Opinions on the state of America from a different source:

[TruthWielder]

Hey guys, my former international relations professor just emailed me his poignant article concerning the state of America in the midst of facist socialist takeover. Please try to leave your bias at the door when reading his article. I understand the inclination towards singularly secular viewpoints but I hope that his theme of Christian salvation in the context of life and political betterment wont mar your contemplation of the serious issues at hand.

Check it out.

Quote:

In God We Trust:
The Betrayal by the American Elites
German Munoz, Ph.D.
gmunoz1313@aol.com
June 8, 2009

When loving God, neighbor, and self diminish in importance, society self-destructs as people engage in an orgy of power and pleasure-seeking, group and class identity and strife, and madness. How would you describe a culture in which a football star serves two years in prison for promoting dog fights, but abortion clinics receive government funding to butcher unborn babies? One could refer to it as loveless and insane, to say the least. How would you call an American political, cultural, economic, and bipartisan elite, which deals with an economic crisis of their own making by mortgaging our children’s future with over $12 trillion in debt? It could be called corrupt and shameless.
We are now at a point in our national decline where everyone seems to be at war with each other, and the elite has no clue about moral discipline and the common good. It is mostly concerned with “not letting this economic crisis go to waste”. Therefore, they are abusing the public trust and moneys to promote a Fascist Socialist agenda, by actions similar to the politics of Third-World countries and of Chicago. These are usually associated with deficits, debt, intimidation, contempt for the governed and corruption. They use the budget and the debt to reward allies and to punish enemies. As a result, America’s elite has lost the trust of the average American. There are many reasons for their mistrust.

-The Congress passed a stimulus bill of $1.3 trillion without even reading the document. It now wants the government to run banks, corporations, health care, education, and energy when it has not been able to effectively manage the borders, Social Security, Medicare, the Post Office, and other programs. They can not be trusted.

-Congress and the courts will use hate-speech legislation to punish those who criticize the political elite while permitting the use of hatred by their allies. They can not be trusted.

-The President is a pathological liar who has misled the American people in such issues as tax breaks, transparency, bipartisanship, Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan, among others. His model for America is Socialist Western Europe, a dying people culturally and demographically, and California, a bankrupt state declining under the pressure of anti-growth environmentalists, high taxes, over-spending, massive government regulations, and illegal aliens. This is the future of America! He can not be trusted.

-The Supreme Court is unwilling to protect unborn babies, property rights, civil liberties, and American sovereignty. They can not be trusted.

-The Department of State is willing to transfer much of American sovereignty to the United Nations a corrupt, anti-human rights, and anti-American organization, or to transnational financial entities under the control of the Europeans. They can not be trusted.

-The media, for the most part, are too politically biased and ideologically narrow to cover the news in a fair manner. Many have abandoned professional journalism for political activism, and tend not cover news embarrassing to their political allies. Their indignation is very selective. They can not be trusted.

-Universities, for the most part, have become intolerant places of Fascist Socialist political indoctrination, instead of places where students are able to exercise critical thinking skills and liberal education. Many professors have abandoned education for political activism. They can not be trusted.

-Some environmentalists make sense. Others are often more concerned with the well-being of endangered species and other resources than with human needs. Many environmentalists are not Greens, but are really Reds, Blacks, and Browns, who have a compulsion to control the totality of our lives. They can not be trusted.

-Republicans under President George W. Bush, with Democrat support, undermined our system of checks and balances by creating massive debt and regulation, and introducing Socialist bailouts, and have mistaken free trade with trade with un-free countries such as China and others. They can not be trusted.

-The Democrats have been hijacked by intolerant collectivists who seek to destroy our constitutional republic and our free market system. They can not be trusted.

-Most Americans are now being corrupted by the government elite with revenues they did not earn, but which were taken from productive persons in gangster, Marxist-like fashion. They can not be trusted.

-America-bashing, race and class obsessed, submissive (to Muslims), and history illiterate President Obama is following Clinton and Bush with his unwillingness to acknowledge that Islam is a religion of submission not peace, and that it is incompatible with our civil liberties. They can not be trusted.

-The foreign policy elite has sacrificed the lives of thousands of Americans, mostly Christians, to unconstitutionally promote the cause of Islam in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, and even in the United States. They can not be trusted.

-The anti-American and anti-Christian Hollywood elite pollutes our children’s minds with filth. They can not be trusted.

Connecting all these dots reveals the onslaught of Fascist Socialism upon our country. Their Christophobia makes them hate the Church. Their model is not Marx, Lenin or Mussolini but Lucifer, who wanted to replace God and His order (Isaiah 14:12-14). He would not serve Him. Therefore, the first step to combat the Fascist Socialists is to love God and to follow His will, so that He can heal the country through us. We can not do it ourselves. It is said “that to them that love God, all things work together unto good.” (Romans 8:28). The second step is to love the Fascist Socialists and to pray for them for they are our kin. Other steps will be presented in a future essay.

[Rust]

We should leave our biases at the door when reading it, while the good professor uses all of his while writing it? Ha!

[Stoned Crow]

did EVERY one of those points have to end with "They can not be trusted" ?

[TruthWielder]

We should leave our biases at the door when reading it, while the good professor uses all of his while writing it? Ha!

I guess its not surprising that you're post is the first in this thread but hear me out:

Christianity aside, what biases do you find here? Where is he disingenuous? Did you read the article?

Its just that too many people are suckered in by this consistent bandwagon of a thousand faces. Republican, democrat, socialist, conservative... often just bastards hiding behind viels manipulating the public by manipulating the blame causing unrest and conflict without addressing the issues.

To be biased is to be misleading. He tells you where hes coming from, agree or not. Either way its ok.

I don't think its harmful to ask others to attempt to see something without bias that is diametrically opposed to their perspectives and ideologies. After all, way more atheists than theists around here.

[TruthWielder]

did EVERY one of those points have to end with "They can not be trusted" ?

I would say so.

[Snoopy]

The world changes. It has a will of its own. You should mail your professor some cheese to go with his wine.

[Rust]

I guess its not surprising that you're post is the first in this thread but hear me out:

Christianity aside, what biases do you find here? Where is he disingenuous? Did you read the article?

Yes, I read the article.

Where is he disingenuous? Why not start at the very first item in the list:

"-The Congress passed a stimulus bill of $1.3 trillion without even reading the document."


Does the good professor hold some intimate details on the reading habits of Congress that I'm not aware of? He's making a ridiculous accusation that has no merit; a ludicrous and disingenuous exaggeration.


"It now wants the government to run banks, corporations..."

Wants to the government to run banks and corporations? According to who? Not only have the stimulus packages been an up-hill battle to get passed, but the government is "running" almost nothing. Literally. The corporations that have been bailed out are less than one percent of the private industry in the U.S. and the percentage of those in where the government is playing an active role is even smaller.



I don't think its harmful to ask others to attempt to see something without bias that is diametrically opposed to their perspectives and ideologies. After all, way more atheists than theists around here.

Harmful? No. Ludicrous? Yes. His whole article is tainted by his Christian beliefs and you're essentially wanting us not to use a perspective that opposes that, thus "hindering" - for lack of a better word - any opposition to the article.

[TruthWielder]

Yes, I read the article.

Where is he disingenuous? Why not start at the very first item in the list:

"-The Congress passed a stimulus bill of $1.3 trillion without even reading the document."


Does the good professor hold some intimate details on the reading habits of Congress that I'm not aware of? He's making a ridiculous accusation that has no merit; a ludicrous and disingenuous exaggeration.


"It now wants the government to run banks, corporations..."

Wants to the government to run banks and corporations? According to who? Not only have the stimulus packages been an up-hill battle to get passed, but the government is "running" almost nothing. Literally. The corporations that have been bailed out are less than one percent of the private industry in the U.S. and the percentage of those in where the government is playing an active role is even smaller.




Harmful? No. Ludicrous? Yes. His whole article is tainted by his Christian beliefs and you're essentially wanting us not to use a perspective that opposes that, thus "hindering" - for lack of a better word - any opposition to the article.

Before we start discussing rust, lets try to keep it civil.

When it comes to reading the document he is referring to congress' inability to read through huge legislation in the rush to the vote. This has often been a problem in congress pointed out by both democrats and republicans. Legislators rarely have enough to read through the entirety of important legislation. Including the stimulus package. The patriot act is another apt example of this unjust inefficiency that seriously hinders the expression of the American peoples will in votes.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002100700_rush25.html

Not a ridiculous accusation. Democrats and Republicans have seriously complained and led efforts to amend this. Ron Paul included.


Of course the stimulus package leads to the most significant expansion of unprecedented government spending beyond all measure of reasure foreseen by any of our forefathers. As for your question "according to who?" I don't think I have to say more than Chrysler and Chase.

A small something you don't want is still something you don't want. Of course the percentage is small. There is no revolutionary mao style coup going on. But the frank truth is that slowly huge companies freedom, thus our economic freedoms, are being usurped in the name of government intervention in places that the government has no right to intervene in. The governments duty is not to tell CEO's how to run their companies. If a company fails, it fails, as a result of bad decisions and a bad market. If it survives it prospers. Thus competition and improvement of services and goods is a norm, the end result of effective capitalism. The government CANNOT control the private sector. To control the private sector is to put the peoples prosperity in the hands of those ill equipped to encourage and protect it.

"Tainted" rust? What part of his christian perspective "taints" it negatively or irrationally? I didn't say don't use your own perspective. I cannot control your perspective rust, nor the perspective of anyone else. The mind is free. I only ask to put aside knee jerk inclinations for open mindedness in observing an argument and opinion. Thats all. Do forgive me.

[Rust]

Before we start discussing rust, lets try to keep it civil.

"I guess its not surprising that you're post is the first in this thread"

Good idea.



When it comes to reading the document he is referring to congress' inability to read through huge legislation in the rush to the vote. This has often been a problem in congress pointed out by both democrats and republicans. Legislators rarely have enough to read through the entirety of important legislation. Including the stimulus package. The patriot act is another apt example of this unjust inefficiency that seriously hinders the expression of the American peoples will in votes.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002100700_rush25.html

Not a ridiculous accusation. Democrats and Republicans have seriously complained and led efforts to amend this. Ron Paul included.

Except 'Having a small amount of time to read the Bill' is not the same as 'not reading the Bill', which is what he accused them of. Not reading the Bill implies malicious intent or negligence. Not having the time to read the Bill, on the other hand, does not.

Moreover, if you follow that link of yours you'll see the legislation they are proposing is to have at least 3 days before voting on the Bill. Why are they proposing three days? Because they are suggesting that is a good enough time for Congress to familiarize themselves with the Bill i.e. to read it. Now go ahead and show me that Congress spent less than three days on the stimulus bill. If not, you'll see that Congress spent an adequate enough time on the Bill according to your own source.


Of course the stimulus package leads to the most significant expansion of unprecedented government spending beyond all measure of reasure foreseen by any of our forefathers. As for your question "according to who?" I don't think I have to say more than Chrysler and Chase.

A small something you don't want is still something you don't want. Of course the percentage is small. There is no revolutionary mao style coup going on.

That they have bailed out and/or taken over Chrysler and Chase does not mean that "governments wants to take over corporations" or that "Fascist Socialist agendas" are genuine and honest descriptions of what's happening. They aren't. The corporations that have been bailed out are a minuscule percentage of the private corporations in the United States and the number of them that have been meaningfully controlled by the government is even smaller. Not to mention that they are in the process of relinquishing control as more of those corporations pay the bailout back!

This is tantamount to saying "You drank a drop of alcohol, ergo you're an alcoholic". That's disingenuous to say the least.


But the frank truth is that slowly huge companies freedom, thus our economic freedoms, are being usurped in the name of government intervention in places that the government has no right to intervene in. The governments duty is not to tell CEO's how to run their companies. If a company fails, it fails, as a result of bad decisions and a bad market. If it survives it prospers. Thus competition and improvement of services and goods is a norm, the end result of effective capitalism. The government CANNOT control the private sector. To control the private sector is to put the peoples prosperity in the hands of those ill equipped to encourage and protect it.

This isn't an argument about the pro's or con's of capitalism so please stop making it out to be that. It's an argument about how disingenuous it is to claim that:

a. Congress didn't read the bill.

b. Congress wants to take over corporations.


"Tainted" rust? What part of his christian perspective "taints" it negatively or irrationally? I didn't say don't use your own perspective. I cannot control your perspective rust, nor the perspective of anyone else. The mind is free. I only ask to put aside knee jerk inclinations for open mindedness in observing an argument and opinion. Thats all. Do forgive me.

1. What part of it taints it negatively or irrationally? How about the vast majority of it? I already gave you two examples of ridiculous allegations made by the good professor, which I can only assume are the product of his biases. If you want specific examples of Christian bias, then let me know and I'll oblige there as well.

2. Again, I repeat my initial statement:

We should leave our biases at the door when reading it, while the good professor uses all of his while writing it? Ha!

You are holding readers to a stricter standard than you did the writer.

[The Better Version]

It's funny how people argue back and forth about whose being bias and who isn't. the sooner people realize one cannot escape it, the sooner all our minds will be at peace on the subject.

Your professor is very bias but who isn't right? Anyway I agree and disagree with him, not because I think he is wrong but rather because I think he's blowing some things way out of proportion. The whole abortion thing? That's not butcher, it's medical science. It's not as if doctors are crucifying dead babies on the cross. Are they preventing a baby from being born? Yes. does that roughly translate to murder? yes. Do I have a problem with it? Not at all.

I do agree with his stimulus package notion given the fact that the legislation was 2,000 pages (Don't quote me on that) and of course, since they are humans in the upper echleons of society, they will probably be too lazy and irresponsible to read the whole thing. I'm not even rich and I'm dreading the thought of having to read such a massive document in only 48 hours.

Now as far as the Supreme Court goes, I really don't know what he is talking about, unless he is referring to laws being carried out that he simply disagrees with. I'll admit there are some bogus laws out there, which contradict the essence of America, but his statement is very presumptious. I mean come on! They just gave detainee's habeas corpus rights when no one else in the government would.

Anyway, seems to me like he's a pretty big libertarian so I can respect that and given the fact he's a foreign relations professor, I should certainly say he knows very well what he's talking about. Peace.

[DJ Meaty Cheeks]

Lol, christfag.

[Neverender]

YYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU SHALLLLL NOT BEEEE TRUSSSTEDD!!!!!!!!

http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp272/ShawnSolo/YouShallNotPass2.jpg

[Fza]

-The foreign policy elite has sacrificed the lives of thousands of Americans, mostly Christians, to unconstitutionally promote the cause of Islam in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq, Kosovo, and even in the United States. They can not be trusted. .

It's funny that you're zealous professor is not only hating democrats like Clinton and Obama but Bush also (when he was elected he was their favorite, but because he was so unpopular they dropped him like a brick). He should also add Reagan on that list since he supported the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Anyone taking fundamentalists seriously should be checked for brain damage.

[TruthWielder]

"I guess its not surprising that you're post is the first in this thread"

Good idea.




Except 'Having a small amount of time to read the Bill' is not the same as 'not reading the Bill', which is what he accused them of. Not reading the Bill implies malicious intent or negligence. Not having the time to read the Bill, on the other hand, does not.

Moreover, if you follow that link of yours you'll see the legislation they are proposing is to have at least 3 days before voting on the Bill. Why are they proposing three days? Because they are suggesting that is a good enough time for Congress to familiarize themselves with the Bill i.e. to read it. Now go ahead and show me that Congress spent less than three days on the stimulus bill. If not, you'll see that Congress spent an adequate enough time on the Bill according to your own source.



That they have bailed out and/or taken over Chrysler and Chase does not mean that "governments wants to take over corporations" or that "Fascist Socialist agendas" are genuine and honest descriptions of what's happening. They aren't. The corporations that have been bailed out are a minuscule percentage of the private corporations in the United States and the number of them that have been meaningfully controlled by the government is even smaller. Not to mention that they are in the process of relinquishing control as more of those corporations pay the bailout back!

This is tantamount to saying "You drank a drop of alcohol, ergo you're an alcoholic". That's disingenuous to say the least.




This isn't an argument about the pro's or con's of capitalism so please stop making it out to be that. It's an argument about how disingenuous it is to claim that:

a. Congress didn't read the bill.

b. Congress wants to take over corporations.



1. What part of it taints it negatively or irrationally? How about the vast majority of it? I already gave you two examples of ridiculous allegations made by the good professor, which I can only assume are the product of his biases. If you want specific examples of Christian bias, then let me know and I'll oblige there as well.

2. Again, I repeat my initial statement:

We should leave our biases at the door when reading it, while the good professor uses all of his while writing it? Ha!

You are holding readers to a stricter standard than you did the writer.

Not reading the bill to completion and satisfaction is not reading the bill. You don't say "I read War and Peace" after reading one chapter and having a congressional aide flip through it. Legislators are extremely busy and are constantly juggling between contacts, constituents, local obligations, temporal needs, getting supporters, getting financed, and more besides reading legislation. They simply do not have the time. I have heard this first hand from a former congressional aide. A bill that would give congressmen enough time to read bills that amount to the supposed solutions of the preeminent problems of America is just what legislators need.

I'm sorry man but 3 days is not enough to read over and study the 647 page stimulus package bill. Plus, bills often are given revisions at the last minute and it only takes a majority vote to vote on actually voting for it. Thus congressmen have no incentive to truly study the bill.

Heres the text of it if you'd like.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/24/house-stimulus-bill-full_n_160569.html


When it comes to observing a "facist socialist" agenda, that opinion is based on observation of aggregate trends, not an assumption based on one mistake or disagreement. Those trends are listed in the article. This is not presuming anything more than what has been said: people are using facist socialist tactics to absorb control of public opinion, deny private enterprise, and deprive people of liberties. You may disagree with that. Please remember you are not being labeled a facist socialist. Simply that its a trend in government and culture that many are following.


To be honest I don't believe your analogy of the alcohol/person socialism/government is very good seeing that government is a construct with a singular and definable purpose. It does not seek pleasure or relaxation. Those are not factors for it. Those factors make the consumption of alcohol a sometimes good for people. Socialism, I hold, is always bad and thus, in any amount is always undesirable.

So I hold that congress didn't read the bill to a satisfactory extent.

As far as congress wanting to take over corporations that is certainly the observable trend shown to be the case in a handful of example. I do not propose that anyone in congress has any supervillain style plans to usurp all of private enterprise. But as far as want? Want has been demonstrated.

As to the two examples, in my overview of them they don't seem to sufficiently demonstrate bias over clear rationale. You kinda said you had the apple before you had the tree on that one.

I'll take specific example of christian bias if you will help me please. Relevant ones that show lack of logical foundation in pertinent topics would be best.

I am not holding readers to a stricter standard than my professor because his argument, whether you agree with it, is a reasoned one.

"This is this thus this and this."

I only ask for you not to make your disdain of christianity hinder your reading of the article and the understanding of its arguments.

[Rust]

Not reading the bill to completion and satisfaction is not reading the bill. You don't say "I read War and Peace" after reading one chapter and having a congressional aide flip through it. Legislators are extremely busy and are constantly juggling between contacts, constituents, local obligations, temporal needs, getting supporters, getting financed, and more besides reading legislation. They simply do not have the time. I have heard this first hand from a former congressional aide. A bill that would give congressmen enough time to read bills that amount to the supposed solutions of the preeminent problems of America is just what legislators need.

I'm sorry man but 3 days is not enough to read over and study the 647 page stimulus package bill. Plus, bills often are given revisions at the last minute and it only takes a majority vote to vote on actually voting for it. Thus congressmen have no incentive to truly study the bill.

Heres the text of it if you'd like.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/24/house-stimulus-bill-full_n_160569.html


1. Except neither you nor the professor know if they read it or not. Your problem with Congress is that they supposedly reach conclusions on those Bills without knowing all the facts (i.e reading the Bill completely), correct? Then how is that any different from what the professor did when he accused Congress of not reading the Bill when he doesn't know that all? He pulled that straight out of his ass! The fact remains the professor you're trying to defend made completely baseless accusation. That's disingenuous.

2. At no point in time did I say - nor have you shown - that the stimulus Bill only took three days (or less) to consider. The point of the three days was to show how your own source believes that's a reasonable amount of time to give Congress to consider a bill; thus if Congress took at the very least three days to consider the Bill (for all you know they might have taken weeks), then they would have acted reasonably according to your very own source.



When it comes to observing a "facist socialist" agenda, that opinion is based on observation of aggregate trends, not an assumption based on one mistake or disagreement. Those trends are listed in the article. This is not presuming anything more than what has been said: people are using facist socialist tactics to absorb control of public opinion, deny private enterprise, and deprive people of liberties. You may disagree with that. Please remember you are not being labeled a facist socialist. Simply that its a trend in government and culture that many are following.

Those trends are exactly what are exaggerations made by the author! We're dealing with only the first item on the list, and already I've shown how disingenuous he was. We can continue going on if you want...


To be honest I don't believe your analogy of the alcohol/person socialism/government is very good seeing that government is a construct with a singular and definable purpose. It does not seek pleasure or relaxation. Those are not factors for it. Those factors make the consumption of alcohol a sometimes good for people. Socialism, I hold, is always bad and thus, in any amount is always undesirable.

Again, you keep bringing up whether you like socialism or not. That's not important. The point of the analogy isn't whether alcohol can be good for someone or not; the point is the quantity of the consumption that is taking place. One drop of alcohol is not enough quantity to consider someone an alcoholic. Similarly, intervening in less than one percent of the private enterprise of a country - when those private enterprises were begging for the intervention mind you - cannot be honestly labeled as "fascist socialism" or any other of the ludicrous attacks made by the professor.

So I hold that congress didn't read the bill to a satisfactory extent.

Not only did the professor not say that "congress didn't read the bill to a satisfactory extent", but even if he had he hasn't shown that in any way! That's the point. You are reaching that conclusions without even knowing the specifics... the very thing you're accusing Congress of doing!



As far as congress wanting to take over corporations that is certainly the observable trend shown to be the case in a handful of example. I do not propose that anyone in congress has any supervillain style plans to usurp all of private enterprise. But as far as want? Want has been demonstrated.

Sorry but taking months to do it, doing it at the request of those private enterprises, only involving less than one percent of private enterprise, and giving what they bought back by accepting payments for the stimulus does not equal "wanting" it in any reasonable way.

The fact that it affected such a low number, that it affected enterprises requesting it, that they are giving it back once they are repaid, and that it came after a crisis, is indicative of them not considering it a regrettable yet necessary course of action, not of "wanting to do that" - which has the implication of some hidden socialist agenda .


As to the two examples, in my overview of them they don't seem to sufficiently demonstrate bias over clear rationale. You kinda said you had the apple before you had the tree on that one.


No, actually I did. Does he know that Congress didn't read the Bill at all? No. Does he know that Congress didn't read it adequately? No. Case closed.

I'll take specific example of christian bias if you will help me please. Relevant ones that show lack of logical foundation in pertinent topics would be best

Sure.

"How would you describe a culture in which a football star serves two years in prison for promoting dog fights, but abortion clinics receive government funding to butcher unborn babies?"

Oh, and biased does not mean lacking a logical foundation. Calling an abortion the "butchering of unborn babies" is biased, even if the professor can hide behind the banner of opinion.


I am not holding readers to a stricter standard than my professor because his argument, whether you agree with it, is a reasoned one.

"This is this thus this and this."

I only ask for you not to make your disdain of christianity hinder your reading of the article and the understanding of its arguments.

Except his argument is not a reasoned one for the reasons I have shown. For example, he concludes Congress didn't read the Bill yet he has no proof of that. That's not reasoned.

His disdain for socialism has lead him make some utterly idiotic claims. My point stands: You are holding readers to a stricter standard than you did the writer.

[Yggdrasil]

Ah, I love seeing the kiddish little right-wingers squirm about Obama's policies so much so early into his presidency, decrying them as socialism, while in reality they're far from true socialism. Also, I wouldn't mind a socialist state (or one with socialist characteristics) here at all. I hate how into this country saying that word, "socialism", is like uttering a satanic chant. Bah, maybe this country will never learn.

[Rust]

The face of evil:


http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png

I'm trembling in my boots.

[Azure]

Hey guys, my former international relations professor just emailed me his poignant article concerning the state of America in the midst of facist socialist

That's where everyone should have stopped reading.

[Iolite]

Rust must be seething with anger, because of all the people that he has to keep repeating himself with..
Fucking defense mechanisms...

[TruthWielder]

1. Except neither you nor the professor know if they read it or not. Your problem with Congress is that they supposedly reach conclusions on those Bills without knowing all the facts (i.e reading the Bill completely), correct? Then how is that any different from what the professor did when he accused Congress of not reading the Bill when he doesn't know that all? He pulled that straight out of his ass! The fact remains the professor you're trying to defend made completely baseless accusation. That's disingenuous.

2. At no point in time did I say - nor have you shown - that the stimulus Bill only took three days (or less) to consider. The point of the three days was to show how your own source believes that's a reasonable amount of time to give Congress to consider a bill; thus if Congress took at the very least three days to consider the Bill (for all you know they might have taken weeks), then they would have acted reasonably according to your very own source.




Those trends are exactly what are exaggerations made by the author! We're dealing with only the first item on the list, and already I've shown how disingenuous he was. We can continue going on if you want...




Again, you keep bringing up whether you like socialism or not. That's not important. The point of the analogy isn't whether alcohol can be good for someone or not; the point is the quantity of the consumption that is taking place. One drop of alcohol is not enough quantity to consider someone an alcoholic. Similarly, intervening in less than one percent of the private enterprise of a country - when those private enterprises were begging for the intervention mind you - cannot be honestly labeled as "fascist socialism" or any other of the ludicrous attacks made by the professor.



Not only did the professor not say that "congress didn't read the bill to a satisfactory extent", but even if he had he hasn't shown that in any way! That's the point. You are reaching that conclusions without even knowing the specifics... the very thing you're accusing Congress of doing!



Sorry but taking months to do it, doing it at the request of those private enterprises, only involving less than one percent of private enterprise, and giving what they bought back by accepting payments for the stimulus does not equal "wanting" it in any reasonable way.

The fact that it affected such a low number, that it affected enterprises requesting it, that they are giving it back once they are repaid, and that it came after a crisis, is indicative of them not considering it a regrettable yet necessary course of action, not of "wanting to do that" - which has the implication of some hidden socialist agenda .



No, actually I did. Does he know that Congress didn't read the Bill at all? No. Does he know that Congress didn't read it adequately? No. Case closed.



Sure.

"How would you describe a culture in which a football star serves two years in prison for promoting dog fights, but abortion clinics receive government funding to butcher unborn babies?"

Oh, and biased does not mean lacking a logical foundation. Calling an abortion the "butchering of unborn babies" is biased, even if the professor can hide behind the banner of opinion.



Except his argument is not a reasoned one for the reasons I have shown. For example, he concludes Congress didn't read the Bill yet he has no proof of that. That's not reasoned.

His disdain for socialism has lead him make some utterly idiotic claims. My point stands: You are holding readers to a stricter standard than you did the writer.


Rust.

1.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002100700_rush25.html

“No, I don’t think anyone will have the chance to [read the entire bill],” Lautenberg told CNSNews.com

^^That guys a democrat too. I shouldnt have to give these links rust because I pointed out how busy legislators are and why they simply cannot be expected to read a 647 page bill (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002100700_rush25.html)

However, it turns out its even longer:

"The first PDF was 424 pages long and the second PDF was 575 pages long, making the total bill 999 pages long."

This is why its implausible to expect legislators to read this much in 3 days given their already hectic schedules and various responsibilities.

Not straight out of his ass. There are many more similar articles to google on this. Can we agree on this?


2. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002100700_rush25.html

"The House requires a three-day waiting period, but the Rules Committee can override that obligation if a simple majority of the House agrees. House leaders circumvented the three-day layover 44 times in the past two years, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The House has removed the waiting period for some of the most costly and complex bills, including Saturday's appropriations bill. Representatives last year voted on a 1,213-page defense-authorization bill three hours after receiving it, according to Baird's office. They had eight hours before voting on an 816-page energy bill. "



And so, no you have not shown how disingenuous that was. I'm not trying to be snobby or mean man but look, there is the info. Yes, perhaps they're exaggerations. I do still see facist socialism as a rising threat given the factors involved and aggregate trends in government and culture.


I believe you missed my point on the critique of your analogy good sir. My point was that the analogy did not hold because the factors involved were different in key ways. The reason being that socialism is not akin to alcohol because socialism implies less individual freedom. The next reason being that government is not akin to man because the purpose of government is to ensure liberty while the purpose of man is still a big question mark with many opinions. Thus, I stated because alcohol can sometimes be good for man but socialism (in my view, the reason why this is relevant) is never good for government. I was not being unclear or tangential. I was clarifying my commentary on your analogy.

And of course the companies were begging for the help. They want to stay afloat. This does not speak much of their principles, only their consideration for their pockets. I don't think he specifically referred to the government intervention being facist socialist but it is no attack to state the clear observation that government is doing something in a facist socialist manner, as opposed to insulting and simply saying that something or someone is facist socialist.

About congress reading the bill, already talked about, they didn't. They couldn't. There are the specifics and there are more if you wish me to present them.

I wouldn't state that there is some hidden socialist agenda, but whatever the ramifications and stipulations...they wanted to take control of and give money to companies and they did rust. Period.



Yes and yes. Links above. More if requested.


You're right about the definition of biased. I muddled it up and used it vaguely. He is not "hiding" behind anything though. Remember, I'm arguing for him as he cannot argue for himself.


He does have proof of it, how are the claims idiotic? My point still stands you big meanie. *crosses arms and makes a huffy face*

Btw, let me apologize for my inability to quote. I don't mean to be unclear.

[Iehovah]

My "contemplation of the serious issues at hand"? According to that guy's article, pretty much anyone that isn't in lockstep with his beliefs cannot be trusted. Note that he includes "Most Americans" in his attacks? Either you're with him or against him. He's not here to discuss, he's here to tell people how things are. And the very first card he's going to play in this game is the "God" card, get all the good Christians who buy what he's saying to believe that it's all about God. And who better to deliver God's message and tell them how things should be (in future messages!) than German Munoz?

That's not serious discussion, that's preaching to the choir.

[TruthWielder]

My "contemplation of the serious issues at hand"? According to that guy's article, pretty much anyone that isn't in lockstep with his beliefs cannot be trusted. Note that he includes "Most Americans" in his attacks? Either you're with him or against him. He's not here to discuss, he's here to tell people how things are. And the very first card he's going to play in this game is the "God" card, get all the good Christians who buy what he's saying to believe that it's all about God. And who better to deliver God's message and tell them how things should be (in future messages!) than German Munoz?

That's not serious discussion, that's preaching to the choir.

Don't confuse what he believes to be right in the political sense with how he believes people should be treated.

It should be a given, in fact it is a tenet of the United States of America, that government and the media are not to be trusted.

Not lockstep man. I don't think he's alienating anyone. He is differentiating between christian and not, but that pretty much goes without saying for anyone who dares to preach.

Its not preaching to the choir because its going to become a public article my friend.

I don't believe he has any delusions of grandeur man, if thats your implication.

[TruthWielder]

It's funny that you're zealous professor is not only hating democrats like Clinton and Obama but Bush also (when he was elected he was their favorite, but because he was so unpopular they dropped him like a brick). He should also add Reagan on that list since he supported the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Anyone taking fundamentalists seriously should be checked for brain damage.

Try not to equate christianity automatically with zealotry and fundamentalism.

Yeah, he pulls no punches politically and thats how it should be. Even if you voted for your president and got the guy you wanted its still your right and duty to criticize him. He just doesn't give a crap about parties though.

[TruthWielder]

YYYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU SHALLLLL NOT BEEEE TRUSSSTEDD!!!!!!!!

http://i419.photobucket.com/albums/pp272/ShawnSolo/YouShallNotPass2.jpg

Lawlz

[Zip]

...butcher unborn babies

Stopped reading here.

[Rust]

Rust.
1.
http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002100700_rush25.html

“No, I don’t think anyone will have the chance to [read the entire bill],” Lautenberg told CNSNews.com

"Predicts"? Unless he's Nostradamus himself then I frankly don't give a flying fuck what that guy "predicted". I care what was actually the case. A prediction by some guy, democrat or not, doesn't tell me anything; "predicts" is a fancy word for "guesses". Your professor didn't guess did he? He claimed that that was the truth. Now show it. Go ahead and show the legislative calendar and how long the Bill took from creation to it being passed, and then show how it's impossible to read such a text in that time frame.


This is why its implausible to expect legislators to read this much in 3 days given their already hectic schedules and various responsibilities.

I still don't understand why you're focusing on the 3 days and trying to pin that on this specific Bill. The three days was mentioned on your source as a reasonable time frame in general. Not mine, yours. So if you disagree, then you're disagreeing with your own source. But again, this isn't that important since you've yet to establish how long this particular Bill took, which is the important point.


Not straight out of his ass. There are many more similar articles to google on this. Can we agree on this?

Yes, straight out of his ass. Have you shown nobody read it? No. Have you even shown he knew how long they had to read the Bill? No.

2. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002100700_rush25.html

"The House requires a three-day waiting period, but the Rules Committee can override that obligation if a simple majority of the House agrees. House leaders circumvented the three-day layover 44 times in the past two years, according to the Congressional Research Service.

The House has removed the waiting period for some of the most costly and complex bills, including Saturday's appropriations bill. Representatives last year voted on a 1,213-page defense-authorization bill three hours after receiving it, according to Baird's office. They had eight hours before voting on an 816-page energy bill. "

Again, so what? This doesn't prove your point. I don't doubt that at times Congress has voted too quickly. What I want you to show is that it did so in this particular case. The fact that you keep ignoring this - that you keep bringing general information that doesn't relate directly to this particular Bill - leads me to believe you have none.

So please, stop beating around the bush: provide information on how long Congress had to read this Bill which the good professor claimed Congress didn't read.


And so, no you have not shown how disingenuous that was. I'm not trying to be snobby or mean man but look, there is the info. Yes, perhaps they're exaggerations. I do still see facist socialism as a rising threat given the factors involved and aggregate trends in government and culture.

Yes, I have. That Congress has voted quickly in the past does not prove it voted quickly on this particular Bill.


I believe you missed my point on the critique of your analogy good sir. My point was that the analogy did not hold because the factors involved were different in key ways. The reason being that socialism is not akin to alcohol because socialism implies less individual freedom. The next reason being that government is not akin to man because the purpose of government is to ensure liberty while the purpose of man is still a big question mark with many opinions. Thus, I stated because alcohol can sometimes be good for man but socialism (in my view, the reason why this is relevant) is never good for government. I was not being unclear or tangential. I was clarifying my commentary on your analogy.

And your commentary doesn't refute it as a valid analogy precisely because the point of the analogy is quantity, which you again ignored. It's the quantity that makes the point: having such a small amount of alcohol does not make you an alcoholic. Similarly nationalizing less than half of a percent does not make you a socialist. Whether you think socialism is bad or removes freedom wouldn't refute this in the least, hence why it's irrelevant.

If I have a bottle of whiskey and drink 0.21% of it, am I an alcoholic or a drunk? No. Similarly, if there are trillions of assets and I nationalize 0.21% of them - at the request of those very assets no less! - how the hell am I a socialist?


And of course the companies were begging for the help. They want to stay afloat. This does not speak much of their principles, only their consideration for their pockets. I don't think he specifically referred to the government intervention being facist socialist but it is no attack to state the clear observation that government is doing something in a facist socialist manner, as opposed to insulting and simply saying that something or someone is facist socialist.

Except it's not doing anything in a socialist fascist manner. Buying companies that asked to be bought is neither socialist nor fascist; much less when it's done with less than half of a percent of the total assets.

About congress reading the bill, already talked about, they didn't. They couldn't. There are the specifics and there are more if you wish me to present them.

You keep claiming they couldn't and yet have consistently failed to show that. You showed they are busy and that you showed that at times they have acted too quickly. Great. That still doesn't prove that in this particular case, for this particular Bill, they didn't read it. You've posted only general claims, nothing specific to this case.

For example, this would be tantamount to me claiming a specific woman was raped while serving in the military because rape in the military occurs. That's a logical fallacy.

I wouldn't state that there is some hidden socialist agenda, but whatever the ramifications and stipulations...they wanted to take control of and give money to companies and they did rust. Period.


No, they saw it as a regrettable yet necessary action. Having it apply to less than half of a percent and undoing it the moment the companies were/are able to pay it back is nothing close to "wanting" socialism. You don't do so little nor are you so quick to undo the things you really want.

You're right about the definition of biased. I muddled it up and used it vaguely. He is not "hiding" behind anything though. Remember, I'm arguing for him as he cannot argue for himself.


Why can't he argue for himself? Invite him! It would be utterly delightful to see his arguments be ripped apart for Zoklet to see.


He does have proof of it, how are the claims idiotic? My point still stands you big meanie. *crosses arms and makes a huffy face*

What proof? Have you shown that Congress didn't have the time to read this particular stimulus Bill? Yes or no? The answer is a big fat NO.

[TruthWielder]

"Predicts"? Unless he's Nostradamus himself then I frankly don't give a flying fuck what that guy "predicted". I care what was actually the case. A prediction by some guy, democrat or not, doesn't tell me anything; "predicts" is a fancy word for "guesses". Your professor didn't guess did he? He claimed that that was the truth. Now show it. Go ahead and show the legislative calendar and how long the Bill took from creation to it being passed, and then show how it's impossible to read such a text in that time frame.



I still don't understand why you're focusing on the 3 days and trying to pin that on this specific Bill. The three days was mentioned on your source as a reasonable time frame in general. Not mine, yours. So if you disagree, then you're disagreeing with your own source. But again, this isn't that important since you've yet to establish how long this particular Bill took, which is the important point.



Yes, straight out of his ass. Have you shown nobody read it? No. Have you even shown he knew how long they had to read the Bill? No.



Again, so what? This doesn't prove your point. I don't doubt that at times Congress has voted too quickly. What I want you to show is that it did so in this particular case. The fact that you keep ignoring this - that you keep bringing general information that doesn't relate directly to this particular Bill - leads me to believe you have none.

So please, stop beating around the bush: provide information on how long Congress had to read this Bill which the good professor claimed Congress didn't read.



Yes, I have. That Congress has voted quickly in the past does not prove it voted quickly on this particular Bill.



And your commentary doesn't refute it as a valid analogy precisely because the point of the analogy is quantity, which you again ignored. It's the quantity that makes the point: having such a small amount of alcohol does not make you an alcoholic. Similarly nationalizing less than half of a percent does not make you a socialist. Whether you think socialism is bad or removes freedom wouldn't refute this in the least, hence why it's irrelevant.

If I have a bottle of whiskey and drink 0.21% of it, am I an alcoholic or a drunk? No. Similarly, if there are trillions of assets and I nationalize 0.21% of them - at the request of those very assets no less! - how the hell am I a socialist?




Except it's not doing anything in a socialist fascist manner. Buying companies that asked to be bought is neither socialist nor fascist; much less when it's done with less than half of a percent of the total assets.



You keep claiming they couldn't and yet have consistently failed to show that. You showed they are busy and that you showed that at times they have acted too quickly. Great. That still doesn't prove that in this particular case, for this particular Bill, they didn't read it. You've posted only general claims, nothing specific to this case.

For example, this would be tantamount to me claiming a specific woman was raped while serving in the military because rape in the military occurs. That's a logical fallacy.



No, they saw it as a regrettable yet necessary action. Having it apply to less than half of a percent and undoing it the moment the companies were/are able to pay it back is nothing close to "wanting" socialism. You don't do so little nor are you so quick to undo the things you really want.



Why can't he argue for himself? Invite him! It would be utterly delightful to see his arguments be ripped apart for Zoklet to see.



What proof? Have you shown that Congress didn't have the time to read this particular stimulus Bill? Yes or no? The answer is a big fat NO.


lol!

Rust! Are you kidding me man? And relax, no need to get mad. We're not insulting each other or trying to defame each other. We're conversing. Lets try and keep this light dude.

I shouldn't need to repeat myself. Legislators do NOT get enough time to sufficiently study most huge bills before the vote. They do not. Congressmen (not that "guy", as hes not some dude off the street hes a legislator) attest to this. Congressional aides are there for a reason. But even with congressional aides and all the resources at hand legislatos simply can't be expected to read and understand the whole thing.

Legislators do not get enough time to read massive bills

Every source I've given you attests to this. How about this one?

start at 4:40
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3085DErFpoY&feature=channel

And as I said, Bills can be changed last minute. To show how long the bill was considered does not show how much time congress had to read the final revision which, as I've shown, has been 3 days. 3 days to read, what I now understand to be in the final revision, over 1100 pages.

My professor claimed that that was the truth based on the testimonies of many, including both democrat and republican legislators.

http://readthebill.org/petition/

http://www.downsizedc.org/page/read_the_laws

^^These guys feel as strongly as I and many others do about congress' inability to give sufficient time to the study of important bills. They're there for a reason.

No, three days was not mentioned on my source as a reasonable amount of time, just better than what we have and thus the current goal to be aimed for. Legislation towards a goal goes at a snails pace. You garner support in light of small victories. You put words in my mouth.


Not straight out of his ass. Yes, I have. I've already shown he knew how long they had to read the bill as it is goes with the evidence that I've presented.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478
“The Democrats have thrown this at us very last-minute,” said Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.).
It seems to have done so (voted too quickly) in this particular case. Theres the evidence. No, I was not ignoring anything rust, this is the first time you presented this question to me. How can I ignore something you havent asked me? :confused:


They did.

My point regarding the analogy was, (is this really so hard?) that a small amount of a bad thing is still a bad thing, as is the case with socialism and government. Not the case in alcohol and man. I didn't say that anyone was made a socialist or that our country is socialist. Its that that legislations makes the government more socialist, whether by molecule or megaton is irrelevant.

Socialism: "Socialism refers to any one of various economic theories of economic organization advocating state or cooperative ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and a society characterized by equal opportunities/means for all individuals with a more egalitarian method of compensation based on the full product of the laborer"

State ownership of business, for whatever time or amount as time and amount is irrelevant, is therefore a characteristically socialist action.

Facism: "Fascism is much defined by what it opposes, what scholars call the fascist negations - its opposition to individualism, rationalism, liberalism, conservatism, capitalism, and communism."

Many such oppositions to all those factors exist in our government and its processes today.

Thus, facist socialism and its effects on our government.

Yeah, I showed it.

Now here are some presuppositions. Are you stating that no one in congress is of a socialist bent? Quite a few on the democratic side and a few on the republican side (*cough*neocons*cough*) are.

Nancy Pelosi saw it as regrettable? Obama saw it as regrettable? I honestly don't think so man. Why else would the democrats push so hard for it when the natural state of the government/economy relationship is to stay out of each other. I'm not saying that everyone wanted it, just that several key players surely did.

Politics was defined by aristotle as the art of the possible. When you have a goal you fulfill it to the greatest possible extent. In politics precedents often set policy. It is now much easier to bring socialist policies to the table than it was before Bush.

*looks from side to side*
Are you serious dude? He isn't here. Nor, as an old guy with way more important things to deal with, would he often be on teh interwebs. Ripped apart dude? Check your ego rust. Or shall I call you Dr. Rust? :p

And...yes.

[Visualizer]

I'm glad I don't attend whatever school you do.

[Launchpad]

Truth Wielder - I believe Rust was asking you to provide evidence that:

"The Congress passed a stimulus bill of $1.3 trillion without even reading the document."

This was the very first point in your professors manifesto and it has not been adequately backed up. In order to prove this point you must 1. Show that you know how long it took Congress to discuss and pass this bill. 2. That whatever period of time that was is not enough time to read and understand the bill. You have not done this.

What you have done is linked to some sites that complain that in the past, certain unnamed "mammoth bills" have been passed without proper Congressional hearing..This may or may not be true, but it is a red herring the actual evidence needed to prove your professors point (which I outlined above) has not been provided in this thread.

Either provide those two pieces of evidence or agree that your profs claim (in at least that point) is completely ridiculous.

[Iolite]

Any argument can be constructed from any shred of will to defend your belief, I don't even need to read the paragraphs that you've written to know that that's all you're doing.
Fuck all your political sidestepping, it's all the same as the kid defending his act of stealing a toy.
I'm awaiting rusts pwning

[Allen]

Rust said The face of evil:



awesomegraphhere

I'm trembling in my boots.



Here is where your pastor...er professor fails. Fascist Socialism has not infected 'merica yet, and Christ can't do anything about that, for or against.

[TruthWielder]

Holy fuck.


Launchpad did you read my last post man?

Why am I, or my professor, or anyone the bad guy now? Read my last post please. Especially check the first link.

This is not an attack, insult, or attempt at discrediting anyone. This is a discussion. I respect rust enormously. I always have. I don't always agree with him or his methods of argumentation but shit, no one agrees with anyone 100%. But relax you people.

Iolite, you just said that even though you don't understand something you understand it. Great.

Allen, you're just not arguing.

This is not personal, this is a discussion. Please, just continue to discuss. No one here means anyone harm.

[Launchpad]

I read your post, I even sat through the 10 minutes of youtube video - most of which was Republican John Boehner talking about how he hates stimulus, although I imagine what your speaking of is when he presents the stack of papers and says:

"1100 pages that not one member of this body has read...not one..there may be some staffer that has read this...not one member has read this".

Again, why should I believe John Boehner? His word is not infallible. When was the bill presented to Congress? How long did it take them to decide? Whatever time that was, it is necessary to prove that it is impossible to read the bill in that time period. THIS would be the evidence that none of the members have read the bill.

I am not attacking you. I'm not freaking out, nor am I making you out to be the 'bad guy'. I thought I was legitimately discussing the topic you and Rust were arguing over for the previous few posts.

Also - after just skimming your original post again - where was your Professors 'article' published? I have seen eccentric profs before, but you have to wonder about a guy that sends things like this (it looks like he wrote it in about an hour) out over email. Also, a brief search of Google Scholar didn't turn up any other publications by this professor...what else has he published?

[Allen]

Allen, you're just not arguing.

No, I'm not. Your prof. just has an american flag shoved too far up his ass.

He's blatantly biased and an overbearing, zealous nationalist, dead-set on keeping economic and social traditions in place and static.

[Rust]

lol!

Rust! Are you kidding me man? And relax, no need to get mad. We're not insulting each other or trying to defame each other. We're conversing. Lets try and keep this light dude.

1. I am relaxed. I am not mad.

2. If my tone seems like I'm trying to defame you, it's because it's tiring to see you beat around the bush and not provide what I've been asking you for.

As for keeping it light, I'll keep it the way I want to... dude. I don't subscribe to the idea that insults are inherently bad. I would endlessly prefer that you be very insulting to me and yet provide the evidence for your (or the professor's) claims than what you're doing now, which is be "courteous" and not provide that evidence.


I shouldn't need to repeat myself. Legislators do NOT get enough time to sufficiently study most huge bills before the vote. They do not. Congressmen (not that "guy", as hes not some dude off the street hes a legislator) attest to this. Congressional aides are there for a reason. But even with congressional aides and all the resources at hand legislatos simply can't be expected to read and understand the whole thing.

You are repeating yourself needlessly. Nobody has ever questioned that Congress has a busy schedule. That they are busy was never in question.

What you need to substantiate is the claim that Congress didn't read this particular bill. That Congress is busy and/or that Congress hasn't read some other Bills in the past does not do so. To claim it does is a logical fallacy.


And as I said, Bills can be changed last minute. To show how long the bill was considered does not show how much time congress had to read the final revision which, as I've shown, has been 3 days. 3 days to read, what I now understand to be in the final revision, over 1100 pages.

Except your ignoring the fact that they would only need to read the revision/amendment and not the entire thing again, thus it's nowhere near three days like you're making it out to be. If an author gives me an early draft of his book to read, an then changes the last chapter I only need to read the last chapter.

Oh, and no, you did not show how Congress only has three days to read the revision. What you showed was a proposed Bill saying that the minimum time to deliberate should be three days. Minimum, not maximum.


^^These guys feel as strongly as I and many others do about congress' inability to give sufficient time to the study of important bills. They're there for a reason.

You already posted a link to something similar, and as I pointed out:

1. This isn't enough to substantiate the claim that they didn't read this specific Bill.

2. The link you initially posted supported a 3 day reading time!


No, three days was not mentioned on my source as a reasonable amount of time, just better than what we have and thus the current goal to be aimed for. Legislation towards a goal goes at a snails pace. You garner support in light of small victories. You put words in my mouth.


Sorry but I'm not going to assume they deliberately supported a time frame they disagreed with just because you don't like the fact that they supported a 3-day minimum and you didn't. If you have some evidence suggesting they did support this even though they disagreed with it, then I'm more than willing to read it.


Not straight out of his ass. Yes, I have. I've already shown he knew how long they had to read the bill as it is goes with the evidence that I've presented.

You posted no such evidence that I recall. You posted evidence of a proposed bill that would put a minimum amount of time on the deliberation of a Bill, and you posted evidence that Congress is busy. That's it. Neither of them show Congress didn't read the bill.


http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=43478
“The Democrats have thrown this at us very last-minute,” said Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.).
It seems to have done so (voted too quickly) in this particular case. Theres the evidence. No, I was not ignoring anything rust, this is the first time you presented this question to me. How can I ignore something you havent asked me? :confused:

1. I don;t have to ask you this, you should know that's the only thing that substantiates the claim.

2. That's not the evidence I asked you. That's a prediction which tells us nothing. It's a guess. A guess doesn't prove your claim. Unless he is Nostradamus or Jesus, his "guess" is meaningless. Meaningless specially when you can easily find the schedule/calendar to see how much time they really had. You keep refusing to do so. I wonder why...


They did.

My point regarding the analogy was, (is this really so hard?) that a small amount of a bad thing is still a bad thing, as is the case with socialism and government. Not the case in alcohol and man. I didn't say that anyone was made a socialist or that our country is socialist. Its that that legislations makes the government more socialist, whether by molecule or megaton is irrelevant.

It's not hard. I understand that you still think a small amount of socialism is a bad thing. What you don't understand is that I didn't ask you for what you think is a bad thing. That's inconsequential here. You keep trying to turn it into a socialism vs. capitalism discussion when it's a discussion of the disgusting dishonesty showed by your ridiculous professor. The point being, that the quantity of nationalization that has taken place is so pathetically small that it's nothing close to socialism, just like a drinking a drop of alcohol is nothing close to alcoholism.

So yes, you think its a bad thing. Neat. The point still remains that 0.21% nationalization is not socialism, no matter how bad you might think it is.


State ownership of business, for whatever time or amount as time and amount is irrelevant, is therefore a characteristically socialist actio

1. Nice touch conveniently qualifying it as "socialist action".

2. The definition you posted clearly refers to the means of production as a whole, not less than 1 percent of them, and moreover clearly mentions the egalitarian distribution of wealth which has clearly not taken place here. It fails your own definition.

Many such oppositions to all those factors exist in our government and its processes today.

Thus, facist socialism and its effects on our government.

Wow. That has to be the shittiest most self-serving definition of "fascism" I've ever heard! What the hell isn't Fascism according to that ridiculous definition?


Now here are some presuppositions. Are you stating that no one in congress is of a socialist bent? Quite a few on the democratic side and a few on the republican side (*cough*neocons*cough*) are.

No I'm not stating that. I don't even know what you're talking about. Your inability to quote makes your post a nightmare to read.

Please use quotes. Select/highlight the text you want to quote and the click on the little chat bubble in the text area. Or if you want to write the tags yourself, then use [*QUOTE] <text you want to quote> [*/QUOTE]

Without the *. It's the same as how you do it for bold and italics...


Nancy Pelosi saw it as regrettable? Obama saw it as regrettable? I honestly don't think so man. Why else would the democrats push so hard for it when the natural state of the government/economy relationship is to stay out of each other. I'm not saying that everyone wanted it, just that several key players surely did.

1. "Some people" does not equal "Congress" which is what you professor friend said. You would be refuted even if we accept your personal opinion as valid.

2. I don't accept your personal opinion of what some people in Congress believe. You are not them. Your opinion doesn't demonstrate their personal beliefs anymore than my belief that they aren't socialist proves the opposite.


Politics was defined by aristotle as the art of the possible. When you have a goal you fulfill it to the greatest possible extent. In politics precedents often set policy. It is now much easier to bring socialist policies to the table than it was before Bush.

It being easier does not make it either socialist or fascist, and is something that is slowly becoming false since the bailed out companies are paying the money back.

*looks from side to side*
Are you serious dude? He isn't here. Nor, as an old guy with way more important things to deal with, would he often be on teh interwebs. Ripped apart dude? Check your ego rust. Or shall I call you Dr. Rust? :p

I know he isn't here... hence why I was suggesting you should tell him to come. As for him having more important things to do, you don't really know that unless you ask do you? It seems to me he e-mailed you that article because he wanted commentary before he published it. He'd get precisely what he wanted here..

In regards to my ego, why would I get a boost for something I'm already doing here? You're doing a fine enough job of showing how he pulled his claims, out of his ass. I'm not the only one that sees it judging from the other responses.

[Rust]

Truth Wielder - I believe Rust was asking you to provide evidence that:

"The Congress passed a stimulus bill of $1.3 trillion without even reading the document."

This was the very first point in your professors manifesto and it has not been adequately backed up. In order to prove this point you must 1. Show that you know how long it took Congress to discuss and pass this bill. 2. That whatever period of time that was is not enough time to read and understand the bill. You have not done this.

What you have done is linked to some sites that complain that in the past, certain unnamed "mammoth bills" have been passed without proper Congressional hearing..This may or may not be true, but it is a red herring the actual evidence needed to prove your professors point (which I outlined above) has not been provided in this thread.

Either provide those two pieces of evidence or agree that your profs claim (in at least that point) is completely ridiculous.


This.

TruthWielder, you can even reply to this instead of my post because this just succinctly summarizes my point in regards to the baseless claim that Congress didn't read this Bill.

[Vargus]

midst of facist

Stopped reading right there. Also, lol at the use of "fascist" to describe "socialist."

[Dumpster Slut]

I'm generally open to criticism of american government but this article is way too pessimistic and obviously jaded to convince or move me.