Rush Limbaugh to be a Miss America Judge ..

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:14 pm

Sapo wrote:
Hawk wrote:
Sapo wrote: I bet you can't.
I have a life to live and a book on Limbaugh's slanted racist views is way at the bottom of my list of things to do.
Seems to me you spend enough time on here bashing conservatives that you could knuckle down and do a book. If you have the skills.

For me I usually find it pointless to get into these damn forum arguments...but they are like traffic accidents and I can't stop from looking. Occasionally I'll engage in a little debate because its fun. Today was just one of those days. I'm feeling rambunctious.

It's always fun for me, or I wouldn't do it.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:22 pm

Sapo wrote: I agree he was not a Marxist, Hitler hated Marxists. He hated lots of people.

Yes, I found your source / footnote. Thank you.

In the statement above you seemed to infer he hated Marxist people among many other people. I was attempting to point out to you that he hated "socialism" and that is not people.

Sapo · Post by **Sapo** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:31 pm

Hawk wrote:
Sapo wrote:
Hawk wrote:1920 platform...

How many promises are in a platform from Democrats and Republicans that are nothing more than bait to get elected. Rhetoric.

Hitler hated Marxist SOCIALISM. You (or who ever you copied your material from) conveniently left that word out. Hmmm, what was your source ? Marxist is not a person who Hitler hated.
Did you even read my footnote at the bottom of the page? Do you even know what a footnote is?

I said he didn't like Marxism. There are varying degrees or interpretations of socialism.
Sorry, I missed your apparent edit.

Socialism to me means that the means of production and distribution is owned by the government. And all property and industry etc. is owned by the government. What does socialism mean to you ?

Today we have a capitalistic country with some social programs. That does not make us a socialist country.

My edit was not the footnote. The footnote was the source of information.

That is a standard dictionary definition of socialism. My point is that reality is far more nuanced. I don't need something pulled off wikipedia to try and tell me hitler wasn't a socialist. He was a bunch of things (murderer, nut job) but certain socialist ideals were part of what shaped his thinking. I also wasn't making hitler comparisons to anyone. My only point was you said facists hated socialists. I countered by saying fascists were socialists (and early 20th century progressives). And there are all types of fascism. Italian facism was different than german fascism is different than american fascism.

The US is quickly moving into becoming a socialist country and some of the stuff I see happening scares me. I'll leave it at that.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:37 pm

Rush is a BILLIONAIRE. Like Rodney Dangerfield said in "Back To School" he cares, about what i have no idea.. except the interest rate he's earning on that money. (he'd sell what;s left of his soul for another 1/4%, that you can count on) certainly not about YOU or me, or the plight of poor or even middle class.

you blimpaugh supporters paid him handsomely, but you ain't getting nothing in return.

WAKE UP!

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Mon Oct 19, 2009 11:57 pm

On a positive note, the stock market obviously likes the Democrats. 11K here we come

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:13 am

Hawk wrote:
Sapo wrote: I agree he was not a Marxist, Hitler hated Marxists. He hated lots of people.
Yes, I found your source / footnote. Thank you.

In the statement above you seemed to infer he hated Marxist people among many other people. I was attempting to point out to you that he hated "socialism" and that is not people.

The statement above was not there the first time I quoted this post. It was this line I referred to as an edited addition. I was not referring to your footnote.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:47 am

Sapo wrote: My only point was you said facists hated socialists.

The US is quickly moving into becoming a socialist country and some of the stuff I see happening scares me. I'll leave it at that.

I never said fascists hated socialists. I specifically used "Nazi fascists" or Hitler. And I referred to Marxist Socialism. I thought you were a competent comprehensive reader, not missing anything ?

Would you please elaborate on the second sentence above if you can ? And what do you mean by "quickly" ?

Sapo · Post by **Sapo** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 1:52 am

"Nazi Fascism REJECTS democracy, LIBERALISM (both political and economical) and socialism / Marxism"

A Nazi fascist is a fascist, right? granted, I replaced rejected with hated. You said socialism / Marxism right?

Lets see, in the last 9 months the government has taken over banks, car companies, wants your healthcare, etc.

you are qualifying me as competent. I am making no claims at the moment.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 11:48 am

Sapo wrote:"Nazi Fascism REJECTS democracy, LIBERALISM (both political and economical) and socialism / Marxism"

A Nazi fascist is a fascist, right? granted, I replaced rejected with hated. You said socialism / Marxism right?

Lets see, in the last 9 months the government has taken over banks, car companies, wants your healthcare, etc.

you are qualifying me as competent. I am making no claims at the moment.

You were going on explaining that there is more than one kind of fascism and more than one kind of socialism. I knew that, that's why I was specific in naming Nazi fascism and Marxist Socialism from the beginning. If you had read that, you would have saved yourself some time. It's that simple.

So you would have preferred that the banks collapsed ? That GM collapsed along with all it's suppliers ? Let Wall Street collapse ?

All likely causing a major depression. Yeah, that would be good for America. Obama had to make decisions. He saved them out of necessity, not for a socialist agenda. And as far as I know, the government doesn't OWN them like a government would in a socialist country.

How is health insurance reform socialism ? A public option is just that, an option that you can reject if you don't want it. It's a choice.

JackANSI · Post by **JackANSI** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:49 pm

Sapo wrote:
Ok, I will argue that...btw...Wikipedia!? You have got to be kidding. Anyhow:

Hitler was introduced to national socialism in Vienna. An early hero was Dr. Karl Lueger, the head of the Christian Social Party. Around 1919 he attended a German Workers' Party meeting and heard Gottfried Feder speak on "How and by What Means Is Capitalism to Be Eliminated?" Hitler was able to use this message to appeal to the little guy who is always getting hosed by the man. Soon he was in charge of the party. Continuing his ascent, in 1920 the Nazi Party's platform (co-written by Hitler) included providing a livelihood for citizens; the total confiscation of war profits; the nationalization of trusts; shared profits with labor; expanded old age pensions; and "communalization of department stores." The Nazi's pursued "a form of anticapitalist, antiliberal, and anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or "people's community." ^1. I agree he was not a Marxist, Hitler hated Marxists. He hated lots of people.

Unless I'm mistaken, Obama's guys are now out there saying Fox isn't a true media outlet and should be treated as such. So it sounds like they are doing just what you said.

^1 Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism(New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp. 61-69.

OMG the Fox news staff is in a concentration camp or has been eliminated via murder?!?!?! Yep they are doing just what I said

And what is wrong with a wikipedia article that has no errors comapred to a school book?

Better than lifting quotes from a confirmed biased writer then using that to attack quotes directly from hitler or those closer to him than said writer.

JackANSI · Post by **JackANSI** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 12:53 pm

Hawk wrote:
Sapo wrote:"Nazi Fascism REJECTS democracy, LIBERALISM (both political and economical) and socialism / Marxism"

A Nazi fascist is a fascist, right? granted, I replaced rejected with hated. You said socialism / Marxism right?

Lets see, in the last 9 months the government has taken over banks, car companies, wants your healthcare, etc.

you are qualifying me as competent. I am making no claims at the moment.
You were going on explaining that there is more than one kind of fascism and more than one kind of socialism. I knew that, that's why I was specific in naming Nazi fascism and Marxist Socialism from the beginning. If you had read that, you would have saved yourself some time. It's that simple.

So you would have preferred that the banks collapsed ? That GM collapsed along with all it's suppliers ? Let Wall Street collapse ?

All likely causing a major depression. Yeah, that would be good for America. Obama had to make decisions. He saved them out of necessity, not for a socialist agenda. And as far as I know, the government doesn't OWN them like a government would in a socialist country.

How is health insurance reform socialism ? A public option is just that, an option that you can reject if you don't want it. It's a choice.

Yeah, I think the next car GM puts out probably wasn't approved by a senate committee..

To some people there is only one kind of socialism.

Edit:

Its not really a public option IMO. A lot of employers are just going to drop employees eventually, then of course the employees will have the 'option' of paying for the plan they used to get themselves or buying the government's at a total cost more than they were paying before (for people who pay part of an employer provided plan) yet less total cost than the plan they had before, but also with reduced benefits.

Thats how I see it playing out anyway and I'll need to see it all fall into place for the better personally before I change that opinion. But I'm not saying I'm against better health coverage for all, I just think forcing it is going to put harder working people in the same health care programs as the jobless and cheese-eaters. Which is not what these taxPAYERS deserve.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 2:33 pm

Sapo wrote:"Nazi Fascism REJECTS democracy, LIBERALISM (both political and economical) and socialism / Marxism"

A Nazi fascist is a fascist, right? granted, I replaced rejected with hated. You said socialism / Marxism right?

Lets see, in the last 9 months the government has taken over banks, car companies, wants your healthcare, etc.

you are qualifying me as competent. I am making no claims at the moment.

what you so easily call "fascism" others call it saving the US financial that was on the brink of complete collapse.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:01 pm

This says it nicely:

http://www.kansascity.com/276/story/1517640.html
NFL veto of Limbaugh sent the right message

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:33 pm

JackANSI wrote:And what is wrong with a wikipedia article that has no errors comapred to a school book?

You will find that when somebody's goodfact is contradicted by an open-source's realfact, that somebody will attack the open-source as a biased and unreliable source of information, just like media sources.

I have found that its best to post a Wiki reference for easy reading and then back it up with a neutral document reference that might require additional comprehension skills.

Sapo · Post by **Sapo** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:41 pm

JackANSI wrote:
Sapo wrote:
Ok, I will argue that...btw...Wikipedia!? You have got to be kidding. Anyhow:

Hitler was introduced to national socialism in Vienna. An early hero was Dr. Karl Lueger, the head of the Christian Social Party. Around 1919 he attended a German Workers' Party meeting and heard Gottfried Feder speak on "How and by What Means Is Capitalism to Be Eliminated?" Hitler was able to use this message to appeal to the little guy who is always getting hosed by the man. Soon he was in charge of the party. Continuing his ascent, in 1920 the Nazi Party's platform (co-written by Hitler) included providing a livelihood for citizens; the total confiscation of war profits; the nationalization of trusts; shared profits with labor; expanded old age pensions; and "communalization of department stores." The Nazi's pursued "a form of anticapitalist, antiliberal, and anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or "people's community." ^1. I agree he was not a Marxist, Hitler hated Marxists. He hated lots of people.

Unless I'm mistaken, Obama's guys are now out there saying Fox isn't a true media outlet and should be treated as such. So it sounds like they are doing just what you said.

^1 Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism(New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp. 61-69.
OMG the Fox news staff is in a concentration camp or has been eliminated via murder?!?!?! Yep they are doing just what I said

And what is wrong with a wikipedia article that has no errors comapred to a school book?

Better than lifting quotes from a confirmed biased writer then using that to attack quotes directly from hitler or those closer to him than said writer.

School book - no. I got my degree long ago. I just happen to read stuff that is not on wikipedia. And I didn't lift anything, jack, I cited the author. Oh - and I like how he is a "biased" writer. So what did he say that is wrong? Or does your intellectual argument end at calling him names?

There are lots of quotes in there I didn't bother to put in. Quotes ain't everything. As for your other comments...its only been a few months.

gosteelers...you are so clueless on what I am saying that its pointless to go into it again.

As far as the imminent economic collapse - BS. There wasn't going to be a collapse. We've only made things worse.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Tue Oct 20, 2009 4:42 pm

Back to the topic. If the contestant's primary qualification is to walk and chew bubble gum while looking good, what then could possibly be the most stringent qualification of the judges?

One could argue that an obsessive/compulsive panty-sniffer might be highly qualified.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:14 pm

Sapo wrote:
JackANSI wrote:
Sapo wrote:
Ok, I will argue that...btw...Wikipedia!? You have got to be kidding. Anyhow:

Hitler was introduced to national socialism in Vienna. An early hero was Dr. Karl Lueger, the head of the Christian Social Party. Around 1919 he attended a German Workers' Party meeting and heard Gottfried Feder speak on "How and by What Means Is Capitalism to Be Eliminated?" Hitler was able to use this message to appeal to the little guy who is always getting hosed by the man. Soon he was in charge of the party. Continuing his ascent, in 1920 the Nazi Party's platform (co-written by Hitler) included providing a livelihood for citizens; the total confiscation of war profits; the nationalization of trusts; shared profits with labor; expanded old age pensions; and "communalization of department stores." The Nazi's pursued "a form of anticapitalist, antiliberal, and anti-conservative communitarianism encapsulated in the concept of Volksgemeinschaft, or "people's community." ^1. I agree he was not a Marxist, Hitler hated Marxists. He hated lots of people.

Unless I'm mistaken, Obama's guys are now out there saying Fox isn't a true media outlet and should be treated as such. So it sounds like they are doing just what you said.

^1 Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism(New York: Doubleday, 2007), pp. 61-69.
OMG the Fox news staff is in a concentration camp or has been eliminated via murder?!?!?! Yep they are doing just what I said

And what is wrong with a wikipedia article that has no errors comapred to a school book?

Better than lifting quotes from a confirmed biased writer then using that to attack quotes directly from hitler or those closer to him than said writer.

School book - no. I got my degree long ago. I just happen to read stuff that is not on wikipedia. And I didn't lift anything, jack, I cited the author. Oh - and I like how he is a "biased" writer. So what did he say that is wrong? Or does your intellectual argument end at calling him names?

There are lots of quotes in there I didn't bother to put in. Quotes ain't everything. As for your other comments...its only been a few months.

gosteelers...you are so clueless on what I am saying that its pointless to go into it again.

As far as the imminent economic collapse - BS. There wasn't going to be a collapse. We've only made things worse.

If the govt hadn't stepped in and shored up the whole system after Lehman failed then Goldman probably would have gone down with everyone else.

If you don't believe this you are very naive.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:30 pm

gosteelers wrote: If the govt hadn't stepped in and shored up the whole system after Lehman failed then Goldman probably would have gone down with everyone else.

If you don't believe this you are very naive.

So?

Is it the governments job to keep every company afloat? I did not see that role for government in my Constitution.

Look at how many businesses have closed and left Blair County. Lots of jobs have been lost. Should the big Nanny state government stepped in and artificially kept all those companies going? Who would have paid for that?

Businesses start up and close down, it is the natural business cycle. If not, we would still be wasting tax dollars keeping buggy whip factories open.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 3:45 pm

undercoverjoe wrote:
gosteelers wrote: If the govt hadn't stepped in and shored up the whole system after Lehman failed then Goldman probably would have gone down with everyone else.

If you don't believe this you are very naive.
So?

Is it the governments job to keep every company afloat? I did not see that role for government in my Constitution.

Look at how many businesses have closed and left Blair County. Lots of jobs have been lost. Should the big Nanny state government stepped in and artificially kept all those companies going? Who would have paid for that?

Businesses start up and close down, it is the natural business cycle. If not, we would still be wasting tax dollars keeping buggy whip factories open.

Some you guys are so naive it's scary.

If the financial system collapses there is NO GOVT. We aren't talking about saving "mom & pop's" diner here. Goldman, AIG, Lehman they ARE half the GOVT. Like it or not. It's a fact. If they go down, we go down. Sometimes you must bite the bullet and do what is necessary despite the bad taste .

JackANSI · Post by **JackANSI** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:14 pm

gosteelers wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:
gosteelers wrote: If the govt hadn't stepped in and shored up the whole system after Lehman failed then Goldman probably would have gone down with everyone else.

If you don't believe this you are very naive.
So?

Is it the governments job to keep every company afloat? I did not see that role for government in my Constitution.

Look at how many businesses have closed and left Blair County. Lots of jobs have been lost. Should the big Nanny state government stepped in and artificially kept all those companies going? Who would have paid for that?

Businesses start up and close down, it is the natural business cycle. If not, we would still be wasting tax dollars keeping buggy whip factories open.
Some you guys are so naive it's scary.

If the financial system collapses there is NO GOVT. We aren't talking about saving "mom & pop's" diner here. Goldman, AIG, Lehman they ARE half the GOVT. Like it or not. It's a fact. If they go down, we go down. Sometimes you must bite the bullet and do what is necessary despite the bad taste .

Its not about someone being naive. Its just a very black/white version of the technicolor world we live in.

If its not in the constitution, or at least can be easily assumed from it, the government shouldn't do it, at any cost. No exceptions. The fact that the government is involved and has been for quite some time means nothing.

Much like saying that grass should be purple and that it would work better that way.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:28 pm

JackANSI wrote:
gosteelers wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote: So?

Is it the governments job to keep every company afloat? I did not see that role for government in my Constitution.

Look at how many businesses have closed and left Blair County. Lots of jobs have been lost. Should the big Nanny state government stepped in and artificially kept all those companies going? Who would have paid for that?

Businesses start up and close down, it is the natural business cycle. If not, we would still be wasting tax dollars keeping buggy whip factories open.
Some you guys are so naive it's scary.

If the financial system collapses there is NO GOVT. We aren't talking about saving "mom & pop's" diner here. Goldman, AIG, Lehman they ARE half the GOVT. Like it or not. It's a fact. If they go down, we go down. Sometimes you must bite the bullet and do what is necessary despite the bad taste .
Its not about someone being naive. Its just a very black/white version of the technicolor world we live in.

If its not in the constitution, or at least can be easily assumed from it, the government shouldn't do it, at any cost. No exceptions. The fact that the government is involved and has been for quite some time means nothing.

Much like saying that grass should be purple and that it would work better that way.

you are seriously naive. there is no such thing as pure capitalism, never has been never will be. the govt regulation and involvement has been there forever, you need to stop drinking Rush's hard lemonade

JackANSI · Post by **JackANSI** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:37 pm

I was only showing a point of view, not defending one. (and its not my point of view either).

Hence the comment about purple grass.. It was a metaphor for that point of view from my point of view

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 7:44 pm

undercoverjoe wrote: Is it the governments job to keep every company afloat? I did not see that role for government in my Constitution.

constitutionjoe,

Only the business that if they would fail, so would our national economy. That which is deemed necessary for the general welfare of our country.

It is most certainly in the constitution. Get to actually know your constitution rather than have Rush interpret it for you.

Section 8 Article 1. Implied Powers.

EDIT: Where are you from if it's not in YOUR constitution ?
EDIT AGAIN: Alexander Hamilton was for expanding powers of the Federal Government. So one can't always quote Jefferson's interpretation as to only one. Jefferson was against adding the "implied powers" clause UNTIL even HE USED IT. That's right, Jefferson found it to be a good thing when he was President. Cool ! Kind of like saying, I was wrong about necessary federal powers, but now I understand the necessity of implied powers.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:41 pm

gosteelers wrote: Some you guys are so naive it's scary.

If the financial system collapses there is NO GOVT. We aren't talking about saving "mom & pop's" diner here. Goldman, AIG, Lehman they ARE half the GOVT. Like it or not. It's a fact. If they go down, we go down. Sometimes you must bite the bullet and do what is necessary despite the bad taste .

Please get a brain check up, you never seem to use it. Those poorly run companies would have been replaced by better companies. The survival of the fittest. Those companies received TARP funds because they are friends of powerful people in the corrupt federal government.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Wed Oct 21, 2009 8:44 pm

Hawk wrote:Section 8 Article 1. Implied Powers.

EDIT: Where are you from if it's not in YOUR constitution ?
EDIT AGAIN: Alexander Hamilton was for expanding powers of the Federal Government. So one can't always quote Jefferson's interpretation as to only one. Jefferson was against adding the "implied powers" clause UNTIL even HE USED IT. That's right, Jefferson found it to be a good thing when he was President. Cool ! Kind of like saying, I was wrong about necessary federal powers, but now I understand the necessity of implied powers.

You still don't have this implied powers thing down quite right. Its not "carte blanche" as even Jefferson so eloquently stated.

The 1st test of an implied power is:

Did (place subject here) exist when the Constitution was written?

If the answer is "yes"...STOP! No special powers are implied.

For instance:

Did (private manufacturing corporations) exist when the Constitution was written?

The answer is "yes"... STOP! There is no special power implied for Congress to purchase the majority share in a private manufacturing corporation.

Since our currency system is distributed by the Federal Reserve banks by loaning money to the moneycenter banks and Congress has the explicit power "To coin money, regulate the value thereof", one could argue that loaning money to bail out banks was, in fact, Constitutional.

GM would be much better off had the government stayed out and they would have gone into Chapter 11 restructuring.

EDIT: I can show you where Section 8 explicitly makes the GM bankruptcy unconstitutional:

"To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;"

The GM bailout and subsequent bankruptcy was in no way shape or form "according to the uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States."