The Center for American Progress’ lawyers asked us to take down this post for legal reasons that our paranoid lawyers have prohibited us from disclosing.
I want a vonservative to tell me what the hell is so bad about Socialism?
All you people ever do is yell or cry “Socialism is bad!!!” but you fail to make any kind of argument, much less a valid one about why you think it’s worse than Capitialism when every country that has a higher standard of living than we do is firstly Socialistic and Capitialistic second (which means that people come first, and money second - the opposite of here).
All the evidence points to the fact that Socialism is a better way to run a country. I simply can’t understand why you’re opposed to it.
This is a great collection of right-wing references to Obama being a Socialist.
In addition to these, Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media has been on a crusade to tag Obama as a Communist based on some vague, unsubstantiated reports about his childhood in Hawaii.
Kincaid has been unable to peddle this nonsense - even to Fox News. So he has resorted to accusing Fox, Drudge and others of being leftists as well.
I would just love to hear a reporter (any left?) ask McCain or any of his surrogates (that seems to be the buzzword for this election), that if the government bailing out Fannie and Freddie, Goldman Sachs, or any other corporate giant because they have failed as businesses is NOT socialism, then what is it? It sure as hell isn’t capitalism.
How about the no-bid contracts to Halliburton, etc? Is that not socialism? It sure as hell isn’t capitalism.
It’s pretty ironic how the right goes into a involuntary convulsions when you start talking about nationalizing something, yet they have no problems spending billions of dollars for companies that have failed in the free market.
A scary photo of John McCain extracted from a recent CNN interview clip in which he was asked about his position on Viagra. Where would he “lead” us if he were President?
Yeah, this is a backhanded smear, just like Hillary’s “Obama’s not a Muslim, as far as I know”.
But aside from that, there’s nothing wrong with moderate socialist views, even though many people conjure up a vision of extreme application, such as the Soviet Union.
Just as there is nothing wrong with being Muslim, even though many people conjure up a vision of 9/11 hijackers with that term.
And there’s nothing wrong with being elderly, even though many people conjure up a vision of a doddering, forgetful geezer — oh, wait…
More name calling towards Obama - nothing more. I would think the right side would have got that out of their systems when they turned 9 or 10 years old.
How about one of our trolls explaining exactly what makes Obama a ’socialist’. In addition, they also must explain why bailing out the mortgage giants and freddie mae/mac IS NOT socialist.
Shows how backwards the Republican Party really is - they only make references to out-dated historical events like McCarthy’s Communist scare, Carter’s Administration and the like.
And McHitler is a Nazi fascist. I thought we would be voting for either a republican or an democrat this election. Now my choices are between a Nazi fascist or a socialist. Hmmmm… I’ll take the socialist.
Now on a more serious note, really, I find this conflation between social and Socialism very sick and misleading. Not every “social” (pro-people) measure of the government is in the book of Socialism, capitalized, as in the Marx’s works. Every time the government wishes to establish a measure to protect the people, it’s branded “Socialist” by those moron Republicans (and many others). Frankly, I think the USA electorate has lost in translation long time ago the meaning of social, and the differences with the Socialism doctrine. Every pro-people initiative is branded “Socialist” if it isn’t done by a large religious group, and only if it fits the right wing agenda. Then, it’s branded “charity”.
Frankly, I find sometimes the USA electorate (LIVs specially) very disconnected of real politics, and too obsesed with micro managing and key words.
citizen_pain Says:
… if the government bailing out Fannie and Freddie, Goldman Sachs, or any other corporate giant because they have failed as businesses is NOT socialism, then what is it? It sure as hell isn’t capitalism.
How about the no-bid contracts to Halliburton, etc? Is that not socialism? It sure as hell isn’t capitalism.
It’s pretty ironic how the right goes into a involuntary convulsions when you start talking about nationalizing something, yet they have no problems spending billions of dollars for companies that have failed in the free market.
Argumentum ad hominem - the favorite tactic of fourth-graders everywhere. Obama’s a Muslim. Obama’s a Socialist. Obama’s a wuss. Obama’s this, Obama’s that. Good grief.
All I know is his voting record, and that’s what people usually judge their elected representatives by.
So, present those pieces of Socialist legislation which are Socialist, moron.
There are, on the other side, ample Fascist examples - Military Tribunals, Patriot Act, Homeland Security - whose very names evoke images of goose-stepping black-shirts in jackboots.
Every corporate-aristocrat shill in history has whined about any attempt to curtail monopolism of wealth and power. That act’s getting old.
Meanwhile, the corporate Fed bailed out an investment bank with government money without the consent of Congress, completely unconstitutional, and nary a whimper of Socialism from these mental deficients.
Funny, McCain’s party is happy to send government dollars to corporations, some already owned by stinking rich private equity underwriters (PEU’s) like The Carlyle Group. Texas gave Vought Aircraft Industries $35 million to create 3,000 jobs. As of 2006, the Dallas Morning News noted Vought had cut 600 positions.
Carlyle Chairman Lou Gertsner recently spoke of corporate culture:
MCCAIN: Oh, I don’t know. All I know is his voting record, and that’s what people usually judge their elected representatives by.
This idiot can’t remember his own voting record but he cites Obamas. If we had any real journalists left they would ask thim what votes he’s referring to and how McCain voted on those.
Obama: “I know that Mc-I-can’t-hold-my-arm-up
is a Senile Old Warmonger Suck-up to the Worst and Destructives administrations in the history of the US”
CEO Syron in The Hill: Don’t Weaken GSEs’ Ability to Expand Homeownership
In an op-ed titled “Don’t Weaken GSEs’ Ability to Expand Homeownership” [PDF 440K] published in The Hill on June 22, 2005, Richard Syron, CEO and Chairman of Freddie Mac, says, “As an economist, longtime central banker and regulator, I know how important the GSEs are to our broader economy. … Since Congress created Freddie Mac in 1970, housing has gone from being a whipping boy of the economic cycle to a pillar of the U.S. economy.”
Syron also defends the retained portfolio and emphasizes that any regulatory changes affecting the GSEs should “build on Congress’s genius in creating two institutions, within a free-market system, that can continue to attract private capital to serve a public mission.”
I wonder if Syron will give back the tens of millions he’s made over at Freddie Mac now…
like most liberals, Obama masks his true intentions. Clearly the voters would never elect an admitted socialist, however that’s exactly what he is. Look at his socialized medicine program for example.Socialists have long since hijacked the Democratic party. Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, the label de jour matters not, Barry’s a socialist much like most of you closet socialists in the TP community.
I’m not sure if McCain is showing signs of senility…I just don’t know…
I personally won’t comment on the rumors that McCain wears Depends, I couldn’t say.
Old McCain and his Reagan strategists looking for old tricks to win the White House…and what better trick is than to use words like ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ to describe Obama.
The sad part about it is that these strategists forgot that there is no ‘Soviet Union’ exists anymore and Communist China nowadays is our best trade partner and one of our top money lenders.
Any surprise why McCain still thinks there is a country called Czechoslovakia?!!
European countries downsize military, increase social programs
Most countries in Europe have focused on social and economic development in recent decades, as they shift their attention from fighting wars to improving the lives of their citizens, he said at “The Rise of the Civilian State in Europe, 1945-2006″ a discussion that took place Friday in Mary Graydon Center.
“The European state is now in its essence a civilian state,” Sheehan said.
He defined a civilian state as a country that values social development over military buildup. European nations try to solve problems with compromise and debate, rather than the military strategies they focused on until the late part of the 20th century, he said.
European countries no longer need to worry about internal conflicts because “Germany and France are no more likely to go to war with each other than the United States and Canada,” Sheehan said.
listening to nor-man gold-man on edschultz…
when he came on air, he named off the list of dubya’s recent flip-flops, all seemingly from obama’s policy plans,
and nor-man jokes that he expects that “by 5o’clock this afternoon
he’ll [W] announce his plan for universal health care”…
I clipped this from a few years ago - typical right winger response to “socialis”
Conservative Republican, Age 30 “Social Security is socialism”
Conservative Republican, Age 40 “Social Security is a ponzi scheme”
Conservative Republican, Age 50 “Social Security shouldn’t be changed for anyone passed middle age”
Conservative Republican, Age 60 “Touch my social security and they’ll be hell to pay”
Conservative Republican, Age 65 “Social Security is wonderful”
Then what do you call an old man, who is drawing a 100% disability, full medical benefits, a full Senate salary and hasn’t shown up to work for over 3 months?
Can someone give me the specifics on why that would be a bad thing?
July 18th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Well looking from a fascist NeoCon point of view, EVERYBODY is in the far left, so Obama must look as Lenin in the distance, even being a slightly right of center politician really…
People in the West, not only in the US (among some friends here in Mexico too), socialism is, first of all, the legacy of Stalin (who couldn’t possibly know anything about socialism since he was a Georgian thug and train robber) and second, for those who know a little bit more of history, the bolshevik uprising and how that group stormed into noble and wealthy russian family houses to take all their belongings with the statement: until every Russian has the same things as you, you are not allowed to have this.
Of course, many people forget that the worst disaster in all humankind history happened in Russia in 1905, when 5 million people died of hunger while the Szar and all those noble families were eating caviar.
Ironically, the most socialist countries are the ones who have the highest quality of life for all its citizens: the scandinavian countries.
“Clearly the voters would never elect an admitted socialist, however that’s exactly what he is.”
Does this make sense? You are implying that he could never admit to being a socialist becuase he couldn’t get elected but then you say that he is in fact an admitteded socialist..
Please clarify.
Now as to market capitalism I have a question. Might you be willing to try and help me find an answer?
Hey trickledick. Take some sulfur tabs man, the trickle and the sting when you pee should go away after a couple of days. And I know you Repugnicunts don’t like to mention the unmentionable, but wear a condom and you won’t have that trickle problem again.
I don’t know if that blond lobbyist was actually taking all those plane rides with McCain so she could change his diapers because his socialized health care benefits give him all the Viagra he wants so it’s possible they were having sex instead.
Liberals are often so scared of their own labels. Be proud! If you’re a socialist, don’t hide it. I’m a libertarian, I don’t hide it. Why do you try to hide what is patently obvious? There are many successful socialist in America, just look at the socialist/communist roots of the ACLU for example.
Obama was a socialist during the primaries, but now that he has the nomination locked up, he is trying to appear to be more of a centrist. So it is difficult to tell if he is a socialist at the moment. Thus, “I don’t know” is a fair answer.
It’s also a fair answer if you are a senile old fascist and your base is a bunch of cowardly sissies that don’t think America is strong enough to defeat terrorists without resorting to war.
How was Obama a socialist during the primaries? If you cite his health-care plan please point out how his plan makes hime a socalist and not Mitt Rommney, who instituted a statewide healthcare plan in the great state of Massachuscetts?
Juan C. Says: People in the West, not only in the US (among some friends here in Mexico too), socialism is, first of all, the legacy of Stalin
You’re right. And the ‘godless factor’ must fit in there somewhere as well. I sometimes forget that they use antiquated and obscure views rather than the modern representation of socialism as a government that collects taxes so that its people can have benefits that we couldn’t afford individually.
I recently saw that Denmark currently has the highest rated health care system in the world.
Top ten countries (HDI range from 0.963 down to 0.878)
Norway (=)
Iceland (? 5)
Australia (=)
Luxembourg (? 11)
Canada (? 1)
Sweden (? 4)
Switzerland (? 4)
Ireland (? 2)
Belgium (? 3)
United States (? 2)
The U.S. ranks 4th in GDP, yet it is 92nd in distribution of wealth—UN measurement. In other words the top 5% live the best of all nations, and the bottom 25% live worse than in countries such as Greece.
Both of the current trolls betray a massive ignorance of what “socialist” means, which is typical of “conservatives”. Anything to the left of outright fascism is considered “socialism” by these fools.
TrippleKick 2 Says: Liberals are often so scared of their own labels. Be proud! If you’re a socialist, don’t hide it. I’m a libertarian, I don’t hide it. Why do you try to hide what is patently obvious?
No, we’re just tired of you Cons changing the actual definitions of these words to something that you find offensive, rather than accepting us for who we are - people who think that people and not money are important.
Proof that our way works better is to compare the last 8 years of Bush to the prior 8 years of Clinton.
Liberals are often so scared of their own labels. Be proud! If you’re a socialist, don’t hide it. I’m a libertarian, I don’t hide it. Why do you try to hide what is patently obvious? There are many successful socialist in America, just look at the socialist/communist roots of the ACLU for example.
—
Would that be the I am too lame to pay my taxes type of libertarian or the I just wanna smoke pot sort of libertarian?
Shayne Says:
Explain to us toothless21 and dribblinglicker how McCain can claim to know Obama’s voting record when he doesn’t remember his own.
McDepends doesn’t have a voting record for the past 3 months and has the WORST attendance record of anyone in the Senate this past 6 months. Even Ted Kennedy could show up for a vote, but not Johnny Boy.
Liberals are often so scared of their own labels. Be proud! If you’re a socialist, don’t hide it. I’m a libertarian, I don’t hide it. Why do you try to hide what is patently obvious? There are many successful socialist in America, just look at the socialist/communist roots of the ACLU for example.
—
Would that be the I am too lame to pay my taxes type of libertarian or the I just wanna smoke pot sort of libertarian?
It’s the “I’m Really a Republican, but too embarrassed to admit that I really like Bush.” kind of libertarian.
United States federal budget, 2009 - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2008 - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2007 - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2006 - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2005 - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2004 - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2003 - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2002 - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2001 - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 2000 - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 1999 - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 1998 - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 1997 - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 1996 - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)
Republican strategy up till the recent past was to use words like “liberal” and Democrat” in a divisive way. These words have since been demystified and not commonly perceieved as a couple of dirty words to be ashamed of by many of the LIV sheeple. They need a new boogyman so “socialist” has become the new buzzword. When looked at logically the word has no negative conotations but the right hopes that because the average LIV doesn’t understand exactly what it means that it will imply derogatory connotations that might stick. It is a word that has the same repulsive effect on the corporate/wealthy hard right that garlic has on vampires so they figure that everyone must despise the concept of socialist applications in society. Yet another reason why I have always wondered why anyone who is not a greedy rich scumbag would vote for the Republican party. There are millions of lower income voters across the country whose lives would be greatly improved with many of the so-called “socialist” programs proposed by the Democratic party, but they still will vote for the party that will destroy this nations economy, send their children off to die in a war of choice and offer immense amounts of taxpayer moneys to bail out corporations that can’t compete in an open market, laughing all the way at the ignorance of the masses who have voted them into office all these years. If these sheeple were ever to wake from their MSM, talk radio induced political coma, THIS economy, THIS failed war of choice and THIS flip-flopping non-religious confused old man would hopefully do the trick.
I would rather live under Obama and his idea`s that will help and fix the SOCIAL FABRIC of this country than live under the Fascist Regime of the re-pukes and their DOGMA……..
Funny how Johhny paints socialism as unattractive. Funny part is, bailing out large corps like Bear Stersn, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is precisely that.
One thing for certain- MyCane is not too bright
OK, it is obvious that both the trolls (tripplekick) and the liberals are fairly ignorant on this topic. Socialism is defined as the public ownership of the means of production of goods and services. It can be state ownership or it can be worker ownership (collectivism). The most predominant example of socialism was indeed the Soviet Union.
This is no different than the use of appeasement in describing Obama’s statement that he would meet with advesary leaders. It showed just how ignorant and how ineffective the Republicans and conservatives can be. It was a major embarrasment. Obama is not a socialist. He does not even come close to being a socialist.
I keep hearing about socialized medicine. Who has it? Well the British do through their National Health Service (they also cover every citizen at a far lesser cost than the US and have a far better health outcome for their citizens. France and Germany have an extremely good health program run through highly regulated insurance companies. However, doctors and so forth are indeed independent. There are really good subsidies for those who are poor. Again, their health care costs far less than in the US and has a better health outcome than the US.
Ok, now go out after the Republicans. Use the actual definition of Socialism: State or Public ownership of the means of production and services. Demand evidence of when Obama or any other liberal/Democrat demanded socialism. Hit them with the truth, Republicans are running scared and are trying to invent a goblin to distract the voters by comparing the liberals and Democrats to Communists.
Then, go on the offensive. The Republican elite may not believe in state ownership of the means of production as did the Communists. However, they do share other traits. Cronyism as demonstrated by no bid contracts to KBR, Hallliburton and other fat cat contributors who loot your tax dollars. Cronyism of appointing incompetent persons to important positions because they are politically connected. (FEMA - heck of a job brownie.) Corruption at all levels of the government and Congress - Abarmoff, Duke Cunningham. The attempt to create a one party state as demonstrated by political testing for career civil service positions, the use of goverment agencies to campaign for the “Party.” The use of Stalinist tactics of eavesdropping without court review and destruction of habeaus corpus. Indeed, we use the Chinese Communist playbook on torture as our guide to interrogating prisoners.
nanlichi,
I am not a member of the libertarian party myself (anymore), however it remains the third largest political party in the country. You shouldn’t be surprised to find a few here and there. Some here simply can’t deal with third party folks because you have way too much left/right dem/con lib/con stuff on your brains. I am liberal on some things, conservative on others, but mainly I am independent of the whole two party control stuff and simply vote on individual issues.
Yes RobertSeattle,
Libertarianism tenants are to tell people to Go F themselves. Brilliant statement mate. You’re insight is truly an asset to the TP community. By the way smart guy, I’m not here preaching libertarianism. I’m simply commenting about how you “progressives” are afraid of the labels that define you, such as liberal and socialist. Given TP’s iron fisted approach to block polite, thoughtful speech from non-liberals, you might thrown in the term Stalinistic as well. I’ve been banned like 6 times from this site and I’ve never once violated its TOS.
dbadass
I do like Barr on some things. He’s a fair libertarian guy. Although again I’m not a member of the libertarian party anymore so he’s not really representing me per se. However he may get my vote. In fact, right now he’s got it.
TrippleKick2:
How do you explain Barr’s “All civilized countries in the world are under attacke by drug proponents seeking to enslave citizens” comment in light of libertarians views?
Do you believe in the imagined invisible hand and free markets?
Liberals are often so scared of their own labels. Be proud! If you’re a socialist, don’t hide it. I’m a Bush apologizing fascist, I don’t hide it. Why do you try to hide what is patently obvious?
There. Fixed it for you. Quit whining about getting banned - you’re obviously trolling for a response, don’t be surprised when it results in enough people flagging you for abuse that you get banned. You’ve “succeeded” when that happens.
TrippleKick 2 Says:
I’m gussing TripleKick got banned, so he came up with a clever new name, one that would mask his “true identity”.
like most liberals, Obama masks his true intentions.
Masking one’s true intentions is a characteristic not limited to just liberals. If you think hiding your true intentions is an evil thing, then you should be howling for the removal from office of both Bush and Cheney, as neither has been honest about their “true intentions”. And, for the record, EVERYBODY hides their “true intentions”. It’s part of surviving in this crazy world.
Clearly the voters would never elect an admitted socialist, however that’s exactly what he is.
When did he “admit” he was a “socialist”? And how do you know that the voters would never elect him? Have you asked them yourself? All of them?
Look at his socialized medicine program for example.
You must be one of those sick, twisted animals who thinks that there is nothing wrong with making a huge profit off the sick and dying. Health care should not be a “for-profit” industry. And many more Americans are coming to that realization. Many un-Americans, like you, would fight it tooth and nail because you believe there is nothing wrong with profiting off the sick and dying.
Socialists have long since hijacked the Democratic party. Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, the label de jour matters not, Barry’s a socialist much like most of you closet socialists in the TP community.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
You speak of Socialism as though there wasn’t a good country on Earth that practices it. Did you know that some of our country’s staunchest allies are Socialist? You talk about how they “hijacked” the Democratic Party. Tell me, were you happy about the fact that religious fundamentalists have hijacked the Republican Party, with their stated goal of turning this country into a Christian nation?
You are just as ineffective a poster under your new name as you were under your old name.
unbelievable, JMOHR,
I would offer that regardless of the text book definition of Socialism, many feel that attempts by the state to redistribute wealth is essentially Socialistic. Some of Obama’s policies would support redistribution of wealth.
The dictionary defintion of socialism is inadequate. In socialism there is no capital. Capital is a social relation where a minority of society has a monopoly on private ownership and control of the means of production. The other large segment of society owns its labor power which it must sell for a wage to live. If society owns the means of production, the capital social relation ceases to exist as does capital.
TrippleKick 2 Says: I would offer that regardless of the text book definition of Socialism, many feel that attempts by the state to redistribute wealth is essentially Socialistic. Some of Obama’s policies would support redistribution of wealth.
It’s not about redistributing wealth, but as I already said, collecting taxes and using them to administer programs that we could not afford otherwise as individuals. It’s about making sure we all have quality drinking water, quality education, quality healthcare, etc. It’s an improvement for you too, as you get better systems as a result of collective resources.
Why can’t you see how it is a win-win situation and everyone gets better than they would have solo? Do you have that much of a need to be greedy and selfish that you’d lower your standard of living to keep from raising that of a few rotten apples that might milk the system? Talk about unrealistic!
If anyone is redistributing wealth, it’s the current Regime that is bailing out corporations with the tax dollars of hardworking Americans who cannot afford gasoline or food these days. That’s your definition of socialism.
tripplekick2: “Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, the label de jour matters not”
Of course not, when the idea is to conflate the terms, make them seem the same, when they’re not. Easier than thinking about what you’re saying, and having to come up with a reasoned response to policy differences between political parties.
…Unless of course you really don’t know the difference between those three labels, in which case you don’t have much of an understanding of political structures at all, and will only make yourself look silly on sites like this when you post overly ignorant comments such as “the label de jour [your spelling, not mine] matters not”.
stewarjt Says: The dictionary defintion of socialism is inadequate.
Take it up with dictionary.com
I was just providing a source of the secondary definition of socialism that applies to modern terms in which social programs are established through the collection of taxes.
unbelievable, JMOHR,
I would offer that regardless of the text book definition of Socialism, many feel that attempts by the state to redistribute wealth is essentially Socialistic. Some of Obama’s policies would support redistribution of wealth.
Ah, yes, the “many” tactic. It’s a favorite of Bush’s, and anyone else who doesn’t have any real facts. “Many” people are wrong, troll. “Many” people do not get to redefine the English language for their own convenience.
Sorry, but you still need to get back to the definition of socialism. Obama supports social programs but not the means of production or services, the classic definition of socialism.
as unbelievable notes:——————————————————————————–
JMOHR - there’s a secondary definition of the word too:
Wayne,
Why do you keep thinking I care a lick about the republican party and all the religious fundamentalists that vote GOP? That’s their thing, I don’t care.
I agree with you that socialism seems to work relatively well in some countries, however I simply don’t agree with Socialism for America. Countries which are currently socialist have their own unique history and values which are typically much different than American history and values. Socialism is not exactly reflective of traditional American values, not to mention a far cry from the Framer intentions when they wrote the constitution. I am not against Socialism for Europe or other countries, just not for my country.
Jim Wilke has the balls to post a comment here about the parsing of words. LMFAO. Watch any hearing of any republiscum if you want to see championship parsing of words.
TrippleKick 2 says “Some of Obama’s policies would support redistribution of wealth” which is to say that currently the distribution of wealth is lobsided, leaning in favor of the wealthiest indivuals and corporations and TrippleKick does not seem to have a problem with that. I will infer from its position that TrippleKick is either extremely wealthy or extremely stupid.
Allow me to do my own rant on McShame. “I don’t know if he is a Christian or not! All I know is that he doesn’t act or sound like one. His attacks on his opponent and his negative comments lead me to believe that he is not, or at least is not a practicing Christian.” If McShame can attack Obama and make snide remarks about whether Obama is a socialist, or a Christian or a Muslim, when he knows exactly who Obama is, then it perfectly fair to question everything about McShame, including what he believes about everything.
You can’t be against Socialism because “it defeats self-reliance”, but be in favor of religious organizations doing charitable deeds like feeding and clothing those less fortunate and who are unable to feed and clothe themselves without help from their fellow human beings.
Can anyone imagine the media feeding frenzy if someone asked Barack Obama if he thought John McCain was a fascist and he replied, “I don’t know”?
July 18th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
A perfectly valid question to ask would be, “Is John McCain suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder?” And, absent a medical exam intended to answer that question, the only valid answer would be “I don’t know.” You can bet your last penny Obama wouldn’t get away with answering that question that way.
Thanks, dbadass, but aren’t you setting the bar a little high for him by suggesting that he answer “logically”?
I would go further and ask Daryll if the government should even have an “Office of Faith-Based Initiatives”? Faith-based group promote two things: Their religion and their charity. It would be unconstitutional for the government to promote religion, but it can promote charity. But if the government is promoting programs that help people who can’t help themsleves, wouldn’t those programs be defeating self-reliance?
You couldn’t possibly be a Republican then, because they support corporate welfare for those in want in amounts that dwarf anything provided for individuals in need.
Maybe you should try slaying the dragon first, before you worry about drowning the puppies.
If he means socialist as in Sweden - I’m all for it. Our country rates just about last in any meaningful quality of life (including healthcare) index compared to those damn socialist countries.
Daryll’s point is valid and he hit the nail on the head.
If I may expand a bit, America has always been rooted self-reliance. The term rugged individualism is all about self-reliance. Frankly, I’ve never seen a problem where the government involvement simply didn’t make it worse, more inefficient and more expensive. Additionally, America’s government exists to serve the citizens, not the other way around. A socialist Big Government state would only create a country of people who rely on Big Government rather than themselves, which is clearly not the American way.
Damn, I leave for an hour or so and Darryl and trippledickey sneak in!
What’s up fellas? How’s life in the twilight zone been recently?
So, let me ask both of you ubercons a question: In a free market system, if a business fails to make a profit it fails as a business and goes under. That’s competition, no? Survival of the fittest in economic terms.
Why then does the federal government continue to bail out failed businesses? Goddamn it, that’s socialism!
The republicans have had the White House for 28 of the last 40 years. How many government bailouts occured during the Carter and Clinton admins, as opposed to the republican admins of Nixon on up?
Just do the google on that, the answer is in the tubes somewhere. I’ll give you a hint, the republicans are socialsist, they betray the principles of free trade.
citizen_pain
I agree 100% with you about government bailouts. This corporate welfare garbage is precisely why I am not a republican. The GOP can be quite inconsistent in this regard.
Haven’t you heard about the boatloads of Swedes, Norwegians, Finns and Danes, bravely crossing the Atlantic in hopes of reaching “The Promised Land”? Oh, that’s right — that was over a century ago.
In any event, look for this story to headline on Faux Noose any day now.
And as for ‘rugged individulaism’ and ’self reliance’, you are trying to compare two different ages. Go back to the pioneering days, westward expansion, and compare the population in numbers. Also factor in the age of our government, and, oh yeah, what our economy was primarily based on - agriculture. To say our country was founded on hard work is absolutely correct and helps define what an American is. However, society has changed my friends. And to me, that is the single biggest difference between the left and the right. The left wants to meet new challenges head on with new ideas and strategies, where the right is stuck in some sort of 1950’s Rockewllian delusion, unable to come to terms with the fact that the world has changed forever. Oh, and don’t forget all that rugged individualistic work that brown and chinese people did for us back then.
The point I was making, TrippleKick 2 (you misspelled “triple”), was that Daryll was being inconsistent. He is opposed to (what he perceives) as “socialism” because he says it “defeats self reliance” (sic). But he believes in tyhe charitable works of religous organizations. Don’t they, too, “defeat self reliance”?
BTW, do you understand what the concept of a “Community” is? You speak of “rugged individualism” as if each of the thirteeen original colonies was settled by a lone individual. Do you drink water supplied by public water sources? Do you rely on police and emergency services financed by taxpayers? Do you drive on the roads mantained by public money? There are few, if any, “rugged individualists” left in this country.
One of the last ones I heard of was Ted Kaczynski, and like you, he hated progress, too.
Re: Comment #134, which reads, in part, “…Frankly, I’ve never seen a problem where the government involvement simply didn’t make it worse, more inefficient and more expensive…”
Surely, World War II would have turned out so much better if the U. S. government not interfered. Instead, individual citizens who wished to fight could take their guns, leave home, book their own passage to either the Pacific or European theatre, and fire away.
How much is bin Laden paying you for making such suggestions?
Wayne A. Schneider:
What happened to Daryll? If memory serves you like baseball> Me, I can’t stand it. Still it must be cool when you knock it out of the park on the first pitch. Well done, my friend…
trippledick: Speaking of what the Framer’s intentions were, you may want to review the preamble to the Constitution:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Seems pretty clear to me that they had a role for government in mind.
Thanks, dbadass. And I’m ecstatic, of course, over the Mets’ ten-game winning streak that landed them in a tie for first place! GO METS!
I’ll go back to being on-topic. I would like to hear Daryll’s explanation of why government programs that “defeat self-reliance” are okay but not okay.
You’re right, citizen_pain. One cannot “promote the general welfare” and simultaneously be a “rugged individualist”. Besides, why are people like TK2 so intent on living in the 18th Century? And why do they persist in the false belief that the Framers intended everyone to live like they did in perpetuity?
noun
1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital [ant: capitalism]
Is McCain aware those socialist Middle Eastern state owned oil and investment companies are buying up large chunks of capitalistic America as he speaks? Abu Dhabi Investment Company purchased 7.5% of The Carlyle Group and is rumored to want more. Dubai Aerospace purchased two Carlyle affiliates that run airport operations, Standard Aero and Landmark Aviation. All are socialist based on the definition.
Your gas money is going to Middle Eastern governments who turn around and buy American assets. That’s the capitalism John McCain cheers.
In fact, given that its private citizens who are doing the charity work rather than government, it seems to me that the self-reliance is at the charity givers’ level rather than the receivers of the charity.
It may be private citizens doing the actual charitable work, but you and I are still paying our money to do it, whether or not we would want our money spent that way or not. And if it’s the givers of charity who are the “self-reliant” ones, then why do they need a government office to help them? I contend that the Framers never intended for the government to get directly involved with religious organizations, regardless of which aspects of their missions they chose to promote (be it religious or social charity).
I guess now the question is, “How much of the ’self’ in your arguments is the individual self versus the collective self (all of us), and how much is the collective ’self’ of citizens versus their government?” When we hear posters hear defend “self reliance”, are they talking about a person being reliant on his individual self alone, or people being reliant on their collective selves instead of the government? I think some clarification on that point would help the dialog.
And do you use public water, emergency services, and roads, and do you consider yourself “self-reliant”?
Every time this nonsense comes up, it makes me sick.
Let me make this clear for all of the McCainiacs out there.
BARACK OBAMA IS NOT A SOCIALIST.
BARACK OBAMA IS NOT A MARXIST.
BARACK OBAMA IS NOT A COMMUNIST.
It is only because ignorant people have absolutely no idea what a “socialist” would acually do. A review of Obama’s voting record from his days as a state legislator and his days as a US Senator would CLEARLY show that he’s no Marxist/Socialist/Communist.
Where are his proposals to nationalize the energy industry?
Where are his proposals to sieze the windfall profits made by oil companies now that oil is well over $100.00 a barrel?
Where are his proposals to nationalize our healthcare system and make every doctor, nurse, physician’s assistant, etc. an employee of the Federal government?
Can anyone show me ANYTHING that Obama has voted for or proposed that would be anything near to a socialist approach to government or the economy?
So, the only reason for government is for defense? If you are speaking of defense, wouldn’t this mean that we don’t use such resources to attack a country that does not pose any credible threat to our safety?
Well, the idea of government providing for defense only wouldn’t seem to cover roads, which most of us use, and even if we don’t operate a motor vehicle, most of our necessities in life are transported on our streets and highways.
What would you propose as an alternative? Each individual property owner could construct a road (or not, if they didn’t want to bother) and charge their own individual tolls? Of course, roads that stop at one property line, only to begin again a quarter of a mile away would be quite useful, wouldn’t they? Oh, yes, and bridges would just build themselves, right?
And why provide free education to all citizens? Why not just let those whose families who can’t afford it resort to criminal activity in hopes of stealing enough to fend off starvation?
And for those who are extremely violent (a relatively small percentage of those who are incarcerated), individuals with their own funds could build and staff private prisons, right and on their own individual dime?
And why have the government provide oversight(which has, for the most part been gutted) to ensure that our food and drinking water is safe, that corporations we invest in don’t lie to us, that certain individuals with mental illness and/or criminal history cannot purchase and use any weapon they can afford to buy, that your next door neighbor doesn’t open up a crack house, and your home doesn’t just burn to the ground if a fire should start when you aren’t home. The list is endless.
It would seem that if you had your way, we’d all revert to the “Law of the Jungle.”
unbelievable, JMOHR,
I would offer that regardless of the text book definition of Socialism, many feel that attempts by the state to redistribute wealth is essentially Socialistic. Some of Obama’s policies would support redistribution of wealth.
Unlike President Bush whose policies redistributed wealth. Oh it’s only good when we give more money to the people who have too much. That’s good capitalism to you. But when everybody is given a chance to advance that’s socialism to you. Idiots.
McCain and other corporate cronies support Corporate Socialism (bail outs for mismanagement) time after time. They just don’t extend that to we the people. They have a severe case of Wall St. vs Main St. syndrome.
McCain, if you’re so opposed to cocialism, then by all means give up your socialized job with its socialized health care!
July 18th, 2008 at 12:45 pmMcCain: ‘I Don’t Know’ If Obama Is A Socialist
- - Of course you don’t. You don’t know what you did 5 minutes ago.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:48 pmI want a vonservative to tell me what the hell is so bad about Socialism?
All you people ever do is yell or cry “Socialism is bad!!!” but you fail to make any kind of argument, much less a valid one about why you think it’s worse than Capitialism when every country that has a higher standard of living than we do is firstly Socialistic and Capitialistic second (which means that people come first, and money second - the opposite of here).
All the evidence points to the fact that Socialism is a better way to run a country. I simply can’t understand why you’re opposed to it.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:49 pmHELLING: Do you think he’s a socialist, Barack Obama?”
MCCAIN: Oh, I don’t know. All I know is his voting record, and that’s what people usually judge their elected representatives by.
Good call there , Mr 99% Chimpy backing voting record loser…….
July 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pmThe very essence of John McWirestouching, “I don’t know.”
My friends, I have no fcking clue, but I am not black and that should be good enough for at least 40% of the vote.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pmWorkers of the world, unite!
This message was brought to you by the Socialist party and I approve this message.
snark
July 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pmHow do you KNOW that McLunatic’s a flip-flopping, lying, war-mongering old fool??
His VOTING RECORD!!
McLunatic is RIGHT. His VOTING record SHOWS it!
July 18th, 2008 at 12:51 pm“McCain: ‘I Don’t Know’ If Obama Is A Socialist”
But I know for sure that McCain is a fascist, in the line of his master, Bush.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pmMcGrampa doesn’t know his own voting record!!!! He even admitting to that!
July 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pmwe are sure acting like we’re social animals . . . following the grinning monkey over the edge of the cliff.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:52 pmWhat’s wrong with being ’social’? Since when did that become a bad word?
It sure beats Fascism.
¶ AIO
July 18th, 2008 at 12:54 pmyes mr mcINSANE, i mean mcBUSH, your voting record (or lack thereof) speaks enormously. how do you think the voters will judge you mcSTUPID?
July 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pmHELLING: Do you think he’s a socialist, Barack Obama?”
MCCAIN: Oh, I don’t know. All I know is his voting record, and that’s what people usually judge their elected representatives by.
Based on McCain’s record, I judge him to be worthless since April and a “follower” before that.
Personally, I think we need a worthwhile leader this time.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pmdamn, it’s about time you found a good reason to come to the
defense of the presumptive Democratic Presidential nominee…
it has to be a two-fer - a blast at mcCONFUSED too…
well, that should be easy!
oh, and has hillary decided whether or not obama is a muslim?
July 18th, 2008 at 12:55 pmunity… unity… unity…
July 18th, 2008 at 12:56 pmDems may lean toward Socialism, but Repukes lean to Terrorism.
Lying to the People you serve is domestic terrorism.
Bush, Cheney & the entire Republic party are guilty of Terrorism.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:57 pmThis is a great collection of right-wing references to Obama being a Socialist.
In addition to these, Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media has been on a crusade to tag Obama as a Communist based on some vague, unsubstantiated reports about his childhood in Hawaii.
Kincaid has been unable to peddle this nonsense - even to Fox News. So he has resorted to accusing Fox, Drudge and others of being leftists as well.
Now that’s comedy!
July 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pmSpying on the People you serve is domestic terrorism.
Bush, Cheney & the entire Republic party are guilty of Terrorism.
July 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pmSo the contrary to Socialism is being Antisocial?
July 18th, 2008 at 12:58 pmI would just love to hear a reporter (any left?) ask McCain or any of his surrogates (that seems to be the buzzword for this election), that if the government bailing out Fannie and Freddie, Goldman Sachs, or any other corporate giant because they have failed as businesses is NOT socialism, then what is it? It sure as hell isn’t capitalism.
How about the no-bid contracts to Halliburton, etc? Is that not socialism? It sure as hell isn’t capitalism.
It’s pretty ironic how the right goes into a involuntary convulsions when you start talking about nationalizing something, yet they have no problems spending billions of dollars for companies that have failed in the free market.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pmA scary photo of John McCain extracted from a recent CNN interview clip in which he was asked about his position on Viagra. Where would he “lead” us if he were President?
July 18th, 2008 at 1:00 pmYeah, this is a backhanded smear, just like Hillary’s “Obama’s not a Muslim, as far as I know”.
But aside from that, there’s nothing wrong with moderate socialist views, even though many people conjure up a vision of extreme application, such as the Soviet Union.
Just as there is nothing wrong with being Muslim, even though many people conjure up a vision of 9/11 hijackers with that term.
And there’s nothing wrong with being elderly, even though many people conjure up a vision of a doddering, forgetful geezer — oh, wait…
July 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pmREPORTER: Do you think you are suffering from Alzheimers?”
MCCAIN: Oh, I don’t know. All I know is … um … I’ll my staff tell me what my position on that is.
John McCain - NOPE!
July 18th, 2008 at 1:01 pmMore name calling towards Obama - nothing more. I would think the right side would have got that out of their systems when they turned 9 or 10 years old.
How about one of our trolls explaining exactly what makes Obama a ’socialist’. In addition, they also must explain why bailing out the mortgage giants and freddie mae/mac IS NOT socialist.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:02 pmBillions of dollars of taxpayer money to bail out companies that have failed in the free market that is…
July 18th, 2008 at 1:02 pmYou can always tell when Republican in trouble when they have to trot out the inane Marxists, Communist, socialist, CRAP.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:04 pmMcCain’s “favorite Democrat” — Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) — has also expressed doubts about Obama’s political affiliation.
Leiberman’s really one to talk about political affiliation.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:04 pmHey this is America! Most voters don’t know what socialism is, so this will only appeal to the yellow-bellied 23%’ers.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:04 pmits not taxpayer money anymore, its just printed paper and a faint promise backed by binary code on the mainframe
July 18th, 2008 at 1:05 pmShows how backwards the Republican Party really is - they only make references to out-dated historical events like McCarthy’s Communist scare, Carter’s Administration and the like.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:06 pmAnd McHitler is a Nazi fascist. I thought we would be voting for either a republican or an democrat this election. Now my choices are between a Nazi fascist or a socialist. Hmmmm… I’ll take the socialist.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:08 pmEh, Democrat? Socialist? Communist? Terrorist?
What’s the difference?
/snark
July 18th, 2008 at 1:09 pmNow on a more serious note, really, I find this conflation between social and Socialism very sick and misleading. Not every “social” (pro-people) measure of the government is in the book of Socialism, capitalized, as in the Marx’s works. Every time the government wishes to establish a measure to protect the people, it’s branded “Socialist” by those moron Republicans (and many others). Frankly, I think the USA electorate has lost in translation long time ago the meaning of social, and the differences with the Socialism doctrine. Every pro-people initiative is branded “Socialist” if it isn’t done by a large religious group, and only if it fits the right wing agenda. Then, it’s branded “charity”.
Frankly, I find sometimes the USA electorate (LIVs specially) very disconnected of real politics, and too obsesed with micro managing and key words.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pmcitizen_pain Says:
… if the government bailing out Fannie and Freddie, Goldman Sachs, or any other corporate giant because they have failed as businesses is NOT socialism, then what is it? It sure as hell isn’t capitalism.
How about the no-bid contracts to Halliburton, etc? Is that not socialism? It sure as hell isn’t capitalism.
It’s pretty ironic how the right goes into a involuntary convulsions when you start talking about nationalizing something, yet they have no problems spending billions of dollars for companies that have failed in the free market.
…
heard randi say the other day,
“Privatized Profits, Socialized Bailouts”
…
July 18th, 2008 at 1:10 pmArgumentum ad hominem - the favorite tactic of fourth-graders everywhere. Obama’s a Muslim. Obama’s a Socialist. Obama’s a wuss. Obama’s this, Obama’s that. Good grief.
So, present those pieces of Socialist legislation which are Socialist, moron.
There are, on the other side, ample Fascist examples - Military Tribunals, Patriot Act, Homeland Security - whose very names evoke images of goose-stepping black-shirts in jackboots.
Every corporate-aristocrat shill in history has whined about any attempt to curtail monopolism of wealth and power. That act’s getting old.
Meanwhile, the corporate Fed bailed out an investment bank with government money without the consent of Congress, completely unconstitutional, and nary a whimper of Socialism from these mental deficients.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pmEveryone knows that Obama is a flip-flopping-muslim-socialist-marxist-communist-terrorist-appeaser don’t they?
(snark off)
July 18th, 2008 at 1:11 pmFunny, McCain’s party is happy to send government dollars to corporations, some already owned by stinking rich private equity underwriters (PEU’s) like The Carlyle Group. Texas gave Vought Aircraft Industries $35 million to create 3,000 jobs. As of 2006, the Dallas Morning News noted Vought had cut 600 positions.
Carlyle Chairman Lou Gertsner recently spoke of corporate culture:
http://peureport.blogspot.com/ 2008/ 07/ what-carlyle-does-when-no-ones-watching.html
Yes, this same culture drives McCain’s “socialism” comments. They consistently fail to see corporate welfare in it’s various forms.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:12 pmMcCain, you stupid ugly old barstid - STFU!!
Jebus.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:16 pmThis idiot can’t remember his own voting record but he cites Obamas. If we had any real journalists left they would ask thim what votes he’s referring to and how McCain voted on those.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:18 pmObama: “I know that Mc-I-can’t-hold-my-arm-up
July 18th, 2008 at 1:18 pmis a Senile Old Warmonger Suck-up to the Worst and Destructives administrations in the history of the US”
If mcain wants obama to stop calling him confused, maybe he should stop saying I don’t know so much.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:18 pmIf mcain wants obama to stop calling him confused, maybe he should stop saying I don’t know so much.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:18 pmbravo, spaniard… well said.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:19 pmkay, those are not words that Barack Obama would use,
July 18th, 2008 at 1:22 pmand you know it.
CEO Syron in The Hill: Don’t Weaken GSEs’ Ability to Expand Homeownership
In an op-ed titled “Don’t Weaken GSEs’ Ability to Expand Homeownership” [PDF 440K] published in The Hill on June 22, 2005, Richard Syron, CEO and Chairman of Freddie Mac, says, “As an economist, longtime central banker and regulator, I know how important the GSEs are to our broader economy. … Since Congress created Freddie Mac in 1970, housing has gone from being a whipping boy of the economic cycle to a pillar of the U.S. economy.”
Syron also defends the retained portfolio and emphasizes that any regulatory changes affecting the GSEs should “build on Congress’s genius in creating two institutions, within a free-market system, that can continue to attract private capital to serve a public mission.”
I wonder if Syron will give back the tens of millions he’s made over at Freddie Mac now…
July 18th, 2008 at 1:24 pmlike most liberals, Obama masks his true intentions. Clearly the voters would never elect an admitted socialist, however that’s exactly what he is. Look at his socialized medicine program for example.Socialists have long since hijacked the Democratic party. Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, the label de jour matters not, Barry’s a socialist much like most of you closet socialists in the TP community.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pmI’m not sure if McCain is showing signs of senility…I just don’t know…
July 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pmI personally won’t comment on the rumors that McCain wears Depends, I couldn’t say.
Old McCain and his Reagan strategists looking for old tricks to win the White House…and what better trick is than to use words like ‘Socialist’ and ‘Communist’ to describe Obama.
The sad part about it is that these strategists forgot that there is no ‘Soviet Union’ exists anymore and Communist China nowadays is our best trade partner and one of our top money lenders.
Any surprise why McCain still thinks there is a country called Czechoslovakia?!!
July 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pmEuropean countries downsize military, increase social programs
Most countries in Europe have focused on social and economic development in recent decades, as they shift their attention from fighting wars to improving the lives of their citizens, he said at “The Rise of the Civilian State in Europe, 1945-2006″ a discussion that took place Friday in Mary Graydon Center.
“The European state is now in its essence a civilian state,” Sheehan said.
He defined a civilian state as a country that values social development over military buildup. European nations try to solve problems with compromise and debate, rather than the military strategies they focused on until the late part of the 20th century, he said.
European countries no longer need to worry about internal conflicts because “Germany and France are no more likely to go to war with each other than the United States and Canada,” Sheehan said.
http://media.www.theeagleonline.com/ media/ storage/ paper666/ news/ 2006/ 10/ 30/ News/ European.Countries.Downsize.Military.Increase.Social.Programs-2408931.shtml
July 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pmI don’t know if McCain is a fascist.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pmIt’s okay, McSame, we “don’t know” if you’re senile, either.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:29 pmlistening to nor-man gold-man on edschultz…
when he came on air, he named off the list of dubya’s recent flip-flops, all seemingly from obama’s policy plans,
and nor-man jokes that he expects that “by 5o’clock this afternoon
he’ll [W] announce his plan for universal health care”…
ha!
July 18th, 2008 at 1:29 pmAnd so what if Obama is a socialist?
Can someone give me the specifics on why that would be a bad thing?
July 18th, 2008 at 1:30 pmTrippleKick 2 Says: WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
Want some cheese with that whine?
July 18th, 2008 at 1:30 pmTrippleKick 2 Says: Look at his socialized medicine program for example.
You mean like the one the Republicans in Congress, and the Republican President and VP already have?
You mean the one that covers all Americans who want coverage, bringing up or standard of living to an Industrialized Nation status?
You mean the one that is cheaper than the debacle we currently have now, which ranks just below impoverished Cuba’s healthcare system?
July 18th, 2008 at 1:30 pmI clipped this from a few years ago - typical right winger response to “socialis”
Conservative Republican, Age 30 “Social Security is socialism”
July 18th, 2008 at 1:30 pmConservative Republican, Age 40 “Social Security is a ponzi scheme”
Conservative Republican, Age 50 “Social Security shouldn’t be changed for anyone passed middle age”
Conservative Republican, Age 60 “Touch my social security and they’ll be hell to pay”
Conservative Republican, Age 65 “Social Security is wonderful”
Hey trippleK, are you one of those strict free-market capitalists?
July 18th, 2008 at 1:31 pmThen what do you call an old man, who is drawing a 100% disability, full medical benefits, a full Senate salary and hasn’t shown up to work for over 3 months?
Either a socialist or AWOL.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:32 pmGregor Samsa Says:
And so what if Obama is a socialist?
Can someone give me the specifics on why that would be a bad thing?
July 18th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Well looking from a fascist NeoCon point of view, EVERYBODY is in the far left, so Obama must look as Lenin in the distance, even being a slightly right of center politician really…
July 18th, 2008 at 1:33 pmcuz if trippleK isn’t a strict free-market capitalist he’s a socalist.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:33 pmUnbelievable:
People in the West, not only in the US (among some friends here in Mexico too), socialism is, first of all, the legacy of Stalin (who couldn’t possibly know anything about socialism since he was a Georgian thug and train robber) and second, for those who know a little bit more of history, the bolshevik uprising and how that group stormed into noble and wealthy russian family houses to take all their belongings with the statement: until every Russian has the same things as you, you are not allowed to have this.
Of course, many people forget that the worst disaster in all humankind history happened in Russia in 1905, when 5 million people died of hunger while the Szar and all those noble families were eating caviar.
Ironically, the most socialist countries are the ones who have the highest quality of life for all its citizens: the scandinavian countries.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:33 pmOf course tripplek thinks that the BushCo Fascism of the past 8 years has worked so well, right?
July 18th, 2008 at 1:35 pmI do. He is.
Whining fascist supporters like dribbledick are just too scared stupid to get it.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:35 pmTripplekick:
“Clearly the voters would never elect an admitted socialist, however that’s exactly what he is.”
Does this make sense? You are implying that he could never admit to being a socialist becuase he couldn’t get elected but then you say that he is in fact an admitteded socialist..
Please clarify.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:36 pmNow as to market capitalism I have a question. Might you be willing to try and help me find an answer?
Hey trickledick. Take some sulfur tabs man, the trickle and the sting when you pee should go away after a couple of days. And I know you Repugnicunts don’t like to mention the unmentionable, but wear a condom and you won’t have that trickle problem again.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:37 pmI don’t know if that blond lobbyist was actually taking all those plane rides with McCain so she could change his diapers because his socialized health care benefits give him all the Viagra he wants so it’s possible they were having sex instead.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:39 pmLiberals are often so scared of their own labels. Be proud! If you’re a socialist, don’t hide it. I’m a libertarian, I don’t hide it. Why do you try to hide what is patently obvious? There are many successful socialist in America, just look at the socialist/communist roots of the ACLU for example.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:40 pmIt’s also a fair answer if you are a senile old fascist and your base is a bunch of cowardly sissies that don’t think America is strong enough to defeat terrorists without resorting to war.
You, know, like you.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:40 pmHow was Obama a socialist during the primaries? If you cite his health-care plan please point out how his plan makes hime a socalist and not Mitt Rommney, who instituted a statewide healthcare plan in the great state of Massachuscetts?
July 18th, 2008 at 1:41 pmJuan C. Says: People in the West, not only in the US (among some friends here in Mexico too), socialism is, first of all, the legacy of Stalin
You’re right. And the ‘godless factor’ must fit in there somewhere as well. I sometimes forget that they use antiquated and obscure views rather than the modern representation of socialism as a government that collects taxes so that its people can have benefits that we couldn’t afford individually.
I recently saw that Denmark currently has the highest rated health care system in the world.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:41 pmDribbledick is no more libertarian than Neil Boortz.
Both are just Republican apologists playing dress-up.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:41 pmTripple K beleives human flesh should be sold in grocery stores and we should let the market decide whether or not it’s moral…
July 18th, 2008 at 1:43 pmAlso from my link:
Rank Country Gini index
Richest 10% to poorest 10%
Richest 20% to poorest 20%
1
Denmark
24.7
8.1
4.3
1997
2
Japan
24.9
4.5
3.4
1993
3
Sweden
25
6.2
4
2000
4
Belgium
25
7.8
4.5
1996
5
Czech Republic
25.4
5.2
3.5
1996
6
Norway
25.8
6.1
3.9
2000
91
Costa Rica
46.5
25.1
12.3
2000
92
July 18th, 2008 at 1:43 pmUnited States*
46.6
15.9
8.4
2000
I don’t know if McCain is a homosexual.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pmExplain to us toothless21 and dribblinglicker how McCain can claim to know Obama’s voting record when he doesn’t remember his own.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:44 pmBoth of the current trolls betray a massive ignorance of what “socialist” means, which is typical of “conservatives”. Anything to the left of outright fascism is considered “socialism” by these fools.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:45 pmTrippleKick 2 Says: Liberals are often so scared of their own labels. Be proud! If you’re a socialist, don’t hide it. I’m a libertarian, I don’t hide it. Why do you try to hide what is patently obvious?
No, we’re just tired of you Cons changing the actual definitions of these words to something that you find offensive, rather than accepting us for who we are - people who think that people and not money are important.
Proof that our way works better is to compare the last 8 years of Bush to the prior 8 years of Clinton.
Go read something educational and non-fictional…
July 18th, 2008 at 1:46 pmTrippleKick 2 Says:
——————————————————————————–
Liberals are often so scared of their own labels. Be proud! If you’re a socialist, don’t hide it. I’m a libertarian, I don’t hide it. Why do you try to hide what is patently obvious? There are many successful socialist in America, just look at the socialist/communist roots of the ACLU for example.
—
July 18th, 2008 at 1:47 pmWould that be the I am too lame to pay my taxes type of libertarian or the I just wanna smoke pot sort of libertarian?
Shayne Says:
Explain to us toothless21 and dribblinglicker how McCain can claim to know Obama’s voting record when he doesn’t remember his own.
McDepends doesn’t have a voting record for the past 3 months and has the WORST attendance record of anyone in the Senate this past 6 months. Even Ted Kennedy could show up for a vote, but not Johnny Boy.
He will be as lazy as CiC as his He-roe, DUbya.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:49 pmIt’s the “I’m Really a Republican, but too embarrassed to admit that I really like Bush.” kind of libertarian.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:50 pmHe’s also the “I like corporate welfare as long as no person gets helped with my tax money” type of Republican dressed as a libertarian.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:52 pmOh the irony of dribbledick. Liberals are afraid of their own labels!
Anyone notice how many “Libertarians” we suddenly have in this country? And the number is inversely correlated with the number of Republicans.
Ashamed to be associated with the shit stains of your own party? Sure you’re a Libertarian, dribbledick, sure you are.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:52 pmWe are ALL Socialist. Been on a public road, sidewalk, listened to broadcast radio or TV, library, etc?
July 18th, 2008 at 1:52 pmWho is the ’socalist’ party?
Total Outlays in Recent Budget Submissions
United States federal budget, 2009 - $3.10 trillion (submitted 2008 by President Bush)
July 18th, 2008 at 1:53 pmUnited States federal budget, 2008 - $2.90 trillion (submitted 2007 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2007 - $2.77 trillion (submitted 2006 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2006 - $2.7 trillion (submitted 2005 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2005 - $2.4 trillion (submitted 2004 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2004 - $2.3 trillion (submitted 2003 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2003 - $2.2 trillion (submitted 2002 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2002 - $2.0 trillion (submitted 2001 by President Bush)
United States federal budget, 2001 - $1.9 trillion (submitted 2000 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 2000 - $1.8 trillion (submitted 1999 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 1999 - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1998 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 1998 - $1.7 trillion (submitted 1997 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 1997 - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1996 by President Clinton)
United States federal budget, 1996 - $1.6 trillion (submitted 1995 by President Clinton)
Republican strategy up till the recent past was to use words like “liberal” and Democrat” in a divisive way. These words have since been demystified and not commonly perceieved as a couple of dirty words to be ashamed of by many of the LIV sheeple. They need a new boogyman so “socialist” has become the new buzzword. When looked at logically the word has no negative conotations but the right hopes that because the average LIV doesn’t understand exactly what it means that it will imply derogatory connotations that might stick. It is a word that has the same repulsive effect on the corporate/wealthy hard right that garlic has on vampires so they figure that everyone must despise the concept of socialist applications in society. Yet another reason why I have always wondered why anyone who is not a greedy rich scumbag would vote for the Republican party. There are millions of lower income voters across the country whose lives would be greatly improved with many of the so-called “socialist” programs proposed by the Democratic party, but they still will vote for the party that will destroy this nations economy, send their children off to die in a war of choice and offer immense amounts of taxpayer moneys to bail out corporations that can’t compete in an open market, laughing all the way at the ignorance of the masses who have voted them into office all these years. If these sheeple were ever to wake from their MSM, talk radio induced political coma, THIS economy, THIS failed war of choice and THIS flip-flopping non-religious confused old man would hopefully do the trick.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:56 pmOr shorter:
To Republicans, what’s good for the American people is something to be fought tooth and nail
July 18th, 2008 at 1:57 pmI would rather live under Obama and his idea`s that will help and fix the SOCIAL FABRIC of this country than live under the Fascist Regime of the re-pukes and their DOGMA……..
July 18th, 2008 at 1:58 pmFunny how Johhny paints socialism as unattractive. Funny part is, bailing out large corps like Bear Stersn, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is precisely that.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:59 pmOne thing for certain- MyCane is not too bright
Libertarianism is just a shortcut for saying “I got mine - go “Cheney” yourself (and please ignore the huge amount of “socialized” things I use)”
July 18th, 2008 at 2:00 pmOK, it is obvious that both the trolls (tripplekick) and the liberals are fairly ignorant on this topic. Socialism is defined as the public ownership of the means of production of goods and services. It can be state ownership or it can be worker ownership (collectivism). The most predominant example of socialism was indeed the Soviet Union.
This is no different than the use of appeasement in describing Obama’s statement that he would meet with advesary leaders. It showed just how ignorant and how ineffective the Republicans and conservatives can be. It was a major embarrasment. Obama is not a socialist. He does not even come close to being a socialist.
I keep hearing about socialized medicine. Who has it? Well the British do through their National Health Service (they also cover every citizen at a far lesser cost than the US and have a far better health outcome for their citizens. France and Germany have an extremely good health program run through highly regulated insurance companies. However, doctors and so forth are indeed independent. There are really good subsidies for those who are poor. Again, their health care costs far less than in the US and has a better health outcome than the US.
Ok, now go out after the Republicans. Use the actual definition of Socialism: State or Public ownership of the means of production and services. Demand evidence of when Obama or any other liberal/Democrat demanded socialism. Hit them with the truth, Republicans are running scared and are trying to invent a goblin to distract the voters by comparing the liberals and Democrats to Communists.
Then, go on the offensive. The Republican elite may not believe in state ownership of the means of production as did the Communists. However, they do share other traits. Cronyism as demonstrated by no bid contracts to KBR, Hallliburton and other fat cat contributors who loot your tax dollars. Cronyism of appointing incompetent persons to important positions because they are politically connected. (FEMA - heck of a job brownie.) Corruption at all levels of the government and Congress - Abarmoff, Duke Cunningham. The attempt to create a one party state as demonstrated by political testing for career civil service positions, the use of goverment agencies to campaign for the “Party.” The use of Stalinist tactics of eavesdropping without court review and destruction of habeaus corpus. Indeed, we use the Chinese Communist playbook on torture as our guide to interrogating prisoners.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pmnanlichi,
July 18th, 2008 at 2:01 pmI am not a member of the libertarian party myself (anymore), however it remains the third largest political party in the country. You shouldn’t be surprised to find a few here and there. Some here simply can’t deal with third party folks because you have way too much left/right dem/con lib/con stuff on your brains. I am liberal on some things, conservative on others, but mainly I am independent of the whole two party control stuff and simply vote on individual issues.
HEY, CRIPPLEDICK;
BOO!
BTW; to simplify what nanlichi was trying to tell you, I’ll put it in verse so you can understand better.
cover your stump
July 18th, 2008 at 2:03 pmbefore you hump Bush
Tripplekick2:
How do you feel about Barr representing the libertarians?
Oh and how do you feel about market capitalism?
July 18th, 2008 at 2:04 pmYes RobertSeattle,
July 18th, 2008 at 2:07 pmLibertarianism tenants are to tell people to Go F themselves. Brilliant statement mate. You’re insight is truly an asset to the TP community. By the way smart guy, I’m not here preaching libertarianism. I’m simply commenting about how you “progressives” are afraid of the labels that define you, such as liberal and socialist. Given TP’s iron fisted approach to block polite, thoughtful speech from non-liberals, you might thrown in the term Stalinistic as well. I’ve been banned like 6 times from this site and I’ve never once violated its TOS.
JMOHR - there’s a secondary definition of the word too:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
socialism
noun
July 18th, 2008 at 2:08 pm1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital [ant: capitalism]
dbadass
July 18th, 2008 at 2:09 pmI do like Barr on some things. He’s a fair libertarian guy. Although again I’m not a member of the libertarian party anymore so he’s not really representing me per se. However he may get my vote. In fact, right now he’s got it.
TrippleKick2:
How do you explain Barr’s “All civilized countries in the world are under attacke by drug proponents seeking to enslave citizens” comment in light of libertarians views?
Do you believe in the imagined invisible hand and free markets?
July 18th, 2008 at 2:12 pmTrippleKick 2 Says:
Liberals are often so scared of their own labels. Be proud! If you’re a socialist, don’t hide it. I’m a Bush apologizing fascist, I don’t hide it. Why do you try to hide what is patently obvious?
There. Fixed it for you. Quit whining about getting banned - you’re obviously trolling for a response, don’t be surprised when it results in enough people flagging you for abuse that you get banned. You’ve “succeeded” when that happens.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:14 pmTrippleKick 2 Says:
I’m gussing TripleKick got banned, so he came up with a clever new name, one that would mask his “true identity”.
like most liberals, Obama masks his true intentions.
Masking one’s true intentions is a characteristic not limited to just liberals. If you think hiding your true intentions is an evil thing, then you should be howling for the removal from office of both Bush and Cheney, as neither has been honest about their “true intentions”. And, for the record, EVERYBODY hides their “true intentions”. It’s part of surviving in this crazy world.
Clearly the voters would never elect an admitted socialist, however that’s exactly what he is.
When did he “admit” he was a “socialist”? And how do you know that the voters would never elect him? Have you asked them yourself? All of them?
Look at his socialized medicine program for example.
You must be one of those sick, twisted animals who thinks that there is nothing wrong with making a huge profit off the sick and dying. Health care should not be a “for-profit” industry. And many more Americans are coming to that realization. Many un-Americans, like you, would fight it tooth and nail because you believe there is nothing wrong with profiting off the sick and dying.
Socialists have long since hijacked the Democratic party. Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, the label de jour matters not, Barry’s a socialist much like most of you closet socialists in the TP community.
July 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
You speak of Socialism as though there wasn’t a good country on Earth that practices it. Did you know that some of our country’s staunchest allies are Socialist? You talk about how they “hijacked” the Democratic Party. Tell me, were you happy about the fact that religious fundamentalists have hijacked the Republican Party, with their stated goal of turning this country into a Christian nation?
You are just as ineffective a poster under your new name as you were under your old name.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:14 pmunbelievable, JMOHR,
July 18th, 2008 at 2:14 pmI would offer that regardless of the text book definition of Socialism, many feel that attempts by the state to redistribute wealth is essentially Socialistic. Some of Obama’s policies would support redistribution of wealth.
No socialist would vote for the FISA bill that just passed. E.g. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont!
July 18th, 2008 at 2:15 pm100. Unbelievable,
The dictionary defintion of socialism is inadequate. In socialism there is no capital. Capital is a social relation where a minority of society has a monopoly on private ownership and control of the means of production. The other large segment of society owns its labor power which it must sell for a wage to live. If society owns the means of production, the capital social relation ceases to exist as does capital.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:19 pmHi Jim Wilke:
July 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pmYou seem like a real smart dude, can you help me with a simple question?
TrippleKick 2 Says: I would offer that regardless of the text book definition of Socialism, many feel that attempts by the state to redistribute wealth is essentially Socialistic. Some of Obama’s policies would support redistribution of wealth.
It’s not about redistributing wealth, but as I already said, collecting taxes and using them to administer programs that we could not afford otherwise as individuals. It’s about making sure we all have quality drinking water, quality education, quality healthcare, etc. It’s an improvement for you too, as you get better systems as a result of collective resources.
Why can’t you see how it is a win-win situation and everyone gets better than they would have solo? Do you have that much of a need to be greedy and selfish that you’d lower your standard of living to keep from raising that of a few rotten apples that might milk the system? Talk about unrealistic!
If anyone is redistributing wealth, it’s the current Regime that is bailing out corporations with the tax dollars of hardworking Americans who cannot afford gasoline or food these days. That’s your definition of socialism.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pmtripplekick2: “Progressive, Liberal, Socialist, the label de jour matters not”
Of course not, when the idea is to conflate the terms, make them seem the same, when they’re not. Easier than thinking about what you’re saying, and having to come up with a reasoned response to policy differences between political parties.
…Unless of course you really don’t know the difference between those three labels, in which case you don’t have much of an understanding of political structures at all, and will only make yourself look silly on sites like this when you post overly ignorant comments such as “the label de jour [your spelling, not mine] matters not”.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:23 pmstewarjt Says: The dictionary defintion of socialism is inadequate.
Take it up with dictionary.com
I was just providing a source of the secondary definition of socialism that applies to modern terms in which social programs are established through the collection of taxes.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:23 pmNamtillaku Says:
I don’t know if McCain is a fascist.
He IS. And a TRAITOR to EVERYTHING the US EVER STOOD FOR, judging by his support of MURDERER Bush the COXUCKER punk TRAITOR.
McLunatic NEVER condemned the EXPOSING of our CIA WMD spy.
So, he obviously supports the TREASON of the Bush WAR CRIMINALS…
July 18th, 2008 at 2:24 pmGotta run.
Tripplekick - go read something non-fictional.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:25 pmTrippleKick 2 Says:
unbelievable, JMOHR,
I would offer that regardless of the text book definition of Socialism, many feel that attempts by the state to redistribute wealth is essentially Socialistic. Some of Obama’s policies would support redistribution of wealth.
Ah, yes, the “many” tactic. It’s a favorite of Bush’s, and anyone else who doesn’t have any real facts. “Many” people are wrong, troll. “Many” people do not get to redefine the English language for their own convenience.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:25 pmObama must’ve become a socialist when he was in Czechoslovakia.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:25 pmSorry, but you still need to get back to the definition of socialism. Obama supports social programs but not the means of production or services, the classic definition of socialism.
as unbelievable notes:——————————————————————————–
JMOHR - there’s a secondary definition of the word too:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism
socialism
noun
1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital [ant: capitalism]
Again, something that is not advocated by Obama.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:26 pmWayne,
Why do you keep thinking I care a lick about the republican party and all the religious fundamentalists that vote GOP? That’s their thing, I don’t care.
I agree with you that socialism seems to work relatively well in some countries, however I simply don’t agree with Socialism for America. Countries which are currently socialist have their own unique history and values which are typically much different than American history and values. Socialism is not exactly reflective of traditional American values, not to mention a far cry from the Framer intentions when they wrote the constitution. I am not against Socialism for Europe or other countries, just not for my country.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:26 pmHi Daryll:
Maybe you might be able to answer my question.
So Tripplekick:
July 18th, 2008 at 2:31 pmDaryll isn’t likely to respond so might you wish to engage me on my question as to market capitalism and liberalism?
Jim Wilke has the balls to post a comment here about the parsing of words. LMFAO. Watch any hearing of any republiscum if you want to see championship parsing of words.
TrippleKick 2 says “Some of Obama’s policies would support redistribution of wealth” which is to say that currently the distribution of wealth is lobsided, leaning in favor of the wealthiest indivuals and corporations and TrippleKick does not seem to have a problem with that. I will infer from its position that TrippleKick is either extremely wealthy or extremely stupid.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:32 pmMcLunatic is a McTRAITOR to the USA.
He SUPPORTS Bush’s stomping on the US Constitution, exposing of our CIA WMD spy AND HER CONTACTS (Bush probably got them KILLED),
and the politicizing of our Department of Justice, as well as ALL the other Federal Departments…
July 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pmAllow me to do my own rant on McShame. “I don’t know if he is a Christian or not! All I know is that he doesn’t act or sound like one. His attacks on his opponent and his negative comments lead me to believe that he is not, or at least is not a practicing Christian.” If McShame can attack Obama and make snide remarks about whether Obama is a socialist, or a Christian or a Muslim, when he knows exactly who Obama is, then it perfectly fair to question everything about McShame, including what he believes about everything.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:33 pmDaryll,
“It defeats self-reliance”.
Excuse me, but don’t all of the charitable works of churches do the same thing?
July 18th, 2008 at 2:34 pmCan anyone imagine the media feeding frenzy if someone asked Barack Obama if he thought John McCain was a fascist and he replied, “I don’t know”?
July 18th, 2008 at 2:36 pmYou can’t be against Socialism because “it defeats self-reliance”, but be in favor of religious organizations doing charitable deeds like feeding and clothing those less fortunate and who are unable to feed and clothe themselves without help from their fellow human beings.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:36 pmI got 10 that says Daryll can’t respond logically to Wayne A. Schneider
July 18th, 2008 at 2:37 pmcurmudgeon Says:
Can anyone imagine the media feeding frenzy if someone asked Barack Obama if he thought John McCain was a fascist and he replied, “I don’t know”?
July 18th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
A perfectly valid question to ask would be, “Is John McCain suffering from Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder?” And, absent a medical exam intended to answer that question, the only valid answer would be “I don’t know.” You can bet your last penny Obama wouldn’t get away with answering that question that way.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pm#116 valawstudent said:
( Obama must’ve become a socialist when he was in Czechoslovakia.
——————————–
McCain said: “See,we in GOP think differently,we like it when we make big money by enslaving people…
July 18th, 2008 at 2:39 pmSo, we call it ‘Check-n-Slavia “
I continue to believe that it is a perfectly valid to ask if torture works did McCain tell the truth? Maybe I don’t know works there as well…
Now as to this invisibale hand thing. Will any of our Socialism is bad friends engage me or not? Are you fellows afraid…
July 18th, 2008 at 2:42 pmThanks, dbadass, but aren’t you setting the bar a little high for him by suggesting that he answer “logically”?
I would go further and ask Daryll if the government should even have an “Office of Faith-Based Initiatives”? Faith-based group promote two things: Their religion and their charity. It would be unconstitutional for the government to promote religion, but it can promote charity. But if the government is promoting programs that help people who can’t help themsleves, wouldn’t those programs be defeating self-reliance?
July 18th, 2008 at 2:43 pmTo Daryll (or is it his other brother, Daryll)?
Re: Your comment, “It defeats self-reliance.”
You couldn’t possibly be a Republican then, because they support corporate welfare for those in want in amounts that dwarf anything provided for individuals in need.
Maybe you should try slaying the dragon first, before you worry about drowning the puppies.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:47 pmIf he means socialist as in Sweden - I’m all for it. Our country rates just about last in any meaningful quality of life (including healthcare) index compared to those damn socialist countries.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:49 pmDaryll’s point is valid and he hit the nail on the head.
If I may expand a bit, America has always been rooted self-reliance. The term rugged individualism is all about self-reliance. Frankly, I’ve never seen a problem where the government involvement simply didn’t make it worse, more inefficient and more expensive. Additionally, America’s government exists to serve the citizens, not the other way around. A socialist Big Government state would only create a country of people who rely on Big Government rather than themselves, which is clearly not the American way.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pmDamn, I leave for an hour or so and Darryl and trippledickey sneak in!
What’s up fellas? How’s life in the twilight zone been recently?
So, let me ask both of you ubercons a question: In a free market system, if a business fails to make a profit it fails as a business and goes under. That’s competition, no? Survival of the fittest in economic terms.
Why then does the federal government continue to bail out failed businesses? Goddamn it, that’s socialism!
The republicans have had the White House for 28 of the last 40 years. How many government bailouts occured during the Carter and Clinton admins, as opposed to the republican admins of Nixon on up?
Just do the google on that, the answer is in the tubes somewhere. I’ll give you a hint, the republicans are socialsist, they betray the principles of free trade.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:50 pmcitizen_pain
July 18th, 2008 at 2:52 pmI agree 100% with you about government bailouts. This corporate welfare garbage is precisely why I am not a republican. The GOP can be quite inconsistent in this regard.
Re: Comment #133 –
Haven’t you heard about the boatloads of Swedes, Norwegians, Finns and Danes, bravely crossing the Atlantic in hopes of reaching “The Promised Land”? Oh, that’s right — that was over a century ago.
In any event, look for this story to headline on Faux Noose any day now.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:52 pmIt defeats self reliance.
Tell that to the European countries, whose standard of living is higher than ours.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:53 pmFrankly, I’ve never seen a problem where the government involvement simply didn’t make it worse, more inefficient and more expensive.
How about the Centers for Disease Control, meathead? Do you really think a private entity would work as effectively?
Please explain, in detail - or admit you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:56 pmAnd as for ‘rugged individulaism’ and ’self reliance’, you are trying to compare two different ages. Go back to the pioneering days, westward expansion, and compare the population in numbers. Also factor in the age of our government, and, oh yeah, what our economy was primarily based on - agriculture. To say our country was founded on hard work is absolutely correct and helps define what an American is. However, society has changed my friends. And to me, that is the single biggest difference between the left and the right. The left wants to meet new challenges head on with new ideas and strategies, where the right is stuck in some sort of 1950’s Rockewllian delusion, unable to come to terms with the fact that the world has changed forever. Oh, and don’t forget all that rugged individualistic work that brown and chinese people did for us back then.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:57 pmThe point I was making, TrippleKick 2 (you misspelled “triple”), was that Daryll was being inconsistent. He is opposed to (what he perceives) as “socialism” because he says it “defeats self reliance” (sic). But he believes in tyhe charitable works of religous organizations. Don’t they, too, “defeat self reliance”?
BTW, do you understand what the concept of a “Community” is? You speak of “rugged individualism” as if each of the thirteeen original colonies was settled by a lone individual. Do you drink water supplied by public water sources? Do you rely on police and emergency services financed by taxpayers? Do you drive on the roads mantained by public money? There are few, if any, “rugged individualists” left in this country.
One of the last ones I heard of was Ted Kaczynski, and like you, he hated progress, too.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:59 pmRe: Comment #134, which reads, in part, “…Frankly, I’ve never seen a problem where the government involvement simply didn’t make it worse, more inefficient and more expensive…”
Surely, World War II would have turned out so much better if the U. S. government not interfered. Instead, individual citizens who wished to fight could take their guns, leave home, book their own passage to either the Pacific or European theatre, and fire away.
How much is bin Laden paying you for making such suggestions?
July 18th, 2008 at 3:02 pmcitizen_pain Says:
To say our country was founded on hard work is absolutely correct and helps define what an American is.
July 18th, 2008 at 2:57 pm
______
Yes - especially the hard work performed by children and slaves. We couldn’t have become successful without them.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:05 pmWayne A. Schneider:
July 18th, 2008 at 3:08 pmWhat happened to Daryll? If memory serves you like baseball> Me, I can’t stand it. Still it must be cool when you knock it out of the park on the first pitch. Well done, my friend…
143: If you read the last sentence of my post you’ll see I touched on that issue.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:08 pmI love when a bunch of folks claim to know what a bunch of dead white slave owning hemp growers intended…
July 18th, 2008 at 3:09 pmtrippledick: Speaking of what the Framer’s intentions were, you may want to review the preamble to the Constitution:
“We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Seems pretty clear to me that they had a role for government in mind.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:13 pmThanks, dbadass. And I’m ecstatic, of course, over the Mets’ ten-game winning streak that landed them in a tie for first place! GO METS!
I’ll go back to being on-topic. I would like to hear Daryll’s explanation of why government programs that “defeat self-reliance” are okay but not okay.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:13 pmYou’re right, citizen_pain. One cannot “promote the general welfare” and simultaneously be a “rugged individualist”. Besides, why are people like TK2 so intent on living in the 18th Century? And why do they persist in the false belief that the Framers intended everyone to live like they did in perpetuity?
July 18th, 2008 at 3:16 pmdbadass said:
I love when a bunch of folks claim to know what a bunch of dead white slave owning hemp growers intended…
I second that.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:21 pmnoun
1. a political theory advocating state ownership of industry
2. an economic system based on state ownership of capital [ant: capitalism]
Is McCain aware those socialist Middle Eastern state owned oil and investment companies are buying up large chunks of capitalistic America as he speaks? Abu Dhabi Investment Company purchased 7.5% of The Carlyle Group and is rumored to want more. Dubai Aerospace purchased two Carlyle affiliates that run airport operations, Standard Aero and Landmark Aviation. All are socialist based on the definition.
Your gas money is going to Middle Eastern governments who turn around and buy American assets. That’s the capitalism John McCain cheers.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:23 pmdbadass Says:
I love when a bunch of folks claim to know what a bunch of dead white slave owning hemp growers intended…
Particularly when it’s obvious they’ve never even heard of the Federalist Papers, much less read them.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:24 pmTripleKick 2,
In fact, given that its private citizens who are doing the charity work rather than government, it seems to me that the self-reliance is at the charity givers’ level rather than the receivers of the charity.
It may be private citizens doing the actual charitable work, but you and I are still paying our money to do it, whether or not we would want our money spent that way or not. And if it’s the givers of charity who are the “self-reliant” ones, then why do they need a government office to help them? I contend that the Framers never intended for the government to get directly involved with religious organizations, regardless of which aspects of their missions they chose to promote (be it religious or social charity).
I guess now the question is, “How much of the ’self’ in your arguments is the individual self versus the collective self (all of us), and how much is the collective ’self’ of citizens versus their government?” When we hear posters hear defend “self reliance”, are they talking about a person being reliant on his individual self alone, or people being reliant on their collective selves instead of the government? I think some clarification on that point would help the dialog.
And do you use public water, emergency services, and roads, and do you consider yourself “self-reliant”?
July 18th, 2008 at 3:24 pmEvery time this nonsense comes up, it makes me sick.
Let me make this clear for all of the McCainiacs out there.
BARACK OBAMA IS NOT A SOCIALIST.
BARACK OBAMA IS NOT A MARXIST.
BARACK OBAMA IS NOT A COMMUNIST.
It is only because ignorant people have absolutely no idea what a “socialist” would acually do. A review of Obama’s voting record from his days as a state legislator and his days as a US Senator would CLEARLY show that he’s no Marxist/Socialist/Communist.
Where are his proposals to nationalize the energy industry?
Where are his proposals to sieze the windfall profits made by oil companies now that oil is well over $100.00 a barrel?
Where are his proposals to nationalize our healthcare system and make every doctor, nurse, physician’s assistant, etc. an employee of the Federal government?
Can anyone show me ANYTHING that Obama has voted for or proposed that would be anything near to a socialist approach to government or the economy?
July 18th, 2008 at 3:26 pmRe: Comment #144 –
So, the only reason for government is for defense? If you are speaking of defense, wouldn’t this mean that we don’t use such resources to attack a country that does not pose any credible threat to our safety?
Well, the idea of government providing for defense only wouldn’t seem to cover roads, which most of us use, and even if we don’t operate a motor vehicle, most of our necessities in life are transported on our streets and highways.
What would you propose as an alternative? Each individual property owner could construct a road (or not, if they didn’t want to bother) and charge their own individual tolls? Of course, roads that stop at one property line, only to begin again a quarter of a mile away would be quite useful, wouldn’t they? Oh, yes, and bridges would just build themselves, right?
And why provide free education to all citizens? Why not just let those whose families who can’t afford it resort to criminal activity in hopes of stealing enough to fend off starvation?
And for those who are extremely violent (a relatively small percentage of those who are incarcerated), individuals with their own funds could build and staff private prisons, right and on their own individual dime?
And why have the government provide oversight(which has, for the most part been gutted) to ensure that our food and drinking water is safe, that corporations we invest in don’t lie to us, that certain individuals with mental illness and/or criminal history cannot purchase and use any weapon they can afford to buy, that your next door neighbor doesn’t open up a crack house, and your home doesn’t just burn to the ground if a fire should start when you aren’t home. The list is endless.
It would seem that if you had your way, we’d all revert to the “Law of the Jungle.”
July 18th, 2008 at 3:26 pmCan anyone show me ANYTHING that Obama has voted for or proposed that would be anything near to a socialist approach to government or the economy?
Troll response….
*crickets chirping*
July 18th, 2008 at 3:31 pmTriplekick, could you explain me the difference bewteen a public citizen and a private one?
You wrote about the latter. The meaning escapes me.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:35 pmUnlike President Bush whose policies redistributed wealth. Oh it’s only good when we give more money to the people who have too much. That’s good capitalism to you. But when everybody is given a chance to advance that’s socialism to you. Idiots.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:43 pmMcCain and other corporate cronies support Corporate Socialism (bail outs for mismanagement) time after time. They just don’t extend that to we the people. They have a severe case of Wall St. vs Main St. syndrome.
In other words: They are hypocrits.
July 18th, 2008 at 3:45 pmShayne, the biggest myth of capitalism is that poor people are lazy and rich and wealthy people work 16 hours a day.
Non