Hey If The Politcial Debate Bores You Here...

[UNTflyer]

Check out the comments section on this article about the "International Socialist Order at North Texas". Sounds like these young communists are ready to take to the streets in black pajamas and Kalashnikovs.

http://www.ntdaily.com/home/index.cfm?even...8c-20606a2aa4ec

[Green Gas]

Check out the comments section on this article about the "International Socialist Order at North Texas". Sounds like these young communists are ready to take to the streets in black pajamas and Kalashnikovs.

http://www.ntdaily.com/home/index.cfm?even...8c-20606a2aa4ec

That really gives me gas, green nasty gas!

[Censored by Laurie]

Wow...the comments section makes this board seem almost intelligent.

I skew considerably further left than most...but the idea that "the probability is definently gaining" on this nation becoming Socialist is inane. Conversly, the idea that Obama is a Socialist because is he is interested in implimenting social programs and has an egalitarian ideal is just as ridiculous. Anybody with any sense of history should realize that our nation is incredibly centrist...and anybody who legitimatly believes that we have anything close to extreme leadership, right or left, is truly just showing their ignorance.

Everybody should read Marx. The USSR did a remarkable job of butchering Marxist philosphy...especially since even Marx didn't believe that his principles could work on a large scale because human greed is inherent. This ties into the tired thought that Socialism is the philosophy of the lazy...cooperation does not mean lazy. Marx believed that the majority of people had the ability to work for each other...to measure their success not on the size of their wallets, but the happiness and vitality of their neighbors and community as a whole. He also identified, accuratly, that there were those who couldn't work for such goals...and that for the betterment of society they should be removed; on a small scale, that works, people are removed from the commune and asked to live and thrive elsewhere...on a large scale, you get Stalin. The worst thing you can ever do to a philosopher is to actually impliment his philosophies.

[KRAM1]

I wonder how many of the "new order" are paying their own way through UNT? Reminds me of the 60's at UNT when lots of protest marches, etc. were going on. Many of the "left wing" crowd were being subsidized by their parents. Funny, how you seem to have time for theis stuff when someone else if footing the bill. I know, I know...not all, but I would guess that several members of this group are not footing the bill by themselves.

Seems to me, this is part of what college is "all about". I would not get too worked up about this group. Their "cause" has proven a failure everywhere it has been tried and most will wonder back into the mainstream of politics (on one side or the other) once the reality of having to actually work for a living and pay all your own bills hits home. Give them their "experimentation" during this time of their lives...it is really what college is about...learning and experimenting with different ideas, theories, etc.

Not to worry....

[CaribbeanGreen]

Wow...the comments section makes this board seem almost intelligent.

I skew considerably further left than most...but the idea that "the probability is definently gaining" on this nation becoming Socialist is inane. Conversly, the idea that Obama is a Socialist because is he is interested in implimenting social programs and has an egalitarian ideal is just as ridiculous. Anybody with any sense of history should realize that our nation is incredibly centrist...and anybody who legitimatly believes that we have anything close to extreme leadership, right or left, is truly just showing their ignorance.

Everybody should read Marx. The USSR did a remarkable job of butchering Marxist philosphy...especially since even Marx didn't believe that his principles could work on a large scale because human greed is inherent. This ties into the tired thought that Socialism is the philosophy of the lazy...cooperation does not mean lazy. Marx believed that the majority of people had the ability to work for each other...to measure their success not on the size of their wallets, but the happiness and vitality of their neighbors and community as a whole. He also identified, accuratly, that there were those who couldn't work for such goals...and that for the betterment of society they should be removed; on a small scale, that works, people are removed from the commune and asked to live and thrive elsewhere...on a large scale, you get Stalin. The worst thing you can ever do to a philosopher is to actually impliment his philosophies.

Totally gagree.

Marx meant well, for sure.. conditions in Europe at that time were beyond dismal for the proletariat, and his observations were very of his time and relevant. A bit of a Pollyanna, sure... but, as you said, probably effective in a small outpost somewhere. Large scale, not so much.

I've also never gotten around some of his contradictions and over-simplifications... i.e., revolution is inevitable yet it must be started and led by a group of high-functioning intellectuals (not really inevitable then, and why would middle class intellectuals lead a revolution? And if they tried, how could a group of eggheads mobilize the unorganized masses of workers? They might, but to my knowledge Marx never explains it.)

Also, don't get me started on the absurd concept of "false consciousness" pervasive throughout Marxist thought.... it's hardly explained or defined, and it basically is used to more accurately define "someone who doesn't agree with Marx".....

Agree, though.... revolutionary thinker, beyond worth reading, really wanted to change the world in what he felt was a positive way... it's just over-simplified utopian fantasy.

[GBarksdale]

I wonder how many of the "new order" are paying their own way through UNT? Reminds me of the 60's at UNT when lots of protest marches, etc. were going on. Many of the "left wing" crowd were being subsidized by their parents. Funny, how you seem to have time for theis stuff when someone else if footing the bill. I know, I know...not all, but I would guess that several members of this group are not footing the bill by themselves.

Yeah, I see this a lot where I live. It's funny how a lot of these protesters are white, middle-upper middle class college students who are being subsidized by their parents. Then they graduate and go on to get their MBAs.

[yyz28]

Conversly, the idea that Obama is a Socialist because is he is interested in implimenting social programs and has an egalitarian ideal is just as ridiculous.

Social programs by their very definition are socialist. When you start giving tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes... that's socialist policy. When you start taking from those who produce and start giving to those who can't or won't produce, you're engaged in socialism.

When you talk about "wealth re-distribution", you're promoting socialist ideals.

When the government takes over large chunks of the economy, you're watching socialism in action.

Do I think Obama is a devout socialist? No... I don't. ...but do I think his policies are socialistic? Yes, I do, and they are. ANYONE with a basic understanding of politics and economics can understand that.

[Censored by Laurie]

Social programs by their very definition are socialist. When you start giving tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes... that's socialist policy. When you start taking from those who produce and start giving to those who can't or won't produce, you're engaged in socialism.

When you talk about "wealth re-distribution", you're promoting socialist ideals.

When the government takes over large chunks of the economy, you're watching socialism in action.

Do I think Obama is a devout socialist? No... I don't. ...but do I think his policies are socialistic? Yes, I do, and they are. ANYONE with a basic understanding of politics and economics can understand that.

We've been implimenting "socialist" policies for the past 100+ years...its a product of the fact that pure, 100%, un-adulterated capitalism doesn't work. If you allow compitition to go completely unbridaled and unchecked you eventually end up with a winner...and once you have a winner you end up with the same end result as pure, 100% un-adulterated socialism...a lack of choice. Its why you cant impliment one system without some aspects of the other.

"When you start giving tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes..." - can you explain this statement...how do you cut zero?

"When you start taking from those who produce and start giving to those who can't or won't produce, you're engaged in socialism." - To me, this statement only works if you assume equal available resources...that the person "producing" had the same advantages/disadvantages of those not "producing." That just doesn't exist. Our current welfare and unemployment programs are amazingly flawed and need desperate overhaul...but they are vital. Also, if you're equating wealth with production...I'd love to invite you up to New Haven and I'll introduce you to a couple of my Yale acquaintances.

"When the government takes over large chunks of the economy, you're watching socialism in action." - The economy (corporations) are begging the government to save them from themselves...when Citi puts up $400 million to pay for CitiField (new Shea), then asks the government for assistance, then buys a $50 million Cessna...I think a bit of oversight is in order. When the banks won't or can't say where their bailout money went...I think a bit of oversight is in order.

I certainly don't agree with just printing more money and throwing it into the economy...I'd like the few dollars I still have to actually be worth something. I like the bad bank idea...that way you're actually rebuilding your economy from the ground up...the way it should be done.

[yyz28]

We've been implimenting "socialist" policies for the past 100+ years...its a product of the fact that pure, 100%, un-adulterated capitalism doesn't work. If you allow compitition to go completely unbridaled and unchecked you eventually end up with a winner...and once you have a winner you end up with the same end result as pure, 100% un-adulterated socialism...a lack of choice. Its why you cant impliment one system without some aspects of the other.

Not all regulation is socialist, so I don't agree that all policies that regulate the economy are socialistic, so I agree with this to some degree...

"When you start giving tax cuts to people who don't pay taxes..." - can you explain this statement...how do you cut zero?

During the campagin, the President made the promise that he was going to give 95% of Americans a Tax Cut. The problem with this was that 95% of Americans don't pay Federal Income taxes. The only way for these people to benefit from any tax policy would be for them to get a rebate check even if they didn't pay into the system.

"When you start taking from those who produce and start giving to those who can't or won't produce, you're engaged in socialism." - To me, this statement only works if you assume equal available resources...that the person "producing" had the same advantages/disadvantages of those not "producing." That just doesn't exist. Our current welfare and unemployment programs are amazingly flawed and need desperate overhaul...but they are vital. Also, if you're equating wealth with production...I'd love to invite you up to New Haven and I'll introduce you to a couple of my Yale acquaintances.

Our current President came from VERY poor means, had unmarried parents and background was a mixed race child during a time where that was looked opon as worse than being 100% black, and through hard work, put himself in a position to one day become President of the United States. ANYONE can go from nothing to dumb-stinkin' rich in this country. It happens all the time. The people producing have MADE their own advantages through hard work (or the hard work of their parents, family or someone who took them under their wing) just like many who are "disadvantaged" are so as a result of the choices they (or their parents) have made. We can't think and make decisions for other people.

We're almost to a point in this country where there are fewer tax payers than there are people on the government nipple.

The myth that weath is handed down is flawed. The VAST majority of people who are "Rich" earned it. ...yeah... ...there are some trust fund babies around, but someone earned THAT money too. It isn't the Government's to seize and resistriubute.

"When the government takes over large chunks of the economy, you're watching socialism in action." - The economy (corporations) are begging the government to save them from themselves...when Citi puts up $400 million to pay for CitiField (new Shea), then asks the government for assistance, then buys a $50 million Cessna...I think a bit of oversight is in order. When the banks won't or can't say where their bailout money went...I think a bit of oversight is in order.

Oh, don't misunderstand. I think the companies who are suckling up to Mama pig are disgusting... ...but Cessna got one hell of an order there, didn't they? Doesn't that order for that Jet stimulate the economy? It keeps manufacturers working, it keeps the avionics industry moving along, hey it even creates revenue for the Government in the form of income tax to Cessna, income tax to the people building the plane, landing and airport fees everytime the machine takes flight, fuel taxes for every gallon of aviation fuel used, etc.

The banks don't HAVE to say where the money went because we didn't tell them they had to account for it. That's the Government's fault, not the fault of the bank who didn't bother to account specifically for that money. Perhaps, instead of bitching that the company used government money the wrong way, we should just... oh, I don't know... QUIT WITH THE FRIGGIN' BAILOUTS ALREADY. Let the market take out those who can't compete. ...The MOST the government should have done is take the bad assets off the hands of the banks which might have been arguable since it is Government policy that sort of let the horse out of the barn in the first place. THAT you might get me on board with... though we could have done it 20 times over now with the money that has been spent on the economy thus far.

I certainly don't agree with just printing more money and throwing it into the economy...I'd like the few dollars I still have to actually be worth something. I like the bad bank idea...that way you're actually rebuilding your economy from the ground up...the way it should be done.

See my point above. I think we can probably agree on this one... Reform the "Mark to Market" rule and creat the "bad bank" to hold all this trash paper to relieve the banks of the bad asset and then let the market work the rest of this out.

[Censored by Laurie]

During the campagin, the President made the promise that he was going to give 95% of Americans a Tax Cut. The problem with this was that 95% of Americans don't pay Federal Income taxes. The only way for these people to benefit from any tax policy would be for them to get a rebate check even if they didn't pay into the system.

Perhaps we ought to chalk that up to semantics...I'm pretty sure "Americans" was meant to imply "Taxpaying Americans." And I think you know that.

Our current President came from VERY poor means, had unmarried parents and background was a mixed race child during a time where that was looked opon as worse than being 100% black, and through hard work, put himself in a position to one day become President of the United States. ANYONE can go from nothing to dumb-stinkin' rich in this country. It happens all the time. The people producing have MADE their own advantages through hard work (or the hard work of their parents, family or someone who took them under their wing) just like many who are "disadvantaged" are so as a result of the choices they (or their parents) have made. We can't think and make decisions for other people.

We must have differing views of "poor means." Both of Obama's parents were college graduates, so was his step-father and grandmother who helped raise him...we may not be talking trust funds, but we're also not talking Marcy Projects. This certainly isn't to denegrate Obama in any way...his story is still quite exceptional...but it is not a fair parallel to equate the upbringing of Obama with the upbringing of many inner-city youths. Hard work can rally only get certain people so far...and often that is not far enough to sustain such a life where you can look to the next generation and truly expect them to be better off than their parents.

The myth that weath is handed down is flawed. The VAST majority of people who are "Rich" earned it. ...yeah... ...there are some trust fund babies around, but someone earned THAT money too. It isn't the Government's to seize and resistriubute.

Well...I'll go ahead and say that the vast majority of people who are poor are not so because they are lazy. Most work very hard and strive for something better than their current status...but their exist so many mitigating factors that prevent those on the bottom rung of society from achieving.

Oh, don't misunderstand. I think the companies who are suckling up to Mama pig are disgusting... ...but Cessna got one hell of an order there, didn't they? Doesn't that order for that Jet stimulate the economy? It keeps manufacturers working, it keeps the avionics industry moving along, hey it even creates revenue for the Government in the form of income tax to Cessna, income tax to the people building the plane, landing and airport fees everytime the machine takes flight, fuel taxes for every gallon of aviation fuel used, etc.

I really hope the Cessna statement is tongue in cheek...b/c it really cracked me up and I want not to believe that you support $50 million of taxpayer money going to prop up the struggling luxury personal airplane industry.

The banks don't HAVE to say where the money went because we didn't tell them they had to account for it. That's the Government's fault, not the fault of the bank who didn't bother to account specifically for that money. Perhaps, instead of bitching that the company used government money the wrong way, we should just... oh, I don't know... QUIT WITH THE FRIGGIN' BAILOUTS ALREADY. Let the market take out those who can't compete. ...The MOST the government should have done is take the bad assets off the hands of the banks which might have been arguable since it is Government policy that sort of let the horse out of the barn in the first place. THAT you might get me on board with... though we could have done it 20 times over now with the money that has been spent on the economy thus far.

I agree that there needs to be an end to the bailouts and we rebuild these companies by improving their customers circumstances (bad bank)...but please don't offer the shrug shoulder defense for these banks. We agree that stabilizing the economy should've been managed differently...but to this point it hasn't and to not hold these banks accountable for their massive loans is ridiculous.

[TheTastyGreek]

Everybody should read Marx.

100% agree.

He's a man of few words, but they're brilliantly chosen and profoundly affecting. Life changing wisdom, trumpeted by a bulb horn.

[UNTflyer]

[yyz28]

Perhaps we ought to chalk that up to semantics...I'm pretty sure "Americans" was meant to imply "Taxpaying Americans." And I think you know that.

...they only said it 5,000 times and never, NOT ONCE, did they clearify, even after being attacked by the news media and the McCain campagin. ...so I don't think this is a misunderstanding of semantics.

We must have differing views of "poor means." Both of Obama's parents were college graduates, so was his step-father and grandmother who helped raise him...we may not be talking trust funds, but we're also not talking Marcy Projects. This certainly isn't to denegrate Obama in any way...his story is still quite exceptional...but it is not a fair parallel to equate the upbringing of Obama with the upbringing of many inner-city youths. Hard work can rally only get certain people so far...and often that is not far enough to sustain such a life where you can look to the next generation and truly expect them to be better off than their parents.

I'm sorry, there are too many stories of people who are born in the projects, concentrate on school, go through college and become wealthy for me to buy into this way of thinking. Many people who operate in the lower class do so as a result of generations of abuse of the system and being raised and brought up in communities and by people who feel this is simply the way to get by. This is an epedemic in this country, and until we break the cycle of dependancy on govenerment, I don't expect to see much improvement. The answer to this problem isn't more government, it is, in fact, less government.

...and it's a bit ironic that the guy you just put in power as president is ignoring the economic facts surrounding this stimulus disaster and what it is going to do to our economic system in the future, and then lement about the fact that the next generation may not have it as good if not better than their parents. The Stimulus bill signed into law has sealed that deal, my friend.

Well...I'll go ahead and say that the vast majority of people who are poor are not so because they are lazy. Most work very hard and strive for something better than their current status...but their exist so many mitigating factors that prevent those on the bottom rung of society from achieving.

See my comments above. Bad decisions and lifesyles are often to blame, even when the lack of hard work isn't.

I really hope the Cessna statement is tongue in cheek...b/c it really cracked me up and I want not to believe that you support $50 million of taxpayer money going to prop up the struggling luxury personal airplane industry.

It really wasn't tounge in cheek. We're bailing out the banks, why is it so bad that they are bailing out the Aviation industry? What makes the millions of people who work in that industry dispinsable, but those that work for the car compaines aren't? Put the product out of your head - who the hell are you to determine if the product is worthy? ...it is the same class of worker that works for Cessna building luxury jets as the carpenter you hire to add on to your house. Middle class is middle class. We're going to start discriminating based on what product he's building?

I agree that there needs to be an end to the bailouts and we rebuild these companies by improving their customers circumstances (bad bank)...but please don't offer the shrug shoulder defense for these banks. We agree that stabilizing the economy should've been managed differently...but to this point it hasn't and to not hold these banks accountable for their massive loans is ridiculous.

Hey, the shrug shoulder is the right response. Like it or not, the congress and the President didn't put ANY limitations on the money. There is no obligation what so ever for anyone who got that money to account for it. Don't blame the banks for following the rules. ...blame the government for not attaching any.

[Guest JohnDenver]

...they only said it 5,000 times and never, NOT ONCE, did they clearify, even after being attacked by the news media and the McCain campagin. ...so I don't think this is a misunderstanding of semantics.

I *clearly* heard him correct that in a debate with McCain.

[Quoner]

I *clearly* heard him correct that in a debate with McCain.

OMG XBOX SUX!

[meangreendork]

Wow...the comments section makes this board seem almost intelligent.

I skew considerably further left than most...but the idea that "the probability is definently gaining" on this nation becoming Socialist is inane. Conversly, the idea that Obama is a Socialist because is he is interested in implimenting social programs and has an egalitarian ideal is just as ridiculous. Anybody with any sense of history should realize that our nation is incredibly centrist...and anybody who legitimatly believes that we have anything close to extreme leadership, right or left, is truly just showing their ignorance.

Everybody should read Marx. The USSR did a remarkable job of butchering Marxist philosphy...especially since even Marx didn't believe that his principles could work on a large scale because human greed is inherent. This ties into the tired thought that Socialism is the philosophy of the lazy...cooperation does not mean lazy. Marx believed that the majority of people had the ability to work for each other...to measure their success not on the size of their wallets, but the happiness and vitality of their neighbors and community as a whole. He also identified, accuratly, that there were those who couldn't work for such goals...and that for the betterment of society they should be removed; on a small scale, that works, people are removed from the commune and asked to live and thrive elsewhere...on a large scale, you get Stalin. The worst thing you can ever do to a philosopher is to actually impliment his philosophies.

Lord almighty. I love how Denton has a great artsy/counterculture vibe, but this is one of those moments I wish those folks would go read a book, maybe get a job, and do something. Yes, Obama's policies draw from Socialistic thought. Hell, the US government has a pile of Socialistic policies that stretch back as far as the early 20th century. But to say we're all gonna end up Communist is hilariously wrong.

To Marx and the USSR - they basically proved the fact that like many other political concepts, they all work in ideal conditions. But those concepts (like our own right now) all fall victim to, and have to compensate for corruption, the fact that humans are in fact, not all equal (but should have equal opportunity), and for just poor luck. The USSR got it all wrong by letting corruption and factioning in their government to basically screw the pooch.

[yyz28]

I *clearly* heard him correct that in a debate with McCain.

Bring the Youtube then. ...or a transcript. I openly admit I may have missed it, but I was pretty well plugged into all of that. If I didn't catch it, I'll be the first to admit it...