BF2S Forums So Much For Obama The Socialist

"program"

the commercial sector already builds the shuttle.  private company loads the crew into the shuttle.  hell not much is govt anyway....except the budget ofc.

/in general inb4kmarion

Last edited by 11 Bravo (2010-01-31 13:29:15)

"At a time when job creation is the top priority for our nation, a commercial crew programme will create more jobs per dollar because it leverages millions in private investment and taps the potential of systems that serve both government and private customers," he said.

"We have a tremendous opportunity here to jump-start private activity in low-Earth orbit that will further lower the cost of access to space and unleash the economic potential of space long promised."

Sounds good at face value, I would have to look deeper into it though.

Oooo wow, you are right. Since Obama is saying he wants to partially privatize space exploration, all the expansionist stuff he has done within the government is null and void. WTG, he is no longer a socialist........

Also reminds of the quote from Fight Club

Narrator: When deep space exploration ramps up, it'll be the corporations that name everything, the IBM Stellar Sphere, the Microsoft Galaxy, Planet Starbucks.

It's gonna happen

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

On the one hand, I like decreasing government spending overall.

On the other hand, one could argue that NASA is one of the few things that the government runs efficiently.

That sounds like a dangerously European point of view you've got there!

Is it just that Republicans and right-wing leaning individuals like to pick and choose what elements of Socialism they like and dislike? I mean are there any free-market Capitalist right-wingers out there who would advocate the privatisation of the police, the military, or even the postal service or libraries? Nationalised institutions are not inherently 'evil' or doomed to failure, in the same way that privatised institutions are not. Some stuff works best one way, and some the other, and it can be different for every country.

But getting back to my point, if Obama were truly the 'evil socialist' he's being made out to be by idiots like Glenn Beck et al. the last thing he'd be doing is privatising the most famous and celebrated Government-funded space exploration institution in the world.

Pretty much...  Only the most extreme Libertarians want to privatize everything.

Likewise, only the most extreme socialists want to socialize everything.

Glenn is just a Rush Limbaugh wannabe.

Turquoise wrote:

Canin wrote:

Oooo wow, you are right. Since Obama is saying he wants to partially privatize space exploration, all the expansionist stuff he has done within the government is null and void. WTG, he is no longer a socialist........

Obama isn't socialist compared to previous presidents like FDR, Kennedy, LBJ, or Carter.  He's definitely not socialist compared to most European leaders.

Even historically in a solely American context, Obama is center Left on most issues.

Kennedy was a capitalist. Closer to Clinton than the other three you named... by a metric ton.

Last edited by JohnG@lt (2010-01-31 13:49:58)

hey brad, turq, etc...

is glenn and bill o are "zomg so stupid, fools, idiots, blah blah blah."  then why do yall even listen to them or read what they say?  i think mike moore is a fuck and dont watch or read a single thing he says.

11 Bravo wrote:

hey brad, turq, etc...

is glenn and bill o are "zomg so stupid, fools, idiots, blah blah blah."  then why do yall even listen to them or read what they say?  i think mike moore is a fuck and dont watch or read a single thing he says.

Rarely do I watch/listen to Glenn, Bill, or Rush.

As for Moore, I have watched many of his movies, but I take them with a grain (and sometimes a bucket) of salt and fact check his assertions.

Moore does make some good points, but he only typically shows half of the story.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

On the one hand, I like decreasing government spending overall.

On the other hand, one could argue that NASA is one of the few things that the government runs efficiently.

That sounds like a dangerously European point of view you've got there!

Is it just that Republicans and right-wing leaning individuals like to pick and choose what elements of Socialism they like and dislike? I mean are there any free-market Capitalist right-wingers out there who would advocate the privatisation of the police, the military, or even the postal service or libraries? Nationalised institutions are not inherently 'evil' or doomed to failure, in the same way that privatised institutions are not. Some stuff works best one way, and some the other, and it can be different for every country.

But getting back to my point, if Obama were truly the 'evil socialist' he's being made out to be by idiots like Glenn Beck et al. the last thing he'd be doing is privatising the most famous and celebrated Government-funded space exploration institution in the world.

Braddock, I fail to understand why people harp on the military and police being 'socialized'. Frankly, the only two jobs the government really has is to ensure justice and defense are taken care of. If those ceased to be under the jurisdiction of the government, there really would be absolutely no need for government now would there be? No one advocates anarchy except extreme anarch-capitalists and kids who think rebelling against 'the man' is cool.

So seriously, stop making this same infantile argument over and over and over and over and over. There's a world of difference between a group of people getting together and setting up a government to arbitrate disputes between individuals and providing for the common defense and what you socialism enthusiasts think you're entitled to. Internet as a human right. Please.

You may think the argument is infantile but it's still a fact, the military and the police are administered by the Government and are by definition Socialist institutions. Your view of Government dictates that it should only take care of defence and policing, and that's fair enough, but there are others out there who feel it is the Government's responsibility to take care of things like roads, infrastructure, postal services, and in the case of many countries social services such as healthcare. Personally, I'd be far happier having more of my tax contributions going towards these kinds of services rather than military spending because I get more direct benefit from them. I'll say it again, Government-run institutions are not inherently sinister in the same way that big private companies are not inherently sinister, it depends on who's in charge of them.

Getting back to the point of the OP, this plan of Obama certainly seems to run contrary to his media image of being the next Joseph Stalin. Surely he would advocate total Government control of space exploration, no?

Last edited by Braddock (2010-01-31 14:01:57)

JohnG@lt wrote:

You can't legislate away the poor, you can't legislate away the lazy, you can't legislate away the greedy, you can't legislate away people being born with exceptional minds or born retarded. Frankly, it's the chronic pessimism and belief that people can't know how best to live their own lives is what makes liberals depressed and unhappy. I accept the fact that there are people smarter than me, and faster than me and stronger than me and who are willing to work harder than me. Only the rare person has all of those traits though so I know I have a chance

Everyone has a shot at life in this country no matter how many liberal books may say otherwise. Pessimism and distrust are the hallmarks of American liberalism, is there any wonder they are so unhappy?

The socialist argument began with people like Thomas Paine.  He was one of the first advocates of public education.

The general idea is that if you give people equal opportunities through a basic foundation of education and income, then they can become productive members of society.  In modern terms, this includes healthcare, food, and shelter.

This idea seems to work well when considering that most people on welfare use it only briefly and return to the working world.  Also, economic mobility is much higher today than it was before public education.

Public healthcare seems like a good idea when looking at its benefits for Canada and France.

So again, both socialists and capitalists seem to have similar goals but different methods.  Both want people to have opportunities.

Turquoise wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

You can't legislate away the poor, you can't legislate away the lazy, you can't legislate away the greedy, you can't legislate away people being born with exceptional minds or born retarded. Frankly, it's the chronic pessimism and belief that people can't know how best to live their own lives is what makes liberals depressed and unhappy. I accept the fact that there are people smarter than me, and faster than me and stronger than me and who are willing to work harder than me. Only the rare person has all of those traits though so I know I have a chance

Everyone has a shot at life in this country no matter how many liberal books may say otherwise. Pessimism and distrust are the hallmarks of American liberalism, is there any wonder they are so unhappy?

The socialist argument began with people like Thomas Paine.  He was one of the first advocates of public education.

The general idea is that if you give people equal opportunities through a basic foundation of education and income, then they can become productive members of society.  In modern terms, this includes healthcare, food, and shelter.

This idea seems to work well when considering that most people on welfare use it only briefly and return to the working world.  Also, economic mobility is much higher today than it was before public education.

Public healthcare seems like a good idea when looking at its benefits for Canada and France.

So again, both socialists and capitalists seem to have similar goals but different methods.  Both want people to have opportunities.

Your way would completely exonerate bad parenting. Poor? Lazy? Have kids anyway and the government will make sure they have the same shot in life as the offspring of those who waited until they could afford kids.

I love the idea of giving all kids an equal chance, on paper. I really do. I grew up poor so it definitely appeals to me. But, and this is a but you could drive a train through, it essentially endorses bad decision making because it takes away the consequences. Sure, you can say the kid is innocent and doesn't deserve the consequences but does that kid in the next town over whose parents worked hard to make sure he had a solid education and health care and food on the table deserve to have artificial competition placed in his path?

I don't know about you, but my primary motivation to succeed in life is not to build up a pile of material goods around me. Frankly, I could give a rats ass whether I live in a 100 room mansion or a one bedroom apartment. No, my motivation is solely based on the fact that I want my kids to have a better childhood than I did and to grant them a level of comfort growing up that I never experienced. I want to save and invest and one day pass on the fruits of my labors to my kids and grandkids to make their lives just a bit easier. I am no trust fund baby and I sure as shit don't have any inheritance coming my way, so that is my goal. I'm a third generation American and my goal is to do better than the generation before me. I'll instill in my own children that they have to do better than I myself did.

So, if you equalize all outcomes coming out of childhood, please tell me where my motivation is. If you're going to provide health care and housing and food and clothing for my kids so that they are equal to other kids and are going to take more than half of any inheritance that I leave via taxation... what is there really to work for? As I said, having a Bentley and a mansion isn't on my to-do list...

JohnG@lt wrote:

You can't legislate away the poor, you can't legislate away the lazy, you can't legislate away the greedy, you can't legislate away people being born with exceptional minds or born retarded. Frankly, it's the chronic pessimism and belief that people can't know how best to live their own lives is what makes liberals depressed and unhappy. I accept the fact that there are people smarter than me, and faster than me and stronger than me and who are willing to work harder than me. Only the rare person has all of those traits though so I know I have a chance

Everyone has a shot at life in this country no matter how many liberal books may say otherwise. Pessimism and distrust are the hallmarks of American liberalism, is there any wonder they are so unhappy?

Be under no illusions, even in a Socialist European society we don't all start off on a level playing field. We have privileged and under-privileged in our societies too, but with our Socialist infrastructures and a bit of self-determination it is a little bit easier to succeed in life. One can still choose to take no control over their own affairs and fail miserably, like in American society, but one can succeed if they apply themselves... one could even say they have no excuse whatsoever to fail in our society. Personally, it makes me happy to think that I live in a society where we choose not to live by the laws of the animal kingdom, choosing instead to focus on the human characteristic of collaboration that has helped get mankind to where we are now as a species. We have not gotten rid of competition or Darwinism by any shake of the stick, but we at least focus on our human traits rather than our animal traits.