Posted on April 29 at 8:55 p.m.Suggest removal

Dio,

I don't discount the contribution of European philosophers to the U.S. Declaration of Independence or Constitution. I also acknowledge that freedom of religion had been toyed with in some European countries before the U.S. ever existed. How did that work out?

Abraham Lincoln said that the United States is the "last best hope of man". I agree with that assessment. I don't disparage any other nation, but I believe that the U.S. has done more to advance individual liberty, champion freedom, and improve the human condition than any other nation in the world. We will just have to agree to disagree.

You are not properly defining negative taxation. It is very simple. Negative taxation is when somebody who doesn't pay taxes gets a check from the government. I have no problem with the government redistributing wealth via investment in infrastructure. Those investments benefit all of society, rich and poor alike. However, to blatantly confiscate wealth from one family and give it to another is immoral. It is called stealing.

Poverty in America is largely a function of lifestyle choices and culture. I grew up poor and escaped that system because I worked very hard to change the value system that I was taught as a child. I had to reprogram my mind. Most of my family will not acknowledge me now because I totally reject their culture and lifestyle, a system that creates poverty and keeps people trapped in poverty.

If you think the French system is sustainable, you have not been following the current political discourse in France.

I have lived in the UK and France and spent quite a bit of time in Italy. Beyond health care, those systems don't begin to resemble each other. The French and British social models are competing models.

Every country should adopt systems that are consistent with their culture and historical experience. I like Europe; I go their often. However, I don't want the United States to adopt a European system. Fortunately, I think that the vast majority of Americans would reject such a move.

I'm off to Peru. Try not to miss me.

On

Posted on April 29 at 7:57 p.m.Suggest removal

Your post is very clearly a game in semantics with no other purpose than to derail the conversation.

I stated that raising taxes on successful, upper middle-class families to redistribute wealth to lower classes is immoral. I said that because I believe that it is blatantly immoral. I never said that it constitutes socialism. I did say, and believe, that it is socialistic.

As I stated before, which you obviously lack the intellect to grasp, I never, at any time, offered a definition of socialism. I don't know how to break this down further to a level that you can digest. Is there some way I could frmae it so so that you can get your head around it?

Dio made a claim about what American conservatives mean when they say "socialism"...I countered that they actually mean something very different (not a Stalinist dictatorship). I didn't say whether they are right or wrong. I never offered a defintion for socialism...are you capable of grasping that, or do you need Hooked on Phonics? I honestly don't know any other way to explain it.

I did use the term socialistic, indicating that Obama's economic orientation appears to be informed heavily by socialism. I see nothing inconsistent about that.

If you search the term Socialism in wikipedia, the first adjecting used to describe this system is a word that starts with the letter b and sort of rhymes with fraud (which is very appropriate when talking about socialism). Any guesses? You take socialism and put it in a neat little box, but there are many self-proclaimed socialists who wouldn't accept the narrow definition you offered.

Is collective state ownership of the means of production really a criterion for genuine socialism? Are all companies in Sweden state owned? Is Sweden a socialistic country?

Now, we are wasting our time arguing about the definition of socialism...which is exactly what you intended all along, isn't it? Any real discussion of issues isn't on your agenda. You would rather muddle around arguing about the meaning of socialism. Nice.

On

Posted on April 28 at 6:31 p.m.Suggest removal

dargus,

You should understand the context of the discussion in which you are posting, which you obviously do not.

I was posting with regard to perceptions about socialism from conservative Americans because that is what was being discussed. Dio and I have been having a discussion on the use of this word and what people often mean when they use this term, at least people with a conservative world view.

At no time have I presented a definition for this term. We are talking about perception.

This is what I said: "I think that most people think of socialism as a transfer of wealth from one group to another in a way that is designed to benefit a class of people rather than society as a whole."

I didn't say socialism is....

Did you catch the "I think most people think of socialism as..." part?

I understand the definition of socialism. However, thank you for the textbook defintion and economics lesson, despite the overly condescending delivery. I'm not sure why you offer it, other than to appear intelligent and/or thwart the discussion.

If you are going to post, you might want to first orient yourself with the context of the discussion instead of just firing from the hip.

On

Posted on April 28 at 6:21 p.m.Suggest removal

Dio,

Ofcourse I don't think that the University should accept a gift from the KKK or a terrorist organization. I think that we can all agree on that. However, I also don't think that there is any possibilitiy of that happening under the current system. Do you know what the news media would do in that situation? Heads would roll.

I have no problem with greater transparency in donations and investment. I am also not accusing you of opposing donations from someone just because they are a conservative.

However, I don't think you are correctly interpreting muckraker's argument. Muckraker relates McClendon's donation to his argument for greater transparency right from the start. I strongly suspect that what he/she is saying is that the university should adopt a criteria that would bar any donors except those that are very liberal.

What about oil companies? Oil companies make very sizeable donations to OU. We all know how liberals feel about "Big Oil". Would muckraker turn away these very large funds because they don't meet "social and environmental criteria"?

I suspect that the SRI would likely become a tool for forcing a liberal agenda on the University's donations and investment policy.

On

Posted on April 28 at 3:26 p.m.Suggest removal

Dio,

It is too bad that you can't tell by reading Zac's very poorly written article that it was written for no other purpose than to mock people who believe in Christianity. Zac should get a blog. This article is inappropriate for The Daily.

The article, Dio, is bigoted. All of the posts that I have read - except for mine, and I'm not even a believer - have been largely respectful of Zac. It is hard for me to be respectful because, regardless of whether Zac is an atheist or a theist, I believe he is a mega-douche, I mean like in the top three douchiest people I've ever seen.

I can't understand how you get things so twisted around. A guy writes an article for no other reason than to spit in the face of people who are religious and insult them. There is nothing of value in this article. It is just insulting of people of faith. The believers, and even some nonbelievers, write largely coherent, well thought responses pointing out how Zac's article is poorly researched and logically flawed. You then call the posters bigots. I just can't understand the mental gymnastic involved with how you get to these conclusions. You need to lay off the kool-aid.

Do you think it is impossible for an atheist to be a bigot???

On

Posted on April 28 at 3:14 p.m.Suggest removal

I absolutely agree in full discolsure. That is not a problem. However, come on, Dio. Go back and read the post. This is clearly not what muckraker said. In the first sentence of his post, muckraker ties the merits of accepting the McClendon donation to the idea of transparency...which, in this case, is liberal newspeak for political correctness.

Muckraker isn't arguing for full disclosure and transparency. He/she is arguing for a "social and environmental criteria" for accepting or rejecting donations. You may be talking about transparency, but muckraker is talking about establishing criteria. Those are two very different things.

The wording and tone of the article suggests that muckraker is advocating using SRI to make sure that no conservative will ever be publically acknowledged ever again by OU for a donation to the university.

Look, I have no problem with sincere liberals speaking their minds. What I can't stand is when either side - Left or Right - tries to force one side into silence. There is a word for that: FASCISM. It's that simple. Anyone, liberal or conservative, that tries to silence the other side is acting like a fascist.

What muckraker is saying is that if you are a conservative and involved with conservative causes, as McClendon clearly is, you need not bother being involved with the university or trying to be active in your community. Your donation isn't welcome simply because your personal views are not acceptable to the establishment.

This is deplorable. It blatantly flies in the face of everything the United States is supposed to stand for, I mean really basic, fundamental stuff like freedom of thought and speech. It also flies in the face of everything OU claims to stand for, like diversity of thought and opinion and having open, honest discussions on campus.

Join us or be silent, for we will tolerate no dissent or opposing views! Are these liberal values???

On

Posted on April 28 at 11:34 a.m.Suggest removal

Believers, just relax. Zac is trolling. He enjoys insulting people of faith and will then sit back and beat his chest about how badly atheists are treated. In his highly delusional world, he can treat people as insultingly and condescendingly as he likes but must always be treated with a great deal of respect by everyone else.

There is nothing intelligent or insightful in this article, and it doesn't matter because Zac didn't actually write it to make a point anyway. He wrote it to enjoy the reaction.

He is a troll (picture above for reference). Ignore him, and he may crawl back under his rock.

On

Posted on April 27 at 9:24 p.m.Suggest removal

Dio,

The United States is far from perfect, and we have made some very serious mistakes...our treatment of native Americans, slavery, internment of Japanese-Americans, etc. We have often acted in a way that is inconsistent with our values.

I also don't think that America's system is the best in the world. I don't know that there is a best system in the world for everyone. I strongly disagree with the neoconservative movement, which advocates exporting the American system, even by force. However, I do think that it is the best for America (more on that to follow).

I believe that America has made tremendous contributions to the advancement of humanity. Just the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is a contribution to humanity that is, in my view, beyond profound. For a country of that time to enshrine in law that religion shall be a private matter and the exercise of religion completely free and that the state shall not have the authority to establish a church is revolutionary. I don't mean this in a chauvinistic or nationalistic way, but I believe that America has done more than any other nation in the world to advance and defend liberty and the material welfare of humanity. This is despite some very shameful mistakes.

I think that most people think of socialism as a transfer of wealth from one group to another in a way that is designed to benefit a class of people rather than society as a whole. An example is "negative taxation"...raising taxes on my family in order to write a check to someone who doesn't actually pay anything in taxes. In my opinion, this is blatantly immoral. I think that very, very few people are afraid that Obama will try to turn the U.S. into a Stalinist dictatorship, like North Korea. I could be wrong, but that is certainly not my belief and not my perception of other mainstream conservatives.

There is a real fear that raising taxes on the upper middle class to transfer wealth to lower classes - in addition to being fundamentally unfair - will penalize individual initiative and reward those who have not worked as hard. Creating a culture of dependency would be very bad for our longterm growth.

There is also the fear that welfare states eventually collapse under their own fiscal burden. I know that there are some successful systems out there. However, there are also some - France, possibly the UK - that are not sustainable.

Countries should adopt systems that are consistent with their values, culture, and historical experience. I don't want America to adopt a system like Sweden or Norway. I am not saying that those systems are bad....for Sweden and Norway. I don't think that they are appropriate for the United States. I understand that Sweden has some of the world's highest taxes and one of Europe's most competitive economies. I just don't think that their system would work in the U.S. I could never live there because the high taxation on alcohol means a pint costs like $10. Not cool.

On

Posted on April 27 at 8:59 p.m.Suggest removal

Muckraker,

You are adding to the absurdity of all this. When you use words like OUR, such as OUR university, you don't mean everyone. You're not talking about conservative students. You only mean the campus Left. You want any donations to only be accepted if the donor meets criteria set by your fellow liberals. This is not inclusive. There is no OUR or WE involved in any of this.

This is all very, very elementary. Aubrey McClendon's family are residents of Oklahoma. They have a right to donate to this university. Their gift will only benefit the students, and the management has every logical reason to accept it. They also have the right to name a building in their honor, out of gratitude for their gift. Politics doesn't come into it. Government institutions cannot discriminate against citizens because they hold a certain point of view. This is exactly what the OSDS is advocating.

What is it with you people? You can't go around forcing your agenda down everyone's throats. You can't single out one guy and discriminate against him just because he is a prominent conservative.

You keep talking about social justice, but there is nothing social or just in what you are advocating. It is just fascism. In every dimension, it is antisocial and unjust.

Are you honestly telling me that your liberal values are consistent with a system that makes sure that Aubrey McClendon cannot exercise his basic freedom of belief as a human being and still have the right to donate to a public university and be recognized for his generosity?

Who are you people? Did I go to sleep and wake-up in Oceania in the year 1984??? What's next, telescreens everywhere on campus?

On

Posted on April 27 at 6:35 p.m.Suggest removal

mikedavis,

I apologize if I mischaracterized your position.

I would agree that we shouldn't name buildings after anyone, but I believe that the slope of having the university approve a person's private opinions as a precondition for honoring their contribution is equally slippery.

On