tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.comments2010-12-09T17:32:37.755-05:00Gene Retskenoreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-27817657224518985452010-12-09T17:32:37.755-05:002010-12-09T17:32:37.755-05:00@Anonymous (#3, if I remember correctly):<br /><br />Your statement that Socialism somehow makes sure there is no &quot;overabundance&quot; is false. Because Socialism removes the price signals that people need to decide how to invest their time, money, and effort correctly, Socialism suffers from <i>both</i> overabundance <i>and</i> shortages, in ways that capitalism does not.<br /><br />Why in the world would a company make <i>250,000 cars</i>, when 50,000 would do?!? Those 200,000 extra cars represent labor costs, warehouse storage costs, disposal costs, materials costs, shipping costs, and a whole slew of other costs, that would quickly eat up that &quot;quick buck&quot; you were implying was ready to be made by making that many.<br /><br />Granted, a company might make 250,000 <i>thinking</i> they could sell that many, but if they were wrong, that could cause them to go out of business--and quick!<br /><br />But, it&#39;s often the case that <i>government</i>, through <i>Socialist policies</i>, will provide financial incentives to produce too many cars. Case in point: the &quot;Cash for Clunkers&quot; program, that destroyed a good number of perfectly good cars, in the name of selling new &quot;fuel efficient&quot; cars.Epsilon Givenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16772806403046781521noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-81100534465946741252010-12-04T08:27:03.716-05:002010-12-04T08:27:03.716-05:00Thanks for the comment, Mark, but you are wrong. The original 16th phrase was, &quot;hale fellow, well met,&quot; &quot;hale&quot; being the middle english term for &quot;health,&quot; as in &quot;hale and hardy.&quot; It was later deprecated to &quot;hail&quot; but that does not make sense in the context of the phrase.<br /><br />Nice try, but no cigar!Gene Retskehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03802523908558515488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-32642185214892248062010-12-04T04:23:30.643-05:002010-12-04T04:23:30.643-05:00just for the record, there is no such phrase in English as &#39;hale fellow well met&quot;. the correct wording, according to the OED and all other sources dating back to medieval times, is &#39;HAIL fellow well met&#39;MARKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15651023724477492402noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-3478148380144844772010-10-11T07:02:50.567-04:002010-10-11T07:02:50.567-04:00TV Casualty -<br />But, I did answer your question. Yes, there are things that have to be handled by the community as a whole. They are listed in the Constitution, Article I, Section 8. Section 9 goes on to list what Congress CANNOT do. <br /><br />What has happened is we have played the &quot;Name Game&quot; since the Constitution was signed, and &quot;defined&quot; the meaning of certain words, no matter how clear. For example, the judge in Michigan who ruled that Obamacare is not unconstitutional used the logic that, if lots of people decided not to buy insurance, it would impact interstate commerce, as his justification. Hopefully, subsequent appellate courts will take a quick gander at the Constitution before they rule.<br /><br />The Founding Fathers saw this power creep coming and set up structures to curb it. Jefferson and others recognized that even this system of checks and balances would fail over time, and that the people would have to re-engage and put things back where they need to be. One such mechanism is called a Constitution Convention, Section V of the Constitution. I believe that we are getting close to a tipping point. Just look at the surveys saying two thirds of the people think the country is on the wrong track. Popular sentiment for independence was probably below this level prior to the Revolution.Gene Retskehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03802523908558515488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-62178884695008108842010-10-11T02:23:23.205-04:002010-10-11T02:23:23.205-04:00Like I said I’m 100% with you… but you gotta realize we are all at least participating card carrying Socialists in this country today, and you didn’t really answer my question on these services, reasonably defined as socialistic, that might be useful / good.<br /><br />Ironically, recent news points to where privatization of FD can lead to:<br />http://www.theblaze.com/stories/firefighters-let-home-burn-because-owner-didnt-pay-75/<br />(and I struggled to find a no spin version to link to).<br /><br />I would argue that competition should keep things like that from happening, and private insurance should help cover any losses that do happen, such is life. But we’ve all at least heard of the story where say, public sector based auto insurance has lapsed, and one finds themselves without coverage in court, or worse, unexpectedly over literally cents.<br /><br />But at this point, I would argue, public sector social services, actually can be a good thing. They certainly are not the best thing, but I think most people at root are optimists, and will see the good in any system, be it socialist or not, which makes for a hard point to contest.<br /><br />So before anyone starts asking why you hate National Parks so much, let me just say this:<br /><br />Regulation will stifle innovation, raise cost, and waste resources, but the end result may be something of desirable consequence, and like most addictions a hard habit to break. But my point is, there can be positives, so the argument must be refined to account for such.tvcasualtyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16474551406432176392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-31211273421295122232010-10-10T04:11:11.176-04:002010-10-10T04:11:11.176-04:00If you recall, the Founding Fathers assigned to government those things that were in the common interest, such as defense, law enforcement, etc. What has happened, as Jefferson, Madison and Samuel Adams predicted, is that government has grown over the past 221 years and expanded into areas that were not part of the original intent. <br /><br />This was done with good intentions, in most cases, but the net effect is the same, there is too much government. Socialism and its popular brand, communism, are synonymous with big government. You cannot have socialism without taking away freedoms, witness Obamacare. <br /><br />As my OP said, there is no such thing as a little socialism; it is a cancer that spreads and takes over more and more. Until the people rebel and take the freedoms back, as Jefferson famously predicted.Gene Retskehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03802523908558515488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-28572789195261471842010-10-09T23:56:06.929-04:002010-10-09T23:56:06.929-04:00So help me out here.<br />I 100% with you, but the argument makes a little sense for once…<br />What about a little socialism?<br />The question that causes me some pause is this:<br />Specifically sewage, fire, and refuse collection?<br />Are these not social systems in which most benefit?<br /><br />My response was that these are simply social contracts setup on a local level, socialistic true, but not mandated at a federal level. Are these still evil programs?<br />Are these areas acceptable only because there is no longer room for innovation? <br />Or have we lost focus, and these programs would be better served by the free market?<br />What about police?tvcasualtyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16474551406432176392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-10972035348232115062010-06-20T11:47:54.138-04:002010-06-20T11:47:54.138-04:00NEEEEEP! Wrong answer, but don&#39;t feel bad, Anonymous, it was a trick question. There is no such thing as a &quot;little&quot; socialism. Never has been. Not in the Soviet Union, Cuba, China, North Korea, Venezuela, Europe, or anywhere else it has been tried. It is binary, either you have socialism or you have freedom, you can&#39;t have both. Socialism may not start out as totalitarianism government, but it soon ends up that way as a socialistic government has to keep narrowing economic and social choices for its citizens.<br /><br />Sorry, but I am sure you will do better next time.Gene Retskehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03802523908558515488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-45963952401057829442010-06-20T11:31:16.284-04:002010-06-20T11:31:16.284-04:00All caps is correct, despite not knowing where the &quot;Caps Lock&quot; button on his or her keyboard is. Because of &quot;oversight&quot; by the government (ie. payoffs), it is easy, and, dare I say, accepted by all classes that &#39;the rich get richer, the poor get poorer&#39;. I don&#39;t hear anyone on the quote-unquote left side say boo about Socialism. Yes, maybe it&#39;s because they voted for the labeled Socialist...or maybe it&#39;s because no one in their right mind thinks that the Red Army is gonna emerge on our shores one afternoon, like some Bizzaro-world D-Day, and force Socialism down each and everyone&#39;s collective throats. That sort of thinking is simple-minded. And wrong. <br /><br />Personally, the small amounts of Socialism that are attainable are really in the greater interest. In just one realm, Socialism has oversight on overabundance. In this country, everything is made ad nauseum. We don&#39;t make just a few of something. Oh no, we gotta have the most. Let&#39;s not make 50,000 of one model of car (because that&#39;s what market research shows that we will sell)...let&#39;s make 250,000 of them...because we&#39;ll eke out a few more Benjamins!<br /><br />And then, after we produce all the chloroflourocarbons and pollutants and runoffs...and then, after the unpurchased cars rot in landfills...and then, when people start to have bad health effects...then we&#39;ll just say, &quot;Hey, it&#39;s a free country!&quot;<br /><br />So, that&#39;s just one example. What&#39;s wrong with a little Socialism?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-5477714885355201962010-01-26T12:11:41.720-05:002010-01-26T12:11:41.720-05:00The problem with Global Warming science is that it doesn&#39;t act like science but like cultists screaming &#39;heresy&#39; to any dissenter.nissa_amas_katojhttp://inglouriousranterz.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-2555616113885937812009-12-25T09:16:02.953-05:002009-12-25T09:16:02.953-05:00Anonymous, please feel free to quote and/or link to this entry. I would love to see it when you do. I am not active on twitter yet.Gene Retskehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03802523908558515488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-15063260630780866912009-12-25T09:02:05.773-05:002009-12-25T09:02:05.773-05:00I want to quote your post in my blog. It can?<br />And you et an account on Twitter?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-87041314233989007002009-12-09T19:29:37.981-05:002009-12-09T19:29:37.981-05:00Dear Author www.imsickofthecrap.com ! <br />Yes, I understand you. In it something is also to me it seems it is very excellent thought. Completely with you I will agree.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-57123866504601709442009-11-25T11:21:42.006-05:002009-11-25T11:21:42.006-05:00Yes, fault lines widen every day. Yes, interest in local self-government and States&#39; Rights is growing in response. And it&#39;s true this is leading toward the breakup of the empire.<br /><br />But is it Obama&#39;s fault? No -- his big government agenda, and the lefties in his administration who&#39;re trying to impose that agenda on us, are only the symptoms of the real corrosive, and that is unlimited, over-centralized government power. That&#39;s why I welcomed an Obama administration, as a bucket of ice water in the faces of conservatives who&#39;d supported George W. Bush&#39;s assaults on our culture and liberties.<br /><br />I also disagree that what&#39;s unfolding before us is a bad thing. The DC empire is a monster that spreads death and dictatorship around the world, enriching and empowering its war industry and power brokers. If it takes yet another Obama administration to rouse the people to pull the plug on the DC parasite, then let&#39;s get it on.Old Rebelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11146916266682461688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-68018091017663095412009-11-20T23:44:48.548-05:002009-11-20T23:44:48.548-05:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-16298372165156194252009-11-12T13:20:28.232-05:002009-11-12T13:20:28.232-05:00I found this site using [url=http://google.com]google.com[/url] And i want to thank you for your work. You have done really very good site. Great work, great site! Thank you!<br /><br />Sorry for offtopicAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-17039250982801626032009-10-01T13:09:05.779-04:002009-10-01T13:09:05.779-04:00wow you are soright dont get me wrong but obama really isnt doing so good at his job as the president but hey we had a good health care but now hes going through the irs to take away are 2 andmendment rights. it stupid!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-72318418335289780732009-08-13T00:40:05.363-04:002009-08-13T00:40:05.363-04:00ah, my comment. You seem jaded at the idea of socialism because you may be repressed in pursuing the free market dream of owning property and a two storey house with three cars, five televisions, four computers, the latest nike&#39;s, etcetera etcetera. You are not at all concerned with the propaganda that is hurled at you through those televisions. The brain rot you have suffered. You care not about the negative effects of the free market of capitalism because, hey, it&#39;s better than that russian communism. Truth is that nothing can work properly right now because we all want the same thing but don&#39;t know it and even if we did, we wouldn&#39;t know how to get it, maintain it, nourish it, and so on and so on. goodnight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-17574653420114710862009-04-07T01:00:00.000-04:002009-04-07T01:00:00.000-04:00Dubya is the last president.<BR/>Obamanation is not legitimate.<BR/><BR/>Interestingly... the last king of Babylon, Nabonidus, put his son in charge and left the city. History says the son's name was Belsharuzur... the book of Daniel says the king in charge when Cyrus conquered Babylon was Belshazzar... but Belshazzar was not the legitimate king... Nabonidus was. It is one of those fine points of history... now we can understand how important those fine points can be.<BR/><BR/><BR/>~Is45http://www.thetreeofliberty.com/vb/showthread.php?t=55923noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-61732527723629618302009-03-23T15:58:00.000-04:002009-03-23T15:58:00.000-04:00Thank you for your kind comments, Anonymous.<BR/>Or, should I say,<BR/><BR/>THANK YOU FOR YOUR KIND COMMENTS, ANONYMOUS!<BR/><BR/> By the way, I love all the poetry, music lyrics and famous quotes you have done over the last 1000-2000 years.Gene Retskehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03802523908558515488noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-66073857393702804372009-03-23T14:03:00.000-04:002009-03-23T14:03:00.000-04:00yOUR COMMENTS ARE UNEDUCATED AND FEARFUL. aMERICA ALREADY RELIES ON SOCIALISM IN OUR MILITARY, AND "SOCIAL SERVICES" POLICE, FIREFIGHTERS, ETC. I HAVE A GREAT IDEA. LET US KEEP GIVING 2.3% OF OUR PEOPLE EVERYTHING, AND THE OTHER 97% OF US CAN WORK HARD FOR NOTHING. THERE IS NO EFFORT IN OUR COUNTRY TO MAKE LIVES BETTER FOR THE PEOPLE, ONLY THE RICH PEOPLE. GET USED TO SOCIALISM, BECAUSE YOU ARE ALREADY LIVING WITH MANY OF THE BENEFITS OF A SOCIASLISTIC SOCIETY. BY THE WAY, OUR GOVORNMENT RUNS THINGS THE WAY THEY WANT TO NOW. CAPITALISM=INSURANCE CEO MAKING BILLIONS WHILE PEOPLE WHO NEED SURGERY SUFFER. SOCIALISM= ANYONE WHO NEEDS SURGERY GETS IT, AND MIRACULOUSLY ENOUGH, THE CEO STILL MAKES MORE MONEY THAN THE PERSON WHO GOT THE SURGERY. SOCIALISM DOES NOT MAKE THE RICH POOR. IT MERELY GIVES THE POOR MORE RIGHTS AND OPPORTUNITY FOR THINGS THAT WE NEED; HEALTHCARE. WOULD YOU DENY YOUR CHILD TREATMENT JUST TO LET SOME RICH CEO GET MORE MONEY. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENS MILLIONS OF TIMES A YEAR IN OUR COUNTRY EVERY DAY. WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT IN LIFE HEALTH FOR ALL, OR A PORSCHE FOR SOME?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-28513980247999376472009-02-14T00:57:00.000-05:002009-02-14T00:57:00.000-05:00THANK YOU FOR HAVING THIS BLOG. MORE PEOPLE NEED TO FLOOD THE NET WITH BLOGS OF THEIR OWN AND EXPLESS THEIR THOUGHTS.<BR/>Stop by my "blogs" sometime.AMERICA~LAND OF THE FREEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17807962974715608421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-16953636375200955132009-02-13T18:00:00.000-05:002009-02-13T18:00:00.000-05:00That article in Newsweek burned me up. Craziness.<BR/><BR/>Welcome to the Read My Lipstick Network. I'm a member to. I'm subscribing to your blog, and hope you are planning to post a little more :). I'm putting you on my blogroll as well.<BR/><BR/>Feel free to check out my blog, <A HREF="http://caffeinatedthoughts.com/" REL="nofollow">Caffeinated Thoughts</A>.Shane Vander Harthttp://caffeinatedthoughts.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-69962491590153666052008-11-11T05:39:00.000-05:002008-11-11T05:39:00.000-05:00Great work.Amberhttp://montiinsurance.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22830325.post-50651146633420289532008-10-27T19:39:00.000-04:002008-10-27T19:39:00.000-04:00Good post.Panigahttp://cassandryinsurance.blogspot.comnoreply@blogger.com