Posted on 02/27/2011 9:17:55 AM PST by mojito
Huge debdts,big taxes, weak economies(except for Germany)...
This is called FAILURE....
In addition and futher more,there is a moral and cultural FAILURE of that bureaucratic EU who deliberately refused to assume its christian and greek-roman roots.
That fake bureaucratic europe of traitors is sold and don’t hesitate to sell europe for particular interests using muslim immigration in order to change the european people.
We absolutely can call that socialism(which is not the same tha “paternalism”)
“You should also learn a secret, which many conservatives on this forum prefer to remain a secret: banks are owned mostly by the Main Street -— ordinary Americans (and Irish, Brits and Germans), especially retirees, widows and orphans. That’s whom you bring down when you conduct socialist class warfare against the banks.”
You are correct. WS the WH and Congress used good socialist tactics to bring down the banks. Of course if you think the mom and pop stockholders have any power, well I have a bridge for sale.
That this mess (uh, that would be EU, for those in Rio Linda...) should be administered mainly by Brussels is nothing short of hilarious. You will recall, I'm sure, that Belgium has not HAD a coherent goobermint for about a year...and shows no signs of electing/selecting one any time soon. For the Eurocrats in Brussels to issue pronouncements and "policies" about other nations' behaviour and policies is simply risible.
This a kind of naive vision of history and democracy!
In many cases people don’t choose and the power is held by an activist minority.
Sarkozy lied that’s why he was elected but you seem to ignore that...Like Oumbama lied and is still lying...
First you make a strong but false statement, "Voters don't matter anymore. he bureaucrats control everything."
The stronger the statement, the less applicability it has. When speaking about a democracy, "Voter's don't matter" is too strong to have any chance at being valid.
I resposnded by suggesting that it is people that are responsible for their governments and, in particular, that bureaucracies are chosen by and consist of the people. (that includes bureaucrasies). To which you say:
Gotta disagree with your premise there. The House of Representatives is quite responsive... But a bureaucracy is not.
As you can see, I spoke of responsibility for and the nature of bureaucracies.
Now you claim to disagree but actually address responsiveness, an altogether difference parameter. Contrary to what you said, you did not disagree with me.
Now, I understand that it typically irks people when someone points out their inconsistencies, but that does not constitute "subtle insults," as you claim. Nor, I assure you any insults were intended.
It is true, I am dismayed to see how far Marxist thinking has permeated our society. Even conservatives don't know anymore what capitalism is and how their country functions: witness typically leftist attacks on Wall Street, bankers, CEOs, bonuses... Even conservatives have bought into the government-people dichotomy: bad conditions in some country exist only because of bad government, not because of good people.
It's not an insult to say that someone's viewpoint is socialist. If I am incorrect, you can correct me and demonstrate that it is not. If I am correct, it is up to that conservative to explain to him/herself why some socialist viewpoint got under his skin. In either case, it is not an insult, as you appear to view that.
Since you suggested new issue for a discussion, please allow me to respond: Sure, you can say that the bureaucracy must answer to the Congress, but it rarely does. Congress (and the President) are usually too preoccupied (or lazy) to be concerned with a rule here or a rule there.
You tacitly assume here that to change bureaucratic outcomes Congress must engage in the minutia (it does not, as you point out). Bureaucracies are hierarchies, and control occurs top-down. If President tells Department of Education, "Cut 10% of work force and 20% of expenses," that will be done --- without his involvement in the details. And, when Carter created the Deparment of Education, he did that without involvement in details as well. Bureaucracies and be created, eliminated altogether or changed quite quickly.
And while the voter does care, he usually votes on more critical items.
By definition, if voters don't express a desire for change but the change occurs, then the government does something against the expressed wishes of the people. Should the bureaucracy get into the heads of the people? Of course not. Since when do you expect that. Governments must respond to what people think? Keeping silence is viewd as tacit approval even in our courts. If voters say nothing, that is a mandate to stay the course. You misplace the blame here:
And while the voter does care, he usually votes on more critical items. The bureaucracy wins by flying under the radar.
"Care" is not some mushy touchy-felly thing. You care as a voter, speak. If you don't, it is a sign of your satisfaction, and the country must stay the course.
It is not that the bureaucracy flies under the radar --- the radar itseld is not turned on. About 60% of the country cannot name the Vice-President. Thousands and thousands of Americans arring in New Mexico express surprise that they did not need a visa --- isn't New Mexico a forein country? After Sep 11, when many people were afraid to fly, scores of your operators were inundated with phone calls from vacationers demanding that they be taken to Hawaii by bus rather than plane. These are our fellow Americans. But LCD TVs are quite on their radars: TVs and cell phones are upgraded every couple of years. Shopping malls are on the radar as well: they are full but community colleges are empty (in great demand, actually, from illegal immigrants). For decades, approximately of the country or even less than bothers to vote. People who want you to change, tell you so. People who don't want to change tell you "keep on going" bt their silence.
Samuel Adams said, to wit, "This Constitution is designed for profoundly moral people. It is absolutely incapable of governing any other." If the results of government actions are bad, it is not necessarily so because the government is bad. It well may be the the government functions well and does exactly what people want --- including being inert.
Just as it is hard for many ignorant Americans to believe that Germans actually voted Hitler into power --- "Look how badly it ended for them; it cannot be that people wanted that" -- it is hard for you to accept that most Americans, unlike you, actually like what is happening in the country. They want health-care reform, cap-and-trade, destruction of Wall Street and capitalism itself. Yes, it will end badly, just as WW II ended badly for the Germans. But for a decade Germans were euphorically happy with Hitler. Yes, socialism ended badly for Russians, but for three generations they wanted it so badly that they were willing to kill millions of their fellow citizens.
The view of the government you have is precisely the one that socialists want you to have: be mad at government, bureaucracy, Wall Street, bonuses --- all this misplaced blame only helps them to gain power.
The banks are a criminal class. They put a gun to the head of the retirees, widows and orphans and demanded a big fat socialist bailout. They did this after creating loans they knew could not be paid back. Each of the too big to fail banks would have gone bankrupt if not for the suspension of mark to market accounting and the ability to sell bad assets to the Federal Reserve at 100% of the original asset value.
Conservatives are supposed to be for small government and free markets. The Too Big To Fail Banks are a horrible criminal enterprise designed to privatize profits and socialize losses. If you support that, you are no Conservative.
It only matters who counts the votes, dead or alive. We have had openly corrupt elections since Kennedy was elected by the Chicago machine the Daily Criminal Enterprise.
The bankers, the men... and women
who made the bad deals,
What do these words mean? What is a bad deal? And bad for whom?
the ones who took risks with other people's money,
You are clearly unaware that taking risks with other people's money is the sole reason why those people are hired. It is management's job to take risks with other people's money --- and not just in banks but in any corporation.
It is quite clear that you don't know how your country works. You don't even know what corporations do, although it was corporations that explored and laid the foundation for this country; it was the corporations that made it prosperous.
It's OK with me, of course. But a person who does not know something usually suspends judgment and says to himself and others: "I have no opinion." You do have an opinions. Curiously it corresponds one-to-one to socialist propaganda. And you use exactly, the same words. Don't you find it interesting that you do that while thinking of yourself as conservative?
...they should be made to pay.
And they did. Dearly. Do you know how much? Probably not: you want nothing less than their heads.
Funny: here too you bunched everyone into the same group. Marx, the father of your thinking, would say class. Other than that, your thinking and claims are identical.
That's not class warfare, that's punishment for criminal negligence. Really? You make it sound as if we were discussing on this or some other therad some criminal behavior of some corrupt banker and I stood in his defense, saying: "Hands off! I don't want him pprosecuted for his torts." Could you point to a post where I suggested something of this sort?
Nah, you want some sort of punishment for something you don't understand but hate nonetheless. And, like good socialists, you want a collective punishment. According to you an Marx, all bankers criminals. Hang 'em all high!
That would be funny if did not come from someone fancying himself a conservative. Funny because, to be able to say that a behavior is criminal one needs to know what is proper --- the law. How can you judge that bankers' behaviors were criminal if you don't know that they do and what they are supposed to do?
You've declared criminal the very existence of management and banned it for all times. How boring: starting with Proudhon and Marx, we been hearing these words for almost two centuries now. Even Lenin and Mussolini were more inventive, but that too happened a century ago. Can you say something that would be at least new instead of repeating from Marx?
But no banker had to forfeit his bonus, no regulator lost his job. So I can see why folks might use salty language here.
Only the socialist scum says that, and you repeat it verbatim. You must've missed, for instance, the fact of almost 100,000 people having been fired form Wall Street alone, forefeiting more than their bonuses. Most still don't have jobs, 2 years later.
I could give you more facts, but you don't bother with them: you've swallowed lock-stock-and-barrel the commie propaganda that you hear in the MSM and repeat it verbatim.
And you don't bother with the logic either. How is your post related to mine?
Nice but an easy way out. Too easy: a few hundred or thousand votes, and even one entire state in a national election, matter little if a country is not divided. You can't buy an overwhelming majority. Our country is mostly indifferent to its future, and the minority that cares is mostly liberal.
Majority cannot be purchased. Don't close your eyes on an unpleasant fact: nobody forced or tricked us Americans to have the government we have.
Not only did you repeat commie propaganda word-for-word, you adopted their methods, too.
You entire post is reproduced above in its entirety, Which part of it even attempts to deal with anything I said.
What America are you trying to preserve, Mr. "Conservative"? You don't even bother with Ten Commandments (see serving as false witness) and our traditions and laws (we Americans think that one is supposed to refrain from defamation).
I keep asking you: how do you explain that your posts reproduce word-for-word commie propaganda? Now I must add: how come you so easily engage into character assassination?
It's because of "conservatives" like you that we have a socialist in the White House. With "conservatives" like you who needs commies to destroy this country?
With that post of yours you've forfeited all the rights to my time. I shall not dignify your drivel with a response. If others continue to buy into your commie propaganda, that is their choice and responsibility.
Have a good socialist day.
For how long is this supposedly conservative forum goind to tolerate pure communist propaganda?
Do people hear even know what Marx said and his followers were repeating for a century and a half? Or our ignorance does not even allow us to recognize Marxism when it is thrown at us?
Central planning is historically a proven failure.
By whom is it proven and according to which criterion? Paternalistic government exists in Portugal for centuries and in Germany for over a century. That nature of the governmer has even servived two Word Wars that Getmany losts. Any scientist would call such a system robust. Here is an argument, here is a declared standard of measurement, here is empirical support.
All I have lerned from your post is that you disagree with something, but I don't know what, and why? Do you?
All I say in response: "OK."
Nothing personal, but trust me, I won’t be reading any of your attacks on me anymore. So please save yourself some time and just let it go.
TopQuark thinks thatmif he calls me a communist and a socialist it excuses his support of a government (taxpayer) lead bail out of banks. He supports socialism.
I didn't say voters don't matter, I said we don't have honest elections.
Well having lived in California for the past 25 years, I have to disagree with you. Monday is my last day living in this socialist mecca.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.