View Full Version : Obama and Socialism: a MUST read
Fairfax, Va. – Since telling Joe the Plumber of his wish to "spread the wealth around," Barack Obama is being called a socialist. Is he one?
No. At least not in the classic sense of the term. "Socialism" originally meant government ownership of the major means of production and finance, such as land, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, and banks.
...
Of course, socialism utterly failed. But it wasn't just a failure of organization or efficiency. By making the state the arbiter of economic value and social justice, as well as the source of rights, it deprived individuals of their liberty – and tragically, often their lives.
The late Robert Heilbroner – a socialist for most of his life – admitted after the collapse of the Iron Curtain that socialism "was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty
...
A happy difference separating today from the 1930s is that, unlike back then, no serious thinkers or groups in America now push for this kind of full-throttle socialism.
But what about a milder form of socialism? If reckoned as an attitude rather than a set of guidelines for running an economy, socialism might well describe Senator Obama's economics. Anyone who speaks glibly of "spreading the wealth around" sees wealth not as resulting chiefly from individual effort, initiative, and risk-taking, but from great social forces beyond any private producer's control.
Wealth, in this view, is produced principally by society. So society's claim on it is at least as strong as that of any of the individuals in whose bank accounts it appears. More important, because wealth is produced mostly by society (rather than by individuals), taxing high-income earners more heavily will do little to reduce total wealth production.
This notion of wealth certainly warrants the name "socialism," for it gives the abstraction "society" pride of place over flesh-and-blood individuals. If taxes are reduced on Joe the Plumber's income, the rationale must be that Joe deserves a larger share of society's collectively baked pie and not that Joe earned his income or that lower taxes will inspire Joe to work harder
This "socialism-lite," however, is as specious as is classic socialism. And its insidious nature makes it even more dangerous. Across Europe, this "mild" form of socialism acts as a parasitic ideology that has slowly drained entrepreneurial energy – and freedoms – from its free-market host.
Could it happen in America? Consider the words of longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." In addition to Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs, the gathering political momentum toward single-payer healthcare – which Obama has proclaimed is his ultimate goal – shows the prescience of Thomas's words.
MORE at link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081030/cm_csm/yboudreaux;_ylt=Akii2IXZZwZmw1HjZz.LH2wEtbAF
retiredman
10-30-2008, 01:04 PM
from your cut and paste article:
"Socialism" originally meant government ownership of the major means of production and finance, such as land, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, and banks.
That isn't just what "socialism originally meant"... it is what "socialism" MEANS!
a "milder form of socialism" isn't socialism at all, but something else. the folks on the right want to "redefine" the word so that they can use it to villify and demonize liberalism.
MtnBiker
10-30-2008, 01:26 PM
Using only the original meaning of socialism doesn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed on the word by the founders of socialism.
from your cut and paste article:
"Socialism" originally meant government ownership of the major means of production and finance, such as land, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, and banks.
That isn't just what "socialism originally meant"... it is what "socialism" MEANS!
a "milder form of socialism" isn't socialism at all, but something else. the folks on the right want to "redefine" the word so that they can use it to villify and demonize liberalism.
right it is the new socialism as the article properly points out, no one today who is a serious thinker would even try to get classic socialism going again after its terrible failure... from the article:
A happy difference separating today from the 1930s is that, unlike back then, no serious thinkers or groups in America now push for this kind of full-throttle socialism.
But what about a milder form of socialism? If reckoned as an attitude rather than a set of guidelines for running an economy, socialism might well describe Senator Obama's economics. Anyone who speaks glibly of "spreading the wealth around" sees wealth not as resulting chiefly from individual effort, initiative, and risk-taking, but from great social forces beyond any private producer's control.
Wealth, in this view, is produced principally by society. So society's claim on it is at least as strong as that of any of the individuals in whose bank accounts it appears. More important, because wealth is produced mostly by society (rather than by individuals), taxing high-income earners more heavily will do little to reduce total wealth production.
This notion of wealth certainly warrants the name "socialism," for it gives the abstraction "society" pride of place over flesh-and-blood individuals. If taxes are reduced on Joe the Plumber's income, the rationale must be that Joe deserves a larger share of society's collectively baked pie and not that Joe earned his income or that lower taxes will inspire Joe to work harder
This "socialism-lite," however, is as specious as is classic socialism.
care to take a shot at why this is wrong because all you did was merely puppet that socialism must always mean socialism...which is absolutely not true as even republican and democrats mean something different now and further, the article flat out said it is not classic socialism, rather a new hybrid form of socialism....so your points really do nothing to dispel the powerful truth of the article and how obama is secretely trying to push america into a new hybrid form of socialism...
he likes to hide things, it is no surprise he would try to sneak a new form of socialism on us as well
Using only the original meaning of socialism doesn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed on the word by the founders of socialism.
exactly, just like we have a republic today that is not the same as a republic 200 years ago
spreading the wealth, as the article rightly points out, is a strong part of the socialist creed, taking from others what is rightfully theirs and giving to others who have not earned it simply due to a belief that all wealth comes from society as a whole and not the individual.
retiredman
10-30-2008, 02:07 PM
exactly, just like we have a republic today that is not the same as a republic 200 years ago
spreading the wealth, as the article rightly points out, is a strong part of the socialist creed, taking from others what is rightfully theirs and giving to others who have not earned it simply due to a belief that all wealth comes from society as a whole and not the individual.
if that is what defines "socialism" to you, then, with our progressive income tax system, we have been a socialist nation for nearly a century.
retiredman
10-30-2008, 02:15 PM
care to take a shot at why this is wrong because all you did was merely puppet that socialism must always mean socialism...which is absolutely not true as even republican and democrats mean something different now and further, the article flat out said it is not classic socialism, rather a new hybrid form of socialism....so your points really do nothing to dispel the powerful truth of the article and how obama is secretely trying to push america into a new hybrid form of socialism...
I believe that you try to villify liberalism by claiming it is some NEW form of socialism. Socialism is a word. It has a meaning. It's meaning is clear. It consists of government ownership and control of the means of production. The word "socialism" is a boogeyman...much like "communism" or "fascism". Both sides are guilty of casting the policy's of the other side as one of those "bad" words because it works... it scares people. Republicans have been calling democrats "socialists" since at LEAST as far back as Barry Goldwater. Democrats have been calling republicans fascists since... Reagan, I guess or mayber earlier. That is just part of American politics. namecalling.
From my perspective, there are simply some things that government can do better than the private sector. National defense... law enforcement... environmental protection... to name a few. Believing that does not make me a socialist. Believing in a progressive income tax system does not make me a socialist.
if that is what defines "socialism" to you, then, with our progressive income tax system, we have been a socialist nation for nearly a century.
a form of it, absolutely...however, let us be clear about one thing, obama said he directly wants to take money from X person and give it to Y person
i believe the progressive tax is more about giving the money to the government in order to have the government supposedly run more efficient, not directly to another person, to "you know, spread the wealth around", so IMO, progressive tax is less about direct redistrubution of wealth, rather, more about those with higher income paying more of the tax burden the government demands of us. i believe in practice, it is an indirect form of wealth distribution, but it is not nearly as dangerous as obama's form of socialism lite.
retiredman
10-30-2008, 04:15 PM
a form of it, absolutely...however, let us be clear about one thing, obama said he directly wants to take money from X person and give it to Y person
i believe the progressive tax is more about giving the money to the government in order to have the government supposedly run more efficient, not directly to another person, to "you know, spread the wealth around", so IMO, progressive tax is less about direct redistrubution of wealth, rather, more about those with higher income paying more of the tax burden the government demands of us. i believe in practice, it is an indirect form of wealth distribution, but it is not nearly as dangerous as obama's form of socialism lite.
If you don't think that a progressive tax system "spreads the wealth around" you are delusional...and that IS the type of "spreading" that Obama was referring to.
red states rule
10-30-2008, 04:16 PM
If you don't think that a progressive tax system "spreads the wealth around" you are delusional...and that IS the type of "spreading" that Obama was referring to.
Taxes are to fund the Constitutional duties of government. Liberals turned the tax code into their personal piggy bank to keep people dependent on government - which is where they want to keep them
The more people hooked on a government check the happier liberals are
Silver
10-30-2008, 04:32 PM
from your cut and paste article:
"Socialism" originally meant government ownership of the major means of production and finance, such as land, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, and banks.
That isn't just what "socialism originally meant"... it is what "socialism" MEANS!
a "milder form of socialism" isn't socialism at all, but something else. the folks on the right want to "redefine" the word so that they can use it to villify and demonize liberalism.
You have no problem re-defining 'marriage' to suit your perverted idea of male ass-fucking.....
Socialism can and does have a variety of definitions that depend on the context the word is used in....but its not my job to explain the complexities of words commonly used in the english language...
retiredman
10-30-2008, 04:32 PM
Taxes are to fund the Constitutional duties of government.
"Promote the general welfare":lol:
retiredman
10-30-2008, 04:35 PM
Socialism can and does have a variety of definitions that depend on the context the word is used in....but its not my job to explain the complexities of words commonly used in the english language...
Bullshit. The "context" that "socialism" is used in here refers to government. In that "context", "socialism" means government ownership and control of the means of production.
red states rule
10-30-2008, 04:35 PM
"Promote the general welfare":lol:
Libs like you not only promote it but advertise and encourage it
You and your ilk are like drung dealers. You lure the victim in by promising to make them feel better, and telling them you are the answer to all their problems. You get them hooked and dependent on you for their next fix. In this case their next government check
Like the drug dealer, the last thing you want is for them to be free of you and make it in life without your "fix"
retiredman
10-30-2008, 04:37 PM
Libs like you not only promote it but advertise and encourage it
You and your ilk are like drung dealers. You lure the victim in by promising to make them feel better, and telling them you are the answer to all their problems. You get them hooked and dependent on you for their next fix. In this case their next government check
Like the drug dealer, the last thing you want is for them to be free of you and make it in life without your "fix"
blah blah blah.
you're like a fucking broken record.:laugh2:
red states rule
10-30-2008, 04:39 PM
blah blah blah.
you're like a fucking broken record.:laugh2:
It is 100% true. You want people to stay poor, dependent on government, and always looking to the "compassionate" liberals for another handout
retiredman
10-30-2008, 05:31 PM
It is 100% true. You want people to stay poor, dependent on government, and always looking to the "compassionate" liberals for another handoutthat is absolutely false.
I have NEVER EVER said anything about wanting anyone to remain dependent on government. All that is is a hackneyed old Limbaugh talking point that you keep throwing at democrats. It is not true. You cannot sit there and tell ME what I WANT when I have NEVER said anything of the sort.
Grow up and learn to speak your own words, RSR, and quit mouthing those you hear on talk radio. really.
red states rule
10-30-2008, 05:34 PM
that is absolutely false.
I have NEVER EVER said anything about wanting anyone to remain dependent on government. All that is is a hackneyed old Limbaugh talking point that you keep throwing at democrats. It is not true. You cannot sit there and tell ME what I WANT when I have NEVER said anything of the sort.
Grow up and learn to speak your own words, RSR, and quit mouthing those you hear on talk radio. really.
Having people dependendt on government is the reason you stay in power. Look at what the Dems are "promising" in this election. Handout upon handout upon handout
Libs are constantly telling people they can't make it without THEM and their porgrams
Being a loyal goose stepping member of the party you want as many people as possible to be miserable and take your handouts. You also want them to stry right where they are
You even posted how happy you were to see people in financial trouble with the drop in the housing marhet and the Dow
So do not pull your usual offened liberal BS Rev - the more miserable people ar the happier you are
manu1959
10-30-2008, 05:50 PM
Libs are constantly telling people they can't make it without THEM and their porgrams
one wonders how people succeed without them..in fact one wonders why this may well be the thrid time they have had total control and failed...
red states rule
10-30-2008, 05:54 PM
one wonders how people succeed without them..in fact one wonders why this may well be the thrid time they have had total control and failed...
It is amazing how so many people think they are so incompetent that they need government programs to make it in life
Liberals like Rev MFM do have a low opinion of people in general, so they look at them as losers - and only liberal programs can help them. But the dirty little secret is, liberals only want to help a little
They want to get a taste of the freebies, just enough to keep them wanting more. Then they have them hooked and will do all they can not to let them off the hook
If you don't think that a progressive tax system "spreads the wealth around" you are delusional...and that IS the type of "spreading" that Obama was referring to.
no, like you said and like i said, that money goes to government services and as you point out, the government, i agree as well, does a better job with the military, roads, etc...that is not spreading the wealth and it most assuredly is not spreading the wealth as obama understands it
he expressly told joe that those people with higher incomes should pay more so that those who make less will have do better, in other words, you must give up more of your share in order that another gets more of the pie, this is ENTIRELY different than paying taxes to fund necessary government functions. obama's comment:
"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
nothing in this comment is about taxing those with more income at a higher rate in order to fund the government, he states outright that it is necessary so that the person behind you in success, that they've got a chance for success too. IOW, they should have the same as you...
Bullshit. The "context" that "socialism" is used in here refers to government. In that "context", "socialism" means government ownership and control of the means of production.
i suggest you reread the article
This notion of wealth certainly warrants the name "socialism," for it gives the abstraction "society" pride of place over flesh-and-blood individuals. If taxes are reduced on Joe the Plumber's income, the rationale must be that Joe deserves a larger share of society's collectively baked pie and not that Joe earned his income or that lower taxes will inspire Joe to work harder
there of course is more, but i am not going to re-copy the whole article for you.
manu1959
10-30-2008, 06:04 PM
nothing in this comment is about taxing those with more income at a higher rate in order to fund the government, he states outright that it is necessary so that the person behind you in success, that they've got a chance for success too. IOW, they should have the same as you...
makes you wonder how those that succeded actually did it...once they were poor....now they are not....how did that happen.....
that is absolutely false.
I have NEVER EVER said anything about wanting anyone to remain dependent on government. All that is is a hackneyed old Limbaugh talking point that you keep throwing at democrats. It is not true. You cannot sit there and tell ME what I WANT when I have NEVER said anything of the sort.
Grow up and learn to speak your own words, RSR, and quit mouthing those you hear on talk radio. really.
so then you DISAGREE with obama's spread the wealth...in order to make sure those behind you in success have a chance at your success too??
don't you think such a philosphy makes people dependant on the government? if not, why?
retiredman
10-30-2008, 07:04 PM
Having people dependendt on government is the reason you stay in power. Look at what the Dems are "promising" in this election. Handout upon handout upon handout
Libs are constantly telling people they can't make it without THEM and their porgrams
Being a loyal goose stepping member of the party you want as many people as possible to be miserable and take your handouts. You also want them to stry right where they are
You even posted how happy you were to see people in financial trouble with the drop in the housing marhet and the Dow
So do not pull your usual offened liberal BS Rev - the more miserable people ar the happier you are
I have never said to anyone that they cannot make it without me and liberal programs, nor do I know ANY democrat who has EVER said such a thing.
I never want people to be miserable and I have NEVER been happy to see regular people in financial trouble.
YOu continue to insult and smear me and my party with tired old one liners. I ask again...when will you grow up and learn to use your own words?
retiredman
10-30-2008, 07:06 PM
i suggest you reread the article
there of course is more, but i am not going to re-copy the whole article for you.
your article seeks to redefine socialism...just like I said. You can call a sow's ear a silk purse if you want to, but that does not make it one.
retiredman
10-30-2008, 07:10 PM
no, like you said and like i said, that money goes to government services and as you point out, the government, i agree as well, does a better job with the military, roads, etc...that is not spreading the wealth and it most assuredly is not spreading the wealth as obama understands it
how the fuck do YOu claim to KNOW what Obama "understands"?????:laugh2:
he expressly told joe that those people with higher incomes should pay more so that those who make less will have do better, in other words, you must give up more of your share in order that another gets more of the pie, this is ENTIRELY different than paying taxes to fund necessary government functions. obama's comment:
in other words, yurt gets to claim that things mean what he thinks they mean. Progressive income tax spreads the wealth around. we've had to for a century. we haven't been a socialist country for a century
nothing in this comment is about taxing those with more income at a higher rate in order to fund the government, he states outright that it is necessary so that the person behind you in success, that they've got a chance for success too. IOW, they should have the same as you...
the government he will fund with the marginal increase in taxes will benefit the guys at the bottom. you can't be that dense.
manu1959
10-30-2008, 07:23 PM
the government he will fund with the marginal increase in taxes will benefit the guys at the bottom. you can't be that dense.
the guys at the bottom like it there.....the guys above them don't like to work......they guys above them don't like being told what to do.....the guys above them could make it if it wasn't for the man....the guys above them have a problem with authority....
your article seeks to redefine socialism...just like I said. You can call a sow's ear a silk purse if you want to, but that does not make it one.
boring, again with the faulty analogies...why is you deem yourself such a genius as to correct others and myself on grammar and spelling when you can't even get an analogy right? not only is the analogy physically faulty, the correct analogy is: you can't make a silk purse out of sow's ear
one is a tangible object, the other is not. ideas are not tangible, thus, while the article correctly points out that what obama poses does not look like the classic definition of socialism, it definitely fits a more modern definition.
the article did nothing to take away from classic socialism. that you suggest or claim such shows you haven't even read the article.
the government he will fund with the marginal increase in taxes will benefit the guys at the bottom. you can't be that dense.
you fucking drunk pussy, stay out of this thread....you can't even use the quote function and are already swearing at me
if you want to debate this topic, then by all means stay, if all you have are more insults and fucking this and that...good bye
manu1959
10-30-2008, 07:29 PM
you fucking drunk pussy, stay out of this thread....you can't even use the quote function and are already swearing at me
if you want to debate this topic, then by all means stay, if all you have are more insults and fucking this and that...good bye
he gets really upset when you talk about his cat like that.....
he gets really upset when you talk about his cat like that.....
the pussy cat he keeps in the closet?
red states rule
10-30-2008, 07:54 PM
I have never said to anyone that they cannot make it without me and liberal programs, nor do I know ANY democrat who has EVER said such a thing.
I never want people to be miserable and I have NEVER been happy to see regular people in financial trouble.
YOu continue to insult and smear me and my party with tired old one liners. I ask again...when will you grow up and learn to use your own words?
Look how libs like you talk to and treat minorities. To you libs they are to stupid to make it without your help
You set up quotas, and lower standards so they can "succeed"
Libs do want people miserable. Dems fought solutions to lower gas prices, their progreams caused the housing market to fall, and conditioned people to think they were entitled to other peoples money
You admitted how happy you wee knowing pople will suffer with the downturn in the housng market. Any bad news for America is good news for you - your giddy posts confirm that
Kathianne
10-30-2008, 08:01 PM
Fairfax, Va. – Since telling Joe the Plumber of his wish to "spread the wealth around," Barack Obama is being called a socialist. Is he one?
No. At least not in the classic sense of the term. "Socialism" originally meant government ownership of the major means of production and finance, such as land, coal mines, steel mills, automobile factories, and banks.
...
Of course, socialism utterly failed. But it wasn't just a failure of organization or efficiency. By making the state the arbiter of economic value and social justice, as well as the source of rights, it deprived individuals of their liberty – and tragically, often their lives.
The late Robert Heilbroner – a socialist for most of his life – admitted after the collapse of the Iron Curtain that socialism "was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty
...
A happy difference separating today from the 1930s is that, unlike back then, no serious thinkers or groups in America now push for this kind of full-throttle socialism.
But what about a milder form of socialism? If reckoned as an attitude rather than a set of guidelines for running an economy, socialism might well describe Senator Obama's economics. Anyone who speaks glibly of "spreading the wealth around" sees wealth not as resulting chiefly from individual effort, initiative, and risk-taking, but from great social forces beyond any private producer's control.
Wealth, in this view, is produced principally by society. So society's claim on it is at least as strong as that of any of the individuals in whose bank accounts it appears. More important, because wealth is produced mostly by society (rather than by individuals), taxing high-income earners more heavily will do little to reduce total wealth production.
This notion of wealth certainly warrants the name "socialism," for it gives the abstraction "society" pride of place over flesh-and-blood individuals. If taxes are reduced on Joe the Plumber's income, the rationale must be that Joe deserves a larger share of society's collectively baked pie and not that Joe earned his income or that lower taxes will inspire Joe to work harder
This "socialism-lite," however, is as specious as is classic socialism. And its insidious nature makes it even more dangerous. Across Europe, this "mild" form of socialism acts as a parasitic ideology that has slowly drained entrepreneurial energy – and freedoms – from its free-market host.
Could it happen in America? Consider the words of longtime Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas: "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." In addition to Medicare, Social Security, and other entitlement programs, the gathering political momentum toward single-payer healthcare – which Obama has proclaimed is his ultimate goal – shows the prescience of Thomas's words.
MORE at link
http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20081030/cm_csm/yboudreaux;_ylt=Akii2IXZZwZmw1HjZz.LH2wEtbAF
I disagree with your premise. I think he's a hardline socialist. He appears moderate in a way a Howard Dean doesn't, millions are fooled by his demeanor.
rough roads ahead. Everyone wishes to avoid his philosophy, which is what ties him to his friends. But that takes thinking and work. Not going to happen by next Tuesday. Ahem, I just want to say I warned about Obama before the sale of the first board.
avatar4321
10-30-2008, 08:22 PM
how the fuck do YOu claim to KNOW what Obama "understands"?????
Simple genius. Obama tells us....
red states rule
10-30-2008, 08:26 PM
Simple genius. Obama tells us....
Obama plays on the emotions of his followers. They are blinded by the very reason as to why you support him.
The opportunities for success in America are there and have always existed.
America presents these opportunities and you have to go work for them, not wait for some federal government entity to give them to you. You are not entitled to success, you work for it
Obama wants to let his supporters take the easy road, and take others peoples money. Lord Obama is a living breathing example of socialism
this board may become the future underground
red states rule
10-30-2008, 09:25 PM
this board may become the future underground
and Rev V will be the mole for the Fairness Doctrine Enforcement Dept
Kathianne
10-30-2008, 09:29 PM
the government he will fund with the marginal increase in taxes will benefit the guys at the bottom. you can't be that dense.
Obvious that others are 'getting to you, fuck this and that. Seriously, loser time.
red states rule
10-30-2008, 09:31 PM
Obvious that others are 'getting to you, fuck this and that. Seriously, loser time.
and what has the government done in the last 40 years since JBJ's War on Poverty?
The government has taken $9 trillion from the "rich" and redistributed it to the "poor"
So far it has accomplished zip. Libs still whine how poverty is worse then ever. Yet the answer is to throw even more money at the problem
i note that no other lib, other than mfm has posted here.
so props to him and of course the other libs that post and run only help to prove his point that he alone takes on this board
gabs, LN, PB, JS....etc....
retiredman
10-30-2008, 09:51 PM
one is a tangible object, the other is not. ideas are not tangible, thus, while the article correctly points out that what obama poses does not look like the classic definition of socialism, it definitely fits a more modern definition.
a "more modern definition" is, by definition, a redefinition...which is what I said from the very beginning. You can call anything you want "socialism" as long as you get to redefine what the word means. ANd republicans have been incorrectly villifying democrats as "socialists" since Goldwater. There is nothing NEW here.
retiredman
10-30-2008, 09:56 PM
Look how libs like you talk to and treat minorities. To you libs they are to stupid to make it without your help
You set up quotas, and lower standards so they can "succeed"
Libs do want people miserable. Dems fought solutions to lower gas prices, their progreams caused the housing market to fall, and conditioned people to think they were entitled to other peoples money
You admitted how happy you wee knowing pople will suffer with the downturn in the housng market. Any bad news for America is good news for you - your giddy posts confirm that
give me ONE quote from me where I have ever talked down to minorities or implied they were stupid or needed my help.
Give me ONE quote from me where I have ever supported lowering any standards for anything.
Give me ONE quote from me where I have stated that I want people miserable. I did NOT admit that I was "happy" about knowing people would suffer because of the economic misery that Bush&Co. has brought us.
I'll wait, but we both know that you won't provide anything from ME that supports your lies.
a "more modern definition" is, by definition, a redefinition...which is what I said from the very beginning. You can call anything you want "socialism" as long as you get to redefine what the word means. ANd republicans have been incorrectly villifying democrats as "socialists" since Goldwater. There is nothing NEW here.
i never said it was the same definition. and neither did the article. stop trying to fool readers.
the article, which you have failed to read, states clearly that obama is trying to implement socialism, yet he is not stupid enough to try to implement classic socialism, so he is trying to implement socialism lite.
retiredman
10-30-2008, 10:12 PM
i never said it was the same definition. and neither did the article. stop trying to fool readers.
the article, which you have failed to read, states clearly that obama is trying to implement socialism, yet he is not stupid enough to try to implement classic socialism, so he is trying to implement socialism lite.
you claim it is a "more modern definition". I claim that any "more modern defintion" is, by definition, a REdefinition. And you don't get to redefine words in order to suit your political agenda. sorry "counselor".
"Socialism lite" is a political construct. The fact that "light" is purposely misspelled to mirror the name of a popular beer might tend to give that away!:lol:
manu1959
10-30-2008, 10:14 PM
you claim it is a "more modern definition". I claim that any "more modern defintion" is, by definition, a REdefinition. And you don't get to redefine words in order to suit your political agenda. sorry "counselor".
"Socialism lite" is a political construct. The fact that "light" is purposely misspelled to mirror the name of a popular beer might tend to give that away!:lol:
if the constitution is a living document why can't definitions be that way....
retiredman
10-30-2008, 10:16 PM
if the constitution is a living document why can't definitions be that way....
words have meanings. ASS fucker cannot all of a sudden become synonymous with kindergarten teacher just because it suits your purpose politically.
DragonStryk72
10-30-2008, 11:05 PM
See, this is the one reason that's keeps me far, far away from the Obama camp (no, he isn't a socialist): His plan, while well intentioned, does not understand a basic defining principle- by and large, the vast majority of rich people are rich, not because of lower taxes, but because they own businesses, and therefore, can control pricing.
Okay, let's say there's a new corporate tax levied, all big corps have to pay. Is there anyone here that thinks Wal-Mart is simply going to suck it up, or do you think the prices might rise a bit in order to compensate for the new taxes?
Let's try it another way, then: A new tax is levied against those making above a certain income, well, guess what, the CEOs, and various other execs simply vote themselves raises to match, making it up either by laying off workers, or, aside from that, they simply go through and raise prices again.
In the end, only consumers truly pay taxes, and he still does not get that part of the equation.
emmett
10-31-2008, 12:06 AM
words have meanings. ASS fucker cannot all of a sudden become synonymous with kindergarten teacher just because it suits your purpose politically.
Interesting how his first analogy would be to reference something such as that! I believe he is a pirate!
red states rule
10-31-2008, 05:26 AM
Interesting how his first analogy would be to reference something such as that! I believe he is a pirate!
Are you surprised? This is so typcial of the "preacher", yet he [lays the role of the offended liberal when the fire is returned
The last thing Virg wants to do is to stay on topic and try his defend his party and policy positions
red states rule
10-31-2008, 05:29 AM
give me ONE quote from me where I have ever talked down to minorities or implied they were stupid or needed my help.
Give me ONE quote from me where I have ever supported lowering any standards for anything.
Give me ONE quote from me where I have stated that I want people miserable. I did NOT admit that I was "happy" about knowing people would suffer because of the economic misery that Bush&Co. has brought us.
I'll wait, but we both know that you won't provide anything from ME that supports your lies.
So you are saying (with a stright face) the party you support and the policies they want enacted - are not what I describe?
You did say how happy you are knowing how Republicans will suffer with the current economic issues. Alot of people called you on it - and you went into lie and spin mode
retiredman
10-31-2008, 07:59 AM
So you are saying (with a stright face) the party you support and the policies they want enacted - are not what I describe?
You did say how happy you are knowing how Republicans will suffer with the current economic issues. Alot of people called you on it - and you went into lie and spin modeI am saying that my party does NOT seek to make citizens dependent on government. Absolutely.
I am also saying that I stated that I was happy that the republican PARTY would suffer as a result of the terrible results their terrible economic policies had created. I have NEVER said I was happy about any person suffering, and I am not.
the article is correct, kathy i see your point about he is a full on socialist, however, he is not stupid enough to try to implement full blown socialism, so he is sneaking parts of socialism in, hence, socialism lite if you will. mfm is a potty mouth moron who doesn't even understand that the term "lite" often refers to a basic product, no frills etc...thus socialism lite is a good term for obama's policies, especially spreading the wealth around...
which as we can all see, mfm ignored multiple posts about that specific subject, no surprise.
Kathianne
03-12-2009, 11:44 AM
Jagger, the spamming is stopping now. Inane posts on socialism and Reagan are done.
Jagger
03-12-2009, 01:49 PM
Jagger, the spamming is stopping now. Inane posts on socialism and Reagan are done.
Are you saying that we can no longer express our opinions on the subjects of Socialism and Ronald Reagan? Are there any other subjects that you're putting off limits?
Are you saying that we can no longer express our opinions on the subjects of Socialism and Ronald Reagan? Are there any other subjects that you're putting off limits?
she never said that :poke:
Jagger, the spamming is stopping now. Inane posts on socialism and Reagan are done.
Jagger
03-12-2009, 02:16 PM
Jagger, the spamming is stopping now.
When did I ever "post a link and advertise?"
Jagger
03-12-2009, 02:17 PM
Jagger, the spamming is stopping now. Inane posts on socialism and Reagan are done.
When have I ever posted an inane post on socialism and Reagan?
Nukeman
03-12-2009, 03:52 PM
When have I ever posted an inane post on socialism and Reagan?
90% of what youpost is just that...
You're obviously a Reagan Socialist.
Reagan saved American Socialism in 1981 when he signed off on an increase in the payroll tax to rescue the Social Security Program.
The number of workers on the federal payroll rose by 61,000 under Reagan. By comparison, under Clinton, the number fell by 373,000.
Reagan was a socialist who increased the size of the federal...
Ronald Reagan raised taxes seven times.
Ronald Reagan, my favorite socialist, never froze federal spending. In fact, he was a strong advocate of big socialistic spending and budget deficits to stimulate the economy in times of economic recession.
Reagan signed seven tax increases, He signed one tax decrease. He still holds the record for signing the largest single tax increase in peace time. Reagan was a tax raising socialist, dude.
Faced with looming deficits, President Ronald Reagan, a Socialist Republican, raised taxes again in 1983 with a gasoline tax and once more in 1984, this time by $50 billion over three years
The only people who like Limbaugh are the Reagan Socialists.
Ronald Reagan, one of our great Socialist Presidents, was a big advocate of income redistribution. Witness his signing of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, which increased the Earned Income Tax Credit, and his 1986 signing of a substantial expansion of the program. Reagan heralded the EITC as "the best anti-poverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."
Republicans are socialists who believe in deficit spending and increasing taxes on the rich.
Ronald Reagan, a great socialist President, proved that deficits don't matter, because they stimulate spending and lead to economic prosperity.
Ronald Reagan was a socialist who raised taxes seven times more often than he lowered them. His seven tax increases, starting in 1982, led us out of a recession and into 84 months of continuous economic expansion.
Ronald Reagan was a socialist who ran huge deficits.
All of those in only 2 pages of YOUR posting. I think that might be what she is talking about. My God man Reagan hasn't been president in over 20 years and YOUR still harping on about it, let the man rest in peace, after all he is dead or did you not know that. Were you even old enough to vote for him at the time.......
Kathianne
03-12-2009, 03:55 PM
When have I ever posted an inane post on socialism and Reagan?
Have a question? PM me. Just. stop. trolling.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.