(04-04-2015 02:11 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:55 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The problem remains. If non-discrimination laws aren't valid simply because someone claims religious objections, then they aren't valid at all.
Understand that there is a reason for asking for everything. Because there is no point of going small. Same fight. Same opposition. Same level of opposition.

This is why I was pressing you on where the equities lie.

True separation of church and state requires that you accept some discrimination in the name of religion. All religions say we are God's chosen people and you're not, to some greater or lesser degree, and that's about as inherently discriminatory as it's possible to be.

I don't think religion entitles you to say, "I'm not going to bake a cake for your wedding because my religion says that people like shouldn't get married." That's a commercial transaction, and religious, not commercial, standards should govern. I don't think anti-discrimination entitles you to say, "Church, we don't care about your doctrine and beliefs, we're going to make you marry us." I still cannot fathom why a gay couple would WANT to get married in a church that does not embrace same-sex marriage, particularly when there are alternatives.

There has to be some weighing of the equities. I know where I'm comfortable with it. I think you've made it pretty clear where you stand.

Dale v Boy Scouts. I support the ruling. Which means that private associations can do whatever they want. I don't think we are in disagreement here. But the government IMHO should not subsidize those private organizations, so long as they discriminate.

Tom how do landlords and employers know if you are gay? And how do hospitals discriminate?

(04-04-2015 02:22 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Tom how do landlords and employers know if you are gay? And how do hospitals discriminate?

Many Gay persons aren't single. Actually, there still places that bar two unrelated adults from renting a home together.

Do your employers ever ask you "what did you do last weekend?". Should you lie. How about "Are you single?". I've had to shut down attempts to set me up with one the girls at the office (or their friends) multiple times. How about when the bachleorette parties go to the Gay bars and see you there?

You have no effective right to do something if you can be fired if someone finds out about it.

Your argument holds as much water as saying.....'you have a right to steal from your employer, so long as they don't find out about it'.


As far as hospitals discriminating....

1) Many hospitals, even though much of their physical plants are paid for directly by the taxpayers, restrict executive jobs to straight persons. Many discriminate in pay/benefits. I personally know several doctors that have had to leave hospitals because of anti-Gay harrassment.

2) And then there's these stories. Two case in this linky http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7633058&page=2

http://www.dallasvoice.com/va-nurse-accu...93109.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11...60488.html (this one might be a bit complicated).

http://www.care2.com/causes/gay-kiss-get...dside.html

(04-02-2015 08:14 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 07:13 PM)shere khan Wrote:  

(04-02-2015 04:15 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  The real dance going on here isn't about religious freedom but rather that LGBT persons are not currently included in many areas' existing non-discrimination laws.

And that the anti-Gays and the LGBT movement both know that the next fight will be in an area where discrimination is very real, very widespread, and very persistent.......the next fight will be over the right of Transgendered persons to live their lives free of discrimination in employment and housing, and the ability of them to participate in commerce free of discrimination.

the desire to be free from discrimination is fair enough

disingenuous manipulation just pisses me off.

you get points for admitting it.

Look, there have been over 90 anti-gay bills introduced in tea party legislatures this year. Many of these bills seek to weaken existing non-discrimination protections.

Maybe if the Gaystepo was not out trolling for 70 year old grandmothers to put on the street there would not be a push for this kind of legislation.

(04-04-2015 03:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:22 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Tom how do landlords and employers know if you are gay? And how do hospitals discriminate?

Many Gay persons aren't single. Actually, there still places that bar two unrelated adults from renting a home together.

Do your employers ever ask you "what did you do last weekend?". Should you lie. How about "Are you single?". I've had to shut down attempts to set me up with one the girls at the office (or their friends) multiple times. How about when the bachleorette parties go to the Gay bars and see you there?

You have no effective right to do something if you can be fired if someone finds out about it.

Your argument holds as much water as saying.....'you have a right to steal from your employer, so long as they don't find out about it'.


As far as hospitals discriminating....

1) Many hospitals, even though much of their physical plants are paid for directly by the taxpayers, restrict executive jobs to straight persons. Many discriminate in pay/benefits. I personally know several doctors that have had to leave hospitals because of anti-Gay harrassment.

2) And then there's these stories. Two case in this linky http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7633058&page=2

http://www.dallasvoice.com/va-nurse-accu...93109.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11...60488.html (this one might be a bit complicated).

http://www.care2.com/causes/gay-kiss-get...dside.html

Come on Tom, that is so freaking weak. The only legit thing to even mention is hospital visits or making medical decisions for non married partners. Do a freaking POA/Living Will.

(04-04-2015 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys its about the results. Are all the voters voting Tea party anti-Gay? No. But just look at the Texas legislature. Where are the non-anti-Gay state Reps and state Senators? Crickets.

There's a reason why minorities want a big overreaching Federal government. Because we don't trust the local governments. We have a reason to not trust the locals.

Do I particularly like Sheila Jackson Lee? No. She's according to all accounts, an awful boss. But if voting against her gives another Ted Poe or John Culburtson, or Mike Kubosh more power....then I can't do it.

Big overreaching government started Jim Crow. Or are you suggesting that Woodrow Wilson was a paragon of virtue? And that highlights the problem with your approach because you couldn't care less about the powers that you hand over to the gov't so long as they force the populace to comply with your immediate wishes. When the gov't gets so bloated that it can't function according to your wishes then where will your 'protected class' be?

I understand that socially the gov't can never be conservative. As the arrow of time moves forward things invariably change. But I think you would agree that for all the problems our gov't has that it and the people who believe in it (including anti-gays) afford minorities of all stripes the best possible situation. Your rejection of incrimentalism is a play for short term gains at the expense of the longevity of the security you are looking for.

(04-04-2015 03:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys its about the results. Are all the voters voting Tea party anti-Gay? No. But just look at the Texas legislature. Where are the non-anti-Gay state Reps and state Senators? Crickets.

There's a reason why minorities want a big overreaching Federal government. Because we don't trust the local governments. We have a reason to not trust the locals.

Do I particularly like Sheila Jackson Lee? No. She's according to all accounts, an awful boss. But if voting against her gives another Ted Poe or John Culburtson, or Mike Kubosh more power....then I can't do it.

Big overreaching government started Jim Crow. Or are you suggesting that Woodrow Wilson was a paragon of virtue? And that highlights the problem with your approach because you couldn't care less about the powers that you hand over to the gov't so long as they force the populace to comply with your immediate wishes. When the gov't gets so bloated that it can't function according to your wishes then where will your 'protected class' be?

I understand that socially the gov't can never be conservative. As the arrow of time moves forward things invariably change. But I think you would agree that for all the problems our gov't has that it and the people who believe in it (including anti-gays) afford minorities of all stripes the best possible situation. Your rejection of incrimentalism is a play for short term gains at the expense of the longevity of the security you are looking for.

Actually it was the STATES started that mess. Not the Feds.

(04-04-2015 03:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys its about the results. Are all the voters voting Tea party anti-Gay? No. But just look at the Texas legislature. Where are the non-anti-Gay state Reps and state Senators? Crickets.

There's a reason why minorities want a big overreaching Federal government. Because we don't trust the local governments. We have a reason to not trust the locals.

Do I particularly like Sheila Jackson Lee? No. She's according to all accounts, an awful boss. But if voting against her gives another Ted Poe or John Culburtson, or Mike Kubosh more power....then I can't do it.

Big overreaching government started Jim Crow. Or are you suggesting that Woodrow Wilson was a paragon of virtue? And that highlights the problem with your approach because you couldn't care less about the powers that you hand over to the gov't so long as they force the populace to comply with your immediate wishes. When the gov't gets so bloated that it can't function according to your wishes then where will your 'protected class' be?

I understand that socially the gov't can never be conservative. As the arrow of time moves forward things invariably change. But I think you would agree that for all the problems our gov't has that it and the people who believe in it (including anti-gays) afford minorities of all stripes the best possible situation. Your rejection of incrimentalism is a play for short term gains at the expense of the longevity of the security you are looking for.

Actually it was the STATES started that mess. Not the Feds.

The only difference between big overreaching federal government and big over reaching state government is that the state governments are more accountable to you as an individual.

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:22 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Tom how do landlords and employers know if you are gay? And how do hospitals discriminate?

Many Gay persons aren't single. Actually, there still places that bar two unrelated adults from renting a home together.

Do your employers ever ask you "what did you do last weekend?". Should you lie. How about "Are you single?". I've had to shut down attempts to set me up with one the girls at the office (or their friends) multiple times. How about when the bachleorette parties go to the Gay bars and see you there?

You have no effective right to do something if you can be fired if someone finds out about it.

Your argument holds as much water as saying.....'you have a right to steal from your employer, so long as they don't find out about it'.


As far as hospitals discriminating....

1) Many hospitals, even though much of their physical plants are paid for directly by the taxpayers, restrict executive jobs to straight persons. Many discriminate in pay/benefits. I personally know several doctors that have had to leave hospitals because of anti-Gay harrassment.

2) And then there's these stories. Two case in this linky http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7633058&page=2

http://www.dallasvoice.com/va-nurse-accu...93109.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11...60488.html (this one might be a bit complicated).

http://www.care2.com/causes/gay-kiss-get...dside.html

Come on Tom, that is so freaking weak. The only legit thing to even mention is hospital visits or making medical decisions for non married partners. Do a freaking POA/Living Will.

Actually in several of the cases mentioned, they had a living will/POA.

(04-04-2015 03:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:22 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Tom how do landlords and employers know if you are gay? And how do hospitals discriminate?

Many Gay persons aren't single. Actually, there still places that bar two unrelated adults from renting a home together.

Do your employers ever ask you "what did you do last weekend?". Should you lie. How about "Are you single?". I've had to shut down attempts to set me up with one the girls at the office (or their friends) multiple times. How about when the bachleorette parties go to the Gay bars and see you there?

You have no effective right to do something if you can be fired if someone finds out about it.

Your argument holds as much water as saying.....'you have a right to steal from your employer, so long as they don't find out about it'.


As far as hospitals discriminating....

1) Many hospitals, even though much of their physical plants are paid for directly by the taxpayers, restrict executive jobs to straight persons. Many discriminate in pay/benefits. I personally know several doctors that have had to leave hospitals because of anti-Gay harrassment.

2) And then there's these stories. Two case in this linky http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7633058&page=2

http://www.dallasvoice.com/va-nurse-accu...93109.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11...60488.html (this one might be a bit complicated).

http://www.care2.com/causes/gay-kiss-get...dside.html

Come on Tom, that is so freaking weak. The only legit thing to even mention is hospital visits or making medical decisions for non married partners. Do a freaking POA/Living Will.

Actually in several of the cases mentioned, they had a living will/POA.

In the links you posted?

(04-04-2015 03:40 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 02:22 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  Tom how do landlords and employers know if you are gay? And how do hospitals discriminate?

Many Gay persons aren't single. Actually, there still places that bar two unrelated adults from renting a home together.

Do your employers ever ask you "what did you do last weekend?". Should you lie. How about "Are you single?". I've had to shut down attempts to set me up with one the girls at the office (or their friends) multiple times. How about when the bachleorette parties go to the Gay bars and see you there?

You have no effective right to do something if you can be fired if someone finds out about it.

Your argument holds as much water as saying.....'you have a right to steal from your employer, so long as they don't find out about it'.


As far as hospitals discriminating....

1) Many hospitals, even though much of their physical plants are paid for directly by the taxpayers, restrict executive jobs to straight persons. Many discriminate in pay/benefits. I personally know several doctors that have had to leave hospitals because of anti-Gay harrassment.

2) And then there's these stories. Two case in this linky http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7633058&page=2

http://www.dallasvoice.com/va-nurse-accu...93109.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11...60488.html (this one might be a bit complicated).

http://www.care2.com/causes/gay-kiss-get...dside.html

Come on Tom, that is so freaking weak. The only legit thing to even mention is hospital visits or making medical decisions for non married partners. Do a freaking POA/Living Will.

Actually in several of the cases mentioned, they had a living will/POA.

In the links you posted?

Try the ABC link.

(04-04-2015 03:37 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:35 PM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 01:45 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Guys its about the results. Are all the voters voting Tea party anti-Gay? No. But just look at the Texas legislature. Where are the non-anti-Gay state Reps and state Senators? Crickets.

There's a reason why minorities want a big overreaching Federal government. Because we don't trust the local governments. We have a reason to not trust the locals.

Do I particularly like Sheila Jackson Lee? No. She's according to all accounts, an awful boss. But if voting against her gives another Ted Poe or John Culburtson, or Mike Kubosh more power....then I can't do it.

Big overreaching government started Jim Crow. Or are you suggesting that Woodrow Wilson was a paragon of virtue? And that highlights the problem with your approach because you couldn't care less about the powers that you hand over to the gov't so long as they force the populace to comply with your immediate wishes. When the gov't gets so bloated that it can't function according to your wishes then where will your 'protected class' be?

I understand that socially the gov't can never be conservative. As the arrow of time moves forward things invariably change. But I think you would agree that for all the problems our gov't has that it and the people who believe in it (including anti-gays) afford minorities of all stripes the best possible situation. Your rejection of incrimentalism is a play for short term gains at the expense of the longevity of the security you are looking for.

Actually it was the STATES started that mess. Not the Feds.

No, the Feds accepted slavery, because there couldn't be a US without that contrition and after the Civil War blacks were in places of government and business until Wilson threw them all out after his election, paving the way for the states actions.

To, you like big overreaching government as long as they lean your way. But all the meddling you want government to do will be just as available to someone who leans the other way and gets elected. Ask yourself, would I be happy giving this much power to Bush and Cheney. And if the answer is no, don't give it to Obama. And vice versa fro republicans and right leaners. Frankly, our government now has powers that I wouldn't be comfortable giving to Mother Teresa.

(04-04-2015 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To, you like big overreaching government as long as they lean your way. But all the meddling you want government to do will be just as available to someone who leans the other way and gets elected. Ask yourself, would I be happy giving this much power to Bush and Cheney. And if the answer is no, don't give it to Obama. And vice versa fro republicans and right leaners. Frankly, our government now has powers that I wouldn't be comfortable giving to Mother Teresa.

You have a view as to what Obama's motivation is. A view that hasn't been validated by his policies or actions in his tenure in office. Understand that others have a different view as to the role of the Federal Government.

(04-04-2015 04:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To, you like big overreaching government as long as they lean your way. But all the meddling you want government to do will be just as available to someone who leans the other way and gets elected. Ask yourself, would I be happy giving this much power to Bush and Cheney. And if the answer is no, don't give it to Obama. And vice versa fro republicans and right leaners. Frankly, our government now has powers that I wouldn't be comfortable giving to Mother Teresa.

You have a view as to what Obama's motivation is. A view that hasn't been validated by his policies or actions in his tenure in office. Understand that others have a different view as to the role of the Federal Government.

Like hell it hasn't. He's pushed the needle as far as he could. Fortunately we still have enough checks and balances that there is only so far he can push. And that obviously aggravates the hell out of him.

Read Marx. Countries don't go straight to communism. They get there in bits and pieces, a little bit at a time.

Where has Obama had a chance to push it further and didn't?

(04-04-2015 03:47 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:40 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:34 PM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:02 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  Many Gay persons aren't single. Actually, there still places that bar two unrelated adults from renting a home together.

Do your employers ever ask you "what did you do last weekend?". Should you lie. How about "Are you single?". I've had to shut down attempts to set me up with one the girls at the office (or their friends) multiple times. How about when the bachleorette parties go to the Gay bars and see you there?

You have no effective right to do something if you can be fired if someone finds out about it.

Your argument holds as much water as saying.....'you have a right to steal from your employer, so long as they don't find out about it'.


As far as hospitals discriminating....

1) Many hospitals, even though much of their physical plants are paid for directly by the taxpayers, restrict executive jobs to straight persons. Many discriminate in pay/benefits. I personally know several doctors that have had to leave hospitals because of anti-Gay harrassment.

2) And then there's these stories. Two case in this linky http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=7633058&page=2

http://www.dallasvoice.com/va-nurse-accu...93109.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/11...60488.html (this one might be a bit complicated).

http://www.care2.com/causes/gay-kiss-get...dside.html

Come on Tom, that is so freaking weak. The only legit thing to even mention is hospital visits or making medical decisions for non married partners. Do a freaking POA/Living Will.

Actually in several of the cases mentioned, they had a living will/POA.

In the links you posted?

Try the ABC link.

The hospital probably should have accepted to Docs, but she lost the lawsuit. My Dad is in assisted living, and has been in bad shape for years and I still have to fight his wife, #4. He sold the condo, moved out but never filed for divorce. He hates her, she hates him. She is legally above me regarding medical and care decisions, although I have a POA/Will. Depending on the hospital or facility it varies relative to how the view me vs. her.

That case was more about visitation and not making medical decisions.

(04-04-2015 04:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To, you like big overreaching government as long as they lean your way. But all the meddling you want government to do will be just as available to someone who leans the other way and gets elected. Ask yourself, would I be happy giving this much power to Bush and Cheney. And if the answer is no, don't give it to Obama. And vice versa fro republicans and right leaners. Frankly, our government now has powers that I wouldn't be comfortable giving to Mother Teresa.

You have a view as to what Obama's motivation is. A view that hasn't been validated by his policies or actions in his tenure in office. Understand that others have a different view as to the role of the Federal Government.

Like hell it hasn't. He's pushed the needle as far as he could. Fortunately we still have enough checks and balances that there is only so far he can push. And that obviously aggravates the hell out of him.

Read Marx. Countries don't go straight to communism. They get there in bits and pieces, a little bit at a time.

I have a collection of books on Marx. My undergraduate school required me to study that garbage extensively. I'm quite familiar with it.

Actually, incrementalism is the enemy of Marxism. Marxism basically argued that situations should be allowed to get so bad that the change would be revolutionary, rather than incremental. In fact, Marxism (unlike Leninism) argued that activists didn't need to do anything to push along the vision of Marxist utopia, as workers would do so on their own.

Leninism differs from Marxism in that Leninism rejected the let it come to you Marxist theory. Lenin argued that the workers needed a vanguard to help them fight and maintain a workers revolution. Both argue for revolution, not incrementalism.

That's why you saw huge arguments between the Socialists (who did argue for incrementalism) and the Marxists and Leninists. Not only were they rivals for political power, but they differed fundamentally on how to achieve their goals.

I can lend you the 38 boring books that I had to buy on the subject if you'd like to do your own research on it. None of them make much sense, and make for very dry reading.

(04-04-2015 04:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To, you like big overreaching government as long as they lean your way. But all the meddling you want government to do will be just as available to someone who leans the other way and gets elected. Ask yourself, would I be happy giving this much power to Bush and Cheney. And if the answer is no, don't give it to Obama. And vice versa fro republicans and right leaners. Frankly, our government now has powers that I wouldn't be comfortable giving to Mother Teresa.

You have a view as to what Obama's motivation is. A view that hasn't been validated by his policies or actions in his tenure in office. Understand that others have a different view as to the role of the Federal Government.

Like hell it hasn't. He's pushed the needle as far as he could. Fortunately we still have enough checks and balances that there is only so far he can push. And that obviously aggravates the hell out of him.
Read Marx. Countries don't go straight to communism. They get there in bits and pieces, a little bit at a time.

I have a collection of books on Marx. My undergraduate school required me to study that garbage extensively. I'm quite familiar with it.
Actually, incrementalism is the enemy of Marxism. Marxism basically argued that situations should be allowed to get so bad that the change would be revolutionary, rather than incremental. In fact, Marxism (unlike Leninism) argued that activists didn't need to do anything to push along the vision of Marxist utopia, as workers would do so on their own.
Leninism differs from Marxism in that Leninism rejected the let it come to you Marxist theory. Lenin argued that the workers needed a vanguard to help them fight and maintain a workers revolution. Both argue for revolution, not incrementalism.
That's why you saw huge arguments between the Socialists (who did argue for incrementalism) and the Marxists and Leninists. Not only were they rivals for political power, but they differed fundamentally on how to achieve their goals.
I can lend you the 38 boring books that I had to buy on the subject if you'd like to do your own research on it. None of them make much sense, and make for very dry reading.

Why am I not surprised that you have a collection of 38 books on Marx?

I think you misinterpreted my point. I didn't say incrementalism. I said you push the needle just as far and as fast as you can, which Obama has done. You don't go straight there. You get as far as you can as fast as you can. And even if you were on point, the only case you're making is that we're headed to socialism instead of communism. Oh, joy!

Marxism says you let it get bad, and the revolution happens. I get that. Obama is making it bad. We are printing money and pumping it into the economy at a record rate, and seeing tepid growth. At the rate we are stimulating or quantitatively easing, our growth should be white hot.

Let me repeat the question that I added, but was probably editing while you were responding. When has Obama not pushed the needle as far as he could? When has he had the chance to move more in the socialist/communist direction than he did?

(04-04-2015 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 03:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  To, you like big overreaching government as long as they lean your way. But all the meddling you want government to do will be just as available to someone who leans the other way and gets elected. Ask yourself, would I be happy giving this much power to Bush and Cheney. And if the answer is no, don't give it to Obama. And vice versa fro republicans and right leaners. Frankly, our government now has powers that I wouldn't be comfortable giving to Mother Teresa.

You have a view as to what Obama's motivation is. A view that hasn't been validated by his policies or actions in his tenure in office. Understand that others have a different view as to the role of the Federal Government.

Like hell it hasn't. He's pushed the needle as far as he could. Fortunately we still have enough checks and balances that there is only so far he can push. And that obviously aggravates the hell out of him.
Read Marx. Countries don't go straight to communism. They get there in bits and pieces, a little bit at a time.

I have a collection of books on Marx. My undergraduate school required me to study that garbage extensively. I'm quite familiar with it.
Actually, incrementalism is the enemy of Marxism. Marxism basically argued that situations should be allowed to get so bad that the change would be revolutionary, rather than incremental. In fact, Marxism (unlike Leninism) argued that activists didn't need to do anything to push along the vision of Marxist utopia, as workers would do so on their own.
Leninism differs from Marxism in that Leninism rejected the let it come to you Marxist theory. Lenin argued that the workers needed a vanguard to help them fight and maintain a workers revolution. Both argue for revolution, not incrementalism.
That's why you saw huge arguments between the Socialists (who did argue for incrementalism) and the Marxists and Leninists. Not only were they rivals for political power, but they differed fundamentally on how to achieve their goals.
I can lend you the 38 boring books that I had to buy on the subject if you'd like to do your own research on it. None of them make much sense, and make for very dry reading.

Why am I not surprised that you have a collection of 38 books on Marx?

I think you misinterpreted my point. I didn't say incrementalism. I said you push the needle just as far and as fast as you can, which Obama has done. You don't go straight there. You get as far as you can as fast as you can. And even if you were on point, the only case you're making is that we're headed to socialism instead of communism. Oh, joy!

Marxism says you let it get bad, and the revolution happens. I get that. Obama is making it bad. We are printing money and pumping it into the economy at a record rate, and seeing tepid growth. At the rate we are stimulating or quantitatively easing, our growth should be white hot.

Let me repeat the question that I added, but was probably editing while you were responding. When has Obama not pushed the needle as far as he could? When has he had the chance to move more in the socialist/communist direction than he did?

While disagreeing with your premise that anything Obama is doing is socialist or communist in nature....

What about health care. He could have gone 'single payer'.

(04-04-2015 04:38 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:31 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(04-04-2015 04:00 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  You have a view as to what Obama's motivation is. A view that hasn't been validated by his policies or actions in his tenure in office. Understand that others have a different view as to the role of the Federal Government.

Like hell it hasn't. He's pushed the needle as far as he could. Fortunately we still have enough checks and balances that there is only so far he can push. And that obviously aggravates the hell out of him.
Read Marx. Countries don't go straight to communism. They get there in bits and pieces, a little bit at a time.

I have a collection of books on Marx. My undergraduate school required me to study that garbage extensively. I'm quite familiar with it.
Actually, incrementalism is the enemy of Marxism. Marxism basically argued that situations should be allowed to get so bad that the change would be revolutionary, rather than incremental. In fact, Marxism (unlike Leninism) argued that activists didn't need to do anything to push along the vision of Marxist utopia, as workers would do so on their own.
Leninism differs from Marxism in that Leninism rejected the let it come to you Marxist theory. Lenin argued that the workers needed a vanguard to help them fight and maintain a workers revolution. Both argue for revolution, not incrementalism.
That's why you saw huge arguments between the Socialists (who did argue for incrementalism) and the Marxists and Leninists. Not only were they rivals for political power, but they differed fundamentally on how to achieve their goals.
I can lend you the 38 boring books that I had to buy on the subject if you'd like to do your own research on it. None of them make much sense, and make for very dry reading.

Why am I not surprised that you have a collection of 38 books on Marx?

I think you misinterpreted my point. I didn't say incrementalism. I said you push the needle just as far and as fast as you can, which Obama has done. You don't go straight there. You get as far as you can as fast as you can. And even if you were on point, the only case you're making is that we're headed to socialism instead of communism. Oh, joy!

Marxism says you let it get bad, and the revolution happens. I get that. Obama is making it bad. We are printing money and pumping it into the economy at a record rate, and seeing tepid growth. At the rate we are stimulating or quantitatively easing, our growth should be white hot.

Let me repeat the question that I added, but was probably editing while you were responding. When has Obama not pushed the needle as far as he could? When has he had the chance to move more in the socialist/communist direction than he did?

While disagreeing with your premise that anything Obama is doing is socialist or communist in nature....

What about health care. He could have gone 'single payer'.

Considering the he lied about and fooled the American people, no way they could gone single payer and survived the next election. it is an awful law for sure though.