4 ms·

If you want to have a rational debate, opening as John Mackey did with a quotation that implies your opponents are parasitic socialists is probably not the best

by gamble 17y ago

If you want to have a rational debate, opening as John Mackey did with a quotation that implies your opponents are parasitic socialists is probably not the best way to start.

TheElder 17y ago
Here's the quote which you are talking about to let everybody make up their mind on it: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020425140457434...
- cwan 17y ago
  His quote doesn't seem terribly unreasonable especially after they revised cumulative deficit projections for the next 10 years to be 9 trillion dollars this past Friday (up from 7) and that doesn't even include new healthcare entitlements at an estimated 1 trillion! Given how prone they are to underestimating costs like this, these numbers are more likely to be a floor than a ceiling and don't include the deficits that come after! It is however perhaps telling that those who support Obama's plan would be offended by the quote which doesn't necessarily use the term socialism in the pejorative sense. What I don't understand is the guy who compared Thatcher to the Third Reich. Do they forget what "Nazi" actually stands for? Anyway, what is even more frustrating is that unions now want to have John Mackay fired for having the gall to disagree with the President (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/08/25/business-specialized-consumer-services-us-whole-foods-union_6813165.html http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/08/25/business-specializ...). Is this thuggery what counts as discourse in the US now? If you don't agree with the current administration you must be racist, stupid and ought to have your livelihood taken away?
Legion 17y ago
Yet it's a perfect opportunity to show that your "side" is the rational one. I read an opinion piece in a local (Monterey, CA) weekly paper, trying to explain why the Whole Foods boycotters are completely different than the "teabaggers". It essentially was, "we think those guys are retarded, but he's why we're not retarded, even though you can't tell us apart by looking." The ability to self-delude is a key attribute in taking part of silly "us vs. them" partisan politics. Issues like health care are amazingly complex, but it's easier to go with the groupthink and take up a rallying cry than dig into the issue and realize how nonsensical the "bumper sticker answers" are.

by gamble 17y ago

If you want to have a rational debate, opening as John Mackey did with a quotation that implies your opponents are parasitic socialists is probably not the best way to start.

TheElder 17y ago

Here's the quote which you are talking about to let everybody make up their mind on it: "The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020425140457434...

cwan 17y ago
His quote doesn't seem terribly unreasonable especially after they revised cumulative deficit projections for the next 10 years to be 9 trillion dollars this past Friday (up from 7) and that doesn't even include new healthcare entitlements at an estimated 1 trillion! Given how prone they are to underestimating costs like this, these numbers are more likely to be a floor than a ceiling and don't include the deficits that come after! It is however perhaps telling that those who support Obama's plan would be offended by the quote which doesn't necessarily use the term socialism in the pejorative sense. What I don't understand is the guy who compared Thatcher to the Third Reich. Do they forget what "Nazi" actually stands for? Anyway, what is even more frustrating is that unions now want to have John Mackay fired for having the gall to disagree with the President (http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/08/25/business-specialized-consumer-services-us-whole-foods-union_6813165.html http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2009/08/25/business-specializ...). Is this thuggery what counts as discourse in the US now? If you don't agree with the current administration you must be racist, stupid and ought to have your livelihood taken away?

Legion 17y ago

Yet it's a perfect opportunity to show that your "side" is the rational one. I read an opinion piece in a local (Monterey, CA) weekly paper, trying to explain why the Whole Foods boycotters are completely different than the "teabaggers". It essentially was, "we think those guys are retarded, but he's why we're not retarded, even though you can't tell us apart by looking." The ability to self-delude is a key attribute in taking part of silly "us vs. them" partisan politics. Issues like health care are amazingly complex, but it's easier to go with the groupthink and take up a rallying cry than dig into the issue and realize how nonsensical the "bumper sticker answers" are.