AIG

[Mister P-Mosh]

President Obama fires GM boss.

This reminds me of Hitler and Volkswagen... a private company, being controlled by the state.

I think it'd be unfair to call this Hitlerian type fascism, I mean, it isn't like he threw this guy in a concentration camp...

This proves that you don't know what you are talking about. Nazism is a right-wing political movement, not a left-wing one. Socialism is considered to be left-wing, but the closest you would find at the time was communist Russia.

But a softer fascism, yes. Socialism, yes. Marxist theory in action, yes.

Obama says he doesn't want to run GM, but his actions speak so loudly, I cannot hear what he is saying.

Where in the Constitution does a president have authority to control private industries?

Where in the Constitution was GM required to take bailout funds? The fact is, the government offered to help bail out the auto industry if they would agree to certain conditions. GM and Chrystler accepted. Ford did not. Guess which of those three companies aren't under control of the U.S. government?

Most people agree that if an individual accepts money from the government, such as in the form of welfare, there should be certain conditions. People on welfare shouldn't blow their money on drugs or alcohol. They should try to get a job. We expect it to be temporary, and we expect the individual to be responsible with the help we are giving them. I don't see why you think corporations shouldn't be held to the same standards. Any entity that exists in this nation should be accountable, and moreso if they are the recipient of our tax dollars. The government should be accountable to the citizens, and that is where all the checks and balances come in.

From Websters dictionary:

Main Entry: so·cial·ism

Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\

Function: noun

Date: 1837

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

I don't see where this fits in with what Obama, or Bush before him, have done.

[oldiesman]

This proves that you don't know what you are talking about. Nazism is a right-wing political movement, not a left-wing one. Socialism is considered to be left-wing, but the closest you would find at the time was communist Russia.

On the far left of the political scale are all various degrees of tyrannies, from communism, to fascism, to socialism.

Nazism is National Socialism. This is not right wing, but on the far left of the political scale.

On the far right, is anarchy, or no government.

I hope to start a thread on the myth of fascism being "right wing" at the appropriate time.

Where in the Constitution was GM required to take bailout funds? The fact is, the government offered to help bail out the auto industry if they would agree to certain conditions. GM and Chrystler accepted. Ford did not. Guess which of those three companies aren't under control of the U.S. government?

The fact that Gm and Chrysler boarded the legalized-theft-of-U.S. taxpayer funds bandwagon doesn't make it any less socialist.

The fact that U.S. taxpayer funds are being stolen to "rescue" private industries is outside the Constitutionally enumerated powers of the U.S. government and thus, a soft tyranny.

Democracy can be a tyranny when unrestrained, as we are seeing right before our eyes.

Diogenes said "the mob is the mother of all tyrants."

Most people agree that if an individual accepts money from the government, such as in the form of welfare, there should be certain conditions. People on welfare shouldn't blow their money on drugs or alcohol. They should try to get a job. We expect it to be temporary, and we expect the individual to be responsible with the help we are giving them. I don't see why you think corporations shouldn't be held to the same standards. Any entity that exists in this nation should be accountable, and moreso if they are the recipient of our tax dollars. The government should be accountable to the citizens, and that is where all the checks and balances come in.

What you describe is socialism, legalized theft and control of people and industries, as opposed to liberty as the Founding Fathers mandated.

Show me anything from the founding fathers writings that would suggest a president having the power to seize control of private industries or fire a corporate CEO.

I don't see where this fits in with what Obama, or Bush before him, have done.

I think the Obama Kool Aid is strong stuff.

Edited March 31, 2009 by oldiesman

[DontWorryBeHappy]

who were the "founding fathers"?...........what was the socio-economic make-up of this group?..........how many were native americans?........that is to say, those who populated this geographical area prior to 1609?............how many were non-white, northern european caucasians?...........how many were women?...........how many did not "own" land?.......how many were owners of slaves?.........how many were non-christians?.........how many jews?...........how many muslims?.......how many asians?...........how many "hispanics"?.........how many africans forcibly transported to this part of the world from their homelands as slaves?....how many indentured servants?........how many were educated by universities, colleges, or institutions of "higher learning" indigenous to the "original 13 colonies"?........were the founding fathers you continually refer to all committed to so-called judeo-christain philosophy as the single, founding principle of this "great nation"?.....if so, why?.........how many were pfal grads?.........how were definitions of "three fifths" of a human justifiably written into the constitution?........why was human slavery an accepted "economic" reality, written into the original constitution by these "founding fathers"?.............please advise............i have more questions for you, once you answer these........peace.

[oldiesman]

Too many varying questions at one time. Do I look like an encyclopedia?

Perhaps you may want to start one question at a time, one topic at a time, on one thread at a time.

[DontWorryBeHappy]

feel free to answer one at a time?...........even if it takes you a year or so.........i'm seeking some kind of feedback that is reflective of serious thought and contemplation, not just hyperbnolized, regurgitated, meaningless rhetoric........surely i am not over-estimating your capabilities, am i?............just try one sentence or question at a time.......at your own pace.....this is a chance for you to demonstrate the depth of your understanding and comprehension of some of the terms you throw around here in these forums........you've been here long enough to know how it works.........why no more effort than a non-answer?..........surely you've got more than nothing to say, no?

[oldiesman]

I'll bet you a dollar to a donut that Dood was paid off by AIG and others to omit the bonus rights out of the legislation.

Bingo.

Here's another piece about Dodd and may give additional insight about why Dodd added those bonuses in the first place:

AIG chiefs pressed to donate to Dodd

[DontWorryBeHappy]

ok......one at-a-time..........who were "the founding fathers" you repeatedly refer to?

[oldiesman]

DWBH,

So as not to derail this thread, why not start a new thread for each question and address it to the entire group, not just me; that way with each question, we each can see where each stands on each issue.

[RumRunner]

DWBH,

So as not to derail this thread, why not start a new thread for each question and address it to the entire group, not just me; that way with each question, we each can see where each stands on each issue.

Nice squirm try OM... a little transparent but a nice try. Since DWBH asked the question directly to you then the rest of the group' input on another thread - while perhaps interesting - is irrelevant to YOU giving YOUR answer to DWBH who addressed HIS question directly to YOU.

[Rocky]

Too many varying questions at one time. Do I look like an encyclopedia?

Perhaps you may want to start one question at a time, one topic at a time, on one thread at a time.

Perhaps the plethora of questions simply is a statement of how ridiculous your posts on this subject are.

btw, why is this political discussion taking place here?