Comments on: Fox Lies: Cato Institute To The Rescue

By: Frances

Frances — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 04:35:11 +0000

TN: You quoted “Marxism is the system of *socialism* of which the dominant feature is public ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange.” I didn’t just pull the word out of thin air. I realize that Marxism is a more scary word (to stupid people) than social ism, so I guess that’s why you and Tommy Pane prefer to use it.

All I wanted was for you to explain why you felt they were examples of social ism, since the public doesn’t own (beyond stock) any of those industries.

By: Michael Chase

Michael Chase — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:44:14 +0000

Point one..the staement Tommy makes about attacks on Fox perfectly describes Republican and Fox attacks on the mainstream media over the past two decades. they have been sliming the messenger for years. I say that not to justify the tactic, just to point out a potential for hypocrisy that I don’t think TN and Tommy want to exemplify.
Point two.. the whole Marxism vs. Capitalism is an interesting subject, and one not easily discussed on a blog post. Our country has a long history of trying to find a balance between pure capitalism and individual control of the system. Laisse-fair capitalism, which is true capitalism, has not had a better run in its various forms than any other “pure” political/economic arrangement (such as Communism). It is worth a thought that if we live in the marketplace, and the marketplace is a critical defining piece in our lives, than we should have a voice in the marketplace. Our democratically-elected government should be that voice. Otherwise, why do we vote?
Point three..I think that the fact that the Obama Administration fought pressure from Libertarian as well as Liberal entities to demand more from banks and automakers would contrindicate the claim that he is pushing for wide-reaching application of Scoialism. He would never have a better time to nationalize banks than last spring…ever. And bank nationalization is a primary necessity in controling “the means of production”. Personlly though, I would have liked to see many other options tried than the ones presented, as I don’t see why taxpayers should have spent any money on the automakers. Survival of the fittest is a sacred rule in capitalism. The big money interests on Wall Street (none of whom are Socialists) had their hands fully extended LAST FALL…when Bush was the man. No socialist cries were heard then. So I detect a bit of double-standard in action.

By: Tennessean

Tennessean — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 03:24:54 +0000

Frances, you should spend more time on your own arguments and less on mine. Get your “isms” straight. We were speaking about Marxism.

Let me make this very clear for you. If you aren’t intelligent enough to understand what I meant with those 3 examples, why should I bother trying to engage you?

By: Frances

Frances — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 23:08:45 +0000

My comment was being held because of one word. You can guess what it was by how I’ve spelled it.

TN, If you want an intelligent exchange, than don’t leave me to guess what it is about those three examples that points to a run-up to social ism. You are the one that brought up the examples.

By: Frances

Frances — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:44:22 +0000

TN, why should I reverse-engineer your argument?

By: Tennessean

Tennessean — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 20:16:56 +0000

Frances, No. I have better things to do than play silly games with you. If you want an intelligent exchange, I’ll do my best, realizing I will always fall short in your estimation.

But I’m not playing little kindergartner games with you. Read my comment. If you don’t recognize the 3 examples I provided then I see nothing to be gained in discussing much of anything with one so intellectually challenged.

Why don’t we do this? Why don’t YOU be more specific and support why you do not feel actions taken with the Financial, Automotive and Health Care Industries may NOT rise to the level of trending toward some degree of “Marxism”?

By: Frances

Frances — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 19:55:56 +0000

TN, be specific about your 3 examples.

By: Tennessean

Tennessean — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 18:51:57 +0000

Frances, read more closely. Try “Responsive” as opposed to “Combative”. I gave you 3 examples.

Take care.

By: Frances

Frances — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:52:13 +0000

TN. Deny what? Be specific about your examples. You sound a little bit hysterical to me.

By: Frances

Frances — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 17:25:31 +0000

Tommy, it is not ambiguous. The complete budget is posted online. Bush conveniently left financing of two wars out of the budget. Obama has included it. That’s about $10 billion per month – $120 billion per year. Who’s fooling who?

I believe that Fox News does a shoddy job and if ABC/CBS/NBC tried to get away with what Fox does in the name of news, they would lose their broadcast licenses. Fox News gets to skulk around on cable and prey on stupid people. They are no better than a tabloid.