backtop

Print 84 comment(s) - last by carage.. on Nov 23 at 12:33 AM
Chinese censors did their thing with Obama's call for freedom of speech on the internet

China is known as one of the most restrictive countries on the planet. Citizens in most of China are routinely blocked form viewing or accessing websites on the internet that the Chinese government deems harmful or against Chinese values. The types of sites blocked include those that show pornography and those that highlight Tibet and pro-democracy site. China is reported to censor about 1.8 million blogs.

President Obama made his first visit to China this week and in a talk with Chinese students, Obama issued a call for internet freedom. Obama spoke about internet freedom and free speech. Ironically, the comments made by Obama regarding free speech and internet freedom became targets of the Chinese internet sensors and fell prey to what is known as "The Great Firewall of China."

The Boston Globe quotes Obama saying, "I can tell you that in the United States, the fact that we have free internet - or unrestricted internet access - is a source of strength, and I think should be encouraged."

The irony of the statements by Obama is that full transcripts of the speech posted on the Netease portal reportedly lasted online for only about 27 minutes before the censors pulled them and redacted the statements about internet freedom.

Part of the statement by Obama said, "I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes, because then citizens of countries around the world can hold their own governments accountable. They can begin to think for themselves. That generates new ideas. It encourages creativity."



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
His speech was double plus good
By sapiens74 on 11/17/2009 11:36:03 AM , Rating: 5
We've always been at war with the middle east




RE: His speech was double plus good
By joshuasims1981 on 11/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: His speech was double plus good
By Veerappan on 11/17/2009 3:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's a reference to the book 1984, not actually insistence that we've always been at war with the middle-east.

I'd give it a read. While the book was written as satire, more of it has become true than I ever dared imagine...


RE: His speech was double plus good
By JediJeb on 11/17/2009 3:40:25 PM , Rating: 4
With the way politics are now, I would say that Orwell's other book "Animal Farm" is more what we are seeing.

I read that one back in about 1979 when I was in grade school, and over the past 30 years I have watched so much of that unfold around the world, and now to some extent here in the US. 1984 is a more brute force story whereas Animal Farm depicts the very subtle changes behind the scenes that no one notices until it is too late.


RE: His speech was double plus good
By knutjb on 11/17/2009 10:26:28 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you go back a little further and read The Prince. It should remove any trust in politicians. Almost 500 years old and it is spot on on human behavior and power. You will see parallels with politicians of today.

http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1232/1232-h/1232-h....


RE: His speech was double plus good
By xmichaelx on 11/17/2009 4:10:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
While the book was written as satire, more of it has become true than I ever dared imagine...

Then you should read it again -- along with some history -- and realize how incredibly good we have it. Do you really think you have it that bad? Do you really think at all?


RE: His speech was double plus good
By itzmec on 11/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: His speech was double plus good
By Smilin on 11/17/2009 5:12:13 PM , Rating: 2
The poster is on the internet so they don't have it that bad.

While I cannot be sure I'm fairly certain he doesn't have a fly buzzing on his lip, a swollen belly, or a donkey with clanking pans.

If none of these concepts ever even crossed your mind then I'll agree with the poster: You don't know how good you have it. Go fret for your latte.


RE: His speech was double plus good
By tim851 on 11/17/2009 5:26:35 PM , Rating: 4
Wow, you're a thinker, I can feel it.

So by your logic, everyone not living in an African refugee camp shouldn't complain?

You know, it's too late to complain about the ice berg once you've hit it, you should be concerned when you're headed for it.


By MeesterNid on 11/17/2009 4:42:32 PM , Rating: 2
Nice. I think you pretty much made the point of the guy that poster right above you: "...very subtle changes behind the scenes that no one notices until it is too late." You obviously aren't one for 'subtle changes', those are the ones that happen over time...subtly, so while you think that we have really well (which for now we still do) if nothing is done the "too late" happens and those aforementioned changes make so that we are kinda in a deep pile of crap.

I don't know, but I think you said something about thinking?


RE: His speech was double plus good
By Smilin on 11/17/2009 5:30:15 PM , Rating: 1
btw...you just clowned yourself. Didn't do your summer reading in highschool eh?


RE: His speech was double plus good
By tatoruso on 11/18/2009 10:45:18 AM , Rating: 3
Right on spot!
That book has become prophecy... Even in "socialist" countries (Ehm... Cuba?, Venezuela?... naaah that´s the pitiyanki imperium spreading lies) the techniques explained on that book are used. Of course, they´re far from the level of thought control ("consensus engineering", says N. Chomsky) archieved by U.S.A., or the british...
You, sir, do have a mind.


LOL
By kattanna on 11/17/2009 10:39:42 AM , Rating: 5
did anyone really expect an uncensored version to float freely through a highly censored land?

quote:
China is reported to censor about 1.8 million blogs.


considering the quality of content on most blogs, that could actually be a good thing.. LOL




RE: LOL
By Smilin on 11/17/2009 5:14:38 PM , Rating: 5
Their rise to an economic powerhouse can be directly attributed to blocking Jason Mick's blog posts.


Saying...
By MrBowmore on 11/17/2009 10:39:45 AM , Rating: 4
We have a saying in Sweden that right now goes as the following: Lilla Obama ACTA dig..

It plays on the Swedish song "Lilla snigel". That Obama does this, but runs ACTA together with EU behind our backs is hypocrisy. Why aren't you showing us whats in the ACTA documents Mr Obama? Afraid of a "French revolution"?




RE: Saying...
By ClownPuncher on 11/17/2009 11:33:14 AM , Rating: 3
Administrative Council for Terminal Attachments? Obama screwed up your 8P8C plug?

Or do you mean the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement? I thought that Sweden had not opted to join those negotiations. It does seem odd though, leaking very little information to the public. The language concerning forcing ISP's to give user information over without a warrant is cause for watchfulness too.


China Censorship
By MarcLeFou on 11/17/2009 3:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
I read the exact opposite of what this article is stating in my morning paper.

It reported, with surprise, that Obama's speech had NOT been censored at a number of news outlet in China while some had apparently censored themselves.

Odd as its not a trashy tabloid but a well established business inclined paper.




RE: China Censorship
By carage on 11/23/2009 12:33:11 AM , Rating: 2
I currently live in China and watched the live broadcast on CCTV4 which ironically wasn't interrupted. Not sure if they feature an edited version now. I read the local paper the next morning and the article only mentioned that Obama said he encourages freedom of speech on the internet without a full text. The Chinese was apparently pleased that he avoided the Taiwan question, but then again, the prez mentioned the Taiwan Relations Act the next day in the joint press conference with Chinese President Hu. I'm sure the Chinese are pissed.
BTW, is anyone not surprised it was the US ambassador who happened to pick this question?


haha
By rudy on 11/17/2009 6:57:06 PM , Rating: 2
what a noob futile attempt.

Also he met some young folks at a university and they interviewed them it was funny hearing all their canned answers from the reporters.




By NA1NSXR on 11/17/2009 7:50:50 PM , Rating: 2
I respect the Americans that are not accepting this acceleration in the decline of their country, even in the face of such rabid criticism from those that are completely oblivious to it. Too bad they have to accept the consequences and catch flak even for their choice of news outlet.




Hypocrite
By bradmshannon on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hypocrite
By Brandon Hill on 11/17/2009 10:17:31 AM , Rating: 5
Maybe I'm not up to date on the current state of the Fox News vs. Obama Administration battle, but I thought that the Obama Administration lashed out at Fox News and told them they had an agenda. In addition, Obama refused to sit down with them for interviews, but did go to the other networks.

However, Fox News is still free to say whatever the heck they want about Obama and his administration.


RE: Hypocrite
By bradmshannon on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hypocrite
By brshoemak on 11/17/2009 10:30:38 AM , Rating: 5
It's also unprecedented for a news organization to create news as opposed to reporting it. When Glenn Beck, a Fox News associate, actively asks people to come out and join him at anti-government tea party rallies you are no longer reporting news, you are asking people to take the side of a news organization.

I wish we could go back to the days where news organizations reported the news and didn't create hour long programs so they could tell us their opinion on it (and how we should feel about it). This applies to all news organizations, Fox News is just the most blatant offender by far.


RE: Hypocrite
By Spivonious on 11/17/2009 10:40:27 AM , Rating: 5
While I'm not a fan of the "neo-cons", I'd like to point out that Glenn Beck's show is not a news report; it's an editorial. He's free to express whatever opinion he wants to.


RE: Hypocrite
By kattanna on 11/17/2009 10:43:44 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
I'd like to point out that Glenn Beck's show is not a news report; it's an editorial.


actually more like inflammatory tabloid trollness

quote:
He's free to express whatever opinion he wants to


aye, he is. and obama, or anyone else for that matter, is just as free to choose NOT to associate with them.


RE: Hypocrite
By knutjb on 11/17/2009 10:17:13 PM , Rating: 2
No, Obama is not able to pick and choose how the media pool distributes their broadcast feeds. Government officials are not allowed to pick favorites. If he chooses to have interviews with some broadcasters that is prerogative. He can't tell the rest of the media to block FOX from access to combined media pool information.

If that effort to block FOX doesn't bother you maybe you should ask the rest of the media as to why they WERE bothered by Obama's demand. You should wipe your political bias from your eyes and ears... Neither party is so wonderful to be trusted with such power.


RE: Hypocrite
By Smilin on 11/17/2009 5:19:01 PM , Rating: 1
And I would like to point out that it is broadcast on the channel Fox NEWS and on the website foxnews.com.

Maybe they need a fox editorial channel.

Besides.. Beck, Hannity, all those...that's not what the whitehouse is taking issue with. It's the news show of foxnews they are taking issue with.


RE: Hypocrite
By AEvangel on 11/17/2009 11:27:58 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I wish we could go back to the days where news organizations reported the news


I think you are looking for some thing that has not existed in any of our Life times.

All Fox News did was exploit an opening that was their the MSM has been liberally biased for quite a long time and Fox News came along and took advantage of an open market.

While I don't agree with their views I admire their business strategy.


RE: Hypocrite
By nafhan on 11/17/2009 12:04:27 PM , Rating: 5
I completely agree.
The most important thing to remember when talking about truth in the media (at least in countries with press freedom) is that news agencies are not here to spread truth . They are businesses and they exist to make money.
Remembering that helps you not to take everything the media dishes out at face value.


RE: Hypocrite
By KCjoker on 11/17/2009 6:37:10 PM , Rating: 4
Yea MSNBC never actively asked people to rally against Bush and his administration. Have people forgot how the Obama administration just a few weeks ago tried to keep fox out of a White House interview? Luckily the other networks banded together and said they wouldn't attend if FoxNews wasn't allowed.


RE: Hypocrite
By jhb116 on 11/17/2009 6:47:52 PM , Rating: 3
Yes Fox News is very biased to the right/conservative side - however - you are completely wrong about unprecedented. You must not have been watching CNN during the Clinton years, especially during the Bush/Gore elections. Those people looked like LA and NY had just been Nuked when it looked like Bush won the election and then jump up in spirits when Gore decided to take the whole thing to court.

In order for our democracy to succeed/survive - we need UNBIASED news, with information that can be relied on. With most of the media biased to the left, some to the extreme far left, we are dangerously close to losing and incredibly important part of our checks and balances system.


RE: Hypocrite
By aj28 on 11/17/2009 7:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
With most of the media biased to the left, some to the extreme far left, we are dangerously close to losing and incredibly important part of our checks and balances system.


Quoting the concept of checks and balances like we're talking about a branch of the government is extremely misleading. It doesn't apply to cable news networks. Furthermore, what would you like them to do? Artificially control the market? Doesn't sound like something the "oppressed" right-wing would want to take part in...

Most of the media is biased to the left because that's the economically profitable thing to do. I have a few more thoughts as to why that might be, but I'd rather not get flamed too much...


RE: Hypocrite
By knutjb on 11/17/2009 10:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
Sadly the media has always had an agenda. WR Hearst pretty much created the uproar sending us into the Spanish American war.

We need some balance and with Chris Mathews getting that tingly feeling up his leg from just listening to Obama and you want unbiased from FOX? I think FOX isn't as far right as the others are way far left.

Obama wanted to block FOX from the media pool information and that IS suppressing the media which is why the other outlets declined Obama's demand. Go listen to Mark Lloyd's commentary about media and Hugo Chavez. Lloyd is high up in the FCC. Listen for yourself through you own search.

Net neutrality? Obama is back to do what I say not what I do. He tells the Chinese to open up but wants to control what is on the net, what we say in blogs, and including all that is shown on all web sites.

I don't want the government controlling what I think by controlling what I see and hear. It doesn't matter which media outlet you want to look at do you really want it filtered by some faceless bureaucrat in the government?


RE: Hypocrite
By joshuasims1981 on 11/17/2009 10:31:19 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I see it as one in the same. It's unprecedented for an administration to do what he did.


I disagree and agree, in that order. It is completely different. Obama isn't calling for the censure of Fox News. He simply said that he wouldn't grant them an interview. While this is indeed unprecedented, it might not be such a bad thing. Freedom of the Press means that the press is allowed to track down and print factual information. It is not an all access pass to all information. It does NOT mean that they have to be, or even should be handed the information.


RE: Hypocrite
By bradmshannon on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hypocrite
By bcv1221 on 11/17/2009 10:49:59 AM , Rating: 1
By saying you believe it shows bias against the other side of the aisle, you are saying that Fox News is, in fact, a Conservatively biased organization. News is supposed to report facts, not opinions, and therefore should not be liberal or conservative.


RE: Hypocrite
By bradmshannon on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hypocrite
By joshuasims1981 on 11/17/2009 11:18:54 AM , Rating: 3
That's entirely your right. And I'm guessing you tend to lean Right rather than Left. CNN, NPR, MSNBC, and many others lean left. It makes sense, Left means more social freedoms (like freedom of the press) and more governmental spending (like subsidies). It goes right along with their own interests.
That is actually what makes Fox particularly interesting from a sociological perspective, because, by cleaving to the Right, while they may be able to pick up a solid demographic, like yourself, would cause them to shoot themselves in the foot were they to "win", that is to gain a substantive consistent majority, by curtailing their own capabilities and funding.
That being said, at this point, they have little choice, were they to stop, they would #1 lose their demographic, and #2 lose their advertisers that focus that demographic. Generally suicide.
Consequently, just as most news agencies progressively get more and more liberal, due to the fact that like attracts like, and they draw in more liberal talent, so does Fox get more conservative.


RE: Hypocrite
By RamsayGetLost on 11/17/2009 1:50:54 PM , Rating: 4
social freedoms? oh, you mean freedoms such as smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol, drinking and eating sugared up sodas and candy? oh wait... they're taxing those products, essentially enacting a form of social control.

the traditional left != social freedom, anymore.


RE: Hypocrite
By StraightCashHomey on 11/17/2009 11:23:42 AM , Rating: 3
Not talking about anything political here, but the guy sure did come across to me as generally unintelligent.

Maybe I just can't stand to hear nookyouler.


RE: Hypocrite
By Smilin on 11/17/2009 5:22:10 PM , Rating: 3
Agreed.

Strategery.


RE: Hypocrite
By joshuasims1981 on 11/17/2009 11:02:37 AM , Rating: 2
Alright. I'll go that far with you. My response, however, is...So? I wasn't aware that becoming president meant giving up your own opinions and political affiliations. Alright, that's a bit facetious, but it still stands on it's on merit. Given the antagonistic relationship between the Obama Administration and Fox News, Obama has two choices, three really, but the third, asking for Fox News to play nice, would be simply laughed off the air. No, Obama has two choices, either ignore it, be the "bigger man" in the affair, and hope it goes away, or he, and by extension the whole administration, which, by the way, DOES answer to him, so is, and has been with most any president in history, an extension of his own opinions, can "return fire".
I actually find this to be a refreshingly candid act by a politician, to be honest. I just hope it extends to other facets of policy, namely foreign relations. The days of the United States being "the bigger man" when it comes to things like trade agreements need to come to an end.
For those who aren't familiar with what I'm referring to, are the negotiations between the United States and foreign nations on the grounds of trade laws. Traditionally, with the exception if explicitly illegal material, the United States has had completely free borders on imports.
However, most of our major trading partners, particularly Asian countries, have barriers to entry that impede foreign (USA) businesses from taking marketshare from domestic (the Asian country in question) industry.


RE: Hypocrite
By walkerstone on 11/17/2009 12:40:25 PM , Rating: 4
Bush did the same thing when he attacked MSNBC


RE: Hypocrite
By GaryJohnson on 11/17/2009 10:39:07 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I see it as one in the same.

Then your vision is poor.

There are legitimate reasons to disagree with leftist principles and policies. But the arguments presented on Fox tend to be illogical and irrational. They often degenerate into hateful personal attacks. If I were on the left, I wouldn't sit down with them either.


RE: Hypocrite
By bradmshannon on 11/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hypocrite
By Brandon Hill on 11/17/2009 10:49:29 AM , Rating: 3
But they are the face of the network -- they are what brings in the advertising dollars and what drives the audience.

It's the same way that Olbermann, Maddow, and Matthews drive MSNBC, albeit with the completely opposite slant towards the left.

Both networks are becoming downright trash IMHO more and more each day -- Fox News panders to the Lunatic Right and MSNBC panders to the Lunatic Left.


RE: Hypocrite
By bradmshannon on 11/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hypocrite
By Brandon Hill on 11/17/2009 11:39:05 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're being quite naive by saying that they are a seperate entity -- you can't really seperate them when they are all under the same umbrella.

Hell, even that Steve Ducey guy on Fox Mornings has it in for Obama. His MSNBC counterpart would be that blowhard David Schuster.

But to sit here and say that you can't see an obvious slant or bias on regular Fox News daily/morning news is laughable -- just as it's laughable to suggest the same with MSNBC. They both tailor the news to their audience and they're good at it.


RE: Hypocrite
By kelmerp on 11/17/2009 11:50:12 AM , Rating: 3
Thats actually not true. Look up Bush Administration vs MSNBC.


RE: Hypocrite
By yomamafor1 on 11/17/2009 10:26:30 AM , Rating: 5
I thought so too. Obama didn't even attempt to silence them using regulations or laws (which is quite common in some Asian countries), or even go as far as threatening them with police forces or lawsuits(like in China). He just didn't want to sit down with Fox News for interviews, and call them "having an agenda".

You simply can't compare the degree what Chinese government did with what Obama even attempted to do.


RE: Hypocrite
By bradmshannon on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hypocrite
By Iaiken on 11/17/2009 10:44:48 AM , Rating: 5
You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means...

Rather than bother with the FOX News agency, he went straight to Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes to discuss the matter of the FOX slant and their portrayal of him as "suspicious, foreign, fearsome - just short of a terrorist". The orders to engage in that specific campaign of xenophobic misinformation came directly from Murdoch and Ailes.

So before you get all riled up about Obama snubbing FOX, remember that the press at FOX News are not so much free, but more of a forged steel sword that swings in whatever direction Murdoch so chooses.


RE: Hypocrite
By Anoxanmore on 11/19/2009 11:43:57 AM , Rating: 2
That does put a damper on our relationship.

You really need to be given a 6.


RE: Hypocrite
By Iaiken on 11/17/2009 10:33:30 AM , Rating: 2
Nope, you're pretty much bang on.

The only possible exception was the private "truce" that was brokered between Obama, Murdoch and Ailes behind closed doors.

Fox news would be more aptly named Murdoch Brand Canned Opinion and the fact that they have been able to get away with telling outright lies and calling them news is a testament to freedom of speech and freedom of the press.


RE: Hypocrite
By bradmshannon on 11/17/09, Rating: 0
RE: Hypocrite
By kattanna on 11/17/2009 11:04:20 AM , Rating: 5
since you asked...

http://www.maldef.org/truthinimmigration/dobbs_fox...

quote:
Dobbs, FOX News, and Drudge Report Push False AP Story


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/18/fox-news-...

quote:
Fox News Newspaper Ad Makes False Claims About Tea Party Coverage


http://thinkprogress.org/2007/04/27/fox-parody/

quote:
Fox News Sinks To New Low, Repeatedly Reports Parody Story As Actual News


http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/political-media/...

quote:
Fox News Corrects False Claims About Gay Obama Education Adviser


RE: Hypocrite
By bradmshannon on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hypocrite
By eddieroolz on 11/17/2009 1:48:02 PM , Rating: 2
Hell I'm on the conservative side and even I mock FOX news whenever they're broadcast here in Vancouver.

No, not your Vancouver. Canadian Vancouver. Don't ask why we have FOX here, I'd rather not but there must be a lunacy-spreading agreement in place or something.


RE: Hypocrite
By GaryJohnson on 11/17/2009 11:07:53 AM , Rating: 2
RE: Hypocrite
By ClownPuncher on 11/17/2009 11:11:31 AM , Rating: 2
Birther movement, death panels, muslim and communist slander, "terrorist fist bump"...

News has become hyperbole in more than 50% of the cases.


RE: Hypocrite
By bradmshannon on 11/17/2009 11:22:43 AM , Rating: 1
What's wrong with communist slander? Oh and what's wrong with muslim extremist slander? The death panel thing is just dumb...obviously, it won't be called that, but the fact that the goverment wants to control who gets care and who doesn't is still there.


RE: Hypocrite
By joshuasims1981 on 11/17/2009 11:27:35 AM , Rating: 2
Oh for the love of....

Slander -

Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures, etc.

What's wrong with it? It's illegal.


RE: Hypocrite
By bradmshannon on 11/17/09, Rating: -1
RE: Hypocrite
By ClownPuncher on 11/17/2009 11:37:06 AM , Rating: 2
Since Obama is neither a communist nor a Muslim, I guess we should start there.


RE: Hypocrite
By Smilin on 11/17/2009 5:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
He's a fundamentalist black Christian under the tuteledge of radical preacher Jeremiah Wright and he is a Muslim. No wait.. black Christian er Muslim uh. sh1t..got myself a paradox... He's a f'n Kenyan, that's it!!!

Right wingers must get headaches a lot. :P


RE: Hypocrite
By straycat74 on 11/17/2009 11:47:08 PM , Rating: 1
Search for Obamas muslim faith.


RE: Hypocrite
By joshuasims1981 on 11/17/2009 11:51:00 AM , Rating: 5
*sighs*

Alright, let's take a step back on this one. Your blood pressure is getting a little high here as you keep talking yourself into a corner. You're missing the point.

quote:
Birther movement, death panels, muslim and communist slander, "terrorist fist bump"...


He is referring to the accusations that Obama is both Muslim and Communist. Falsely verbally accusing someone of a negative trait in a public forum is slander. It is also called deformation of character. It is illegal.

Now, that being said, extremism in any form is, indeed, not what I would call a positive trait. I'm not going to degenerate this into a religious screaming match by drawing parallels between Muslim extremism and Christian fundamentalism.

What I AM going to do, is point out that Communism is a form of economic control, similar socialism, in direct opposition to Capitalism.

Generally, communism, and socialism to a greater degree, means that people work towards the betterment of the community as a whole, rather than for their own betterment.

Capitalism says that people working for their own advancement benefits society as a whole.

Obviously going either direction without any regard doesn't work. People are inherently self-serving so pure communism doesn't work. By exactly the same token, pure capitalism doesn't work for the same reason, because without some regulation (which by definition makes them lean back towards communism), you end up with what essentially is a feudal system in which the rich and successful control EVERYTHING.

Our own, current system is a balance between the two, with the more liberal pushing for more regulation, driving the market more towards a communist, well, rather a socialist, system, and the conservatives pushing for lighter regulation, pushing more towards a purely capitalist system.


RE: Hypocrite
By bradmshannon on 11/17/2009 12:24:02 PM , Rating: 3
Very good post! I vote it worth reading, but I can't :)

However, I don't totally agree with you about Obama not being Muslim. While he may not currently be Muslim, he certainly has closer ties to that religion then any other President in history. Would you agree?

I agree with everything that you said about Communism and Capitalism. However, our country was founded on and has always been a capitalistic country.

Do you think we should change and become a more socialistic/communistic country? I, for one, do not. I realize that I am probably in a minority on that opinion on this blog, but it's the way I feel. I wish that we could stop most, if not all of our socialist programs in this country, but that is nearly impossible. Our government has grown tremendously, and that is cause for alarm to me.

I believe that government is there to protect and serve...NOT to take and distribute how they see fit.


RE: Hypocrite
By joshuasims1981 on 11/17/2009 1:25:56 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
However, I don't totally agree with you about Obama not being Muslim. While he may not currently be Muslim, he certainly has closer ties to that religion then any other President in history. Would you agree?


I would certainly agree. However, I don't see this as a bad thing, given the Islamic population of the world.

As far as the socio-economic model, I'm a little from column A and a little from column B.

I am by no means in favor of most of the socialized programs out there, but I think that regulation on business should sometimes be more strict, particularly in certain markets like oil and gas, utilities, etc. where the free market model doesn't apply. The idea that people vote with their wallets in these niches is false because the choice is basically pay up or do without, and I, for one, don't really want to live like I'm in a third world country.


RE: Hypocrite
By bradmshannon on 11/17/2009 1:42:45 PM , Rating: 2
I think the best system is capitalism with regulation, but the Gov has proven that they can't do this without serious corruption. I'm not really sure what the solution to that is, and there may not be a better one :(


RE: Hypocrite
By Spuke on 11/17/2009 3:02:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but I think that regulation on business should sometimes be more strict, particularly in certain markets like oil and gas, utilities, etc. where the free market model doesn't apply.
Where I live we all have propane for heating and it's free market.

The Bad?
If you don't pay, they won't refill your tank no matter how cold it is. And propane prices follow gas (oil) prices. Even when it's "low", it's still expensive compared to public utility natural gas. When it's high? LOL!

The Good?
I can use whatever propane company I want (switching to a locally owned company next week). If I don't use any I don't pay for any. In the late spring, summer and early fall that generally means I pay nothing, literally. I haven't filled since the end of April and I still have 40 gallons left.


RE: Hypocrite
By ClownPuncher on 11/17/2009 1:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
The police and fire department, paved roads, water reserviors, basically anything that you are taxed for and the government provides a service for are all socialist things.


RE: Hypocrite
By Steve1981 on 11/17/2009 3:56:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
for are all socialist things.


Paying taxes so government can provide national defense, law and order, and infrastructure isn't socialism. Those are essential functions of any government, as without them a society could not exist (at least not for long).

From Websters:

quote:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state


Socialism doesn't advocate that we all get taxed to maintain the framework of society. Socialism advocates that you have no taxes to pay because you yourself own diddly squat.


RE: Hypocrite
By ClownPuncher on 11/17/2009 4:32:25 PM , Rating: 3
You're confusing Stalinism and Socialism. Those essential functions the government provides in any country are...wait for it...still socialist ideals.

There are many flavors of socialism, and if you think they are all the same, I don't know what to tell you.

Personally, I don't care for socialism, but I also don't care for completely unregulated capitalism.

People mention 1984 and Animal Farm, which are both good books. One might read Brave New World also.


RE: Hypocrite
By Steve1981 on 11/17/2009 5:15:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You're confusing Stalinism and Socialism....There are many flavors of socialism, and if you think they are all the same, I don't know what to tell you.


While there might be many "flavors" of socialism, it is defined (as noted above) as government/collective control over the means of production and distribution of goods. In other words, you do what the government tells you to do, and you get what the government says you will get. You don't need taxes because...what's the point?

quote:
Those essential functions the government provides in any country are...wait for it...still socialist ideals.


They're the ideals and job of every government, there is nothing especially "socialist" about them; re-read the definition. For example: by taxing us and using that money to pay contractors to build and maintain roadways, the government does not have any control over the means of production and distribution of any goods. The populace has simply opted to work socially (big difference from socialism even if they sound and appear similar on the face of things) and build infrastructure that would have a net positive impact for society, but that individually we would be unable to make.

quote:
Personally, I don't care for socialism, but I also don't care for completely unregulated capitalism...People mention 1984 and Animal Farm, which are both good books. One might read Brave New World also.


I don't believe in unregulated capitalism either, and I've read all of the above. FWIW, I believe Madison said it the best with

quote:
If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.


RE: Hypocrite
By ClownPuncher on 11/17/2009 5:24:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

While there might be many "flavors" of socialism, it is defined (as noted above) as government/collective control over the means of production and distribution of goods. In other words, you do what the government tells you to do, and you get what the government says you will get. You don't need taxes because...what's the point?


Most forms do, yes.

quote:
Libertarian socialism (including social anarchism and libertarian Marxism) rejects state control and ownership of the economy altogether and advocates direct collective ownership of the means of production via co-operative workers' councils and workplace democracy.


Like I said, there are MANY different types of socialism.


RE: Hypocrite
By Steve1981 on 11/17/2009 5:36:25 PM , Rating: 2
Now we're getting into semantics.

That someone devised some idea of how to run things and came up with an oxymoron of a name like libertarian socialism doesn't make it socialism, although it might share a characteristic or two with socialism. It's like comparing a lion and a dandelion.


RE: Hypocrite
By ClownPuncher on 11/17/2009 5:50:57 PM , Rating: 2
No, feel free to read up if you're interested, but you're definitely incorrect about that. Many forms of socialism are akin to anarchism, which, to an extent, libertarians are as well. There are so many schools of thought on the political spectrum, many seem to not understand that politics are NOT a straight line, with conservative on one end and liberal on the other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism


RE: Hypocrite
By Steve1981 on 11/17/2009 6:08:42 PM , Rating: 2
I understand what you're saying and agree with this sentiment:

quote:
There are so many schools of thought on the political spectrum, many seem to not understand that politics are NOT a straight line, with conservative on one end and liberal on the other.


However, when I talk about socialism, I'm talking about the textbook (or in this case Websters) definition, not encompassing the numerous other different theories that have the word "social" or even "socialism" somewhere in their name. You might not see eye to eye with me on that, but there it is.


RE: Hypocrite
By Iaiken on 11/17/2009 11:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
Last time I checked, communism wasn't illegal in the US, so engaging in slander of it and it's supporters is most certainly illegal.

Regardless of whether it supports your agenda, a lie is a lie.


RE: Hypocrite
By Iaiken on 11/17/2009 11:28:51 AM , Rating: 2
This is a really good example and a recent one:

http://green.autoblog.com/2009/10/02/fox-news-crit...


RE: Hypocrite
By AlexWade on 11/17/2009 12:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
It is just like under W. Bush. Bush cried the blues about MSNBC, which is just like Fox News but with lower ratings and they worship the left instead of the right. The only difference is the so-called news station.

The problem all major news organizations have an agenda. In order to find out the dirty secrets of the government, you have to watch the news that has a bias against that political party. Taking Fox News, Fox will ignore the double-standard of any Republicans while gleefully exposing the same double-standards of the Democrats. Taking MSNBC, MSNBC will ignore the double-standard of any Democrats while gleefully exposing the same double-standards of the Republicans. As far as I'm concerned, none of them are worthy of my time or attention because they are none of them balanced.

For a fact, cable news is all about entertainment and not news. Anyone who says otherwise is kidding themselves. Fox has perfected this to an art. What makes me angry is how openly biased these news organizations are. Jon Stewart said it well on the Daily Show, what happened to investigative journalism? This was when the ACORN scandal with people posing as pimps broke out. News organizations worship their political party, and we the public are always screwed.

It is so hard to find the truth today.


RE: Hypocrite
By kattanna on 11/17/2009 3:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is so hard to find the truth today.


aint that the truth.

while its always been a good idea to check multiple news sources to get a more accurate picture of whats going on, nowadays its must to get even a glimmer of what might actually have happened. now its all opinion and gossip with maybe a line or 2 of truth.

really sad.

i also find that i get better, and more accurate news of whats going on in this country, usa, by reading foreign news sources.


“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls
Related Articles
China Censors 1.8 Million Blogs
March 6, 2007, 7:16 AM
botimage
Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki