You, The American Polluter
This gem just in from Tuesday's press conference:
Obama: "At a time of great fiscal challenges, this legislation [Waxman-Markey bill coming to the Hosue floor Friday] is paid for by the polluters who currently emit the dangerous carbon emissions that contaminate the water we drink and pollute the air we breathe."
Uh...does this have something to do with that New York soda tax? I don't even have the heart to raise the respiration part about oxygen in/CO2 out, trees take oxygen, subject us to the horrors of photosynthesis ... wash, rinse, repeat.
But heck at least he's got a really good, well thought-out reason for the biggest tax hike in U.S. history, even if he's also incorrect about who actually pays the energy tax: you do, as his administration, CBO, pretty much anyone who's bothered to look has pointed out. Of course, in Obama's mind it's not really a cost to you if the government gets the money, because you get a dollar-for-dollar benefit in... government (seriously). More please!
11 comments:
Look at the speeches of Hitler (early '30s) and compare to Obama. Of course Hitler was a self serving wonk, and thought he had all of the answers. He bathed in the admiration of his fans and . . . 'er, you know – like Obama. He even had a dog.
WoFat: You gotta be kidding me.
Comparing ANY US President to Hitler is uncalled for.
Comparisions because of those things? Most leaders have that in common. In fact, I'd say the last couple presidents did those things you mentioned.
Nowhere have we seen anything about scapegoating the Jews (or other minority) and wanting to round them up...
Wow that was a new one on me. I didn't know that Carbon Dioxide was polluting our water.
I guess they need to quit having champagne and sodas at those big D.C. parties; you know since the bubbles are CO2
Hey Muse and Wofat...I say if the shoe fits. There are LOTS of similarities between the Weimar Republic and Hitler's Third Reich and what we are moving into.
The Muse doth protest too much.
I'm just saying that comparing our President to Hitler based on policies you disagree with betrays ignorance. It also cheapens what happened to those that suffered under Hitler.
People like to say that Hitler was "extreme RIGHT WING" Fascism, but actually, fascism is left wing.
Extreme right wing is anarchy ... limited to no government. Left wing is increasing to maximum government. When you have the government coming in and hauling you off to a concentration camp for forced labor to benefit the state, that is as extreme LEFT WING as you can get.
I know leftists will disagree with this, but it is what it is.
Furthermore, Hitler was a socialist. He took over most of the industry in German (and Poland) and made it government run.
How is that "Right Wing" anything?
Again, James, you are wrong.
Fascism is by definition as far left as you can go. Let me explain:
POLITICAL SPECTRUM: More left = decreased number of people controlling government.
Extreme left: Fascism and Monarchy: As far left as you can go.
Less Extreme Left: Most current dictatorships in which one leader is in charge but is head over a ruling "council" or "politboro," or "parliment". Often the "supreme leader" is a figure head for the group of leaders. But other times, the leader rose to power by himself then surrounded himself with "advisors".
Less Extreme Left: Democracy in which voters control government.
Center Right: Republic: Government controlled by rule of law, with policies passed by elected officials.
Extreme Right: Anarchy
Political Spectrum is different that Fiscal Structure:
FISCAL STRUCTURE:
Extreme Left: Communism: No property rights, everything owned communally.
Less Extreme Left: Socialism: Business and industry owned and operated by government.
Center Right: Capitalism: Privately owned property and businesses. Large businesses corporately owned by groups of investors.
Extreme Right: (no longer exists): Everyone is essentially "self employed" -- Grows his own crops and creates his own goods and services, but may barter for some goods and services.
Nationalism simply means a view that sees the nation as more important and more sovereign than either local communities or the world at large. That's a centrist view, with extreme right emphasizing power concentrated more toward the local level and the extreme right shifting power toward a world-wide organization, such as the UN or NATO.
Interestingly, you can mix and match. You could theoretically have a far left political system, but a center-right fiscal system: i.e. - imagine a dictator with absolute power over government, who sets up a capitalist financial structure. I'm not aware of anyplace this has actually happened, but it is theoretically possible.
Conversely, you could have a right/center right government structure (a republic) and a far left fiscal structure: A republic in which government owns and operates all businesses. This is the European style of Socialism, although much of Europe is moving away from the Socialism part. We are moving this direction.
The point is that Nazi Germany was far left both in political structure and in fiscal structure. When the Nazi's rose to power, they had a fascist dictator with a small "council" of rulers headed by Hitler. They were also moving toward the direction of nationalizing important industries.
Far Left Poltically, Far Left Fiscally.
As much as you lefties (I know you'll deny that part) want to label Bush another Hitler, the reality is that Hitler's view of government's role matches much more closely the Democrats and Obama than Republicans.
Interestingly, you can mix and match. You could theoretically have a far left political system, but a center-right fiscal system: i.e. - imagine a dictator with absolute power over government, who sets up a capitalist financial structure. I'm not aware of anyplace this has actually happened, but it is theoretically possible.
Conversely, you could have a right/center right government structure (a republic) and a far left fiscal structure: A republic in which government owns and operates all businesses. This is the European style of Socialism, although much of Europe is moving away from the Socialism part. We are moving this direction.
The point is that Nazi Germany was far left both in political structure and in fiscal structure. When the Nazi's rose to power, they had a fascist dictator with a small "council" of rulers headed by Hitler. They were also moving toward the direction of nationalizing important industries.
Far Left Poltically, Far Left Fiscally.
As much as you lefties (I know you'll deny that part) want to label Bush another Hitler, the reality is that Hitler's view of government's role matches much more closely the Democrats and Obama than Republicans.
Not sure where you got your facts, but actually, you're off. Fascism is neither left nor right; it is more a "third way." Even a cursory lookup in wikipedia would prove you wrong.
Hitler's form of fascism borrowed from both right and left idealogies.
Fascism is against liberalism, is against conservatism, rationalism, and communism.
Also, your definitions of "leftwing" and "rightwing" are little off:
Leftwing isn't more control by the government; its a focus on changing traditional social orders and an egalitarian distribution of wealth. That's why far-left ends as communism.
Rightwing is preserving traditional social orders and maintaining some sort of social hierarchy, with an emphasis on nationalism. The extreme form of this is fascism and Nazism. Its a historical fact and definition.
What you were incorrectly labelling as "rightwing" was more libertarian, which has its extreme in anarchy. And what you described as "leftwing" was off as well.
What you said about mixing and matching was correct; Nazism is a mix, but borrowed more from the extreme-right.
And I don't want to label Bush as a Hitler; like I said, comparing ANY US president to Hitler is ignorant and bordering on treason.
Post a Comment