corrupt internally.

      In “free” healthcare societies the line is 6 months for an MRI–we get one the same day usually if we need it.
      There is NO COMPARISON between government institutions and those run by churches, etc…hospitals, etc…better, faster, and true benevolence.

      God bless

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 4, 2011 @ 10:43 am

      Sapient,

      I understand that *you personally* are apposed to government funded or mandated health care. But I think the position of mainstream churches like Catholic and Protestant have a different opinion.  You have the freedom to disagree with whatever your or any other church says, but if their leadership officially endorses government mandated health care that is their official position, no?

      I think I pasted an example from the Catholic church previously. Here’s another from the National Council of the Churches of Christ representing 45million (or so they say): A Resolution For Renewed Faith Community Universal Health Care Campaign Therefore, Be It Resolved:The General Board/Assembly of the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA:1. Acknowledges that at least 43 million people in the U.S. have no access to health care and that many millions more are underserved or underinsured, a working majority of Americans at risk; and2. “Has always upheld the rights of all people to adequate health care, with special emphasis on preventive health care and comprehensive services” [Resolution 1991 support of Interreligious Health Care Access Campaign]; and:3. Endorsed Health Concerns Policy Statement [adopted in 1971, reaffirmed in 1989], including the statement: “The development of a national health system which will assure quality health care as a right to all persons in an accessible, effective and efficient manner”: and4. Endorsed [Resolution in 1991 for support of the Interreligious Health Care Access Campaign] an interreligious “program to advocate for enactment at the federal level of universal access to comprehensive health care services for all people living in the United States.”5. Now commends to its member communions a renewed faith community action campaign for comprehensive universal health care with democratic principles to which we have been historically committed; a campaign consisting of public education and action focused at the congregation and community level in cooperation with a larger coalition seeking to put this issue back on the national agenda.6. Now therefore supports a national campaign beginning during the Year 2000 elections in which coalitions at the local level, including encouragement of the widest direct participation of NCC member communions congregations, call upon candidates, particularly in federal elections, commitment to support Congress enacting universal health care coverage.Policy Base: “Health Care Concerns,” Policy Statement adopted by July General Board, Sept. 10, 1971, (reaffirmed by the General Board, May 19, 1989) and Resolution: “Interreligious Health Care Access Campaign”, adopted Nov. 14, 1991.

      From personal experience I can also add that while living in the land of Luther, one was required to have health insurance which has been true for well over a century now. In fact there’s a list of officially religious countries, many of which also are democratic and have universal health care. I’ll paste some examples below:

      Health care in Israel is universal and participation in a medical insurance plan is compulsory. Health care coverage is administered by a small number of organizations, with funding from the government. All Israeli citizens are entitled to the same Uniform Benefits Package, regardless of which organization they are a member of, and treatment under this package is funded for all citizens regardless of their financial means. According to a 2000 study by the World Health Organization, Israel has the 28th best health care in the world.[1]

      Denmark (official state religion Lutheran): 
      Denmark has a universal public health system paid largely from taxation with local municipalities delivering health care services in the same way as other Scandinavian countries. Primary care is provided by a general practitioner service run by private doctors contracting with the local municipalities with payment on a mixed per capita and fee for service basis. Most hospitals are run by the municipalities (only 1% of hospital beds are in the private sector).
      BTW, this is effectively the same for the rest of Scandinavia so I’ll skip the others 

      Also just to respond to this comment: “Government is NOT in the benevolence business in any nation…nor can it be for it has nothing of its own…it is rather, FORCE pure and simple.” 
      In the context of health insurance, you’d be really hard pressed to find a sizable percentage of people in any wealthy democratic country to agree with you. There may be debate about the details, but there’s no well to do democracy that I’m aware of that wants to go back to a US style “system.” Rather than force, it seems like democracy to most folks.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • SapientComment by Sapient
      August 4, 2011 @ 12:11 pm

      Mikeh

      Thank you for your response…that said–

      It will save you a lot of time and effort to realize that the US is not Europe. We are founded on entirely different principles, better principles….so, what you cite for Germany, etc are the very antithesis of where we are…and is irrelevant, and actually, illegal here in accordance to our Constitution. Yep..ILLEGAL.

      We have no intention of going BACKWARD. Yes, you read that correctly…socialism, etc is going backward into darkness, not forward into light. History proves that. Europe today proves that.

      We know why your elite come HERE to get healthcare. I have met them. What is a distant impossible dream to you, is every day here.

      While you can say that universal healthcare is not an example of force, all one has to do is look at the LAWS that implement it, the bureaucracies, the restrictions, the approval processes, etc…and it is most obvious is that is not freedom at all.

      To use your introductory statement:

      Re “I understand that *you personally* are apposed to government funded or mandated health care.”

      Government funded and mandated rightly go together. You are to be congratulated.

      If you had freedom to compare it to, you would know that. Sorry that you do not.

      The NCC is well known for its LIBERAL and SOCIALIST stances…goes all the way back to Nuclear Freeze, etc.

      As far as the want for it being main stream America…just take a look at the MILLIONS who oppose it. For every ohe that you see there are 10-100 that you do not see.

      Look at the elections just past Nov…unprecidented sweep with a primary mandate…REPEAL OBAMACARE.

      Does that sound like universal want?

      Don’t kid yourself from afar as to what America is all about.

      And here is the real rub…if you really knew, you would fight for it to the death. Real Liberty does that to a human being.

      God bless
      “This new world hath been the asylum for the persecuted lovers of civil and religious liberty from every part of Europe. Hither have they fled, not from the tender embraces of the mother, but from the cruelty of the monster; and it is so far true of England, that the same tyranny which drove the first emigrants from home, pursues their descendants still.” –Thomas Paine, Common Sense, 1776

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 4, 2011 @ 1:51 pm

      Thanks Sapient,

      A few thoughts come to mind…..

      “The US is not Europe” true….

      but you also said “….so, what you cite for Germany, etc are the very antithesis of where we are…”

      not so true. Using Germany as an example, at the end of the war we occupied Germany and helped set up a constitution for them, more or less in our image.   (I’ll paste a few links for this point after my reply since my week old postings are still “awaiting moderation”)

      and you say: “….illegal here in accordance to our Constitution. Yep..ILLEGAL” we have a process, and I suppose it’s possible at some point the Supreme Court will rule on parts of “Obamacare”. I don’t think our Supreme Court is stacked with “socialists” so I hope you will be satisfied if they don’t rule in your favor. I might also ask how it is that Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security have managed to exist for so long. Or why is it that Hawaii has had an employer mandated health insurance law since 1974. I’m not sure specifically what you think is illegal, but perhaps we could just use one of the other options like Hawaii or Medicare if for somereason “Obamacare” is ruled down. Those systems have already stood the test of time and are presumably legal.

      You write “We have no intention of going BACKWARD. Yes, you read that correctly…socialism, etc is going backward into darkness, not forward into light. History proves that. Europe today proves that.”—– What does Europe prove? I don’t know specifically what your beef is with Europe. Again, if you look in the right places you can find some serious problems. But those problems are similar to what we have here. For many decades, a number of European countries have enjoyed envious growth rates, quality of life and so on. What’s so bad? Some are worse than others for sure. But There are ten or so that score very well by almost any measure. Can’t we look to the best for examples and learn something?

      You write: “We know why your elite come HERE to get healthcare. I have met them. What is a distant impossible dream to you, is every day here.” I’m not sure I know any elite personally. One thing I can tell you though is that I’m not the elite, I’m part of the middle class. My dad uses the VA, and says he thinks it’s better than my step-mom’s private care. Billionaires live very well wherever they live. I’d be curious for you to tell us who those “elite” were btw. And I think you might have mis-typed part of that line, I’m here now (in the US) and I’m not sure what the distant dream is (I’m serious BTW, I’m not trying to poke you or anything, I think your missing a word in that sentence.) When I lived in central Europe many years ago, I never ever knew anybody in all my travels or talking in the native language or in English who wanted a US style health care system. In general people seemed pretty happy with what they had. But you would hear about needed reforms and structural price problems etc. But again, never, ever did any debate point to the US as an example, or suggestions for full privatization or anything like that.

      You write: “The NCC is well known for its LIBERAL and SOCIALIST stances…goes all the way back to Nuclear Freeze, etc.”– Why don’t all those churches they represent leave it then? Being against nuclear weapons seems to be very in line with my (admittedly minimal) understanding of Christianity. And the first example I mentioned was the largest Christian church, the Vatican. I’ll put another news clipping here:

      Pope Benedict XVI and other church leaders said it was the moral responsibility of nations to guarantee access to health care for all of their citizens, regardless of social and economic status or their ability to pay.

      Access to adequate medical attention, the pope said in a written message Nov. 18, was one of the “inalienable rights” of man.

      The pope’s message was read by Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, Vatican secretary of state, to participants at the 25th International Conference of the Pontifical Council for Health Care Ministry at the Vatican Nov. 18-19.

      The theme of this year’s meeting was “Caritas in Veritate – toward an equitable and human health care.”

      The pope lamented the great inequalities in health care around the globe. While people in many parts of the world aren’t able to receive essential medications or even the most basic care, in industrialized countries there is a risk of “pharmacological, medical and surgical consumerism” that leads to “a cult of the body,” the pope said.

      As I said I respect your rights to not agree with the church or Christian teaching. But saying I’m out of line for wanting universal health care puts me in line with most mainstream religions (despite the fact I’m not a believer myself.)  Mainstream religion agrees more with my position than yours. Or at least their leaders do. Of course the so called “Cafeteria Catholic” issues are all over the map. When asking self proclaimed American Christians if they favor the death penalty, abortion rights, homosexuality, wars, etc. etc. you’ll get some hard to understand contradictions sometimes.

      You wrote: “Look at the elections just past Nov…unprecidented sweep with a primary mandate…REPEAL OBAMACARE.” I take your point. But I also think if you asked those same people two months ago or in two years, the answers would be notably different. Obama was elected – and it was no secret that he planned to reform the health care system. If you look at opposition from the Republicans to Social Security and Medicare for example, I think there’s a hint of what’s going on. Particularly now, by its nature the Republican party wants less government. And they saw how incredibly popular programs like Social Security and Medicare are. If “Obamacare” gets implemented, it is extremely unlikely we’ll go back to our old duct taped “system” if one can even call it that. Their fear of fears is health reform will just be another arrow in the Democrat’s quiver, like SS and Medicare.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 4, 2011 @ 1:57 pm

      The draft Federal German Constitution being sent to the occupying American military governors for approval:

      http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=WAAqAAAAIBAJ&sjid=KoIFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4409,1360921&dq=german+constitution&hl=en 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 4, 2011 @ 2:27 pm

      Your comment is awaiting moderation. 

      Some suporting links one by one:
      http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/health/policy/17hawaii.html?pagewanted=all
      Health mandate in Hawaii 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 4, 2011 @ 2:30 pm

      Your comment is awaiting moderation. 

      Some suporting links one by one:
      Health mandate in Hawaii  (this wouldn’t post with even one link so I’ll have to copy and paste)
      (snippet from the NYT)
      Since 1974, Hawaii has required all employers to provide relatively generous health care benefits to any employee who works 20 hours a week or more. If health care legislation passes in Congress, the rest of the country may barely catch up.Lawmakers working on a national health care fix have much to learn from the past 35 years in Hawaii, President Obama’s native state. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • SapientComment by Sapient
      August 4, 2011 @ 2:49 pm

      Mikeh
      Thanks for all your work…BUT, socialism and tyranny are the same no matter who supports it…and no matter what they wrap it in.  Same stuff and ends in the same place. The simple fact is that what you are advocating is right out of the presumptions of Marx, Hegel, etc…and their application…see CM 2.

      Unfortunately, history shows those to be not only wrong presumptions, but disastrous, tyrannical, bloody. So, why would anyone look at that history and say “Lets go there?”

      Now, my question to you is a simple one…why are you so eager to have someone else tell you what to do regarding you work, healthcare, your life?
      Simple question…but that is precisely what you are advocating.

      Why would you not rather make those choices for your life yourself?

      Why would you not rather be free to get better for your family and yourself that what someone who doesn’t know you is willing to allow you to have?

      Why are you willing to give that power to someone else when it is rightfully your own?

      Unless you somehow think they are better able to make that choice for you, and are willing to accept them forcing their decision on you, I can think of only one other reason–and that would be that you want that power for yourself.

      I look forward to your answer.
       
       
      God bless
       

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 4, 2011 @ 3:35 pm

      Sapeint,

      Again thanks at least for being civil….

      Socialism is Tyranny is what you say. I think what you really mean is more along the lines of lots of government control vrs complete freedom from government. Socialism is a word bantered about and oddly conflated with right wing traits too.

      But to get to the heart of your question (without the hyperbolic distractions) I would like government for some things, and the private sector for others. You can go to an extreme on either side I wouldn’t want. I’m ok with government run hospitals for example, but don’t think government needs to build factories to make MP3 players or shoes. The private sector is really good for all sorts of things. On occasion things go awry and government needs to step in. And sometimes you’ll see examples of where the two mingle and falter or succeed. Nothing is perfect and after we have universal health care for example, we’ll have to make changes now and then to fix things. But you can look to the other extreme: what might it be like with no government. There isn’t really such a place but perhaps pretty close might be parts of Somalia. You can own any gun you want, there’s no government health care or infrastructure, and you can ride all day on a dusty unimproved road on your donkey.

      On another discussion on this BB, somebody was pointing to how bad life could be with unusually high public debt as % of GDP. I think the guy selected a short list of countries with high debt loads that are in the news alot like Japan, Greece, Italy etc. I thought, hmmm, well those countries are in some hot water right now, but all are good places to live. Funny thing is, if you looked at the list of countries with low debt per GDP, well, there were a lot worse places on there like Lybia, Uzbekistan, etc. My point that I may have seemed to stray from is that extremes usually aren’t good places. Government with it’s fingers in 100% of the economy would work just as poorly as 0%.

      Theories can be useful on occasion. But in general, I’d like to have you discuss things that actually are. When I say I’m for universal health care, I can point to a dozen countries and say here’s what’s good about universal health care and how it would improve upon what we already have. It’s not hypothetical, it’s been done. What I’d like to hear from the other side is well, in (any country, state, region etc with a few million people) this is how they do it and I think it’s better for (fill in the blank.)  If your idea is hypothetical, I’d like to see it in a lab setting first. It may be fun to hate government: but if we all stopped paying taxes and rid ourselves of all government tomorrow what would happen? Yes, including all your favorite programs too. You’d have more money in your pocket. But for how long. Government printed the money. So would we start bartering? No standing army- I guess we could voluntarily form a militia? Could I practice medicine without a license? Could I drive without a license? Could I drive anything I wanted without a license? What would I drive on? Would my neighbors and I join in and pave our own roads? Where I live I have to go through a tunnel or over a bridge to get off the island all built and maintained by the government. This is starting to sound pretty silly. But then it’s also reminding me how much I count on every day. I can imagine all this being privatized perhaps, but it seems more than a coincidence that it was all put in place by the government. I’m really surprised how much WPA infrastructure we still count on in my part of the country.

      You ask me why I’m so eager to have somebody else to tell me what to do, but I don’t see it that way. I want together with my fellow citizens, to tell government to do something that benefits us all. Something that’s not hypothetical, something I’ve seen in the real world working pretty well. I see government to pick up where capitalism fails. And like very many people I don’t equate such democratic decisions as tyranny. There’s a balance to be had.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • SapientComment by Sapient
      August 4, 2011 @ 6:10 pm

      Mikeh

      Re:  “Sapient, Again thanks at least for being civil…. Socialism is Tyranny is what you say. I think what you really mean is more along the lines of lots of government control vrs complete freedom from government”

      Mikeh–I am a civil guy…give lots of freedom to people to work, make mistakes, pick them selves up, lend a helping hand, etc. etc..
      On the other hand, do not believe for a moment that I do not know what socialism is, what tyranny is.  I do.  I know its assumptions, its beliefs, its methods. 

      I know what it is, and what it does. I have seen it up close and personal. I have listened to the explanations.

      What you said about more or less government is not what I mean at all.  I meant what I said…and usually do.  Socialism is TYRANNY in its very assumptions that do not respect the God given natural rights of individuals and is willing to sacrifice those for its perceived “higher good” without restraint.

      Its an age old lie, not even a new one.
       
      America is founded on the Rule of Law…ALL of us, great and small, must conform to law.  ALL are equally protected by it, and all are equally responsible to it.

      You and I are not free to say “We want this kind of government” or some other kind.  What you or I believe would be a nice government is completely irrelevant for the simple reason that we have a legitimate government prescribed by law in our Constitution..which is. alone, the supreme law of the land. 

      The Constitution has a mechanism for changing it, but it does not yield to light or transitory reasons.  And mark this, until it is changed by that method that itself prescribes, the Constitution and the government it legitimately provides for stands and MUST be respected as the Supreme law of the land.

      Any government action or form either conforms to the requirements of the Constitution in force or it doesn’t, and is immediately either legitimate or illegitimate.  Any person who seeks to undermine it, is an enemy of America.

      This is OUR social compact with each other…We the People…

      This is how we agreed to live with each other, to form a more perfect union, to establish justice, to insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity..  This is it, and there is no other.

      Now, you should also consider this..the Constitution has a very specific purpose…to bind down those who would be tyrants for that is a real tendency, no matter how good the initial intentions might have been.

      Consider:

      “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of power … it is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions.” Daniel Webster

      “Let no more be said of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson

      Get the picture?

      The fact is there is a need for government.  People are not angels.  The problem is when those same, imperfect people gain power and resources in government.  How do you govern the government?

      With out it, they then become tyrants. 

      Our Constitution was designed to deal with both problems.

      Socialism assumes angelic qualities in an “elite”or state which simply is not there as history proves.  Those assumptions lead  where they lead.  Those assumptions are he bed rock of the bloodiest trail of any form of government, not to mention rampant corruption, oppression, etc.

      The cry of the would be tyrant…”But it was only that way because I was not in  charge.  We know more now, ad infinitum.”

      All been done before. Fools more than a few and always leads to the same place.

      As for the government our Constitution prescribes…it is one of protected Individual Liberty consistent with order.  it is not a democracy, but a republic.  It is not anarchy.

      Jefferson put it this way:
       
      “The issue today is the same as it has been throughout all history, whether man shall be allowed to govern himself or be ruled by a small elite.”  

      The answer is, we in America chose to govern our selves, and we are duly watchful for usurpation.

      And, you should know this. Every person who has ever served in the military took an oath to Protect and Defend the Constitution…and was never released from that oath. 

      Hope that helps.

      God bless

      Thomas Paine The American Crisis, No. 1 Date: December 19, 1776
      Not all the treasures of the world, so far as I believe, could have induced me to support an offensive war, for I think it murder; but if a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to “bind me in all cases whatsoever” to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?
       

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 5, 2011 @ 12:29 am

      Sapient,

      you wrote: I know what it is, and what it does. I have seen it up close and personal. I have listened to the explanations.

      Could you elaborate please. If I understand your comment, it implies that you’ve spent time in what you refer to as a “socialist” part of the world? I’d be really curious to hear how about your experiences in a rich Central European or Scandinavian country went. Or was it somewhere else?

      Thanks…. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 5, 2011 @ 9:01 am

      Sapient,

      What makes a country “socialist” and as such “tyranical?” Is the US “socialist” now? Were we five years ago? Is Norway? Israel? Canada? Germany?

      American is a nation governed by the rule of law, yes. And according to many here seem to think the current president is in violation of the law, and that many laws dating back decades are unconstitutional. Yet those laws stand. If tax payers can’t pay for health insurance or even build hospitals and health infrastructure, how is it we have Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans’ Affairs, Hawaii employer mandate, CDC, etc.? Is it tyranny or “socialism” that we all pay for somethings out of taxes, or require private employers to do something? Is the right of the individual absolute and that of society non-existant? Or is there a balance?

      There have been decades to challenge the legality of all these programs and institutions. Yet they still stand. Do only right wing commentators understand the law, even better than the US Supreme Court?

      And you keep interjecting god into this conversation. I realize you don’t have to believe official church doctrine, but could you at least acknowledge that the “official” word of god is strongly in favor of universal health care. I realize you don’t feel this way. But the guy who officially represents the most Christians and according to their religion receives the word of god directly is strongly in favor of universal health care (and a bunch of other things folks here don’t believe in.) If you want to keep stating that god wants something, I think you need to acknowledge that his official word wants the opposite, right?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • SapientComment by Sapient
      August 5, 2011 @ 9:07 am

      Mikeh

      Good morning.

      I am tied up writing a commentary and will be delayed a bit….You know Mark Twain’s quip–that he wrote a long letter because he didn’t have time to write a short one. 

      Such is the challenge.

      But rest assured that I have seen both of your posts and appreciate your efforts.

      Now, if you will, consider this statement from James Madison…and let me know what you think as it cuts to the heart of our discussion–the problem to be solved:

      “What is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?  If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.”  James Madison

      How do you solve that problem?

      Hope you had a good evening.
      God bless

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 5, 2011 @ 9:41 am

      Good morning to you too Sapient. Look forward to your answer when you find the time…..

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • SapientComment by Sapient
      August 5, 2011 @ 3:24 pm

      Mikeh
      Re:  “And you keep interjecting god into this conversation. I realize you don’t have to believe official church doctrine, but could you at least acknowledge that the “official” word of god is strongly in favor of universal health care. I realize you don’t feel this way. But the guy who officially represents the most Christians and according to their religion receives the word of god directly is strongly in favor of universal health care (and a bunch of other things folks here don’t believe in.) If you want to keep stating that god wants something, I think you need to acknowledge that his official word wants the opposite, right?”

      Hardly. 

      You keep trying to evoke Catholicism as some authoritative reason for me to accept a political position…ie for me to accept socialism, …so, just so we are clear. and you don’t waste your time on this, maybe this will help:

      Biblical Protestantism has nothing whatsoever, at all, in any way, shape form or fashion to do with Catholicism…no more than it has something to do with Islam or Hinduism, Dali Lama, cults, etc as far as faith, worldview, doctrines, authority, etc.

      They are all religions but that’s about it. 

      As for Catholicism, there are many degrees of separation, hence the Protestant Reformation 500 years ago.  That has not changed.

      For Protestants the authority you are seeking to invoke is, as I mentioned, Scripture Alone…Solo Scriptura–only.  This is not subordinate to, or supplemented by any official church doctrine,” nor by “some guy” as you describe the catholic pope ex-cathedra pronouncements, etc.  

      t matters not who or how many might disagree with what Scripture teaches.  Simply irrelevant.

      You should also know that your seeking to use Catholicism to support your political agenda is rather an anathema and I would hope beneath you.

      In the US we value freedom of religion as part of Civil Society that builds good citizens promoting virtue, etc.  but, that is much different from what you are suggesting….the dictating policy and law.

      Which is why we have a First Amendment.  We do not have or recognize an established religion that can be so manipulated for political ends.

      Do you, for example, use that same “catholic pronouncement authority” argument with abortion, homosexuality, and other things that do not promote your agenda?

      Now, if you want to deal with questions you have from the Biblical / Natural Rights point of view that influenced the Founding of our nation and form the basis for our Constitution and our laws, we can,  though I can tell you now, you are not going to like it.
       
      God bless
       

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 5, 2011 @ 4:54 pm

      Howdy Sapient,
      You wrote:”You should also know that your seeking to use Catholicism to support your political agenda is rather an anathema and I would hope beneath you.” I don’t find it really underhanded or unfair. Truth is god isn’t saying one specific thing to everybody, there seems to be a lot of different opinions as to what he has to say. And honestly I can’t hear him at all. For me it makes sense to keep him out all together. But when he is regularly interjected and the foremost religious figure is on my side of an argument, as well as lots of other religious groups … it seems relevant to me. I do value your opinion, but it seems like the head of the largest Christian institution should have some value to Christians, or a group that represents 45million church members, right? Perhaps we can keep god out of the whole discussion- I will if you will. Obviously I don’t believe in a number of Catholic teachings- this is only in a context where god is evoked to support an argument by others. If there is no hierarchy and one can derive anything from scripture they feel like and it is of equal value, then why quote scripture?

      To get back on track, I’d be quite curious to hear your take on how all our existing institutions have stood constitutional muster all these decades. Basically in terms of health care, I want policies that expand what many Americans already have as in the examples I stated earlier. If I understood you correctly is socialism = tyranny. And you also said “Obamacare” is illegal. Socialism includes things services like government health care which is illegal if I understand you correctly. It appears we can prove that government insurance paid for in part with tax money is ok (Medicare, Medicaid, VA, Indian Health etc.) since they’ve been around decades and have not been found unconstitutional. If there is a legal argument against “Obamacare” it seems pretty obvious we could just pick up one of the other systems and expand it. I realize you folks here on this BB don’t want to, but can you tell me how it might possibly be unconstitutional? We’ve been doing it for many decades already.

      You made some other comments you haven’t followed up on that I’m curious to hear about to: 1) having seen evil tyranny close up, and 2) you’ve known elites that come to the states for treatment(implied because they are from a “socialist” country with inferior health care.) A brief elaboration might enlighten me. I’m particularly curious about this sort of thing because I get the feeling few people on this BB have any relevant contact with the “socialist” societies they keep berating. Not that you need to answer for them, but it sounds from your statement you may have had some relevant life experiences with one of them? There’s another conversation I’ve been having with a gal who keeps shouting “socialist” Norway, and then it turns out she seems to no almost nothing about the place.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • mikeh2Comment by mikeh2
      August 5, 2011 @ 7:10 pm

      Hey Sapient,

      It was nice chatting with you. I created a second account just to say adieu… the thought police are now blocking all of my posts ;-)

      It’s been fun in any case. Hopefully it’s not too boring having discussions with only true believers….

      truly,

      -mike h

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • SapientComment by Sapient
      August 5, 2011 @ 8:52 pm

      Mikeh
      Have a good one…say Hi if you see me on line. Always look forward to the chat.

      Some points to consider:

      When you read the name of our nation understand what is says–we are the United States of America…a group of States united into one nation.

      The US is made of independent states that have united together for common purposes.  Today there are 50 of them.  

      This Union was formed by agreement among the States for their common issues but they remained sovereign in their own right.  That is a Republican form of government…and was guaranteed each of the states when they entered that union.

      The States formed the Federal government not the other way around.

      So, by agreement, the States limited the Federal Government to 28 specific areas of function called The Enumerated Powers, article 2 section 8 of the Constitution…and remember, the Constitution is a CONTRACT between the States to form a federal government for their common interests…and as such the states delegated specific functions to it…those 28 areas.

      Again, the Federal Government of the US is a creature of the States, not the other way around.

      That is done purposely and by design.  One very important reason was because the State governments were closer to the people and more response to them.  The states had and have MUCH more freedom to act and work intra state on things like healthcare. They just cannot impose it on the other states, or ask them to pay for their mistakes.

      In this way each state would be a laboratory of democracy…they were free to do much, within their own state…but not impose that on the other states.  If they failed, it was a small area…not the whole nation.  If they succeeded, other states could pick it up.

      So, when you see 26 of the 50 states filing a suit against the Federal Government for doing something unconstitutional, that is incredibly significant.

      When you see 10th Amendment resolutions and legislation in the States…asserting their sovereignty under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, that is a message to the Fed…

      By way of  analogy, imagine that you and I and 3 other people decided we would form a corporation for our own interests.  We drew up a contract agree able to all that specified the function of that corporation and we all agreed….and we hired someone to administer that contract on our behalf.

      One day we found out that person was doing things we never authorized them to do, and in our name, at our expense.  And further,, when
      we confronted that person ,they told us to buzz off and that WE had to do what he said.

      Would you stand for that insubordination from an employee?  hardly.

      Well, that is the significance of the Federal government acting unconstitutionally and the analogy is precise. The Fed is violating their delegated authority…the authority We gave them for certain purposes, and that we can certainly take back if need be.

      Simply put, the Federal government is not authorized to provide universal healthcare and impinge on the rights of the states and the people. And,
      Just because something is long existing does not make it legal…only an ongoing illegality.

      All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.” –U.S. Supreme Court Marbury v. Madison, (1803)

      The US moves slowly, in purpose, but it is also built for the long haul. Watch.

      Rest assured that when the people become aware, as they are doing now, and they come to understand their position and authority in a “government of the people, by the people and for the people” and begin to assert themselves, things begin to happen.

      Hope that helps.

      God bless
      A constitution is not the act of a government, but of a people constituting a government; and government without a constitution is power without a right. All power exercised over a nation, must have some beginning. It must be either delegated, or assumed. There are not other sources. All delegated power is trust, and all assumed power is usurpation. Time does not alter the nature and quality of either. ~Thomas Paine, America’s Godfather.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
  14. SapientComment by Sapient
    August 3, 2011 @ 9:48 pm

    Mikeh

    Thanks for your response…and BTW–I enjoy serious discussions with serious people…and am more than glad to do that…but I step out fast with insults, name calling, etc. Fair enough?

    Now…you should look up the date 1517 for context.

    That is the beginning of the Protestant Reformation and separation from the Catholic Church and one of the essential reasons was “Solo Scriptura”–Scripture Alone as authoritative….not the Pope, Church Tradition, etc.

    So, realize that America was found by Protestant on Scriptural principles….I don’t put a lot of stock in what Catholicism might say. Certainly not authoritative.

    As for taxation…of course it is.
    But, armed plunder using Government as an instrument of force is a different thing all together.

    Incidentally, “Thou shall not steal” is NOT the first or only “line” in the Bible that deals with theft, or envy, or greed for that matter.

    God bless
    James Madison, the principal author of the Constitution, said, “With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the details of powers (enumerated in the Constitution) connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proof was not contemplated by its creators. I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  15. onewildmanComment by onewildman
    August 4, 2011 @ 2:21 pm

    mikeh, you are so full of ****. you accuse people of wanting to bring down Norway. What a load of ****. Honestly no here cares how there government is ran. You have repeatedly bring up things that are irrelevant to this subject. Guns keep us free made us free and guns whether you will admit it or not guns freed slaves.
     You don’t know anything about Christianity because if you did you would know that Christians see themselves as sinners who try with the help of God to do the best they can and ask forgiveness when they transgress. As for catholic hospitals being for Obamacare, not all of them are they do not want to be forced to provide abortions for you convenience. They also do not speak for the Church and never have.
     Also the American Communist have come out and endorsed Obama for president just like last election. Don’t forget to thank the Republican’s for the civil right act of which President John F. Kennedy said he would not sign if it got thru the House and Senate. You can also thank the Republicans for the Voters Rights Act of 1965.
    Don’t forget Martin Luther King was a Republican!

    IMPEACH OBAMA NOW!
     

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 5.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 4, 2011 @ 2:48 pm

      Mr. Wildman,

      Thanks for hurling the insults ;-)

      Can you explain how guns freed the slaves? Unless you mean at the hand of the Union army you’re gonna have to use some interesting logic.

      As for Christians and health care… I just pasted a quote from the Pope. He’s the big guy in the church, right? You’re welcome to disagree with the pope. I sure do on lots of things. But his word according to the church is infallible. That’s official- straight from god…not from me (Papal infallibility.) You can harp on abortion and birth control where the church and I disagree. But the OFFICIAL CATHOLIC POSITION is in favor of universal health care, anti gun, pro immigration and a bunch of other things you probably don’t agree with.

      And if you want me to kiss the feet of Republicans who signed the Voting Rights Act, I’ll gladly do it. I’m not super partisan- if you gave me a choice between some Southern Democrats and say, a Republican from Vermont, I’d likely vote for the Republican. This country is too big for just two parties.

      Could you give me a little proof that the American Communist Party endorsed Obama over their own or that MLK was a Republican? Those both sound fishy…but I’m ready to stand corrected. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 4, 2011 @ 4:26 pm

      mikeh, here is the link http://treeofmamre.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/the-communist-party-usa-endorses-obama-and-the-democrats-for-2012-in-case-there-were-any-doubts/
      The mainstream media ignores this and they went out of there way to not show communist party signs at a rally in Washington countering the Tea party one earlier this summer. In case you didn’t know the emancipation proclamation did not free the slaves as people believe. It was directed at the states under siege. They did recognize the authority of Lincoln to do this. Slaves did take up arms for their freedom even against their black masters. The slaves in the North were not freed until after the civil war.
       Where the Pope is for health care for everyone he is not for allowing a government to tell his hospitals to preform abortions and they would be forced under Obamacare. It may not be paid for by the government but if they refuse they will face the music for discrimination.
       Here is just one for MLK http://www.nbra.info/ I also remember he was ask by a black democrat  man why he was a republican. His answer: Why would I be a member of the democrats the slaver party. You should also know the Democrats gave us the Jim Crow laws.
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 4, 2011 @ 10:06 pm

      Mr. Wildman

      Hey, I don’t think showing a link to some conservative blogger’s site really counts. I could show you a link to a site where the Pope, Elvis, Jimi Hendrix, and Marlyn Monroe were said to be involved in an orgy on Mars. But that’s just because some unemployed middle aged guy with a computer can write a blog. Not saying that this isn’t true, but listing biased personal blogs as proof doesn’t count for much. Also, there’s a similar endorsment floating out there that John McCain was endorsed by the KKK. I have no idea if it is true, but I don’t think that alone means much….obviously the KKK isn’t going to be voting for the black guy! If the Communist Party sends out endorsements, shouldn’t you be able to show THEIR endorsement? I couldn’t find it, only a conservative blogger’s site that had a bunch of other questionable info on their blog.

      As to your comments regarding the Civil War, a few thoughts. You seem rather keen to point out the black slave master part, which of course existed, but was a very small percentage. So why do you bring that up? My comment was in the context of a common thread here on the BB. To simplify the point you folks seem to be making: gun ownership is necessary for freedom. Yet this country was founded with gun rights and slaves at the same time. And slavery lasted over a century into our existence. So slavery (the opposite of freedom) existed for over a century right along side gun rights. Seems to discount the gun rights ensures freedom theory, right?! That is unless the guns are only given to oppressed minorities, which usually isn’t how this plays out. This seems to dispel the NAZI’s would have been stopped myth too that’s been floating around.

      You mention that the pope is opposed to abortion. You are very correct. However, he calls almost everything else that happens in a doctors office or hospital a divine human right. Let’s just move on, I’ll take the Pope’s version of universal care without abortion if we need to compromise.

      And as for MLK being a Republican…I’d like to see a link to a non biased site. But if he was, fine by me. I’d be proud to be associated with some Republicans if you can go back far enough in history. However, again I think you sent me a link to a biased site. When I looked at Wikipedia for example, there was no such information. Nor could I easily find any credible example to support your claim. And of course many of MLK’s stances fall squarely on the liberal side, besides those of race. For example on social justice and ending the war in Vietnam. Please send a link to a site that isn’t all full of one sided opinions, Google news archive is a great resource if you are actually serious.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 5, 2011 @ 9:44 am

      mikeh you truly are a liberal everyone needs to tell facts because you must not know how to find them. I gave you a Black Republican site. i thought you would rather read what blacks had to say.
       First I’ll give you this info: Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Sen. Al Gore Sr. And after he became President, Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph, who was a black Republican. President Kennedy, through his brother Atty. Gen. Robert Kennedy, had Dr. King wiretapped and investigated by the FBI on suspicion of being a Communist in order to undermine Dr. King.

      In March of 1968, while referring to Dr. King’s leaving Memphis, Tenn., after riots broke out where a teenager was killed, Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd (W.Va.), a former member of the Ku Klux Klan, called Dr. King a “trouble-maker” who starts trouble, but runs like a coward after trouble is ignited. A few weeks later, Dr. King returned to Memphis and was assassinated on April 4, 1968.
      Given the circumstances of that era, it is understandable why Dr. King was a Republican. It was the Republicans who fought to free blacks from slavery and amended the Constitution to grant blacks freedom (13th Amendment), citizenship (14th Amendment) and the right to vote (15th Amendment). Republicans passed the civil rights laws of the 1860s, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Reconstruction Act of 1867 that was designed to establish a new government system in the Democrat-controlled South, one that was fair to blacks. Republicans also started the NAACP and affirmative action with Republican President Richard Nixon’s 1969 Philadelphia Plan (crafted by black Republican Art Fletcher) that set the nation’s fist goals and timetables. Although affirmative action now has been turned by the Democrats into an unfair quota system, affirmative action was begun by Nixon to counter the harm caused to blacks when Democrat President Woodrow Wilson in 1912 kicked all of the blacks out of federal government jobs.
       There is so much information and there is disinformation on the net it is hare to sort thru. I suggest you read his speeches. For all intent he appeared to be a conservative. There is still information about King that will be sealed till the year 2027. What they are hiding? Your guess is as good as mine. There must be something damaging to either King or those who did the investigation.
       
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 5, 2011 @ 10:04 am

      Top of the morning to ya Wildman,

      First off, I’m not saying MLK wasn’t a Republican….however…..
      1. You sent a link to a clearly biased site, I did a *quick* search for independent confirmation and could not find any
      2. If MLK was a Republican- some of his most widely held views strongly contradict Republican dogma of then and today
      3. what “the blacks had to say”…? Well I don’t think the Republican party is a good place to get that info: more than 80% of blacks are Democrats now, just show me a neutral mainstream website that has some editorial oversite- a newspaper article from a major US daily for example
      4. If MLK was a Republican and shared your views, why might the FBI think he was a communist? I don’t think Republicans shared a whole lot of ideology with Communists, but show me some proof, maybe I’m wrong

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 5, 2011 @ 10:09 am

      Also, could you show me similar proof that the US Communist Party officially endorsed Obama? Again, I’m not saying it ain’t so, but the fact that you pointed me to a one man in his basement blog for conservative Christians doesn’t really seem like proof. I thought the point of endorsing somebody was telling everybody you support them. Wouldn’t US Communist party would have to tell somebody other than ChristianConservativeBasementBlog.org/obama/isa/communist/endorsement.htm or whatever that link was ? How are all the 27 members of the US Communist party going to get the message? Is there an alternate Internet for Communist, and basementblogger dude hacked in and got their secret memo?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 5, 2011 @ 4:12 pm

      mikeh here is the communist web site http://sweetness-light.com/archive/communist-party-backs-obama-for-prez When are you going to learn to google. Second you keep saying the Pope is for universal health care. That is a half truth. he is not for Obamacare the way it stands and he is talking about the right to minimal access to health care is a fundamental right. You need to read the whole article to have a real understanding of what the Pope said: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/1004736.htm 
       
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
    • mikehComment by mikeh
      August 5, 2011 @ 4:58 pm

      Onewildman, 

      Looks like the Catholic news story says exactly what I said…. 

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 0.0/5 (0 votes cast)
    • onewildmanComment by onewildman
      August 6, 2011 @ 4:26 pm

      mikeh, you make it seem like the Pope said Universal health care for all inferring  meaning he meant complete health care of all kinds when that is not true. he said “Justice requires guaranteed universal access to health care,” he said, adding that the provision of minimal levels of medical attention to all is “commonly accepted as a fundamental human right.” He is talking minimal health care. That’s not exactly universal health care he also said
      “Justice in health care should be a priority of governments and international institutions,” he said, cautioning that protecting human health does not include euthanasia or promoting artificial reproductive techniques that include the destruction of embryos.
       He is also against abortion, contraceptives. Those things would be covered or forced to be  covered by insurance companies and doctors would also be forced to provide abortions. The constitution does not give the authority to any branch of the government to do so.
       
      IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! !

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 5.0/5 (1 vote cast)
  16. onewildmanComment by onewildman
    August 2, 2011 @ 10:18 am

    uvajon97, I applaud your passion. you have to under no conservatives have forgotten the things in your comment. The problem is the mainstream media will not mention any of this. They hope by doing this we the people will forget. Remember they always tell us that we have short attention spans and will forget by election time.
     We have not forgotten, we will not forget and we will not let others forget either!
     
    IMPEACH OBAMA NOW! ! ! ! !

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.9/5 (10 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





  • "The situation in Nevada is just Mr. Obama proving to the world how tough he really is. He is..." Comment by rodgerp
    Posted in More Ammunition for Obama Administration
  • "The difference between Ben and Obama is this,,,,Obama is a recovering pot smoker, and Ben is recovering America's exceptionalism. Case..." Comment by inluminatuo
    Posted in Recovering America's Exceptionalism
  • "Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas is my Representative in Tyler,and a firm defender of Constitutional freedoms. As for Holder coming..." Comment by inluminatuo
    Posted in More Ammunition for Obama Administration

Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer