Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Well that's ok, there's lots of ignoramouses out there. As long as you work hard and try your best to be informed your doing your civic duty. Don't want to end up being like SM do you?
I saw a great bumpersticker yesterday!
- Thread starter Jarod
- Start date
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Hey, you say "Ta Ma Toe" we say "Toe May Toe" it's still the same damned red fruit you put on your spaghetti.
One could argue that. One could also argue the fascistic nature of taking over businesses and running them through the auspices of the Executive branch and might have a little reason to see government owned business as a bit socialistic at the same time...
Maybe.
Well, what does a whirled anything look like? I imagine, if it were cooked it would look much like those "mushy peas".
On a side note, our lunch ladies back in the day used to serve peas using the tongs and they'd get all mushed. It put me off peas for the rest of my life. Although I do like split pea soup.
charver
You lookin' at my pint?
Now you're confusing peas and tomatoes?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
But that would be a bogus argument as it's based on a "Catch-22". It's not fascistic in the least for a government to take over a failed business who's only other alternative is bankruptcy. Particularly when the failed business approached the government in the first place. So that's a bogus argument all the way around. Is it socialistic for our government to run a failed business when it is in our nations strategic interest?
It's fascistic for the government to run privately owned business, it is socialistic for the government to own the business. It is pretense to pretend that a venture into government owned business and control of production couldn't be considered slightly socialistic.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
no, just pronunciation. BTW, the mushy peas look positively disgusting...Having said that....those fish and chips look right tasty.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Your basing your argument on a contradiction. A failed or failing busines that goes running to the government for money to bail it's ass out is by definition no longer a private company. It aint like the Government swept in and told GM and Chrysler "OK BOYS! WERE TAKING OVER!", so in that respect, your basing your argument on a false premis. Is it socialistic for a government to run a business? Only if the control all means to production. A "private-public" partnership in business has been a part of American business life since the founding of our Republic. In addition, your also basing your argument by implying that socialism is bad. Socialism it just a tool. It, in and of it's self, is not bad, It's how it is used that determines wether or not it is good or bad. We use socialism all the time in this nation to great affect when socialism is used properly and I can give you a large number of examples of where socialism is used quite well to solve large problems in this nation.
It doesn't matter if the business failed, if it is owned and the means of production controlled by the government it is by definition socialistic. I can't see why you would make a distinction between a "failed" business as opposed to one that has not failed, if the government takes it over and runs it, it is socialistic. If they take over all of them then it is socialist. Saying you can't see how this might be considered at the least socialistic (and for some a step in the wrong direction) is a bit much for me. You are a bit smarter than that. This is socialistic, saying that it isn't and then in the same breath saying that socialism solves a lot of problems in this nation is just odd.
I could see the argument that, "Maybe it is, but if they didn't we'd be hosed even worse..." but the argument that you can't even see how some people might consider this a bit socialistic is just weird.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
True but that wasn't the argument. You called it "fascistic" when it is not.
Again, the argument is not wether or not it is socialistic. The argument is wether it is fascism for our government to take over a failed busines under the circumstances described. It is not.
No, it's not odd at all. We use socialist institution all the time to great affect in this nation and we have since its founding. Does that mean we are a socliast nation? Hardly. It means we use socialism, as a tool, when appropriate and there is nothing wrong with that. Particularly when it serves the public interest well and I can provide you good examples of where socialism does just exactly that.
Who's making that argument? I'm not. I'm debunking your calling the socialization of a failed business fascism.
Strict government control of privately-owned corporations is a defining factor of fascism.
Again, fascistic is what I said, I simply defined things for the conversation. Government control of privately owned businesses is fascistic, it is one of the things that defines fascism. It's like pretending that a government takeover of ownership of the business isn't socialistic. You just start ignoring definitions because you don't like the words.
No, what is odd is the ability to see clearly something is socialistic, but then ignore when another thing is just because you dislike the word in that context.
Again, I didn't say that this was fascism, I defined things. Strict government control of privately owned business (telling them what they must make, ever seen Schindler's list?) is fascistic, government takeover of ownership and control of the business is socialistic. As for who is making the argument, you are. You said that you "couldn't believe" that people considered that this was socialist for government to own the businesses and be run from the Executive offices. I think that you are being deliberately obtuse if you "can't believe" how people might come to that conclusion.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
No that's a defining feature of communism. State enforced totalitrianism is the defining feature of Fascism. Besides, this is not happening here. There is no "Strict Ownership By Government". This did not happen by coercion or the point of a gun.
You had better do a better job of defining what fascism or fascistic is. You are using it synonimously with socialism and that is incorrect. It also implies that the bail out of GM and Chrysler and the Investment banks were done at the point of a gun when it was they who went running to the government to help them save their business. Your argument is becoming more and more illogical.
You're not making a lot of sense here. You are equating socialism with fascism. They are not the same nor are they synonimous in the context of the recent economic bail outs.
OK, I'll agree with that but please, tell me where that is occuring her in the USA, when has this happened? It certainly hasn't occurred recently.
Well that's a strawman argument that is misrepresenting what I have said. Let me sum up my points.
#1. Socialism does not neccessarily equate with fascism.
#2. Socialism is just a tool. It can be used for both good and bad.
#3. It is disengenous to imply that the government "Took over" these failed business when these failed business ran to the government to bail them out. This assumes and implies, on your part, that the government commandered these business by coercion and force when such was not the case. These failed business came to the tax payer to bail them out, we did and the cost is that we, the taxpayers, now have the owning interest in these businesses, as we should have, and until such time as the private sector buys back the controlling interest.
No, it isn't. Communism the government owns the means of production directly. All of it. Fascism directs the corporations to make what they want them to (see Schindler's list) without taking ownership (say if my pillow factory was now directed to make bullets, or directed to make tents for the troops), it is socialistic for the government to take over ownership and run certain companies (failed or not, say, if my company was failing and the government took controlling interest and started firing CEOs and telling me what dealerships to close or leave open), it is socialist for them to take over an entire industry (say if every oil company had a sudden government takeover of controlling interest in the companies and was now run by the government).
I am not. In one the companies are still privately owned, in the other they are owned and operated by the government. It isn't hard to see that important difference.
It is because apparently you do not understand the distinct difference between privately owned and government owned.
GM is now 70% government owned. That was recent. Banks have also had large portions simply now owned by the government. Socialists (BAC for instance) argue that it was bad that they didn't simply take over the entire industry. It is socialistic for the government to seize ownership of the company regardless of the reason they take it.
Duh, I've been pointing out the difference.
Again, that doesn't change the reality that it is socialistic for the government to take over ownership of a business. Suggesting that nobody could suggest that the current government policies are not a bit socialistic is just pretense.
It is not, the government took ownership, it is socialistic. You can argue that they are "saving" the nation by doing it, you can argue a lot of things, but pretending "its a total canard and nobody could possibly say that these things are socialist" is just pretense or getting upset that some people might point out that it is socialistic to take over ownership of banks and other businesses is silly.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
again, a lot of verbage to get back to my main point that you are equating fascism with socialism in the context of the economic bail out and that is just simply not true. Wether or not it is socialism is just simply not the point. Of course when the government runs a business it's socialism but that does not equate with fascism and your argument that it does is, at best, a very weak one. Also you position implies that the Government obtained ownership of these companies via coercion and/or force when that is not the case. The government did not "Take Over" ownership of these business and that's just a provacative phrase. The Government, meaning us taxpayers, BOUGHT the ownership of these companies. They took nothing.
Last edited:
Again, I was not. Why can you not comprehend that they are different things? Again, you either cannot comprehend the difference between the government owning a business and a privately owned business... or you pretend that such things aren't happening. I don't believe you can't see the difference in the definition above, I do believe that your "its a canard" is pretense and that you are being deliberately obtuse now.
I said that the control of the business can be seen as fascistic (can) and that the ownership of the the businesses can also be seen as socialistic. And that your "its a canard" is total rubbish. Pretending that intelligent people can't point out that government ownership of these companies is socialistic is just inane. Or that Obama is planning on adding more socialism (medicine) to the party rather than less (getting rid of Bush's socialism *cough* Pill Bill)... Please. It isn't a "canard" or somehow incomprehensible how some people can see the creeping hand of socialism here, or how some could see things like tax enforced incentive to make what the government wants as a bit fascistic...
It is unbearable to see somebody so smart attempt to pretend that they just "can't see"...
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
I'm sorry but I disagree it is not rubbish. You were implying that just because something is socialized that it is automaticlay bad and fascist and I correctly pointed out that #1, socialism CAN be good and that #2, your argument of the bailouts being fascistic is a weak argument.
I imply no such thing. I direct your attention to the socialism that is there so that you can stop saying "what a canard" when people point out that these policies are socialistic.
I didn't argue that bailouts are fascistic. That's a straw man. I argued that some can see fascism in the government attempting to control private companies through tax incentive as fascistic. One does not remove the other, nor are they crossing here. Only in your mind are they the "same thing" in my argument.
You are too intelligent to pretend that it is "all a canard" when it is easy to see where these people get these ideas. It's no "canard" to see socialistic policies for what they are. Again, you can argue that this socialistic policy is "good" because it "saves" the company, but you can't argue that seizing 70% ownership isn't socialistic, not without losing some integrity. You can argue that controlling the production of energy through tax incentives is also good, but you cannot argue it isn't a direct attempt at government control of private businesses and the direct link some people could see to fascism in that...
(I would not personally argue that it is fascism, only that I can understand why some see it as such).
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
Empty? My son has over a 4.9 QPA. *shrug*
I would appreciate it it if you left my family off your insult list, since it crosses the line of decency.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
A classic American look is obnoxious? You must really hate America.