Harmless?
Or Little Red Book-like?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...esident-obama/
Printable View
Harmless?
Or Little Red Book-like?
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...esident-obama/
I think politics should be taught at home.
Reminds me of another story that came out yesterday. The real substance starts at 2:00 in.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxQJoRpxlnM[/youtube]
Yeah, but hey, it's Foxnews, so nobody saw it but us, and on top of that, it's Foxnews, and, in case you weren't aware, nobody watches Foxnews without the YouTube filter.
Foxnews had it, nobody else cares.
Not CNN.
Not CBS
Not ABC
Certainly not NBC.
Even the State net (PBS) gave it a miss, eh?
Of course.
In my Googling to find that video, I found none of your latter mentioned news outlets reporting that bit of news.
The source isn't even attempting to calm the storm by downplaying their intentions. They're actually quite proud of their socialist work.
Maybe we'll get to see how proud they can afford to be under another administration.
CBS http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/09...y5335819.shtmlQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
msnbc must have covered it because the MRC complained about them http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090924060922.aspx
I can't be bothered looking for the rest, but I 'm pretty sure your accusation is about as reality based as this
http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen...6/original.jpg
The kids shouldn't be singing this stuff without permission from the parents, but of even greater concern to me is someone put video of children online without permission from the parents.
You do realize that Obama didn't have anything to do with this?
Of course they're aware of that but it doesn't matter.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
Much like the recent brouhaha about "czars", it's worse when Obama is President.
Socialism amplifies everything, dontcha know.
Don't deviate. No one said Obama was behind this. No one mentioned his name or even insinuated the Presidency.
J2's question (of sorts) was whether or not that type of thing is harmless.
Okay I promise no deviation from the subject of if it's harmless or not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiz
Other than to not talk about if it is harmless or not and instead post an unconnected video and complain (mistakenly) that nobody but fox covered it, because that's acceptable.
I'm just saying that because every single thread here recently gets derailed and on to some Obama nonsense.
The video I posted is not directly related to the video J2 posted but, it's on the same topic of indoctrinating children in school.
They don't mind the idea of indoctrination, Skiz, and as long as these types of things are arranged by SHITHEAD's surrogates, SHITHEAD maintains deniability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiz
Why don't you two talk amongst yourselves and work this out.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Fine - take the other guy with you when you go.
Does this count, or is it "different"?
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2006/0...uths-of-babes/
Quote:
At the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, children from the stricken Gulf Coast region serenaded First Lady Laura Bush with a song praising the beleaguered Federal Emergency Management Agency.
To the tune of Hey Look Me Over, about 100 young children from Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama sang:
http://wsj.com/public/resources/imag...0417190727.jpg
Our country’s stood beside us
People have sent us aid.
Katrina could not stop us, our hopes will never fade.
Congress, Bush and FEMA
People across our land
Together have come to rebuild us and we join them hand-in-hand!
Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
It is different.
See if you can tell us how.
Easy.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Bush isn't black.
I still don't agree with your constant "Obama = socialist" issues. Thinking of the "Little Red Book"-reference here (well, that'd make him communist really, but I know it's pretty much all the same to you, and we've had THAT discussion already).Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Which would be a good thing if he was one, as I quite like certain socialist ideals.
Obama's economic policies, on the other hand, are increasingly Keynesian, which is liberal (and that's not socialism) through and through.
If socialism included Keynesian economics, it'd be off-putting.
As for the rest, well, it's creepy, and stupid, and very american. Don't really see what the big deal is, though. I assume society's goal is still to produce individuals that can think for themselves over there. Some singing shouldn't be able to change that.
I see it as being similar in that it's on the same path.Quote:
Originally Posted by devilsadvocate
I wouldn't say it was anywhere near the content of the recent affairs though which is far more 'in depth'.
Why do you bring it up?
True enough.Quote:
Originally Posted by clockerEasy.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Bush isn't black.
The ironic part is that, according to your liberal template, neither is Michael Steele.
Nor is Clarence Thomas.
Nor Thomas Sowell.
Nor Walter Williams.
Nor Armstrong Williams.
Nor Janice Rogers Brown.
Nor Dr. Condoleezza Rice.
Nor Shelby Steele.
Nor Larry Elder.
Nor Roy Innis.
Now, that was easy.
Edit: dbl post
That wasn't clever enough to warrant a double post.
So, then-Quote:
Originally Posted by SneeI still don't agree with your constant "Obama = socialist" issues. Thinking of the "Little Red Book"-reference here (well, that'd make him communist really, but I know it's pretty much all the same to you, and we've had THAT discussion already).Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Which would be a good thing if he was one, as I quite like certain socialist ideals.
Obama's economic policies, on the other hand, are increasingly Keynesian, which is liberal (and that's not socialism) through and through.
If socialism included Keynesian economics, it'd be off-putting.
As for the rest, well, it's creepy, and stupid, and very american. Don't really see what the big deal is, though. I assume society's goal is still to produce individuals that can think for themselves over there. Some singing shouldn't be able to change that.
Do you suppose things would be better for you, where you are, if the U.S. adopted a socialist system?
Do you think we might resist socialism as the mideast resists democracy?
Do you think we should "bow to the inevitability" of socialism?
BTW-
I make the communist references for the reason of SHITHEAD's inclusion of unabashed communist content in his appointment of "czars", etc.
I am not mixing apples and oranges, so just drop that idea.
I wasn't aiming for clever, I was aiming for correct.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Good morning, btw; I seem to have underslept.
Turns out this was back in February and was part of black history month and during the presentation other presidents were mentioned.
Add to this the full script with the lyrics was sent home to the parents before the event and there were no complaints. So I now withdraw my concerns about the singing. This is no more indoctrination than learning the tale of Washington and the cherry tree.
I still have a problem with a video of children being posted online without the full consent of all the parents, assuming not all the parents did agree.
What does this even mean?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Probably nothing, but thought I'd give you the opportunity to explain...
Snee believes I am overstating when I link SHITHEAD's appointments with the causes they have espoused over the years.
I'd expect no real difference, tbh. Your culture would still be what it is at its core. You'd just have a different market, and a different way of running health care and whatnot.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4So, then-Quote:
Originally Posted by Snee
Do you suppose things would be better for you, where you are, if the U.S. adopted a socialist system?
Most likely actual socialism couldn't be adopted wholesale, and you'd have a social democrat system. Kinda like us.
I'm sure you have issues enough with it for that to be possible as far as yourself is concerned. As for the US as a whole, I'd assume a notable majority in favour of it, for it to be adopted, so on a nation wide -scale, no.Quote:
Do you think we might resist socialism as the mideast resists democracy?
Hardly. But it's a choice some societies make, and others don't. Inevitable it isn't.Quote:
Do you think we should "bow to the inevitability" of socialism?
It's not dangerous either.
Fair enough.Quote:
BTW-
I make the communist references for the reason of SHITHEAD's inclusion of unabashed communist content in his appointment of "czars", etc.
I am not mixing apples and oranges, so just drop that idea.
Also, I don't even know wtf kind of acronym you've amusingly turned around there. Can't really be bothered to look it up, either.
EDit: And for the record: Czars = not communist or socialist.
Me, either...haven't the slightest idea what you're on about, there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Snee
Okay, for the record:Quote:
Originally Posted by Snee
I am well-aware the appellation "czar" has naught to do with communism or socialism, but is rather purely a Russian reference - however, "czar" is used by the administration itself, as well the media.
Who am I to contradict.
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Quote:
They don't mind the idea of indoctrination, Skiz, and as long as these types of things are arranged by SHITHEAD's surrogates, SHITHEAD maintains deniability.
Quote:
I make the communist references for the reason of SHITHEAD's inclusion of unabashed communist content in his appointment of "czars", etc.
:dabs:Quote:
Snee believes I am overstating when I link SHITHEAD's appointments with the causes they have espoused over the years.
Oki doki then.Quote:
Okay, for the record:
I am well-aware the appellation "czar" has naught to do with communism or socialism, but is rather purely a Russian reference [...]
Just going off on a tangent, and adding something about this, btw:
I think you might do better at communism than the Soviet Union did.Quote:
Originally Posted by you
Like this guy, I don't think it actually was socialist and/or communist for very long. And if his (and others') claim, that communism needs to start off with a dysfunctional mode of capitalism is true, the US comes a lot closer to being a good starting point. (I'm not sure I agree with their supposition, but it's one point of view.)
And for it to be implemented at all, like I said, I'd expect wide-spread acceptance, and if come by by a revolution, not a bloody one, as that never seems to work that well. I mean, that's how we got France :dabs:
Well, that is precisely why communism doesn't work - sooner or later, human frailty weighs in, and communism has no mechanism for dealing with dissent, apart from the gulag and the pogrom.
I've said it before - communism works terrifically well on paper; it just doesn't work on people...who are either oppressed or corrupt.
cool
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
We definitely can't accuse capitalism of corruption or oppression, can we?:whistling
Well, we absolutely can, but let me coin a phrase here:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabQuote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
We definitely can't accuse capitalism of corruption or oppression, can we?:whistling
Capitalism makes much better, more productive and beneficial use of human frailty than does socialism or communism.
Those are MY words.
Beneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Well, we absolutely can, but let me coin a phrase here:Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Capitalism makes much better, more productive and beneficial use of human frailty than does socialism or communism.
Those are MY words.
I think you need to look at it like a rational egoist. (I sort of want to use the expression 'randroid' here, but I'm not gonna, no siree.)Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabBeneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Society, and the market is made better by everyone working for their own gain. That way we don't take away power from the less fortunate, by helping them, which might well take away their initiative. Instead we, and everyone else should always put ourselves first. In the process we'll be providing others with an example of how to act, though that should never be our reason to do it.
By doing so we motivate those below us to better themselves (or rather accumulate more assets*), as we are motivated by those above us.
This constant drive upwards is what makes capitalism all the better, as opposed to socialism or communism, where people get far too much for free.
Is that about right, Kev?
EDit: *Being corrupt helps with this, so technically, the corrupt are just being all they can be.
Quit playing dumb, Robert.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboabBeneficial for the capitalist, definitely. Am I to assume that anyone who is corrupt or oppressive in the capitalist system is either a Communist or a Socialist?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You too, Snee.Quote:
Originally Posted by SneeI think you need to look at it like a rational egoist. (I sort of want to use the expression 'randroid' here, but I'm not gonna, no siree.)Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Society, and the market is made better by everyone working for their own gain. That way we don't take away power from the less fortunate, by helping them, which might well take away their initiative. Instead we, and everyone else should always put ourselves first. In the process we'll be providing others with an example of how to act, though that should never be our reason to do it.
By doing so we motivate those below us to better themselves (or rather accumulate more assets*), as we are motivated by those above us.
This constant drive upwards is what makes capitalism all the better, as opposed to socialism or communism, where people get far too much for free.
Is that about right, Kev?
EDit: *Being corrupt helps with this, so technically, the corrupt are just being all they can be.
Following your "Randroid" comment with that^ smacks of a particularly non-Snee-like disingenuity.
For you even to be participating here is a treat; however I am disappointed you can't muster your laser-like intellect for the occasion.
Perhaps some really strong coffee...
I don't do coffee :snooty:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4Quit playing dumb, Robert.Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
You too, Snee.Quote:
Originally Posted by SneeI think you need to look at it like a rational egoist. (I sort of want to use the expression 'randroid' here, but I'm not gonna, no siree.)Quote:
Originally Posted by bigboab
Society, and the market is made better by everyone working for their own gain. That way we don't take away power from the less fortunate, by helping them, which might well take away their initiative. Instead we, and everyone else should always put ourselves first. In the process we'll be providing others with an example of how to act, though that should never be our reason to do it.
By doing so we motivate those below us to better themselves (or rather accumulate more assets*), as we are motivated by those above us.
This constant drive upwards is what makes capitalism all the better, as opposed to socialism or communism, where people get far too much for free.
Is that about right, Kev?
EDit: *Being corrupt helps with this, so technically, the corrupt are just being all they can be.
Following your "Randroid" comment with that^ smacks of a particularly non-Snee-like disingenuity.
For you even to be participating here is a treat; however I am disappointed you can't muster your laser-like intellect for the occasion.
Perhaps some really strong coffee...
But that did come off as too strong, it did.
To put it another way: I find that your view on what's right and proper often point towards a bias for rational egoism. I, on the other hand, often lean towards utilitarism (which is almost at the opposite end of the spectrum). Given that inclination, it does help help to try and look at it from what I percieve to be your perspective, when it doesn't make sense from mine.
I reckon that capitalism very much agrees with you. And I also reckon that capitalism in it's purest form is as close as you can ever come to seeing what's the very best thing according rational egoism in practice.
Looking at it from my point of view, capitalism capitalizes on human frailty in a way that works for people who are doing alright inside of the system, although not for those who don't really have the proper killer instinct to really profit from working the system (the frail?). There's room for the latter inside of the system, but it's at the bottom of the pyramid, if that makes sense. But that's ok, because everyone can't live at the top.
I think capitalism needs people to inhabit the lowest point, else there'd not be enough consumers, and not enough motivation to strive upwards.
It just hit me how very little the above post has to do with the original topic :pinch: :lol: