Is Obama a Socialist?

[TantricSoul]

Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.

Cathryn,
Members should always strive to be courteous and respectful to other members and their opinions. In the editorial section, we are given slightly more leeway than other areas of the forums due to the passionate nature of the topics addressed here. So the short answer to your question is no, the post you have quoted would not earn a warning or citation.

As the single moderator for this area, I am kept busy enough searching out and responding to more flagrant violations of respectful debate protocol.
You may always send me a PM (with a link please) to a thread if you feel insulted or flamed by a poster.

On that note, please folks, I ask each of you that contribute to this area to keep in mind that all members have an equal right to participate in these threads and deserve the same respect as you would expect for yourself.

As my Sifu would say: "Not right, not wrong, just different."

Respectfully,
Tantric

[MMI]

Proof?

Wikipedia says:

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, is a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to the Hebrew Bible, were spoken by God (referred to in several names) to the people of Israel from the mountain referred to as Mount Sinai or Horeb, and later authored by God and given to Moses in the form of two stone tablets.

Now, Thorne, prove your assertion that they are not divine in origin

A rag-tag bunch of rebels did all that?

If you regard George Washington and the Virginia Militia a rag-tag bunch of rebels, yes.

Only if you fail!

No, always. Just because you escape justice doesn't make you innocent

Well I for one would appreciate someone showing me how the US Constitution is fundamentally flawed. Is it because it protects us from a tyrannical government? Is it because it allows us freedoms rarely seen in the world before it's formation? Is it because of the built in checks and balances which keep the government more-or-less under control? Just what is the big "flaw" here?

I have absolutely no idea, but apparently that nice Mr Obama thinks so. I'm just saying that the Constitution is obviously not perfect, because it is an eighteenth century historical document, it is man-made, and it had already had to be amended.

I'm not claiming that either side is in the right here. The radical right is as bad as the radical left. The moderate middle is shrinking. And if the government were,indeed, taking its role and responsibilities seriously, they would not be trying to tear down that Constitution which they swore to uphold and defend! And that goes for conservatives and liberals, Republicans and Democrats, left wing and right wing. I play no favorites.

Upholding the Constitution does not prevent its amendment. Amending the Constitution is not "tearing it down", because the new laws will rely on that same Constituion for their validity.

[MMI]

For your first statement - do you really think a little privately owned restaurant (a mom-and-pop establishment) that makes poor quality dishes, is dirty, people get sick from eating there, etc. will stay in business in America?

As to the second statement - he wrote positive notes on both systems, as well as negative ones. He was unbiased, no matter what you want to call him.

1. McDonalds?

2. I can say balanced things about capitalism, and sometimes I do. It doesn't stop me being biased in favour of social democracy, whatever you want to call me. Martine is openly and unapologetically conservative, and drives the point home with a patronising page addressed to Liberals, by which he seems to mean anyone to the left of his position. He was biased, certes

[steelish]

1. McDonalds?

That is a corporation. Not a little mom and pop business, which is btw, the bread and butter backbone of the US. I am speaking of a small store/establishment owned and run by an individual

2. I can say balanced things about capitalism, and sometimes I do. It doesn't stop me being biased in favour of social democracy, whatever you want to call me. Martine is openly and unapologetically conservative, and drives the point home with a patronising page addressed to Liberals, by which he seems to mean anyone to the left of his position. He was biased, certes

That may very well be. But he wasn't on that particuiar article. And that is the only one I am referring to.

[Thorne]

Wikipedia says:

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, is a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to the Hebrew Bible, were spoken by God (referred to in several names) to the people of Israel from the mountain referred to as Mount Sinai or Horeb, and later authored by God and given to Moses in the form of two stone tablets.

Now, Thorne, prove your assertion that they are not divine in origin

I think I'll move this portion to the Religion forum, where it is more appropriate.

If you regard George Washington and the Virginia Militia a rag-tag bunch of rebels, yes.

I'm quite sure the British generals regarded them as such.

No, always. Just because you escape justice doesn't make you innocent

Whose justice?

I have absolutely no idea, but apparently that nice Mr Obama thinks so. I'm just saying that the Constitution is obviously not perfect, because it is an eighteenth century historical document, it is man-made, and it had already had to be amended.

I never claimed it was perfect, and it may even have flaws in it. But fundamentally flawed? That implies he would like to toss it out completely.

[TantricSoul]

That is a corporation. Not a little mom and pop business, which is btw, the bread and butter backbone of the US. I am speaking of a small store/establishment owned and run by an individual

McDonalds Corporation only actually operates 25% of their locations. The other 75% are franchise owned and operated.

[MMI]

That is a corporation. Not a little mom and pop business, which is btw, the bread and butter backbone of the US. I am speaking of a small store/establishment owned and run by an individual



That may very well be. But he wasn't on that particuiar article. And that is the only one I am referring to.

McDonald's was started by two brothers. Not a dear little old lady and her husband, but I thought it was close enough. The fact that they turned themselves into a huge worldwide corporation answers your question.

[Thorne]

McDonald's was started by two brothers. Not a dear little old lady and her husband, but I thought it was close enough. The fact that they turned themselves into a huge worldwide corporation answers your question.

But they did so by providing quality food (each to his own opinion, of course) in a clean environment at a reasonable price. If their first restaurant had been a dingy, dreary dump with roaches crawling all over the counters and poor quality food they wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

[MMI]

I never claimed it was perfect, and it may even have flaws in it. But fundamentally flawed? That implies he would like to toss it out completely.

Maybe he would, but I doubt it. I didn't choose those words, and I don't know what caused him to use them.

However, he'll need a Constitution to validate whatever new laws he wants to introduce.

[MMI]

But they did so by providing quality food (each to his own opinion, of course) in a clean environment at a reasonable price. If their first restaurant had been a dingy, dreary dump with roaches crawling all over the counters and poor quality food they wouldn't have gotten anywhere.

To be honest, I don't know what the first outlet was like, but they set a pattern.

Have you never met anyone who suffered stomach upset after eating at McDonalds? I have


Have you never been in a dirty McDonalds? I have

The food might seem to be cheap, but hamburgers are not known for their healthy qualities; nor are chips. Who does not attribute much of the blame for nationwide obesity to McDonalds and the like?

[Thorne]

However, he'll need a Constitution to validate whatever new laws he wants to introduce.

Unless he's planning on setting up a dictatorship. (And no, I don't for one second believe that.)

[denuseri]

All of which has what to do exactly with Obama being or not being a socialist?

[MMI]

I believe this is a wide-ranging, well-informed (myself only excluded) discussion on many and various aspects of Mr Obama's political experience, and of relevant issues raised thereby. Each diversion was because of some remark made for or against the main proposition, and when it is finished with, the argument returns to that proposition.

I hate it when we are told to "KEEP TO THE TOPIC" - capitals seems to be necessary so that we can be cowed into submission. The "topic" is whatever we happen to be talking about as a result of previous posts and the replies we are considering. So long as we are not flaming, who can object?

With such strict controls over what can or cannot be said, the threads will become sterile. Do you want me to absent myself from these boards again ... so soon???

[grinner666]

I do not know how long the OP has been alive or what she's experienced, but I can tell her from personal memory that Obama's so-called "radical left, socialist" policies and positions would have, only 30 or 35 years ago, been considered centrist-right.

The problem with the right is that every time in the past 50 years that its policies have failed, its excuse has always been, "well, we just never tried a TRULY conservative approach; let's move a little further right," instead of maybe adapting to reality and trying a more centrist approach.

The current policies and beliefs of the mainstream Rethuglican party today would have been, and in fact WERE, dismissed as the rantings of the lunatic fringe as recently as the 1960s. Please remember that the John Birch society, now welcomed on the right, was dismissed during the '60s as an extremist group.

I suggest the OP acquire a little perspective and sense of history before making outrageous claims (or asking outrageous questions that are, in point of fact, outrageous claims) in future.

[denuseri]

I believe this is a wide-ranging, well-informed (myself only excluded) discussion on many and various aspects of Mr Obama's political experience, and of relevant issues raised thereby. Each diversion was because of some remark made for or against the main proposition, and when it is finished with, the argument returns to that proposition.

I hate it when we are told to "KEEP TO THE TOPIC" - capitals seems to be necessary so that we can be cowed into submission. The "topic" is whatever we happen to be talking about as a result of previous posts and the replies we are considering. So long as we are not flaming, who can object?

With such strict controls over what can or cannot be said, the threads will become sterile. Do you want me to absent myself from these boards again ... so soon???

lol Not at all...I was just genuinely wondering what the heck half of what the past few posts had to do with the main topic. (btw I am not the moderator for these or any other forums MMI)

[steelish]

Oh, my god!!!! Stop, Stop, Stop it! You're killing me I"m ROFLMAO!! Steelish we must have a friendly debate. Your source materials you've listed is bias....Period. They come from a very right wing conservative ideology. Who right now even as we speak is asking the gov't to step in and take over the Oil spill fiasco.....Whaaa????

EPA:

Our Mission

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment -- air, water and land -- upon which life depends.

EPA's purpose is to ensure that:

• all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;
• national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information;
• federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively;
• environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;
• all parts of society -- communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments -- have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;
• environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and
• the United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.

I'm not sure who you're referring to as the "right winger" who is asking for the government to step in, but the mere existence of the EPA suggests that the government SHOULD step in to ensure that BP does clean up the mess...COMPLETELY. No one (well, at the very least, I'm not) is asking for the government to do the "cleaning up".

is that not the responsibility of BP and not GOV'T intervention...i.e socialism.

I agree with you. It is BP's responsibility. But that being said, I find it ironic that the government wants to get involved with our daily lives and regulate our fat intake, yet they didn't impose regulations - such as make the $500,000 protective pressure valve gauge - a requirement on offshore rigs.

(This quote edited by moderator )And the same people screaming at the top of their lungs about taxes.

Um, first, I am a mother. And yes, I know the educational system sucks - that's why I paid for private school. No it wasn't easy, my husband worked two jobs and I worked full time as well.

Second, I'm NOT a right winger...I'm slightly right of the center and am part of the Conservative movement. It's not about cutting taxes. (not unless the government is going to cut out all the fat) It's not about seeing people starve in the streets. It's about bringing back decent humanity to each individual. It's about values. It's about compassion, charity, hope, faith (however you interpret faith).

Third, my husband is a police officer. So no, I am not against them getting a raise. Oh, and btw - he too is a Conservative.

Oh, I know all we have to do is cut the waste and the fat ...righhhhhhht! Been there done that, Remember the Bush Tax cuts. Supposed to help grow the economy ....Ahh! but what did it really do??

Nothing. Because Bush cut taxes but didn't cut spending. (FYI - I didn't like Bush either. Oh, and I am a registered Democrat)

It is possible to cut spending without doing the things you mentioned (cutting raises from teachers, police, firemen, etc) but the government would have you think otherwise. Oh and btw - the federal government doesn't pay the wages of firemen and police. Those wages are paid at the city government level.

( also edited by moderator )Under funded our regulatory agencies. Thus you have Wall steet, Insurance co's Banks, Reale state, healthcare, and let's not forget the most important thing Unemployment. In trouble! Which happened under the Bush/Cheney and Newt Gingrich Republican Watch. Remember Contract with America, 1994-2006....But you know what?? Don't believe me or the liberals. You know how I guage this fiasco now. This way, I know a few professional dommes they are having trouble making ends meet. Their once flourishing business has tanked they are now forced to enter the work force and yes go to trade schools. You know why Their clients discretionary allowance is no longer theirs! So what if we have a little socialism to go with Capitalism Nobodies saying don't make money. But hey there is a price to pay to make money in this country...Taxes! ...Put some back not all of it. just some!! My God!!! Have we become a nation of greed and selfishness. Is this what our soldiers are dying for and those who died in other wars! I can't tell you as a corpporate lawyer how many large businesses come in here and want me to find loop holes in the tax laws. So they can have some play money.

Unemployment is a government-run agency. It's not covered by a regulatory agency. Where were the regulatory agencies with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Oh yeah, those were government agencies as well. But they're not greedy, are they?????

Now you're calling ME greedy selfish because I want capable individuals to be responsible for their own actions. heh. I've never exhibited the qualities you're accusing me of. But I guess your post won't be considered inflammatory.

[TantricSoul]

I believe this is a wide-ranging, well-informed (myself only excluded) discussion on many and various aspects of Mr Obama's political experience, and of relevant issues raised thereby. Each diversion was because of some remark made for or against the main proposition, and when it is finished with, the argument returns to that proposition.

I hate it when we are told to "KEEP TO THE TOPIC" - capitals seems to be necessary so that we can be cowed into submission. The "topic" is whatever we happen to be talking about as a result of previous posts and the replies we are considering. So long as we are not flaming, who can object?

With such strict controls over what can or cannot be said, the threads will become sterile. Do you want me to absent myself from these boards again ... so soon???

Every once in a while as moderator I do post a "KEEP TO THE TOPIC" message, usually if a thread goes tangential before the OP has been thoroughly discussed. Once the regular contributors have chimed in I will tend to let the thread drift wherever it wants to go, (and like this one sometimes even contribute to off topic remarks) .

I honestly don't feel I weigh these boards down with heavy handed, oppressive actions, and I consciously use a light touch when here.

Frankly I spend almost all my time here playing peacemaker. Yes I volunteered for this and am not complaining, however there are times when I would rather post a koan or write in my blog or visit the chat room or The Fit Club or any number of other activities instead of once again, acting as members brain-to-fingers filter.

The answer is NO, I for one don't want you to vacate these boards again MMI, I enjoy reading your opinions even if sometimes they make extra work for me

So do me a favor people, pretty please, go have your brain-to-fingers filters checked and replaced if worn.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[blacqcobra]

Ms. Steelish I owe you an apology for certain reponses to your post. I do get carried away at times. But it is no excuse for my rude behaviour. Now, I wil say President Obama is not turning this country into a socialist state. He is trying to undo the terrible ravage this country has been put through by the past administration and it's party. I wrote another Op-ed but unfortunately I did not sign in thus I can't remember everything I said to rebute your argument. God I'm getting Old! I do remember saying this. The reasons this country is in this state today is due to the conservatives failure to uphold it's word and spend less for 12 yrs Thus the reason we are where we are... I gotta go I'm a lawyer they're calling us back in!!!! Oh, yeah I am Center of center, not right nor left one would say I'm an independent...Okay I'll accept that!

[MMI]

lol Not at all...I was just genuinely wondering what the heck half of what the past few posts had to do with the main topic. (btw I am not the moderator for these or any other forums MMI)

Well, I can only comment on the ones I was invloved in.

The discussion about McDonalds can be traced back to an assertion that I took issue with. Something about capitalism being based upon quality and merit while socialism encouraged dependancy. Before that, the discussion was to the effect that socialism was un-American and should not be foisted upon a capitalist society without its consent.

The argument over the Ten Commandments and my alleged desire to reclaim the 13 colonies for the British Empire can be traced back to a protest against Obama's claim that the Constitution was fundamentally flawed.

Both, I think, were relevant to the original question and hae helped it move on.

[steelish]

McDonalds Corporation only actually operates 25% of their locations. The other 75% are franchise owned and operated.

Ah, but an owned and operated FRANCHISE with corporate backing is hardly the same thing as a small sole proprietorship.

[TantricSoul]

Ah, but an owned and operated FRANCHISE with corporate backing is hardly the same thing as a small sole proprietorship.

Oh I agree its obviously not exactly the same, yet in many facets a franchise location is undeniably more closely related to a mom and pop store than a corporately operated location. Franchisees are typically considered small business owners, and have many of the same issues/obstacles unless they are area or territory licensees.

While bound by legal agreements and receiving "support" from the franchising corporation, the truth is once a franchisee is in a location it can be near impossible to get them out. Therefor there are huge variances in aspects such a cleanliness, quality, customer service, pricing and even selection when comparing one franchise location to another or a corporate location.

I worked for a global franchise corporation for over 20 years as a field consultant / operations expert and corporate trainer. I have seen far too many locations/operations that should have been run out of business, or had their stores taken back by the franchisor due to bad (often dangerous) or ridiculous practices or policies and yet they remained in business. Several of these franchisees that I personally know only operate these businesses as a tax shelter, and honestly don't care if they lose money or not.

To MMIs point, at least from my "half a career lifetime" experience in retail, success in capitalism is far less often the result of quality and merit as it is about doing whatever it takes to maximize profits. Its about the bottom line not about merit or people.

The average American consumer is far less sophisticated, knowledgeable or discriminatory than you might think. Which is where regulation comes into play. Were success truly based upon merit, quality, putting customers first, then we probably wouldn't need industry regulation. However time and time and time again that has not proven to be the case.

Respectfully,
Tantric

[DuncanONeil]

I have to agree with her. Another way of putting it is that the document was broken the day it was written.

From your current message you have succumbed to the revisionist history that the founders were, and are, somehow evil.

That is the major problem with Progressives. they think the Constitution needs to be done away with as it gets in the way of Government!

Fundamentally flawed ...hmmm. Well it sure wasn't handed down from on high, like the Ten Commandments were. If the US Constitution were divinely ordained, then it would never need to be fixed. As it is, however, it was written by inter alia merchants, trading with the enemy, land dealers, stealing land from the Crown, and other speculators - none of whom saw any reason why they should pay for the defence they had sought from Britain, and all of whom were ready to get the French, Dutch, Russians and Spanish to fight their wars for them.

(Yet look how America sneers at Europe now, and the French especially.)

There is nothing sacrosanct about ANY part of the Constitution, and, indeed it has already been amended many times, and even some amendements have been amended.

[DuncanONeil]

Unlike the out of control spending and deficits soring to the heavens presented by the party of the non-right, can't call them left they don't like that.
* President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.
* President Bush began a string of expensive finan*cial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.
* President Bush created a Medicare drug entitle*ment that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new govern*ment health care fund.
* President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. Presi*dent Obama would double it.
* President Bush became the first President to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already in*creased this spending by 20 percent.
* President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

* President Bush presided over a $2.5 trillion increase in the public debt through 2008. Setting aside 2009 (for which Presidents Bush and Obama share responsibility for an additional $2.6 trillion in public debt), President Obama’s budget would add $4.9 trillion in public debt from the beginning of 2010 through 2016.

UPDATE: Many Obama defenders in the comments are claiming that the numbers above do not include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan during the Bush years. They most certainly do. While Bush did fund the wars through emergency supplementals (not the regular budget process), that spending did not simply vanish. It is included in the numbers above.
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/

Only in the USA would the right-wing be so desperate as to peddle this sort of illiterate nonsense on a bdsm forum. Who cares what the party of white Southern racists thinks? Reagan and both Bushes massively hiked the deficit, and none of them were remotely competent to manage the government. As for honesty, the party of Abramoff doesn't have even a shred of credibility. Under Bush II the economy collapsed, the deficit soared, and we invaded Iraq on the basis of lies. Don't tell us that the right-wing is good for anything. except licking out the public latrines with their lying, greedy, cowardly tongues.

[DuncanONeil]

You final statement reeks of the rantings of the radical right, which does not represent the People at all, but simply a vocal minority paranoid at the prospect of a legally constituted government actually taking its role and responsibilities seriously.

Were the Government to take its role and responsibilities seriously they would not have done a decimals worth of the things they have over the past years.

The governing document for the Government severely limits what the Government is allowed to do. Congress and the various adminiastrations have sought estoric means and odd turns of phrase to subvert the intent of the Constitution.

[DuncanONeil]

Shouting? I thought THIS WAS SHOUTING.

Am I wrong in wondering if (implied) shouting in one's response disrespectful and possibly worth citation? I was under the impression we're supposed to be courteous in these threads.

[DuncanONeil]

I do not believe "that nice Mr Obama" desires to amend the Constitution. I believe that the and the other Progressives wish to dispose of it.

Wikipedia says:

The Ten Commandments, or Decalogue, is a list of religious and moral imperatives that, according to the Hebrew Bible, were spoken by God (referred to in several names) to the people of Israel from the mountain referred to as Mount Sinai or Horeb, and later authored by God and given to Moses in the form of two stone tablets.

Now, Thorne, prove your assertion that they are not divine in origin



If you regard George Washington and the Virginia Militia a rag-tag bunch of rebels, yes.




No, always. Just because you escape justice doesn't make you innocent




I have absolutely no idea, but apparently that nice Mr Obama thinks so. I'm just saying that the Constitution is obviously not perfect, because it is an eighteenth century historical document, it is man-made, and it had already had to be amended.




Upholding the Constitution does not prevent its amendment. Amending the Constitution is not "tearing it down", because the new laws will rely on that same Constituion for their validity.

[grinner666]

I'm not sure who you're referring to as the "right winger" who is asking for the government to step in, but the mere existence of the EPA suggests that the government SHOULD step in to ensure that BP does clean up the mess...COMPLETELY. No one (well, at the very least, I'm not) is asking for the government to do the "cleaning up".

You should check your facts before before spouting off. The EPA's authority STOPS at the water's edge, which is where the Coast Guard's authority starts. If you don't believe the Coast Guard has been active in this fucking nightmare, then you just haven't been paying attention.

I agree with you. It is BP's responsibility. But that being said, I find it ironic that the government wants to get involved with our daily lives and regulate our fat intake, yet they didn't impose regulations - such as make the $500,000 protective pressure valve gauge - a requirement on offshore rigs.

First, I have yet to see a law REGULATING anybody's fat intake; dietary advice from your government can be treated like dietary advice from your horsey Aunt Mabel who never saw an eclair she didn't like. It can be paid attention to or ignored as you wish. From the majority of kids I've seen lately, I'd be willing to say that far and large, the government's advice is being ignored. So kindly calm down with the "regulate our fat intake" hyperbole.

As to your whine about government requirements regarding offshore oil rigs, while I agree that the Obama administration dropped the ball here on regulating the oil industry, I would first like to point out that the administration has had just over ONE year to correct the fuckups of DECADES of the control of regulatory agencies by the industries they're supposed to regulate. That isn't something Obama CAUSED but something he INHERITED. Give the man a chance.

Second, I find it not just amusing but absolutely hilarious that your opening post whined that you think Obama is a socialist, but here you're whining that you want his administration to impose MORE "socialist" restrictions on private enterprise.

You can't have it both ways. Either Obama's "radical socialist" (formerly centrist - right) agenda regarding private enterprise is right, or it's TOO FAR RIGHT, or it's wrong. It can't be too socialist and let private business get away with too much all at once. They're mutually exclusive.

I suggest you come up with a coherent political philosophy YOURSELF, before arguing further. Right now you sound like an "I don't want to pay taxes but I want the federal government to take care of me anyway" teabagger.

[denuseri]

<<thinks it doesnt reallymatter weather Obama is called a socialist or progressive or anything else...when he does the same things his predessesor did as if he is following some kind of playbook left for him in the oval office by the last quarterback of the team.

[leo9]

It can't be too socialist and let private business get away with too much all at once. They're mutually exclusive.

One of the great inevitables of politics is that those who cry "Cut bureaucracy!" usually cry "Why don't the Government DO something?" in the next breath. Sometimes in the same one, and with no idea of the irony.

It's not just "I want to pay less taxes and I want the government to look after me," but "and I want them to do it with no staff." (And no, hiring private firms to do it never works. Look at the private run jails.)

[steelish]

You should check your facts before before spouting off. The EPA's authority STOPS at the water's edge, which is where the Coast Guard's authority starts. If you don't believe the Coast Guard has been active in this fucking nightmare, then you just haven't been paying attention.

You mean none of the oil has reached shores yet???? Hmmm...the news I've been watching is incorrect then.

Seriously though. Why do you think I stated that the government (through the EPA) needs to ensure that BP cleans up the mess COMPLETELY. It's because the coast of LA is now saturated with oil. I never mentioned the EPA going into the gulf to clean up the water. I am a trained Emergency Response volunteer. I help with clean up efforts after natural disasters and our group recently had to take the BP HazMat module 3 course to become certified to handle the oil cleanup. I might not have made myself clear in my post, but in no way did I "spout off" about something that you've accused me of being ignorant of.

First, I have yet to see a law REGULATING anybody's fat intake; dietary advice from your government can be treated like dietary advice from your horsey Aunt Mabel who never saw an eclair she didn't like. It can be paid attention to or ignored as you wish. From the majority of kids I've seen lately, I'd be willing to say that far and large, the government's advice is being ignored. So kindly calm down with the "regulate our fat intake" hyperbole.

*sigh*

I never said there were any laws regulating anyone's fat intake. My exact phrase was: "I find it ironic that the government wants to get involved with our daily lives and regulate our fat intake, yet they didn't impose regulations - such as make the $500,000 protective pressure valve gauge - a requirement on offshore rigs."

(Notice the use of the word: WANTS)

As to your whine about government requirements regarding offshore oil rigs, while I agree that the Obama administration dropped the ball here on regulating the oil industry, I would first like to point out that the administration has had just over ONE year to correct the fuckups of DECADES of the control of regulatory agencies by the industries they're supposed to regulate. That isn't something Obama CAUSED but something he INHERITED. Give the man a chance.

Second, I find it not just amusing but absolutely hilarious that your opening post whined that you think Obama is a socialist, but here you're whining that you want his administration to impose MORE "socialist" restrictions on private enterprise.

Wow. You sure are reading a lot of inflection into the post.

I didn't whine about anything. Nor did I wish/request/want the government to regulate the oil industry. What I did was point out that I thought it ironic that they want to regulate our personal lives (fat intake) yet they don't bother to regulate something like the offshore oil drilling.

You can't have it both ways. Either Obama's "radical socialist" (formerly centrist - right) agenda regarding private enterprise is right, or it's TOO FAR RIGHT, or it's wrong. It can't be too socialist and let private business get away with too much all at once. They're mutually exclusive.

I suggest you come up with a coherent political philosophy YOURSELF, before arguing further. Right now you sound like an "I don't want to pay taxes but I want the federal government to take care of me anyway" teabagger.

I believe you're totally confused. In no way did I say his agenda gets him too involved in private enterprise, yet it's not enough involvement.

Also - If you've been following most of these threads, and reading my posts, you would know (in no uncertain terms) that I have no problem paying taxes...AND, I DON'T want the federal government to take care of me. PERIOD.


Please forgive me if I come across as rude in my reply. I felt a bit defensive and wanted to correct any misconceptions.