[RAZOR]

Originally Posted by Excaliber

I still maintain the various "ism's" are not bad or good in and of themselves. It's how they are applied. This thread insists that the term, socialism, be defined strictly in a bad way. There seems to be no exact definition here, it's just "bad". I don't have a problem with that. I reserve the right to apply socialism within the confines of my own home, dictator that I am.

GM bailout:


I understand the frustration, but these bail out's arent anything like socialism, or a "take over". Jamo is correct, I tend to be to dismissive of the right's pain in these matters, I'll try to do better. In my opinion to use these term's so lightly, flippantly if you would, diminishe's the definition. As used here it is designed to denigrate the Government, Obama in particular, startle the people and instill fear. It is, therefore, "sensationalistic". But OK, being mostly Type A kinda guys around here, that's to be expected to some degree.

Onto GM:
Now as I recall GM had a window of time to proceed with a normal or expediated bankruptcy filing. They could not get-r-done within that time frame. The administration was left with few choices. Let GM continue to fail, which would compound the immediate economic crisis, or take action to stabilize the company.

Did they make the rignt call? Maybe... Or, should GM simply have been allowed to go through a lengthy and ugly bankruptcy? The same question could be posed for the Chrysler, the various banks, AIG, stock market, etc.

Should the Government simply left ALL of them to the ravages of "natural selection"?

Originally Posted by bomelia

I promise I will concede the point Earnie if you can point to the location in the bill of rights that calls this out:

"American citizens ABSOLUTELY HAVE A RIGHT to minimum living standards"

Now, you have to show me since you claimed it. Is that not a fair request?

Mike

Blykins, you should be aware of the baiting technique used in liberal circles. It is done in such a way with feigned kindness, feigned reason, and feigned "smilies". Liberals like nothing better than to get you to blow your top and get all emotional. Trust me, no where in our bill of rights is the one Earnie called out. And as such, he will (a) not answer this, (b) respond with a question, (c) publicly explode, (d) send me a nasty email/pm.

The problem is they use Obamas twisted interpretation of the Constitution. That the powers of the Federal Government is expressed in the negative, so that it tells the Feds what they can't do, but does not limit what they can
do. It's an argument of silence and leaves no limits on their left wing agenda. WE ARE DOOMED