Bizarre, Politics, Society

With Friends Like This: Al Sharpton Insists That the Public Voted for Socialism With the Election of Obama

Al Sharpton is the gift that keep on giving for conservatives. His comment on CNN on socialism is likely to make the top hits for political commercials in the mid-term elections. Sharpton said “The American Public Overwhelmingly Voted for Socialism When They Elected President Obama.”

With lines like this, Sharpton may be the featured speaker at next year’s Tea Party convention.

95 thoughts on “With Friends Like This: Al Sharpton Insists That the Public Voted for Socialism With the Election of Obama”

  1. Tootsie, I have hesitated all day about responding to your comments. The reason for that is that I have learned through experience that when one characterizes those who have opposing views as “evil,” that’s generally a clear signal that any response will be ignored because a judgment has already been made regarding the credibility of the source. Nevertheless, Buddha’s comments and my quixotic bent have once again gotten the better of me.

    In reviewing your various posts, I am reminded of “You Can Trust the Communists (To Be Communists)” and “None Dare Call It Treason,” two books I read in the early ’60s. They virtually bristled with broad assertions, dark conspiracy theories and irrational fear. I still have the books because I wondered at the time how the dire predictions of the authors might hold up over the years. I came across them a couple of months ago and concluded that the predictions were as dead as the writers, and just as moldy.

    The world in which you wish to reside does not exist, and cannot. It cannot because it would have to be inhabited by human beings uniformly possessing all of the virtues of Plato’s philosopher king. As we all know, however, human beings are actually selfish, prideful, avaricious and given to bullying those over whom they exercise any sort of power.

    No one knows when governments were first formed, but it is reasonable to assume that their first function was simply to protect distinct groups from predation by other distinct groups. It is also reasonable to assume that the leaders of those groups possessed skills found particularly useful and desirable, mainly strength and courage.

    Over the centuries we gradually concluded that when control of a society is turned over to the strongest, the result is always tyranny, benevolent though it may be on occasion. When this country was formed, the Founders recognized that when forming a government to protect the people, it was also necessary to structure it in such a way that the people will also be protected from the government. So they divided the government into co-equal branches. The creation of an independent judiciary was, in my own opinion, the most brilliant stroke because it not only provided a vehicle for the peaceful and generally neutral resolution of disputes, but embedded in society the notion that the law controls the ambitious.

    But tyranny can be economic as well as governmental. The history of the industrial revolution and the vicious and violent battles over the formation of labor unions is sufficient evidence of that truth. The development of child labor laws, food and drug laws (ever read Sinclair Lewis?), occupational safety laws and product liability laws all occurred not because some bureaucrat somewhere decided that it would be neat to make capitalists’ lives miserable, but because abuse, contamination, dangerous work places and dangerous products produced death and destruction.

    You should understand that the concern of the law is with the regulation of personal and commercial intercourse. We impose restrictions on economic behavior for the same reason that we impose restrictions on individual behavior-because people are prone to act badly. I defy you to find a single instance in the history of this country in which the imposition of legislative controls over the conduct of any enterprise preceded the experience of the evils the legislation sought to address. In every case elected leaders have responded only after the exposure and publication of horror stories, only after the offending industry has first denied and ultimately promised to impose strict “self-regulation,” and then only after the peoples’ elected representatives have become convinced that no amount of money from the perpetrators of the abuses can guarantee their re-election. And, if the truth be told, those who most frequently have led the way in exposing the wrongs have been lawyers. Even Dick the Butcher, in Shakespeare’s “Henry VI,” understood that lawyers were the final barricade between justice and tyranny.

    The health care reform bill which has so upset you is a reaction to the same sorts of amoral, uncontrolled economic forces that produce sweat shops, unsafe foods, dangerous products and predatory loans. When we start producing perfect human beings, I’ll then listen to what you have to say about over-regulation.

  2. Tootie:

    Rcampbell has a point. I talked to my primary care doc about this about 4 months ago and he said it really didn’t matter much to him either way. He said he was getting f . . . ked by the insurance companies so maybe the government could do a better job or at least use KY.

    Also we have Blue Cross Blue Shield and they pay huge executive salaries and spend a good deal of money on things like gym facilities. We get decent care but our doctors take a big hit, they get about $150 bucks for every $500 billed at least for office visits.

    I will even admit that portability and covering pre-existing conditions is a good idea. But it isn’t working in Mass and it didn’t work in Tenn with Tenncare which had to be shut down because it was bankrupting the state.

  5. Buddha

    More importantly, the government requires auto manufacturers to install seat belts. They can only sell and customers can only buy cars with seat belts installed. By that precedent it appears the government COULD require insurance, but they haven’t.

  6. “I’m not talking about the authority to tax; I’m talking about the authority to tax for this specific matter”.

    I’ll type this very slowly, so you can keep up. The bill DOESN’T require you to buy insurance, it requires you to pay a tax (an authority you haven’t challenged). To avoid the tax all one has to do is have insurance.

    Secondly, right now your insurance company is in between you and your doctor. The corporate bureaucrats are making their decisions about what care you can and cannot have. These decisions are often made based on bonuses paid for denying care and/or the profitability of the entire company which is in turn based on denying care.

  7. Tootie:

    I was suggesting that arguing over the nuances of socialism, fascism and Marxism is a bit like arguing over which type of animal shit smells the best. They all stink like shit but of the 3 horse shit smells the least offensive.

    I wouldn’t bother arguing over socialism it doesn’t work very well and most countries that have it do ok but not great. Look at Sweden and Denmark decent countries but no great shakes.

    I don’t know why people are so upset over this? They should have been upset years ago but everyone just goes along living their lives while politicians usurp our rights and no one seems to care. The republicans are every bit at fault as the democrats and maybe more so because they should have known better. No one wants freedom/liberty because that would mean that they had to stand on their own 2 feet. Most people are afraid to do that, they want or need a safety net.

    Look at the farmers that get subsidies or the companies that get subsidies or help with competition from foreign countries. Most everyone has their hand out at the door step of government and all of them are afraid to just say no. So when you have a large percentage of the population that is afraid to go without a safety net what do you expect the result to be?

    If people would rely more on themselves and less on government we would have a better country.

  8. Come on. Say something else stupid, Tootie. Like show me in the Constitution where it says car manufactures don’t have to install catalytic converters? Or that chemical companies can pollute freely. Or that (insert insane assertion here).

    I can make you look even more foolish than you do on your own without breaking a sweat. Really. It’s no effort at all.

    Because you’re spouting drivel. You were at the onset and you still are. But I’ll give you this:

    At least you’re consistent. Consistently wrong, but consistent.

  9. That’s funny, Tootles.

    You didn’t seem too upset when states started forcing you to buy liability car insurance.

    Let’s talk about assertions, shall we? How about you prove that the new bill allows them to interfere with your medical care? You’re the one making the assertion that this means “the Fed” can call up your doctor and say “yea” or “nay” and that’s simply not true.

    Just because the Constitution is silent on a matter does not mean the government doesn’t have a right to regulate it. The Constitution says squat about radio – because it hadn’t been invented yet – but that doesn’t stop the FCC from issuing licenses to broadcasters.

    Now before you get your panties all twisted up again, you should know I think this health care bill is bogus crap designed to protect the insurance rackets instead of the logical and sensible thing which would be to put them out of business and start a single-payer government owned system like the UK and Sweden have. One where everyone is covered and doctor’s do as they and their patients please regarding treatment because they can afford to based on having the very largest risk pool they can assemble. You don’t know how insurance really works, do you? That’s just adorable.

    But you clearly don’t know squat about the Constitution either, sport. You know a lot of words Neocon Nazi nitwits like Beck tell you to regurgitate, but it’s not enough to know the words. You have to understand what they mean as a basic definition and in context.

  11. Buddha: I take it then that you cannot find a sentence in the Constitution that gives the government the power to seize the health care industry and force me into its system for the rest of my life.

    I knew you couldn’t.

    What is it about leftists that they think other peoples’ money belongs to them?

    What’s the story here? Did your parents teach you that stealing was wrong and you rebelled? Or did they teach you that stealing was okay?

  12. Byron: So your point is that since the Patriot Act is unconstitutional, then you support additional unconstitutional laws?

    Isn’t that how preschoolers rationalize naughty behavior?

  13. rcampbell: you are just making an assertion. Please give me the the sentence or sentences from the Constitution that prove the feds have the right to force me to buy health insurance and interfere with my doctor and in my medical decisions for the rest of my life.

    I want exact words from the Constitution that give the feds this power. I’m not talking about the authority to tax; I’m talking about the authority to tax for this specific matter.

  14. As far as the constitutionality of the health care reform bill, it’s rock solid. The bill isn’t written as a government mandate requiring citizens to buy insurance from the private for-profit insurance industry (which defines the reform as decidedly NOT SOCIALIST). The bill charges every citizen who does not have health insurance a tax. Like it or not, the federal government is well within its right to charge a tax. To mitigate the tax one simply has to have health insurance or, as an employer, offer insurance to your employees. Zap, no tax. It’s completely constutional.

  15. EC,

    I thought I’d seen every episode of “A Bit of Fry & Laurie”. That was hysterical! “Was he a John Lennon-y kind of guy?” ROFLOL

  16. Byron,

    lol

    I’ll tell you what. I’ll quit bringing up the Patriot Act as soon as it’s repealed. Or Cheney is arrested for treason. Whichever comes first.

    I promise.

  17. [youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1yOVRKNskcU&hl=en_US&fs=1&]

  18. “You want to talk unconstitutional? Two words:

    Patriot Act. Brought to you by the GOP Neocon Fear Mongers.”

    Quit bringing that up it makes us look stupid.

  20. Tootie,

    The only thing about the health care bill that’s unconstitutional is . . . nothing.

    Good luck pimping that partisan swill.

    You want to talk unconstitutional? Two words:

    Patriot Act. Brought to you by the GOP Neocon Fear Mongers.

    C.E. Kook,

    I had completely forgotten Mr. Shaw’s dynamite performance.

Comments are closed.