Someone's still sore that he lost the race for the Illinois Senate against some guy with "Hussein" for a middle name.

The fact that he's President now must really eat away at him.

*news

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by NetRunner.

Some big fat *lies being told.

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by kronosposeidon.

Now I know what Bat Shit Crazy is

Keyes, you are not a laughing matter either.

>> ^rougy:
Keyes, you are not a laughing matter either.


Funny, I was laughing...

Watching him speak, I keep thinking of what Adam Savage (MythBusters) calls, "Lazy Arrogance." I guess it's when you assume your side is so unassailable, so absolutely correct, that you can smile knowingly while calling the president things like "Abomination." If he were correcting a child who calls color of the sky 'pink' in the same tone, it would be irritating. But the claims he is making in this clip, and the way he delivers them, relegates him (and his ilk) to carnival freakshow.

At least pretend to not be such an arrogant asshole, Keyes. Then, perhaps, people will listen to what you're saying and just call your arguments bat-shit insane.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Wow, this guy makes Rush Limbaugh seem like the moderate voice of reason ...

Wow, he certainly has a distorted reality.

Just because someone has a different opinion doesn't mean they are insane....I for one agree with everything in this video except the citizenship part--and only because I don't know enough about that issue to argue one way or another.

If you are going to call this presentation insane, I think you better have some pretty strong evidence supporting your claims. By the way, calling your opponent insane or attacking his points does not constitute evidence for your own.

^Um... were we watching the same video?

Downvote for slandering Grimm without evidence.

It's not so much the difference of opinion as it is the craziness of opinion. He goes commie-godwin right off the bat, and then segues into infanticide? Really? You agree with that?

I don't imagine Alan Keyes would allow himself to be put through a psychological evaluation, so I can't get you official clinical documentation, but you are free to watch this video over and over to try to spot the glaring, bald-faced circumstantial evidence.

The man is troubled...

"The man is an obamanation!"

What is so insane about this video? Irrationality is an element of insanity, and Keyes has a good bit of ratiocination to back up his assertions. I happen to disagree with almost everything he's said... He doesn't understand who the president really is for starters. But INSANE? Nope.

This isn't just crazy, this is 'I might assassinate someone' crazy.

For those questioning it... the word 'insanity' is being used here to refer to disproven positions that deny reality to such a degree that it's useless for mainstream society to try to speak with the person.

>> ^chilaxe:
For those questioning it... the word 'insanity' is being used here to refer to disproven positions that deny reality to such a degree that it's useless for mainstream society to try to speak with the person.


I always hear about how true something is, but I never see any evidence for it. Can you please provide some evidence for the following:

1. Obama has no any communist/socialist tendencies
2. Nationalization and large public debt (currently $65 trillion, greater than the world GDP) in no way threatens the future of the US
3. Obama did not support infanticide in the named instance
4. Obama's relatives (including his grandma) did not claim he was born in kenya
5. Obama's mom could legally transfer citizenship
6. Obama's is not supporting a plan where the government pays for mortgages
7. Evidence a bankrupt government can fix a bankrupt economy
8. Evidence printing money out of thin air can correct a recession

I'm sorry but these are valid questions, theres nothing "insane" about them. If someone can provide supporting evidence for all 8 of those points I'll personally go through and watch your entire personal queue. Given how "insane" his claims were, the evidence should be really easy to find.

"1. Obama has no any communist/socialist tendencies"


As a American who lives in Europe, I can confirm that Obama is most definitely not socialist. I'll also add the point that every modern country that I've visited in Europe (most have socialist tendencies) has their shit more on the ball than the US Government. With a military budget of almost 500 billion, no universal health-care, primitive public transportation, and a banking system that's bankrupting the world. I don't see what where the great fear of Socialism even comes from. You should try getting out of your little trailer-park more often.

^Let me rephrase what you just said,

1. "I live in ____"
2. "Other countries I've visited are _____"
3. "The US government has a _____ budget"
4. "The US government has no _____"
5. "The US has primitive _____"
6. "The US banking system is _____"
7. "You live in _____"
8. "therefore, Obama is not socialist"

Can you explain how #1-7 support #8, regardless of what is in the blanks?

Heres a counter-proof for you
1. "God says Obama is a socialist"
2. "therefore, Obama is a socialist"

Honestly, you would be better getting your evidence from the bible. At least then you could make up logic which actually supports your claims.

imstellar28 spends his spare time raping puppies.

What? Prove he doesn't!

Imstellar, you deny mainstream consensus in economics and in science in general, and probably many other areas.

Since you don't have a PhD in any of those areas, you arrived at your certitude simply because you watched some videos or read books in which the speaker spoke passionately and with certitude.

The world is far too complex for an internet commentator with no credentials to refute mainstream consensus among trained economists and scientists.

imstellar, this is a problem of definition. What, exactly, makes someone a "socialist"? Some people are working from the description of supporting any further amount of nationalization no matter how small, some people are working from thoroughly supporting it all the way to communism.

So, socialist compared to what? Here in Europe, Obama would be right-wing with the rest of the US political system. I would argue that with the current general usage of the word socialist, Obama is not. Perhaps "more socialist" compared to other people (if you want to put it in non-useful terms like that) but certainly not *a* socialist.

Anyway, how is that simple trait important without context anyway? It depends *what* you want to nationalise. There are things the free market simply doesn't do as well - there are 100 different scenarios in game theory which turn the perfect market into a complete mess. That is reality; we need to be pragmatic, not idealogical.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough.
1. Living in close personal contact with socialists. I've seen a socialist!
2. Obama in no way resembles the socialists that I have seen or have read about. So is therefore very unlikely to be one.

So my argument goes more like this.
a. A circle is round.
b. A square has 4 sides.
c. In this universe, a circle is probably not a square.


I also added the separate point.
1: That having close personal contact with Socialistic policies. I have seen that the result of these policies are in no way inferior to the US system. In fact, I've noted that in many ways these policies are advanced over our policies (ie. A "military budget of almost 500 billion, no universal health-care, primitive public transportation, and a banking system that's bankrupting the world.").
2. We need not be afraid of the term "socialism".

So my argument goes more like this.
a. Kittens are gentle.
b. Gentle does not describe danger.
c. We need not fear the kitten.

I also deny mainstream consensus in religion, yet I've never read the entire bible--do you have a problem with that? If I was alive 600 years ago, would you have a problem if I didn't think the earth was flat? How about 3000 years ago if I didn't believe that disease was caused by evil spirits? If theres not evidence supporting the consensus, why should I accept it? I am a scientific person so I require scientific evidence for my beliefs. If you don't have evidence for what you are saying, you might as well be quoting the bible.

I'm not refuting anything, I'm asking a question: please provide evidence supporting the consensus. I have yet to ever receive an answer. You and others are making a claim here "Alan Keyes is insane" yet nobody has provided a single reason for this. I'm not making any claims here, I'm asking a question!

Again, if this man's claims are insane the evidence should by definition be readily available--why has nobody provided it, especially if I said I will watch your entire personal queue?

>> ^chilaxe:
Imstellar, you deny mainstream consensus in economics and in science in general, and probably many other areas.
Since you don't have a PhD in any of those areas, you arrived at your certitude simply because you watched some videos or read books in which the speaker spoke passionately and with certitude.
The world is far too complex for an internet commentator with no credentials to refute mainstream consensus among trained economists and scientists.

If there is no opposition we are simply complicit.

There should always be an opposing argument to every argument. With out the opposition how would we formulate a proper opinion on what is right, and what is not.

So, just because the majority thinks he is crazy, does not mean that he is or is not. However; if we refuse to analyze his statements, we are no better than sheep.

All politicians have an agenda, this does not detract from their views. However off base they may appear.

If Republicans (and aynstellar) want to be taken seriously, I'd advise them to not lead off with 'Yer A Commie'. I'd say the same thing to Democrats who call Republicans Nazis. It just makes you sound like an irrational, hyper-partisan reactionary. Commie-Godwin is no more acceptable than Nazi-Godwin.

>> ^imstellar28:
I'm not refuting anything, I'm asking a question: please provide evidence supporting the consensus. I have yet to ever receive an answer. You and others are making a claim here "Alan Keyes is insane" yet nobody has provided a single reason for this. I'm not making any claims here, I'm asking a question!
Again, if this man's claims are insane the evidence should by definition be readily available--why has nobody provided it, especially if I said I will watch your entire personal queue?


People said he was insane colloquially, probably because of several of his views being percieved as far from reality. I don't think anyone here is really saying he his clinically insane, despite a couple comparisons being drawn.

The main problems I believe include him calling Obama a "radical socialist", which we've gone over already. That appraisal is waaay off. He takes it to the extreme like some of his other points, like Obama somehow single-handedly destroying the USA. He spins the infanticide thing like crazy, removing all context whatsoever and turning it into something like "Obama supports killing babies", literally inferring that's his general stance. Like it applies to every baby, like he personally wants them dead. Again, way off reality.

And the Obama not actually being president thing? Wow. He says it isn't a laughing matter. It is. The level of fact-ignoring is worse than creationism.

1. These accusations have been rebutted time and time again, yet they keep repeating the same old arguments. For example: "He refused to show his documents!" comes up EVERY SINGLE TIME. At one point during his campaign this came up. Later on he provided the documents. They're on the web even. Anyone can see his birth certificate. But, no, it keeps getting repeated as a "reason" and "evidence". Let's keep calling this orange a banana over and over and over and...

2. It's on technicalities anyway. Blindly trying to apply law without regard to it's original intent. Even if some obscure law changed his status, why would it even matter? With a straight face can you make the argument that a word in our language determined by arbitrary law is more important than evaluating the situation itself? You know, how a judge would? To determine whether one is qualified would you not look at the evidence and use reason?

I'm sure there's more I'm forgetting that he said. His appraisals of reality are simply in the extreme, presented as black and white issues, with no context.

This is why he is being colloquially labelled as crazy... just because he's "on the same side" as others who make rational arguments against, say, economic stimulation, doesn't mean HIS arguments or he himself is rational.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'alan keyes, obama, barack' to 'alan keyes, obama, barack, communism' - edited by doogle

"These accusations have been rebutted time and time again"

I keep hearing this, so why can't someone point me to the article/video/website where they were rebutted?

>> ^imstellar28:
"These accusations have been rebutted time and time again"
I keep hearing this, so why can't someone point me to the article/video/website where they were rebutted?


Here's a Snopes article on the birth certificate issue. It took moments to google and read.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthcertificate.asp

The birth certificate itself.
http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg

And a follow up article.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2008/jun/27/obamas-birth-certificate-part-ii/

^Okay, the picture of a birth certificate is a piece of evidence. Let me just preface that I could care less where he was born or if he is a technically a citizen. I care a lot more about the other issues. Still, I haven't found any conclusive evidence either way. If the contrary evidence below didn't exist, I agree the birth certificate would be enough. However, I have seen contradictory evidence so at this point I cannot be confident in the truth. That doesn't mean I am politically biased, it means I make decisions based on the evidence I have, not faith.

How do you respond to this:

"According to Obama's Kenyan (paternal) grandmother, as well as his half-brother and half-sister, Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya, not in Hawaii as the Democratic candidate for president claims. His grandmother bragged that her grandson is about to be President of the United States and is so proud because she was present DURING HIS BIRTH IN KENYA, in the delivery room.

A few months back, a birth certificate WAS posted on the internet which shows that Obama was born in Hawaii. Yet some say this birth certificate is a forgery and again, his grandmother states that she was present at the birth, in Kenya. So what is the truth?

One explanation is that Obama's mother Ann Dunham, flew to Kenya in 1961 with Obama's father to meet his family. According to some news reports, Ann Dunham, was not accepted well by her husband's family because she was white:

"Obama's family did not take to Stanley Ann Dunham Obama very well, because she was white, according to Sarah Obama. Shortly after she arrived in Kenya Stanley Ann decided to return to Hawaii because she later said, she did not like how Muslim men treated their wives in Kenya. However, because she was near term the airline would not let her fly until after the birth of her baby. Obama's grandmother said the baby—Barack Hussein Obama, Jr.—was born in Kenya and that shortly after he was born, Stanley Ann returned to Hawaii."

However, by the time she wanted to leave Kenya, it was during the late stages of her pregnancy. She was not able to board a plane because the airlines wouldn't allow women so close to birth to fly. It is instead believed, that Barack Hussein Obama was born in Kenya as his grandmother apparently stated. Then, after he was born, his mother returned with him to Hawaii where his birth was REGISTERED on or about August 8th, 1961, in the public records office in Hawaii.

There is also a discrepancy in what hospital Barack Hussein Obama was born in, even if he was born in Hawaii. Reports by his own sister in two separate interviews state that he was born at two different hospitals-- Kapiolani Hospital and Queens Hospital--in Honolulu."

The testimony of his grandmother or sisters could be falsified, but so could the birth certificate. Given the information presented here, how can one make an honest conclusion either way?

^ I respond to that in this way. There are many many people who wish to prove the story you've posted. If there were some truth to it then were is the evidence? With all the checking of the Health Department, Births Register, etc, surely something would have come up.

All the checks of government departments and official sources point to Obama being born where and when he claims.

It's a nice story, but without evidence it's simply a story.

^that is a faith based argument, and I don't believe in using faith to answer scientific questions. Its okay if you have faith that Obama really is a citizen, but it does not constitute proof when someone asks you for evidence of such a claim.

The answer to the question is of no significance to me because I don't believe in the natural born requirement anyways. However Obama got to be a citizen, he is undoubtedly a citizen now--and that is enough for me.

^ I've provided you with evidence. Given that evidence I conclude that my position is more reasonable than your position. But sure, no one can be 100% sure of anything.

For the record, I don't believe it to be a "scientific" question at all (whatever that means, questions are not really scientific, the method of gaining an answer is), but a purely political one, raised for political purposes.

^is your birth location a political question? Its okay you believe what you do, but as far as you've shown, its a faith-based conclusion. Believing the birth certificate while not believing the eyewitness testimony isn't science, its faith.

As I stated, I have no political stake in where Obama was born. My only interest is in the truth, and with the current evidence, I cannot come to a conclusion either way.

It's just a question. The motives are political.

>> ^gwiz665:
It's just a question. The motives are political.

That is conjecture. How can you speak for the motives of others?

If you doubt US state documents, the burden of proof is on you to prove them wrong.

Trying to unseat the president because of "anecdotal evidence" doesn't have a legal leg to stand on.

Not all evidence is equal, despite the malicious gullibility of the Anne Coulters of the world.

^chilaxe, that is a faith-based argument. You are placing faith in the document simply because it has US stamped on it, and you are ignoring all contrary evidence. How many illegal immigrants obtain fraudulent documents every year?

For practical every-day purposes, authority is enough for evidence. Authority establishes credibility by being credible when checked, not the other way around. It means that when pressed, the information can be validated. Well, we are pressing the issue and its not enough to cite authority as evidence in and of itself.

>> ^imstellar28:
I am a scientific person so I require scientific evidence for my beliefs.

I'm not sure what would constitute scientific evidence in relation to some of these questions.

Obama's citizenship cannot be scientifically verified, nor must it be, as it is a legal question. Obama provided the evidence necessary to meet the legal threshold. Can you prove your citizenship scientifically? No, of course not. Nobody can. If you 'require scientific evidence'... well, good luck with that.

Socialism is a broad term and means different things to different people. It would be difficult to make a case without stating a clear definition to work against. Heck, income tax is a socialist system, so anyone with a job has socialist tendencies (or is a federal criminal).

Nationalization and debt... well, how about as a preliminary you scientifically demonstrate that we have a large public debt. Also, scientifically demonstrate that we have a bankrupt government and that money can be produced spontaneously from atmospheric gases. Once you've done that, I'll see what I can do.

As a "scientific person" you should know that disbelief is the default stance. Nobody has to prove Obama doesn't support infanticide until someone produces evidence that he does.

Obama's grandma's claims are irrelevant as I've detailed above. He has met the legal threshold for proving his citizenship and I'm not sure it's possible to hold him to any higher standard.

#6... Unfortunately, he is. Read the proposal yourself if you want the evidence.

"I also deny mainstream consensus in religion, yet I've never read the entire bible--do you have a problem with that "

It's consensus in academia rather than in society as whole that's relevant, and consensus on religion among academics doesn't claim that deities exists, because in academia claims have to be defended. Consensus among scientists specifically is that religions have no place in investigations of the world.

"If I was alive 600 years ago, would you have a problem if I didn't think the earth was flat? How about 3000 years ago if I didn't believe that disease was caused by evil spirits? "

Future consensuses often start as fringe theories, but the problem is that at any given time there are endless fringe theories, all of them believed in passionately, and most of them go nowhere.

"If theres not evidence supporting the consensus, why should I accept it? "

The more one's expertise grows in their specialized area, the more they realize how much there is that they don't know in areas outside of their expertise.

John McCain was born in Panama.

upvote for the comments.

Imstellar, you are calling "weak evidence" faith. A birth certificate is evidence. How strong is a matter of debate. It is a physical observeration you make when you see a birth certificate. And since birth certificates tend to be created at someone's birth (another physical observation), then seeing a birth certificate (in a typical context) implies someone was born. Faith would be believing someone was or was not born despite seeing any number or lack of birth certificates. Faith is explicitly believing for the sake of believing. As soon as reality influences your belief it is not faith.

Anyway, we have two models here of what happened. As scientists we simply have to see which model fits reality best - ie, which appears most likely.

So, what is more likely:

- The personal testimony was truthful, and
- He was able to get by checks going back into the country, and
- Was then able to circumvent registration and get a birth certificate saying he was born inside that hospital

OR

- The personal testimony was simply made-up or a misunderstanding


Come on, this is anecdotal evidence (the worst kind) against physical documentation. Of course you can't know 100% either way, but like in all of science, what is the likelihood of one compared to the other? What we have available is certainly not rigorous, but that just means we can't get that much closer to being certain, not that it's automatically 50/50 (a fallacy in its own, anyway).

Documents can be falsified but anecdotes are worthless.

I guess I'll have a go at this MadLib:

1. Obama has no any communist/socialist tendencies
2. Nationalization and large public debt (currently $65 trillion, greater than the world GDP) in no way threatens the future of the US
3. Obama did not support infanticide in the named instance
4. Obama's relatives (including his grandma) did not claim he was born in kenya
5. Obama's mom could legally transfer citizenship
6. Obama's is not supporting a plan where the government pays for mortgages
7. Evidence a bankrupt government can fix a bankrupt economy
8. Evidence printing money out of thin air can correct a recession

--

1. You're probably right, Mr. McCarthy.
2. You're right.
3. "Barack Obama: Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law." -http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Pres_3.htm
4. They did claim he was born there. And Dick Cheney claimed that we would be greeted as liberators. people can claim whatever they want, but that doesn't make it true.
5. Is this even relevant?
6. You're right.
7. A government that is not bankrupt can't solve a bankrupt economy. Governments only create more problems. So you're right again.
8. Printing money out of thin air creates inflation. Doing so during a recession causes hyperinflation. You are correct.

^How about:
--
1. If you would not sell your mother to a pimp then you have some socialist tendencies, the question as you phrase it is meaningless. Keyes' claim of "Radical Communist" would be something like a plan to nationalize all the factories in the US. The President has not taken this position in word or practice => he is not a practicing radical communist .
2. Is not a point in contention, nor was it the president's doing. He also makes his statements in the English language, which is not contentious, and irrelevant to the absurdity of his other claims
3. "Barack Obama: Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law." -http://www.ontheissues.org/2008_Pres_3.htm
So Keyes is either lying, or negligently misinformed => no basing his assessment on reality
4. Obama claimed he was born in Hawaii. And Provided legal documents to support the claim, which the state of Hawaii claims to be valid. If you question this please provide some documented physical evidence that something other than the official documented story took place.
5. This is only relevant if evidence can be found to shown that his birth certificate is a forgery.
6. Obama is supporting a plan which buys and renegotiates mortgages (it's on the whitehouse website), which is not the same thing as buying people out of them as Keyes claims, again he is lying or negligently misinformed.
7. Since all currency is concocted out of thin air, and all economies are constructed, out of whole cloth, by governments, non-involvement of government means no economy beyond barter. Since non-intervention would mean no economy as we know it, intervention is needed, even just to assert that a dollar has value, and that ownership has meaning. The question is not if intervention but how much, and whether less is better than more, and just for reference, consider that we've been trying less for a while now, and it looks not so good.
8. Printing money out of thin air is the entire basis of our economic system, it always causes inflation, even when banks do it, which is where our current problem comes from. There is no, non-ideological (non faith based), reason to presume that the government doing it will be worse than banks doing it, though it may very well not be any better either. Pretending that ANY money is not just pulled out of the air is either propaganda, or ignorance, given his position as a professional public figure I would forgive Keyes neither.

^ very insightful and well-defended.

Where the hell is your avatar?

No claim can be made that B. Hussein Obama didn't embrace the marxist Black Liberation theology of "non"-insane Reverend Jeremiah Wright as he sat in the pew for 20+ years.

No claim can be made that there are no documents relating to the birth of B. Hussein Obama still being hidden from the public, both in Hawaii and Kenya.

Nowhere can you find the hospital where B. Hussein Obama was born, nor the name of the doctor who delivered him, nor one single living soul who says they witnessed his birth in Hawaii.

No one can claim B. Hussein Obama is for strong national borders and against amnesty for illegal aliens.

No one can claim B. Hussein Obama is a pro-free-market, Constitution-abiding, anti-class-warfare, tradition-respecting, freedom-loving individualist who is strong on national defense.

For fuck's sake, QM...I was actually starting to like you.

I'm not going to scurry around and search for links to prove the obvious to you.

You still think that G.W. Bush was one of the greatest presidents ever.

I have you on my ignore list, and with good reason, because every time I click on that hidden field to see your embarrassing ignorance...I feel like I tricked myself into giving a fuck what you have to say.

You've been wrong about damned near everything.

When will you own up to that?

QM's comment is blatant troll-bait.

IM refuses to accept any evidence contrary to his position. Again, in both cases, you may as well be talking to a brick wall.

Many valid responses have been given to imstellar's list. He has either ignored them or dismissed them without giving a reason why.

Again. Troll-bait.

>> ^eatbolt:
you can smile knowingly while calling the president things like "Abomination."


more like Obamanation

"...we're either going to stop him or the united states of america will cease to exist."

The reporter should have pressed him on what he meant by 'stop him'.

He makes every bit of sence after 2:25 elapsed.

imstellar28 is INSANE!

And no claim can be made against it!

Obama...not socialist...

Some of you are saying Obama isn't a socialist because he hasn't called for the nationalization of ALL industry (yet). So - you're trying to tell us that he ISN'T a socialist because he hasn't takes the USA from 100% private to 100% public in one fell swoop.

That's stupid. That's "I wear a thong on my head in public dur dur dur" stupid.

Obama's administration has partly nationalized the car industry. They are openly discussing partial nationalization of the banking industry. They HAVE partly nationalized the health care system by sneaking in provisions into the so-called 'stimulus' bill. They are openly discussing nationalization of the energy industry and many infrastructure projects. His background in education was with socialsits such as Alynski and socialist/terrorists like Ayers. His public speeches, his plans, and his desires all smack of either partial or complete socialization and government control of just about every aspect of life.

He's a socialist. Deal with it. How some of you can actually go through life thinking he ISN'T a socialist is beyond comprehension. Keyes may be exaggerating when it come to the citizenship thing, but when he calls Obama a communist/socialist he is 100% on the money.

How about: No one disputes that Obama's mother was born in Kansas. Therefore, Obama's mother is a citzen. Children born of American citizens (even abroad) are themselves American citizens. People have tried to argue that citizens born abroad are not natural-born citizens, but the Supreme Court has never ruled on it (probably because they think it's pretty freaking obvious).

Good point, direpickle! You're a genius!

I hope everyone upvotes your unsifted video so you finally get your star!

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Obama's administration has partly nationalized the car industry. They are openly discussing partial nationalization of the banking industry.

Buying common stock in companies is not nationalization, any more than the government hiring people constitutes "nationalizing" their labor. Conflating the two shows either a lack of understanding or an attempt to mislead.

will he blend?

Buying common stock in companies is not nationalization, any more than the government hiring people constitutes "nationalizing" their labor

It is no wonder Obama and his socialist cronies can sucker everyone so easily when it is full of so many people like this. When the GOVERNMENT buys stock in a company, that is nationalization. You can pretend otherwise all you want, but the inescapable fact is that when the government tells a company "If you want $800 billion in bailout money then you're going to do things how WE tell you..." then that is nationalization.

Have you read what Obama wants in exchange for his bailouts? Among other things, the feds want to set pay rates for employees, force unions on companies, eliminate private votes in unions, tell companies what they can and cannot build, dictate who does and doesn't get loans, who gets medical care, and all kinds of other day to day operative processes that should be the sole decision of the COMPANY - not the government. That's nationalization for all intents and purposes.

You and those like you are parsing semantics... Playing a little word game to make what Barry-Boy is doing sound less onerous by saying that it isn't REALLY 'socialism' because the government is not completely 100% the owner of the business itself. I'm saying that it is socialism because the government is the one making the rules, and deciding who/what/where/when/why/how the company is run.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has webbed feet, and tastes good with orange sauce then it IS a duck. Quit trying to say Hussein-O isn't what he is. You should quit living a lie and actually embrace it. Just come out and admit it. You think socialism is better, and you're glad your boy is pushing it. Only cowards try to hide what they are.

The corporations are nationalizing themselves, then, by begging for money from the government. The government is (rightly) setting stipulations, unlike when we gave the banks billions and let them just give it all away to their execs.

Why in the world are you all letting imstellar28 set the terms of the debate? You're jumping through hoops trying to disprove accusations about Obama because he claims you need to meet a burden of proof that he's not guilty of those things but he's yet to offer any proof that Alan Keyes isn't batshit insane. Or that he doesn't orally pleasure dogs in his spare time for that matter. Any wild accusation can be flung at people and negatives are generally difficult to impossible to prove. That's why the burden is generally one of guilt rather than innocence.

The matter of Obama's citizenship has been to the Supreme Court, they reviewed it and decided it didn't have enough merit to discuss. End of story. When the liberals wanted to protest Bush after '00 what they found was that once an election is certified there's no going back. You can try to impeach them but certified and sworn that's your elected official, even if they did commit a crime to get there. Prove the crime and convict or impeach if you think you've got a case. Welcome to the same situation the libs sat through over the last eight years. They didn't like it a lot either.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker When the GOVERNMENT buys stock in a company, that is nationalization.

Again, please check a dictionary. Nationalization implies control, not simple investment. While the government is increasing regulation as a condition of investment, they do not have day-to-day control, do not operate, run, or otherwise finance or insure these industries.

You can pretend otherwise all you want, but the inescapable fact is that when the government tells a company "If you want $800 billion in bailout money then you're going to do things how WE tell you..." then that is nationalization.

By this "logic" all regulation is nationalization, by which you stretch the definition to a useless absurdity.

If forbidding employers to sell their employees into slavery is nationalization (since it is regulation on private industry) then all laws are acts of nationalization. You can say that "regulation = nationalization" is your personal extra special definition, but since you have decided to use a word in common usage I suggest you stick to the common meaning.

You and those like you are parsing semantics... Playing a little word game to make what Barry-Boy is doing sound less onerous by saying that it isn't REALLY 'socialism'


Allow me to be clear. I would be overjoyed if the president was doing anything even vaguely socialist, but, unfortunately, he is not ( maybe when he really takes on health care *cross fingers*) . I know what socialism is, and this dumping public money into private hands shit that they are doing right now isn't even close.

>> ^drattus:
Why in the world are you all letting imstellar28 set the terms of the debate?

I'm not setting the terms of the debate...that was the list of points Keyes made in the video....did you watch it?

>> ^Throbbin:
imstellar28 is INSANE!
And no claim can be made against it!

Actually I have over two decades of evidence against it. Its here in my apartment. Behind all the cats. Wrapped in tin-foil. You wanna come see?

Materials!
Wikipedia, sock puppets, brightly colored flash cards.

Define it!
A "Nationalization, also spelled nationalization, is the act of taking an industry or assets into the public ownership of a national government or state."
B. "In business and finance, a share (also referred to as equity share) of stock means a share of ownership in a corporation (company)."

Break it down!
A. Nationalization is public/governmental ownership of a corporation.
B. Stock is a share of ownership in a corporation.

Add it up!
A + B. One example of Nationalization is the government buying stock in a company.

Todays word is "Nationalization!"

>> ^imstellar28:
>> ^drattus:
Why in the world are you all letting imstellar28 set the terms of the debate?
I'm not setting the terms of the debate...that was the list of points Keyes made in the video....did you watch it?


Of course I watched it, and personally I think he's batshit insane too. And the fact that you insist that it is a list worth considering is your terms, them going by it would be accepting it. Not a thing wrong with your taking the position of course but I'm surprised they let you do it so easily.

Personally most of it seems irrelevant to me. As I already mentioned the Surpreme Court was already asked to look at this, they considered and rejected the citizenship issue. There is no higher appeal and unless you've got new evidence of some sort there's not a lot of point in rehashing that one certainly. Much of the rest was already answered by others but if they were willing to prove stuff it doesn't seem to me they should have had to prove it seems you should at least make an effort to prove Alan Keyes isn't insane. They answered your questions even though they didn't have to and you never answered that one, just demanded that they prove it. That's the same thing I'd have said in return to you I'd think, though it was an interesting debate to read. Just based on a logical fallacy they didn't go along with so easily some time back. You don't generally have to prove a negative. The burden is on the accusation or the claim, not the defense. For both Obama and Keyes.

^drattus,

I don't know what century you were born in, but we have this new fangled thing called "science" which states that you should have evidence for your assertions. If you are going to call a man insane, and label what he says * Lies than you better back it up with more than conjecture. Until the last paragraph I haven't made a SINGLE assertion in this entire thread. Note that the only claim I made, I provided evidence for. All I did was, when confronted with dubious assertions, ask for evidence.

To address xxovercastxx's claim that this isn't science, science is a list of best known methods. Nothing more, nothing less. In physics that means controls, laser measurement, etc. In medicine that means placebos, double blind experiments, etc. In history that means eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, etc.

Barack Obama's birth location is indeed a question of science. Whether he is a socialist or not is a question of science. Whether the US has a very large national debt is a question of science. Whether he said certain things, or passed certain proposals with certain implications is a question of science. These are not matters of faith. If you think otherwise, why did you come here to debate it? Just sit in your room and pray for answers.

LOL, nice try but been there and done that I'm not going to either debate it with you or get pissed, just point out this small detail.

Proof that Obama isn't a citizen? That kind of proof? Because that's what you need. Short of that it's been to the courts and you're beating a dead horse as if it means something then waving around terms like proof which you don't seem to understand in an effort, to what? Intimidate others with your expertise? Or to just have some fun and see what you can stir up? Hard to say and it doesn't matter.

You expect people to simply disregard a citizenship that has been accepted by everyone from State authorities who put him on the ballot to the Supreme Court when they decided no information presented to them presented cause for doubt, and we're to ignore that because it *might* have been forged. it's happened before? Gee slick, when it happened before do you think maybe someone actually proved it, or just said it and assumed it was so?

I'm sorry I wasn't here for the start of this debate, but I don't think I'll offer you another day of it. And I'm surprised they offered you the last. It was a valiant effort on your part though, be it for fun or serious. Congrats for that

As far as I can tell in this thread, 5/8 of Keyes claims have been confirmed by other posters, and 3/8 have not been addressed by any posters. Funny how the world flips ass over kettle when evidence is required.

Most people hear loud, extreme words like COMMUNIST......INFANTICIDE.....NOT A CITIZEN...and assume insanity. The human mind has the capacity to filter emotion, and it is extremely useful in situations such as this...

>> ^imstellar28:
A + B. One example of Nationalization is the government buying stock in a company.

I read the WP page, the whole thing, not a cherry picked excerpt, and double checked my dictionaries. Nationalization means controlling ownership, not simply investment.

Holding common stock is not ownership in the sense of control. As a share holder of common (non-voting) stock in a company the only power I have is to contribute to the modification of the share price by selling or holding the stock.

If I got a Freddy Mac loan to buy a house would my house be "Nationalized", it has clearly been paid for by a Gov administered monopoly, they clearly have a right of ownership, as they can foreclose if I don't make my payments, but I have control, as long as I make the payments. If you think all such houses, or any stock buy, are nationalization, then I must conclude that you don't use the word in other than rhetorical terms.

Winstonfield_Pennypacker has a position, which while absurd, at least claims that the gov has practical control of the industries in question, which would make them nationalized, if it were true.

^If you want to argue that a spider has 4 legs, we might as well bust out the bibles and start quoting revelations.

Alan Keyes and Bill Kristol... lovers.

>> ^imstellar28:
^If you want to argue that a spider has 4 legs, we might as well bust out the bibles and start quoting revelations.


So... you are claiming that freddy mac funded houses are nationalized ?

>> ^imstellar28:
^If you want to argue that a spider has 4 legs, we might as well bust out the bibles and start quoting revelations.


His point is that under strict definition pretty much anything is socialism. And you're the one insisting on this strict definition being used. It's a problem of langauge and arguing semantics at the surface of a debate is meaningless.

And it's funny that pennypacker brings up:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
...saying that it isn't REALLY 'socialism' because the government is not completely 100% the owner of the business itself

The system "capitalists" endorse is certainly greater than 0% socialised. What you've been using for years is much greater than 0%. Does that make it socialism and the people behind it socialist?

Clearly a false dichotomy.

It's more of a spectrum from one side to the other... but still reality is much more complex than that - the two concepts are only even rough opposites. Debating in these simple terms of calling stuff/people socialist with shallow context is meaningless.

>> ^imstellar28:
As far as I can tell in this thread, 5/8 of Keyes claims have been confirmed by other posters, and 3/8 have not been addressed by any posters. Funny how the world flips ass over kettle when evidence is required.
Most people hear loud, extreme words like COMMUNIST......INFANTICIDE.....NOT A CITIZEN...and assume insanity. The human mind has the capacity to filter emotion, and it is extremely useful in situations such as this...


Nonsense. Sorry to be slow answering, had to take care of something else, but it's still nonsense. A couple such as Thinker gave you some points but even at that it's a big so what on some of them and he outright shot down others which you just mentioned such as infanticide. "because it was already law" isn't exactly because I like to kill babies. It's a bit closer to there is already a law on the books for that. Most didn't even agree with you on that much. Your math isn't any better than your claims that others need "evidence" while with you already rejected by the courts assertions should do.

On the so what parts, let's take the socialism thing for example. Did you go to a public school? Socialist. Does your driveway connect to a toll road you pay for each time you want to go somewhere and does all the other roads between home and destination, or do you share that burden with your fellow citizens and share the cost? Socialist. How about security, planning on hiring private guards to replace those socialist cops you aren't wanting anymore? Your own private army instead of this socialized and shared one we've got now?

As I pointed out already it's nonsense for the most part. Some more than others though. I liked this one in particular. "Evidence a bankrupt government can fix a bankrupt economy".

Let me ask you something here. Company, nation, whatever else. If they AREN'T bankrupt how are they supposed to solve a problem that they DON'T have? Of course a bankrupt country can solve a bankrupt economy, they are the only ones who can. If they aren't bankrupt they don't tend to have that problem to fix and yes, I'm pretty sure it's happened and nations have come back from it.

It's been fun and I do wish I'd been here a day or two earlier, but this one is done I'd think. Overplaying a joke just ruins it.

^On the so what parts, let's take the socialism thing for example. Did you go to a public school? Socialist.

I am by law forced to pay for public schools, and by law forced to go to school. I don't think that makes me a socialist, I think that makes me a slave.

Does your driveway connect to a toll road you pay for each time you want to go somewhere and does all the other roads between home and destination, or do you share that burden with your fellow citizens and share the cost? Socialist.

Again, I am by law forced to pay over 40 cents per gallon of gas I buy whether I use that gas for driving on public roads or not. On what grounds does using a product make me a socialist anyways? If I buy a Koran does that make me Muslim? If I buy a cheap plastic toy does that make me a communist?

How about security, planning on hiring private guards to replace those socialist cops you aren't wanting anymore? Your own private army instead of this socialized and shared one we've got now?

Can you personally think of any ways to build schools, roads, or fund law enforcement which don't involve physical violence or forced taxation? If you can't, does that settle the question?

You're forced by law only if you live here, you could always move. US expats are all over the world enjoying various other forms of government, some involve zero tax or very low tax. If you're paying taxes here there's one of two reasons. You've decided to stay and enjoy the benefits but want to complain about the cost anyway, or you're too young to move and need to blame your parents instead. Go ahead and blame them, I'll wait.

All done? Ok. If you want tips on tax havens check the following page for starters on what to look for, it describes what it calls "no or nominal taxes" nations. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_haven

You are in a democracy and the citizens did vote for change, I happen to have some real questions about the man as well but just because some have questions, or worse real fears, that doesn't make our concerns any more important than the rest of the nations. Democracy, elections, results matter and all of that good stuff. Try again next time if you want a different type of change.

To the meat of it, yes, this does answer my question but not in the way that you intend I don't think. I'll quote it again so we don't get confused on what part.

>> ^imstellar28:
^Can you personally think of any ways to build schools, roads, or fund law enforcement which don't involve physical violence or forced taxation? If you can't, does that settle the question?


I'll ask you the exact same question. You happen to live in a democracy. A democracy that has decided that it wants the police, wants the roads, wants the schools. Not just this nation but civilized nations for as long as history records have built roads for public use and trade. Don't like it? Go somewhere where the majority don't want those things. Unless of course you can figure out a way to provide those things without taxes. Socialism is being used mostly as an empty buzzword to scare people who don't understand what it means. We've always been socialist, and capitalist, and a couple of other things besides. So have most other nations at least in modern times. Just in various aspects of our lives or economy. The debate is simply in degree. If you or Keyes object to programs name them and offer the reasons, don't toss empty buzzwords. Specifics I might even agree with. You never know.

Change enough minds to win the next election and with someone who agrees with you, change your address, or adapt.

^so....I shot down your assertions with legitimate responses, and your 0/3 on answering questions posed back at you? Changing the subject, while an effective way to protect your ego, is a rather uninteresting way to debate.

I'll close with this one, it's late and as I said earlier I don't plan to offer you another day, I was surprised that you got this one but I was bored and it has been fun in a weird sort of way. Guess I was in the mood. You have fun with it if you can find a partner for it though.

To the point though. Remember the point I started this thread with? I'll remind you so you don't have to look back again. "Why in the world are you all letting imstellar28 set the terms of the debate? You're jumping through hoops trying to disprove accusations about Obama because he claims you need to meet a burden of proof that he's not guilty of those things but he's yet to offer any proof that Alan Keyes isn't batshit insane."

If you didn't understand that I had no intention of letting you set the terms of the debate I'm sorry, but that was clear from the start. You say what you think matters, I say what I think matters, and if it goes like politics generally does in this nation we'll both probably ignore the other and declare victory. Yeah for process, right?

Personally I see your "shot down" as a cry that you want the services, but not the tax, you want the privilege but not the burden of supporting it, you want it here, now and today and by the way none of it's your fault because you were just born here and somehow you think that was a point which answered something [edit to clarify:other than that you don't want to pay for it. Where's it come from then?]. To paraphrase you here, doing something like that then trying to claim victory for it while an effective way to protect your ego, is a rather uninteresting way to debate.

Lots of others weren't happy the last few years, now you're not happy along with a whole new group of others. These things happen, you'll get used to it and it doesn't last forever. Politics always seems to go in cycles.

If you'd like to claim victory now would be a good time, have fun