Do you liberals or democrats care if obama is a socialist?

[gattaca]

My question to the posters on this forum, its obviously redundant to ask consv as i know what the answer would be. But anyway moderate democrat or liberal. Would you care if obama said he actually was a socialist, i mean would you actaully care if he really was a socialist.

if you dont care hes a socialist please explaine why if you do care if hes a socialist explaine why. i just want to get a general idea and mentality.

[jbthe20th]

He's not a socialist.

[ModerateVoice]

This will be an interesting thread.

[Mike88]

My question to the posters on this forum, its obviously redundant to ask consv as i know what the answer would be. But anyway moderate democrat or liberal. Would you care if obama said he actually was a socialist, i mean would you actaully care if he really was a socialist.

if you dont care hes a socialist please explaine why if you do care if hes a socialist explaine why. i just want to get a general idea and mentality.

There are responses from libs on here such as:

"It doesn't bother me."

and

"What's wrong with communism?"

Most of the libs actually support and want communists running the country.

[Mike88]

He's not a socialist.

So what would you say his ideology is, and if it isn't marxist, why would he hire self admitted communists to his administration? Why are all his economic policies clearly marxist?

[goodlife]

He's not a socialist.

way to answer the question!

[jbthe20th]

way to answer the question!

It's a flawed question. To answer it assumes that he's a socialist.

[gattaca]

jbthe20th

Okay i understand, but im asking IF.. im not accusing obama in this thread. But i would just like to know.

Would you actaully care if he was a socialist? please answer with a yes or no and explaine why u do or dont care.

[Fire Watch]

He's not a socialist.
What has Obama done to indicate that he is not a socialist?

[goodlife]

It's a flawed question. To answer it assumes that he's a socialist.

It's not a flawed question.
The question is (in my own words)...if he came out and said...well hell yeah I'm a socialist...would you care? Would it bother you? Would you still support him?

[notluzn]

It's a flawed question. To answer it assumes that he's a socialist.
Answer the question. Well I forget that Liberals can't tell the difference between liberalism and socialism.

[BigBear]

My question to the posters on this forum, its obviously redundant to ask consv as i know what the answer would be. But anyway moderate democrat or liberal. Would you care if obama said he actually was a socialist, i mean would you actaully care if he really was a socialist.
"really was a socialist" ... I suspect you haven't clue #1 what you actually mean by that.
What does it mean to "really be a socialist", in your humble opinion?

[ModerateVoice]

Obama said, "Judge me by the people who surround me."

* Van Jones (communist, cop-hater, racist)
* Valerie Jarrett (former patient dumper with Michelle Obama)
* Cass Sunstein (thinks animals should be able to sue people)
* Ron Bloom (former AFL-CIO hatchet man)
* John Holdren (thinks trees should be able to sue people)
* Jeff Jones (Weather Underground terrorist, Apollo Alliance)
* Bill Ayers (Weather Underground terrorist)
* Tony Rezko (crook)
* Rhashid Khalidi (terror apologist)
* Reverend Jeremiah Wright (God **** America, racist, hypocrite)
* Mark Lloyd (thinks we have "too much free speech")
* Ezekiel Emmanuel (Statist & eugenics proponent)

......that's my short list.

[gattaca]

It's not a flawed question.
The question is (in my own words)...if he came out and said...well hell yeah I'm a socialist...would you care? Would it bother you? Would you still support him?

goodlife

thank you for making my point a bit easier to understand but basically as what our (exceptionally sexy mod pointed out :drool:

would you support him? yes or no and please explaine why.

[goeagles]

My question to the posters on this forum, its obviously redundant to ask consv as i know what the answer would be. But anyway moderate democrat or liberal. Would you care if obama said he actually was a socialist, i mean would you actaully care if he really was a socialist.

if you dont care hes a socialist please explaine why if you do care if hes a socialist explaine why. i just want to get a general idea and mentality.
It's a silly question.
And it's fallacious logic, because it assumes the premise.
He is not going to say that he is a socialist, because he is not a socialist.
And nobody of any political sophistication thinks he is.

[Fire Watch]

It's a silly question.
He is not going to say that he is a socialist, because he is not a socialist.
And nobody of any political sophistication thinks he is.
Ah, I love the smell of liberal arrogance and condescension in the evening :)

[gattaca]

"really was a socialist" ... I suspect you haven't clue #1 what you actually mean by that.
What does it mean to "really be a socialist", in your humble opinion?

stop it!!! lol.. you know what im asking. goodlife explained what i asked in much better english just in case anyone got confused.

im not trying to bash you or anyone else, i just want to know is if obama is a socialist would that jeapordize your support for him. and please explaine why you would or would not care if he was a socialist.

[gattaca]

It's a silly question.
And it's fallacious logic, because it assumes the premise.
He is not going to say that he is a socialist, because he is not a socialist.
And nobody of any political sophistication thinks he is.

okay but just asking YOUR oponion on the fact that IF he was a socialist or said he was would you still support him? is him being a socailist IF he was one would that negate your support for him, would that be a reason for you to not support him.

thank you

[agent_86]

Many on the left are students of the 20th century (1960's) neo-marxist theory of Critical Thinking. Black liberation theology, the open sexuality movement, the environmental movement, universal health care movement are all offshoots of the Frankfurt School neo-marxism introduced to Columbia University in the 1930's, that ended up being today's Social Marxism.

Most on the left were taught this bile in college in their political science classes and more. Some were even taught it in high school. They were just told that being "critical thinkers" was an "enlightened" way to see the world.

Many don't even know they are following Marxist theories and tactics, and therefore unwitting Marxists. They aren't in a position to tell they are marxist. That's the way brainwashing works.

[Kelzan]

Ah, I love the smell of liberal arrogance and condescension in the evening :)

Liberals that aren't arrogant and condescending are an endangered species, at least in Washington.

[jbthe20th]

It's not a flawed question.
The question is (in my own words)...if he came out and said...well hell yeah I'm a socialist...would you care? Would it bother you? Would you still support him?

I'd ask him first of all why would he be doing such a damn bad job at being a socialist.

[ModerateVoice]

Obama is not a Socialist.

Ironically with the financial collapse the State owns a large swathe of the Financial Services Industry but that would have been the case no matter who was in the WH. The decison to bail out the banks etc was unpopular but in my opinion there was little realistic alternative.

The auto industry was more Obama but just as the Repubs look after their own so do the Dems. Its a consequence of power.

On the flip side I don't believe Obama has any real interest in owning the 'levers of industry on behalf of the people' and that he'll get rid when the economy recovers. That some of his advisors are on the left is fine as long as they are competent.

Obama does want State run Health care which is a socialist vision if you like - albeit a vision conservatives in other countries happily embrace - and at some stage this will happen. Whether it comes this time or a watered down version is passed makes little difference as ultimately like Social Security; Medicare; Civil rights; Gay Rights and any number of other 'social progressive' measures it will happen.

You can't stop progress - you only have to look at the last 100 years to see that.

Then why did Obama appoint a manufacturing Czar yesterday if he did not have an interest in nationalizing major US industry?

[rileykeo]

okay but just asking YOUR oponion on the fact that IF he was a socialist or said he was would you still support him? is him being a socailist IF he was one would that negate your support for him, would that be a reason for you to not support him.

thank you
Of course Obama is a socialist and anyone who doesn't know this is living in la la land.

This is my first time on this site. Could someone please tell me why, on the Why O'Reilly wouldn't cover the Van Jones story, the same comments are repeated time and time again. Does this happen in each and every thread?

[ReaganWasWrong]

I'll bite.

But it depends upon your definition of a socialist. If you mean a western European socialist like Britain's lib dems or Germany's Grun Party than no I wouldn't mind.

[ModerateVoice]

Your ignorance is predictable. :rolleyes:

If Democrats really elected a liberal or socialists, then Ralph Nader or Dennis Kucinich would be in the White House.

I'm more embarassed and ashamed for my country when I see right-wing nuts talk all this nonsense and it's on TV for the world to see!!

It's a disgrace and these "wilderness" Conservatives lack all integrity and completely disrespect America. The best option here would be to.... strip their citizenship and boot them out. I feel for the men and women who serve our country in order to preserve the right's of these nut-jobs to slander and make a mokery of America for their own personal gain and fascists agendas.

It's a darn shame.

Obama said, "Judge me by the people who surround me."

* Van Jones (communist, cop-hater, racist)
* Valerie Jarrett (former patient dumper with Michelle Obama)
* Cass Sunstein (thinks animals should be able to sue people)
* Ron Bloom (former AFL-CIO hatchet man)
* John Holdren (thinks trees should be able to sue people)
* Jeff Jones (Weather Underground terrorist, Apollo Alliance)
* Bill Ayers (Weather Underground terrorist)
* Tony Rezko (crook)
* Rhashid Khalidi (terror apologist)
* Reverend Jeremiah Wright (God **** America, racist, hypocrite)
* Mark Lloyd (thinks we have "too much free speech")
* Ezekiel Emmanuel (Statist & eugenics proponent)

......that's my short list.

[rileykeo]

I'd ask him first of all why would he be doing such a damn bad job at being a socialist.
We all know Obama is a socialist, it's not like it's a secret. My question is , did I somehow make a wrong turn and am I in the midst of a liberal blog. I love Sean, but if everyone who has ever watched Sean, especially before the election doesn't know Obama is a socialist, then where am I?

[59Flash]

I can't believe this. a simple yes or no question and no Lib can answer it.

[goodlife]

I'd ask him first of all why would he be doing such a damn bad job at being a socialist.

lol.....touche'

[Bertha]

What does it mean to "really be a socialist", in your humble opinion?

It depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[Kelzan]

Obama said, "Judge me by the people who surround me."

* Van Jones (communist, cop-hater, racist)
* Valerie Jarrett (former patient dumper with Michelle Obama)
* Cass Sunstein (thinks animals should be able to sue people)
* Ron Bloom (former AFL-CIO hatchet man)
* John Holdren (thinks trees should be able to sue people)
* Jeff Jones (Weather Underground terrorist, Apollo Alliance)
* Bill Ayers (Weather Underground terrorist)
* Tony Rezko (crook)
* Rhashid Khalidi (terror apologist)
* Reverend Jeremiah Wright (God **** America, racist, hypocrite)
* Mark Lloyd (thinks we have "too much free speech")
* Ezekiel Emmanuel (Statist & eugenics proponent)

......that's my short list.

I'd hate to see your long list.

[rileykeo]

Obama said, "Judge me by the people who surround me."

* Van Jones (communist, cop-hater, racist)
* Valerie Jarrett (former patient dumper with Michelle Obama)
* Cass Sunstein (thinks animals should be able to sue people)
* Ron Bloom (former AFL-CIO hatchet man)
* John Holdren (thinks trees should be able to sue people)
* Jeff Jones (Weather Underground terrorist, Apollo Alliance)
* Bill Ayers (Weather Underground terrorist)
* Tony Rezko (crook)
* Rhashid Khalidi (terror apologist)
* Reverend Jeremiah Wright (God **** America, racist, hypocrite)
* Mark Lloyd (thinks we have "too much free speech")
* Ezekiel Emmanuel (Statist & eugenics proponent)

......that's my short list.
This is to Moderate Voice, Hannitized. If you are the one who listed all the names Valerie Jarred, etc. Thank you, thank you. For a moment I thought I had entered a spin off of Move On or the Huffington Post. I was just getting ready to get out of here. My first time and it would have been my last. Can't do flaming liberals. Sorry.

[Tangible]

I don't care about scary labels.

[jbthe20th]

lol.....touche'

Thank you. Obama still has a ways to go before he gets to the world of socialism.... how about nationalizing our utilities? That would put him into the world of socialism.

Heck, how about first re-strengthening the collective bargaining laws?

[ModerateVoice]

This is to Moderate Voice, Hannitized. If you are the one who listed all the names Valerie Jarred, etc. Thank you, thank you. For a moment I thought I had entered a spin off of Move On or the Huffington Post. I was just getting ready to get out of here. My first time and it would have been my last. Can't do flaming liberals. Sorry.

This forum welcomes both conservatives & liberals.........it makes our debates much more "lively!"

[59Flash]

How bout answering the freakin question??????

[Fire Watch]

I don't care about scary labels.
If the label is accurate, does it matter?

[ReaganWasWrong]

I can't believe this. a simple yes or no question and no Lib can answer it.

I did. But like I said, I need to know what you mean by socialist. If you mean totalitarian communist than yes, I would mind. On the other hand, if you mean Bernie Sanders from Vermont, no, I wouldn't mind.

[59Flash]

I guess by their responses that the answer is "yes" they would still support him.

[BigBear]

If the label is accurate, does it matter?
So-called "accuracy" depends on an accurate definition of this label. What's the definition of the label "socialist" in this hypothetical?

[akuma]

no

it wouldnt bother me

why? because like all other persons of varying ideologies all are allowed to participate and enect and have their view represented in affecting governmental policy. because someone is socialist doesnt make them an "enemy" doesnt make them in-eligible to be leader or have an understanding and clear comprehension of the Constitution or our laws and how they should be applied.

plenty of people are according to RW radio speak - "socialists" or as ive heard often times "damn near communists" - the country is not at an end -

noones kicking in anyone doors - nobody is being dragged off into the night never to be heard of again or cut out of photgraphs or sent to wastelands to die of exposure and hard labor.

[59Flash]

I did. But like I said, I need to know what you mean by socialist. If you mean totalitarian communist than yes, I would mind. On the other hand, if you mean Bernie Sanders from Vermont, no, I wouldn't mind.
Do you need a dictionary? There are plenty online

[jbthe20th]

I did. But like I said, I need to know what you mean by socialist. If you mean totalitarian communist than yes, I would mind. On the other hand, if you mean Bernie Sanders from Vermont, no, I wouldn't mind.

I don't think anyone wants a totalitarian in power.

[osamayomama]

as long as he's at least half-white and not gay, i dont even care if he's a republican.

[BigBear]

stop it!!! lol.. you know what im asking.
Actually, no I don't. You asked: "would you care if he really was a socialist?"
I have only the vaguest of guesses what you mean by "really was a socialist".

[Fire Watch]

So-called "accuracy" depends on an accurate definition of this label. What's the definition of the label "socialist" in this hypothetical?
Ahh! The "depends on what the definition of is, is " defense. Love it.

[agent_86]

I don't think anyone wants a totalitarian in power.

Too late for that, isn't it?

[ReaganWasWrong]

Do you need a dictionary? There are plenty online

I think you're the one who probably needs a dictionary, or at least most on the right do. The words "socialist" and "socialism" are thrown around by right-wing moonbats in order to attack anyone who supports a social safety net or federally funded programs.

Talk show hosts and others in the misinformation business have demonized the words socialist, socialism, and socialized in order to equate it with Communism. It's the exact reason why conservatives call universal healthcare "socialized medicine" and never call the military "socialized soldiers", firefighters "socialized combatants of fire", or the police "socialized keepers of the peace".

[ModerateVoice]

Why all the waffling on this now, liberal friends?

When the Van Jones thing was just heating up there was a load of prominent lefty forum members saying "what's wrong with communism?"

......Socialism, doesn't even come close to communism, so why are you shy to own up to it? I mean, c'mon, a short trip over to Daily Kos or DU will show that the dedicated left thinks socialism - and some Marxism - is the "hip" thing in liberal circles.

[jbthe20th]

Too late for that, isn't it?

That's another thing that's not true.

[agent_86]

I think you're the one who probably needs a dictionary, or at least most on the right do. The words "socialist" and "socialism" are thrown around by right-wing moonbats in order to attack anyone who supports a social safety net or federally funded programs.

Talk show hosts and others in the misinformation business have demonized the words socialist, socialism, and socialized in order to equate it with Communism. It's the exact reason why conservatives call universal healthcare "socialized medicine" and never call the military "socialized soldiers", firefighters "socialized combatants of fire", or the police "socialized keepers of the peace".

How about Social Marxist? Is that a made up term with ambiguous meaning? Maybe you would prefer Frankfurt School neo-marxist, is that specific enough?

[rckirby]

I don't think anyone wants a totalitarian in power.

Yet we keep giving an inch here and an inch there........sometimes you have to draw a line.

I would venture a bet that most D's, once they took off the partisan blinders, would be truly abhorred at where this country is headed.

This is much more than a minor tug-of-war between the left and the right......

[ModerateVoice]

I think you're the one who probably needs a dictionary, or at least most on the right do. The words "socialist" and "socialism" are thrown around by right-wing moonbats in order to attack anyone who supports a social safety net or federally funded programs.

Talk show hosts and others in the misinformation business have demonized the words socialist, socialism, and socialized in order to equate it with Communism. It's the exact reason why conservatives call universal healthcare "socialized medicine" and never call the military "socialized soldiers", firefighters "socialized combatants of fire", or the police "socialized keepers of the peace".

Here's the Wiki definition:

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resources) for all individuals with an egalitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism) method of compensation.

.....feel better now.

[jbthe20th]

Okay, the "Obama's a totalitarian" is a wonderful claim to make.

Now back it up. Come on. Let's see something totalitarian, such as using the military to assert one's sovereignty. Or restricting someone's speech (such as Glenn Beck), anything.

[jbthe20th]

Here's the Wiki definition:

Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating state, worker or public ownership and administration of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resources) for all individuals with an egalitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism) method of compensation.

.....feel better now.

And it's still not true.

[coolidge]

Obama will be the first american to chair the security counsel looks a good start for a new world order, imo article posted below.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7d0c7a3a-9ca4-11de-ab58-00144feabdc0.htmlsted below

[ModerateVoice]

And it's still not true.

Which part is not true?

...........how do you define Obama's various statements on the redistribution of wealth?

[jbthe20th]

Which part is not true?

He's still not socialist.

[notluzn]

Well here is one that hates the Constitution. Good Job no

it wouldnt bother me

why? because like all other persons of varying ideologies all are allowed to participate and enect and have their view represented in affecting governmental policy. because someone is socialist doesnt make them an "enemy" doesnt make them in-eligible to be leader or have an understanding and clear comprehension of the Constitution or our laws and how they should be applied.

plenty of people are according to RW radio speak - "socialists" or as ive heard often times "damn near communists" - the country is not at an end -

noones kicking in anyone doors - nobody is being dragged off into the night never to be heard of again or cut out of photgraphs or sent to wastelands to die of exposure and hard labor.

[MadazzVeteran]

Okay, the "Obama's a totalitarian" is a wonderful claim to make.

Now back it up. Come on. Let's see something totalitarian, such as using the military to assert one's sovereignty. Or restricting someone's speech (such as Glenn Beck), anything.

Let's see:

Government ownership of two major auto corporations
Government ownership of major banking institutions
Government run healthcare (damn the people, full speed ahead)

Jeez, that was too easy. History case of military use: 1962, units of the Alabama Army National Guard (and Commanding General) nationalized to remove George Wallace from the University of Alabama. President: John F. Kennedy

[mot1man]

Well here is one that hates the Constitution. Good Job

That works for me.

I was gonna go a little harsher!

[ModerateVoice]

He's still not socialist.

Do you want to elaborate, maybe write a argument supporting why you think that is?

[rckirby]

How about Social Marxist? Is that a made up term with ambiguous meaning? Maybe you would prefer Frankfurt School neo-marxist, is that specific enough?

Hey, I remember when I was about 14 and thought "how wonderful everything would be if we ALL made the same amount of money, no matter what we did....if we ALL had a nice house, car, TV....just divvy everything up so that EVERYONE makes the same amount of money."

Then I grew up.

I didn't know the terminology......I just knew that we would be soooooo much better off if we all lived in cookie-cutter houses and drove black cookie-cutter cars.

I got my first job, where I had to drag myself out of bed every morning, yet aspired to earn more.....which made me work harder for it.

Now, 14 year olds are running the country......the only problem is, they won't be willing to live in a cookie-cutter house and drive a black cookie-cutter car.

Therein lies the problem with every ideology except freedom and personal responsibility.

[ReaganWasWrong]

How about Social Marxist? Is that a made up term with ambiguous meaning? Maybe you would prefer Frankfurt School neo-marxist, is that specific enough?

If by specific enough you mean two schools of thought than I would have to say I disagree with both of them. But you have just proved the ambiguity of the post itself. Socialism means many things to many different people, that is why I asked what the OP's definition of socialism was.

[jbthe20th]

Let's see:

Government ownership of two major auto corporations
Government ownership of major banking institutions
Government run healthcare (damn the people, full speed ahead)

All were free market purchases (besides, they're still privately owned in part). None were hostile takeovers.


Jeez, that was too easy. History case of military use: 1962, units of the Alabama Army National Guard (and Commanding General) nationalized to remove George Wallace from the University of Alabama. President: John F. Kennedy

And the 1960s does not relate to today.

[MadazzVeteran]

[QUOTE=And the 1960s does not relate to today.[/QUOTE]

Quite right; let's keep making the same mistakes over and over and hope for a miracle.

[ModerateVoice]

Well, Michelle Obama certainly seems to admires Socialism. Here is Michelle quoting Alinsky in her speech at the DNC convention (Alinky in bold.)"Barack stood up that day," talking about a visit to Chicago neighborhoods, "and spoke words that have stayed with me ever since. He talked about “The world as it is” and “The world as it should be..."

And, "All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do – that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be." Here’s an excerpt from Chapter 2 of Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals (http://osdir.com/ml/politics.marxism.analysis/2002-04/msg00178.html):"The means-and-ends moralists, constantly obsessed with the ethics of the means used by the Have-Nots against the Haves, should search themselves as to their real political position. In fact, they are passive — but real — allies of the Haves…The most unethical of all means is the non-use of any means... The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be."

[rckirby]

All were free market purchases (besides, they're still privately owned in part). None were hostile takeovers.



And the 1960s does not relate to today.

Privately owned by WHOM?????

[jbthe20th]

Do you want to elaborate, maybe write a argument supporting why you think that is?

I'll give you a simple one: look at every socialized state. What do they have in common? Government ownership of utilities. That doesn't happen.

P.S. the government may have bailed out GM, but the fact that there is still a US-owned private company (Ford) eliminates the GM argument for socialism.

[jbthe20th]

Quite right; let's keep making the same mistakes over and over and hope for a miracle.

So Obama's a socialist Totalitarian because Kennedy sent in the national guard almost 50 years ago?

[LeftyLawyer]

I think that the posters who have asked to define the terms more specifically have a point. There are degrees of 'socialism,' so the answers will vary depending on what the definition is. For instance, I like the Post Office. I like public schools and universities. The interstate highway system. Many cities have socialized services such as basic trash collection, or recycling. All of these are technically 'socialist' programs, and most people would agree that they're good things. I note that the education system and the Post Office have not foreclosed private competition even remotely.

Anyway, I assume that the term in the context of this forum means a full on, socialize everything attitude. I'm not in favor of extreme socialization, at least not at this point in the development of our nation (living in the Star Trek universe would be pretty alright though), so I would not support any such policies. That being said, many on the left would tell you that Obama simply hasn't been "left enough" thus far in his presidency. There have been many concessions on issues such as gay rights, national security, domestic spying, etc. In that sense, if I knew that Obama was a raging lefty radical, I'd actually probably be OK with it, since I know that there's no chance that radical policies would ever pass through even a democratically controlled congress. I'd rather see someone pushing the envelope and making concessions that were less moderate, than someone starting from a slightly left but moderate place and making concessions that end up leaving us in the status quo.

[ModerateVoice]

All were free market purchases (besides, they're still privately owned in part). None were hostile takeovers.

You overlooked that it is completely unprecedented for the President to basically fire the sitting CEO of a privately owned company, i.e. General Motors. (Regardless whether you want to get politically correct and define the CEO's departure as a voluntary resignation.)

[MadazzVeteran]

So Obama's a socialist Totalitarian because Kennedy sent in the national guard almost 50 years ago?

Duck and cover!

[jbthe20th]

You overlooked that it is completely unprecedented for the President to basically fire the sitting CEO of a privately owned company, i.e. General Motors. (Regardless whether you want to get politically correct and define the CEO's departure as a voluntary resignation.)

I'd call it shrewd business. GM was begging for a bailout (read: free money) and the President drove a hard bargain.

[rckirby]

I'll give you a simple one: look at every socialized state. What do they have in common? Government ownership of utilities. That doesn't happen.

P.S. the government may have bailed out GM, but the fact that there is still a US-owned private company (Ford) eliminates the GM argument for socialism.

OK then.....where will you stand when the g'mint DOES take over the utilities???? (Read up on Cap/Trade and Maxine Water;s desire to socialize the oil companies)

Is that your line in the sand????? Or will you be OK with it?

Just what IS your line in the sand????? When will say STOP?

[ModerateVoice]

I'll give you a simple one: look at every socialized state. What do they have in common? Government ownership of utilities. That doesn't happen.

Cap & Trade would effectively place control of energy into the hands of government.........so that kills that part of your argument.

P.S. the government may have bailed out GM, but the fact that there is still a US-owned private company (Ford) eliminates the GM argument for socialism.

I'm not the one who brought up GM. However, since you did, it is important to note that its not just the nationalization of GM & Chrysler, its the union's increased power within these two organizations. Unions are gaining way too much power in this administration, and the net result will be bad for the US economy.

[ModerateVoice]

I'd call it shrewd business. GM was begging for a bailout (read: free money) and the President drove a hard bargain.

I'm sure several good lawyers would call it illegal and maybe even unconstitutional.

[agent_86]

OK then.....where will you stand when the g'mint DOES take over the utilities???? (Read up on Cap/Trade and Maxine Water;s desire to socialize the oil companies)

Is that your line in the sand????? Or will you be OK with it?

Just what IS your line in the sand????? When will say STOP?

When saying "STOP" isn't allowed. :think:

[ddye]

My question to the posters on this forum, its obviously redundant to ask consv as i know what the answer would be. But anyway moderate democrat or liberal. Would you care if obama said he actually was a socialist, i mean would you actaully care if he really was a socialist.

if you dont care hes a socialist please explaine why if you do care if hes a socialist explaine why. i just want to get a general idea and mentality.
99% of the politicians in America are socialist to some degree. And that's a good thing. The ones that aren't are kinda crazy.

Doug

[Shawna]

My question to the posters on this forum, its obviously redundant to ask consv as i know what the answer would be. But anyway moderate democrat or liberal. Would you care if obama said he actually was a socialist, i mean would you actaully care if he really was a socialist.

if you dont care hes a socialist please explaine why if you do care if hes a socialist explaine why. i just want to get a general idea and mentality.

It is no surprise the answer is so elusive.

Modern liberals know their ideology leans communist. In their mind, to varying degrees, individual liberty and capitalism are considered the root of all that is wrong in the world.

They believe only state control can solve the ills of the world. They will dance around the words "socialist" and "communist" because they know these ideologies are not accepted by the majority of Americans and run counter to the founding principles of this nation. They dance around socialist concepts like "ownership of the means of production", but they don't really care who "owns" anything as long as the government controls it to the point that the government is actually running it.

Make no mistake, they dream of the utopian classless society and believe that it is attainable...and that society can only exist without "individual liberty" and "freedom" , at least as the founding fathers defined the words. There is nothing American about Marxism, socialism or communism and therefore, as Obama says, America must be fundamentally transformed.

[mgifford]

I'm sure several good lawyers would call it illegal and maybe even unconstitutional.

Even firing the CEO of GM? Nah! LOL!

[rckirby]

99% of the politicians in America are socialist to some degree. And that's a good thing. The ones that aren't are kinda crazy.

Doug

And why are 99% socialist to some degree?

[jbthe20th]

Cap & Trade would effectively place control of energy into the hands of government.........so that kills that part of your argument.
No, it doesn't. Cap and trade merely monetizes the externality of pollution. It's the most free market there is, where the cost of pollution is taken into account.



I'm not the one who brought up GM. However, since you did, it is important to note that its not just the nationalization of GM & Chrysler, its the union's increased power within these two organizations. Unions are gaining way too much power in this administration, and the net result will be bad for the US economy.I'm not getting into a Union debate, but I'll just say that it's good that the government would not let GM and Chrysler get out of their debt obligations to their employees.

[ReaganWasWrong]

I think that the posters who have asked to define the terms more specifically have a point. There are degrees of 'socialism,' so the answers will vary depending on what the definition is. For instance, I like the Post Office. I like public schools and universities. The interstate highway system. Many cities have socialized services such as basic trash collection, or recycling. All of these are technically 'socialist' programs, and most people would agree that they're good things. I note that the education system and the Post Office have not foreclosed private competition even remotely.

Anyway, I assume that the term in the context of this forum means a full on, socialize everything attitude. I'm not in favor of extreme socialization, at least not at this point in the development of our nation (living in the Star Trek universe would be pretty alright though), so I would not support any such policies. That being said, many on the left would tell you that Obama simply hasn't been "left enough" thus far in his presidency. There have been many concessions on issues such as gay rights, national security, domestic spying, etc. In that sense, if I knew that Obama was a raging lefty radical, I'd actually probably be OK with it, since I know that there's no chance that radical policies would ever pass through even a democratically controlled congress. I'd rather see someone pushing the envelope and making concessions that were less moderate, than someone starting from a slightly left but moderate place and making concessions that end up leaving us in the status quo.

Great post LeftyLawyer, I hope you stick around. Most of the people on this forum view the world in black and white, good and evil. I'm glad there is someone like me who sees the endless sea of gray in the middle.

[ddye]

And why are 99% socialist to some degree?
They support Medicare, Social Security, NASA, you name it.

Doug

[Affirmed]

Great post LeftyLawyer, I hope you stick around. Most of the people on this forum view the world in black and white, good and evil. I'm glad there is someone like me who sees the endless sea of gray in the middle.


The problem is that you see too much gray. It's not all black and white, but it sure isn't an endless sea of gray.

[rckirby]

They support Medicare, Social Security, NASA, you name it.

Doug

But WHY are the politicians socialist? I already know the symptoms....tell me the reason WHY politicians are socialist.

[Affirmed]

It is no surprise the answer is so elusive.

Modern liberals know their ideology leans communist. In their mind, to varying degrees, individual liberty and capitalism are considered the root of all that is wrong in the world.

They believe only state control can solve the ills of the world. They will dance around the words "socialist" and "communist" because they know these ideologies are not accepted by the majority of Americans and run counter to the founding principles of this nation. They dance around socialist concepts like "ownership of the means of production", but they don't really care who "owns" anything as long as the government controls it to the point that the government is actually running it.

Make no mistake, they dream of the utopian classless society and believe that it is attainable...and that society can only exist without "individual liberty" and "freedom" , at least as the founding fathers defined the words. There is nothing American about Marxism, socialism or communism and therefore, as Obama says, America must be fundamentally transformed.


Forget about debating whether government can run the economy or health care better than the private sector. The issue is that we are eliminating choices for people. We are eliminating opportunities. The more government is involved in our lives, the more the government picks the winners and the losers. For example, the Government let Lehman Brothers fail, but bailed out Goldman Sachs.

[ModerateVoice]

No, it doesn't. Cap and trade merely monetizes the externality of pollution. It's the most free market there is, where the cost of pollution is taken into account.


I'm not getting into a Union debate, but I'll just say that it's good that the government would not let GM and Chrysler get out of their debt obligations to their employees.

We'll have to agree to disagree.......I need to get off-line in a couple of minutes & I hate leaving debates unfinished, but maybe another time.

[rckirby]

The problem is that you see too much gray. It's not all black and white, but it sure isn't an endless sea of gray.

Exactly right. It's the folks in the 'gray' that can't make a stand on principles, right or left......its whatever feels good today...to hell with how America is great, or how we can stay 'great'.

Either one believes in big government and less freedom or one believes in small government and more freedom.

If everyone would quit drinking the 'big g'mint' koolaid, and read up on history, they would realize that we are at a final 'fork in the road' as a country.

[ddye]

But WHY are the politicians socialist? I already know the symptoms....tell me the reason WHY politicians are socialist.
Because THE PEOPLE want some security in their lives, and there's no reason on earth that living in the USA cannot have some "perks".

You know what? I lived in Alabama for two years. Then I lived outside of Chicago for two years. Illinois has higher taxes than Alabama, but on the weekends I could ride down an incredible superhighway to an amazing public park, with all kinds of stuff to do FOR FREE! In Illinois, the public library system was outrageously cool. In the winter people played beer league softball in heated domes. Meanwhile, in Alabama there was nothing to do, pretty much ever.

People do not want Soviet-style socialism, but they do like a few perks in their lives. If people here call that "soclailism", that's just too damned bad. People LIKE that stuff. I like that stuff. People in Chicago like that stuff.

Doug

[Affirmed]

Because THE PEOPLE want some security in their lives, and there's no reason on earth that living in the USA cannot have some "perks".

I am soooooooo tired of all this "socialism" garbage! You know what? I lived in Alabama for two years. Then I lived outside of Chicago for two years. Illinois has higher taxes than Alabama, but on the weekends I could ride down an incredible superhighway to an amazing public park, with all kinds of stuff to do FOR FREE! In Illinois, the public library system was outrageously cool. In the winter people played beer league softball in heated domes. Meanwhile, in Alabama there was nothing to do, pretty much ever.

People do not want Soviet-style socialism, but they do like a few perks in their lives. If people here call that "soclailism", that's just too damned bad. People LIKE that stuff. I like that stuff. People in Chicago like that stuff.

Doug

It's not really fair to compare Chicago to Alabama. Why not compare Chicago to Dallas? I'm sure you could probably find quite a few things to do there. What people don't like is the government taking choices away from them. Why not let people make their own decisions?

[ReaganWasWrong]

Exactly right. It's the folks in the 'gray' that can't make a stand on principles, right or left......its whatever feels good today...to hell with how America is great, or how we can stay 'great'.

Either one believes in big government and less freedom or one believes in small government and more freedom.

If everyone would quit drinking the 'big g'mint' koolaid, and read up on history, they would realize that we are at a final 'fork in the road' as a country.


You can dismiss the "gray" area and the complexity of political issues all you want. It simply exposes the nature of your intellect - an inability to see more side than one.

[Affirmed]

You can dismiss the "gray" area and the complexity of political issues all you want. It simply exposes the nature of your intellect - an inability to see more side than one.


Typical liberal retort. Submit to personal attacks.

[BigBear]

Ahh! The "depends on what the definition of is, is " defense. Love it.
It's not a "defense". If you want to use labels, then define them. Is that too hard?

[ReaganWasWrong]

Typical liberal retort. Submit to personal attacks.

I'm accused of seeing too much "gray" and I respond by saying he (and you) do not see enough.

Furthermore, I'm accused of not being able to take a stand on principle unless it feels good.

If I've hurt anyone's feelings I apologize. But let's not go running off to the moderators.

[ddye]

It's not really fair to compare Chicago to Alabama. Why not compare Chicago to Dallas? I'm sure you could probably find quite a few things to do there. What people don't like is the government taking choices away from them. Why not let people make their own decisions?
I never lived in Dallas, so I can't say. And "the people" make those decisions when they elect people who decide to pay for those perks. I hate cold weather, but for such a cold place Chicago amazed me as a really vibrant city with tons of stuff to do for little or no money.

Doug

[Affirmed]

I'm accused of seeing too much "gray" and I respond by saying he (and you) do not see enough.

Furthermore, I'm accused of not being able to take a stand on principle unless it feels good.

If I've hurt anyone's feelings I apologize. But let's not go running off to the moderators.


Geez.....relax.

[Affirmed]

I never lived in Dallas, so I can't say. And "the people" make those decisions when they elect people who decide to pay for those perks. I hate cold weather, but for such a cold place Chicago amazed me as a really vibrant city with tons of stuff to do for little or no money.

Doug


Haha.....yeah I hate cold weather too. Glad I left it. You're right that people make decisions when they elect people to pay for those perks. Of course, not all elected officials govern or employ philosophies consistent with those they campaigned on.

[ddye]

Haha.....yeah I hate cold weather too. Glad I left it. You're right that people make decisions when they elect people to pay for those perks. Of course, not all elected officials govern or employ philosophies consistent with those they campaigned on.
That's a fair point. I was making the point that having public parks, nice libraries and great roads isn't the same thing as living in North Korea. RC Kirby (who's good people) asked me what makes politicians "socialist" and I answered truthfully. People LIKE a little socialism sometimes.

Doug

[LindaLR]

What i have found so sad in this thread...

Progressives who run away from the word socialism are what?
Wont man up and defend what they believe?
I see a lot of "sooooo, define socialism" and a few other deflecting tactics, meant to avoid answering, while snobbishly making fun of any one even suggesting that socialism is bad..
I always wonder at which hand do these folks sit by Chavez, to his left hand, or to his right. I imagine they never see themselves as victims of the chaos and hell those who live under such rule, but only see themselves as somehow above the fray of it all....i wonder if one would feel the same way about it if they had to bend to the forced rationing, the loss of access to information, is that ok?

[agent_86]

Because THE PEOPLE want some security in their lives, and there's no reason on earth that living in the USA cannot have some "perks".

You know what? I lived in Alabama for two years. Then I lived outside of Chicago for two years. Illinois has higher taxes than Alabama, but on the weekends I could ride down an incredible superhighway to an amazing public park, with all kinds of stuff to do FOR FREE! In Illinois, the public library system was outrageously cool. In the winter people played beer league softball in heated domes. Meanwhile, in Alabama there was nothing to do, pretty much ever.

People do not want Soviet-style socialism, but they do like a few perks in their lives. If people here call that "soclailism", that's just too damned bad. People LIKE that stuff. I like that stuff. People in Chicago like that stuff.

Doug

Chicago is and has been a hotbed for marxism for decades. It's unfortunate you bring that city into this. It doesn't really help your argument that much.

Marxists DO typically like free stuff. But as your post indicates, it's not really free.

Sad, really...

[ddye]

What i have found so sad in this thread...

Progressives who run away from the word socialism are what?
Wont man up and defend what they believe?
I see a lot of "sooooo, define socialism" and a few other deflecting tactics, meant to avoid answering, while snobbishly making fun of any one even suggesting that socialism is bad..
I always wonder at which hand do these folks sit by Chavez, to his left hand, or to his right. I imagine they never see themselves as victims of the chaos and hell those who live under such rule, but only see themselves as somehow above the fray of it all....i wonder if one would feel the same way about it if they had to bend to the forced rationing, the loss of access to information, is that ok?
Yeah, I like public parks and nice highways, so I am in favor of communist dictatorships. :rolleyes:

The right uses "sociaism" like a cross in a vampire movie. It's absurd and cartoonish.

Doug

[BigBear]

What i have found so sad in this thread...

Progressives who run away from the word socialism are what?
Wont man up and defend what they believe?
I see a lot of "sooooo, define socialism" and a few other deflecting tactics, meant to avoid answering,
As one of those who has asked for the definition: Conservatives use the label indiscriminately without defining it, because it's cheap and easy. I want conservative cheap&easy labelers to define what THEY mean by "socialist" or "socialism".

while snobbishly making fun of any one even suggesting that socialism is bad..
When you suggest that it's "bad", what do you mean by "socialism"?

To give a hint: "socialism" is a political system in which the State owns the means of production, and the capital which back the means of production.
The state owns all the industry, or at least the major industries.

[ddye]

Chicago is and has been a hotbed for marxism for decades. It's unfortunate you bring that city into this. It doesn't really help your argument that much.

Marxists DO typically like free stuff. But as your post indicates, it's not really free.

Sad, really...
Sorry, I forgot that in order to be a true Capitalist I should huddle in my dark house and bitch about every dime that goes to the pleasure of the Great Unwashed.

HEY! That guy's enjoying a sunset that he didn't PAY FOR!!!!

Are you seriously whining about public parks and libraries? I suppose you oppose pubic fireworks displays on the 4th of July, right? I mean, they're paid for by "rich people", right?

Doug

[ReaganWasWrong]

What i have found so sad in this thread...

Progressives who run away from the word socialism are what?
Wont man up and defend what they believe?
I see a lot of "sooooo, define socialism" and a few other deflecting tactics, meant to avoid answering, while snobbishly making fun of any one even suggesting that socialism is bad..
I always wonder at which hand do these folks sit by Chavez, to his left hand, or to his right. I imagine they never see themselves as victims of the chaos and hell those who live under such rule, but only see themselves as somehow above the fray of it all....i wonder if one would feel the same way about it if they had to bend to the forced rationing, the loss of access to information, is that ok?

As someone with over 4,000 posts, I'm sure you are aware that most people on this forum do not fall under one easily defined political persuasion. If I were to call out all "conservatives", I would be confronted with paleo-conservatives, neo-cons, libertarians, etc. So why aren't we on the left afforded the same amont of divesity in thinking. And before you attack by saying I "goose-step" with all progressives, I can assure that I don't.

So asking for the OP's definition of socialism isn't deflecting, it's an attempt at clarifying debate. It's much more effective than generalizing.

[mot1man]

That's a fair point. I was making the point that having public parks, nice libraries and great roads isn't the same thing as living in North Korea. RC Kirby (who's good people) asked me what makes politicians "socialist" and I answered truthfully. People LIKE a little socialism sometimes.

Doug

Sometimes Doug?

Sometimes?

60 years ago, it was SS, that turned into one of the biggest unfunded entitlements this country CAN NOT afford.

40 years ago, it was Medicare, that turned into one of the biggest unfunded entitlements this country CAN NOT afford.


Why is it that you people, who SOMETIMES want a little Socialism in your life, can't understand, THAT IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE!

Need I go on?

[mot1man]

Sorry, I forgot that in order to be a true Capitalist I should huddle in my dark house and bitch about every dime that goes to the pleasure of the Great Unwashed.

HEY! That guy's enjoying a sunset that he didn't PAY FOR!!!!

Are you seriously whining about public parks and libraries? I suppose you oppose pubic fireworks displays on the 4th of July, right? I mean, they're paid for by "rich people", right?

Doug

It's still not free, is it?

[Mobulis]

What has Obama done to indicate that he is not a socialist?

The chairman of the socialist party of america has stated that obam is not a socialist, I think they know what their talking about.

[simssk]

"really was a socialist" ... I suspect you haven't clue #1 what you actually mean by that.
What does it mean to "really be a socialist", in your humble opinion?

nice dodge there

[ddye]

Sometimes Doug?

Sometimes?

60 years ago, it was SS, that turned into one of the biggest unfunded entitlements this country CAN NOT afford.

40 years ago, it was Medicare, that turned into one of the biggest unfunded entitlements this country CAN NOT afford.


Why is it that you people, who SOMETIMES want a little Socialism in your life, can't understand, THAT IT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE!

Need I go on?
Then I suppose we can look forward to the GOP coming out foursquare against Social Security and Medicare, right? :))

Forget it, the people want it, and "conservatives" will support it as mightily as liberals. The fact remains, THE PEOPLE like a little socialism. That was my point.

The problem is that the GOP only likes the socialism that it thinks up, or that the people vote for. When the Democrats propose it, suddenly the Democrats are Joe Stalin incarnate.

Doug

[simssk]

The chairman of the socialist party of america has stated that obam is not a socialist, I think they know what their talking about.

Well that settles it for me. Because these people just DO NOT lie.

[mot1man]

The chairman of the socialist party of america has stated that obam is not a socialist, I think they know what their talking about.


Yeah, I guess he's right. Obamas just Socialistlite....:rolleyes:

[mot1man]

Then I suppose we can look forward to the GOP coming out foursquare against Social Security and Medicare, right? :))

Forget it, the people want it, and "conservatives" will support it as mightily as liberals. The fact remains, THE PEOPLE like a little socialism. That was my point.

Doug

Ha,Ha, Ha......It's just funny as Hell isn't it?

By the way, how are you going to pay for it?

[mot1man]

Then I suppose we can look forward to the GOP coming out foursquare against Social Security and Medicare, right? :))

Forget it, the people want it, and "conservatives" will support it as mightily as liberals. The fact remains, THE PEOPLE like a little socialism. That was my point.

The problem is that the GOP only likes the socialism that it thinks up, or that the people vote for. When the Democrats propose it, suddenly the Democrats are Joe Stalin incarnate.

Doug


Doug,

BTW, you can save the party politics, at least with me, it's a damn shame we're not past that BS by know.

[mawst95]

My question to the posters on this forum, its obviously redundant to ask consv as i know what the answer would be. But anyway moderate democrat or liberal. Would you care if obama said he actually was a socialist, i mean would you actaully care if he really was a socialist.

if you dont care hes a socialist please explaine why if you do care if hes a socialist explaine why. i just want to get a general idea and mentality.

I know about 100+ liberals, none of them want socialism. If anything they are ****ed that Obama's turning out to be a pretty center, rather than progressive.

[ddye]

Doug,

BTW, you can save the party politics, at least with me, it's a damn shame we're not past that BS by know.
Just pointing out that both parties support socialism, that's all. I agree with your post though.

Doug

[mrclark]

I can't believe this. a simple yes or no question and no Lib can answer it.

What's so hard to understand about why LIBS won't answer a simple question?

...they're skeered to answer.

If they say they would support a socialist Obama, they admittedly are saying they'd support socialism in this country and automatically garner the ire of normal Americans who abhor socialism and communism because if the TERRIBLE record of socialist tyrants and socialism in practice world wide. Lets face it, they want to hold on to the hope that some day, somewhere, a socialist LEADER will rise that will usher in their dream of a Utopian state....even though it has never happened....they have "hope" that it will.

If they say they wouldn't support a socialist, then they'd have to abandon him because of his socialist tendency and "redistribution" theology and the people that he surrounds himself with...

thus they remain silent.

[WildRose]

There are responses from libs on here such as:

"It doesn't bother me."

and

"What's wrong with communism?"

Most of the libs actually support and want communists running the country.You forget the above "He's not a socialist".

Most of them either don't understand what that word means, or are too dishonest to admit that, indeed that is the end goal of the "progressive" agenda.

[WildRose]

Well that settles it for me. Because these people just DO NOT lie.Well, not to each other.:)):))

[BigBear]

What has Obama done to indicate that he is not a socialist?Well, he hasn't nationalized the porn industry.

[gb2004]

He's not a socialist.


Just read this on another site, and it's a relevent question:

Quick question: how many Marxists, Communists, Domestic Terrorists and raving racialists does the President get to associate with before reasonable people can assume that the president on some level shares their particular vision of America?

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jphillips/2009/09/08/revolution-anyone/#more-219974

[Shawna]

Just read this on another site, and it's a relevent question:

"Quick question: how many Marxists, Communists, Domestic Terrorists and raving racialists does the President get to associate with before reasonable people can assume that the president on some level shares their particular vision of America?"

and I will raise with: and then tells us "Judge me by the people who surround me"

[mrclark]

Just read this on another site, and it's a relevent question:



http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jphillips/2009/09/08/revolution-anyone/#more-219974

oh..whoever rose that question must be a RAAAAACIST :lol:

[penner01]

I'd hate to see your long list. I think we need to see the long list.....all of it on one page. And I think it's a real hoot that after 30 posts, nobody has answered the OP question. Now, I'm going to go keep looking for an answer.

[penner01]

Just read this on another site, and it's a relevent question:



http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jphillips/2009/09/08/revolution-anyone/#more-219974
I haven't seen it asked any better...

[mrclark]

I wonder how many news reports would have been done on Booosh had he associated freely with KKK members, members of Stormfront or fringe kooks... let alone appoint them to important positions in his administration.

The media would have been falling all over themselves, yet *yawn* Obama does it and they could care less.

[Mobulis]

What's so hard to understand about why LIBS won't answer a simple question?

...they're skeered to answer.

If they say they would support a socialist Obama, they admittedly are saying they'd support socialism in this country and automatically garner the ire of normal Americans who abhor socialism and communism because if the TERRIBLE record of socialist tyrants and socialism in practice world wide. Lets face it, they want to hold on to the hope that some day, somewhere, a socialist LEADER will rise that will usher in their dream of a Utopian state....even though it has never happened....they have "hope" that it will.

If they say they wouldn't support a socialist, then they'd have to abandon him because of his socialist tendency and "redistribution" theology and the people that he surrounds himself with...

thus they remain silent.


I wouldn't support a true socialist and since obama is not one I don't have to worry about it.

[Dale in GA]

There are responses from libs on here such as:

"It doesn't bother me."

and

"What's wrong with communism?"

Most of the libs actually support and want communists running the country.

That's your opinion and not supported by any facts.

What regular liberal poster here has expressed the opinions you so blithely ascribe to all of us?

It's blanket, unsubstantiated allegations like that that destroy not only your own credibility, but that of the other conservatives here, even those that take the time to think through their posts and express themselves clearly and lucidly.

[mot1man]

That's your opinion and not supported by any facts.

What regular liberal poster here has expressed the opinions you so blithely ascribe to all of us?

It's blanket, unsubstantiated allegations like that that destroy not only your own credibility, but that of the other conservatives here, even those that take the time to think through their posts and express themselves clearly and lucidly.

Any answer for the OP?

[gb2004]

oh..whoever rose that question must be a RAAAAACIST :lol:

Actually, he's a black dude.

[Dale in GA]

My question to the posters on this forum, its obviously redundant to ask consv as i know what the answer would be. But anyway moderate democrat or liberal. Would you care if obama said he actually was a socialist, i mean would you actaully care if he really was a socialist.

if you dont care hes a socialist please explaine why if you do care if hes a socialist explaine why. i just want to get a general idea and mentality.

When he was Governor of California, Ronald Reagan vowed that there would never be an income tax there as long as he was Governor.

Some years later he signed the income tax bill into law, voiwing that there would never, as long as he was Governor, be any withholding of income taxes from people's pay. He said that that determination was "set in concrete."

Some years later, when he was signing the legislation effectuating withholding of state income taxes from people's paychecks, he famously said "That sound you hear is concrete cracking."

My point is this - while Reagan himself didn't believe in state income taxes, he presided over their implementation in California, including the despised payroll withholding.

Do you think that the proponents of a state income tax in California cared much whether or not Mr. Reagan believed in it? Was California's tax policy constructed to be consistent with his ideas about taxation of income?

What's important today isn't whether or not President Obama is (or considers himself to be) a socialist. For one, the word itself has such a negative connotation among some people that its mere utterance renders meaningful discussion impossible. For another, no President, the protestation of the current conniebot crew and Dick Cheney notwithstanding, can impose his own agenda on our nation. Reagan couldn't, Clinton couldn't, GWBush couldn't . . . and Barack Obama can't.

The checks and balances imposed by the Constitution are still there and will be observed, and whataver changes takes place will occur as a result of the political process the Framers constructed,not as a result of a single person's whim.

[fee]

To answer the OP I wouldn't have any problem with it at all. In fact, I wish he was a Socialist. I also wish he was a Liberal, too. I'm very disappointed and hope he gets some cajones soon.

[agent_86]

Sorry, I forgot that in order to be a true Capitalist I should huddle in my dark house and bitch about every dime that goes to the pleasure of the Great Unwashed.

HEY! That guy's enjoying a sunset that he didn't PAY FOR!!!!

Are you seriously whining about public parks and libraries? I suppose you oppose pubic fireworks displays on the 4th of July, right? I mean, they're paid for by "rich people", right?

Doug

Doug,

I don't oppose any of those things, as long as the government that pays for them is local or state - where the citizens have real input, and NOT centrally managed by Fedzilla. You and I have had enough conversations for that not to be new.

[croupier101]

I care that 99% of conservatives don't even actually know what socialism even is.

[blackmesa741]

My question to the posters on this forum, its obviously redundant to ask consv as i know what the answer would be. But anyway moderate democrat or liberal. Would you care if obama said he actually was a socialist, i mean would you actaully care if he really was a socialist.

if you dont care hes a socialist please explaine why if you do care if hes a socialist explaine why. i just want to get a general idea and mentality.

Who was the last 'non-socialist' president?

I think the best way to put a stake through the heart of the Republican Party would be for them to run campaigns on the "let's do away with social programs" ticket...

[agent_86]

I care that 99% of conservatives don't even actually know what socialism even is.

Wait... let me guess... socialism is your local fire department, mail service and public roads, right?

[LeftyLawyer]

I think we need to see the long list.....all of it on one page. And I think it's a real hoot that after 30 posts, nobody has answered the OP question. Now, I'm going to go keep looking for an answer.

I'm pretty sure I answered it a few pages back.

[flowercopter]

I consider myself a socialist in the same school of thought as EV Debs, Hellen Keller, Susan B Anthony, Bayard Rustin, or even some non-Americans like Albert Einstein.

If I found out Obama was socialist, I would be at first happy, but then concerned because many of his policies seem unsocial.

[Dale in GA]

Wait... let me guess... socialism is your local fire department, mail service and public roads, right?

I spend a lot of itme with seniors.

Their favorite topic now seems to be how the President is forcing the nation into socialism.
The second favorite topic is how the President, in the process of making this a socialist country, is going to do away with Medicare and Medicaid.

I think the conniebots are constantly hurling more and more disinformation, and outright lies, to keep as many people confused as possible, because they don't relaly want a well-informed electorate, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

[Greyghost]

Yeah, I like public parks and nice highways, so I am in favor of communist dictatorships. :rolleyes:

The right uses "sociaism" like a cross in a vampire movie. It's absurd and cartoonish.

Doug

What's absurd is how dependent people have become on the government to "help" them out. The government is nothing more than a crack dealer and the liberals are getting hooked on every little thing given to them without looking at the overall picture. All those things the government is giving is going to end up costing you and even worse me. You may not care but I don't want the government hand outs I would rather work for what I want. Just like any junkie they do not see the dangers in giving the crack dealing government more power.

[agent_86]

I spend a lot of itme with seniors.

Their favorite topic now seems to be how the President is forcing the nation into socialism.
The second favorite topic is how the President, in the process of making this a socialist country, is going to do away with Medicare and Medicaid.

I think the conniebots are constantly hurling more and more disinformation, and outright lies, to keep as many people confused as possible, because they don't relaly want a well-informed electorate, their protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.

While that story is very ironic, medicare/caid was sold as a guaranteed payout. That is what sold America on the socialist program. Of course a centralized government can't ever keep the promises it makes. They know it when they sold out to socialism, and they know it now that their guaranteed payout isn't guaranteed anymore.

BTW, Obama does want to kill Medicaid.

[Gabby]

And it's still not true.

Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\
Function: noun
Date: 1837

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

[Greyghost]

I care that 99% of conservatives don't even actually know what socialism even is.

I'm extremely surprised that you have to resort to attacking the intelligence of us conservatives instead of actually answering the questions. :rolleyes: Liberal arrogance and elitism.

[Gabby]

All were free market purchases (besides, they're still privately owned in part). None were hostile takeovers.


In the definition of socialism, nothing says that the gov ownership of production has to be accomplished by force. It matters only that the gov owns and/or controls the means of production.

Owning part of companies is moving along a path to full socialism. What is going on right now is the gov testing to waters and paving the way to a gov takeover of entire industries. So for the complaints have been fairly mild, so I suspect we will see more and more gov take overs in the next few years.

[agent_86]

I'm extremely surprised that you have to resort to attacking the intelligence of us conservatives instead of actually answering the questions. :rolleyes: Liberal arrogance and elitism.

You've not been here that long, because that's just how croup rolls AFAICT.

[LeftyLawyer]

I'm extremely surprised that you have to resort to attacking the intelligence of us conservatives instead of actually answering the questions. :rolleyes: Liberal arrogance and elitism.

Again, I'll direct you to my answer on page 8 of this thread. I believe that it's a solid answer to the question.