The title of this post is take from this American Thinker article. It would have been nice to have had it available while the discussion two posts below was still in gear, but it'll do nicely enough here. That some, even some on the right, steer clear of the word in relation to the Socialist-in-Chief, one cannot dismiss his upbringing, his own recorded words (in print, on tape and video) and of course his actions, some of which the article discusses. The reality is that Obama backers, leftists and even those disturbing souls on the right can only deny. They cannot defend against the truth. This Obumble is a socialist (as well as an idiot).
There is only one aspect where I might diverge from the author, and that has to do with just how far he'll go, or how far he'll set up the next socialist (should the nation not get the message soon) toward actual socialism of the type that even the lefties CAN'T deny. He might settle for the level of control he now has for awhile. But why would he stop there?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
56 comments:
From the "thinker" rant...
You can call Obama a socialist, a progressive, a liberal, a black liberationist. The choice of words doesn't matter. What matters is that President Obama is a card-carrying member of the ruling class, and every act of this president aims to concentrate more power in the government or distribute favors to his supporters.
Substitute the previous president and you have...
You can call BUSH a socialist, a progressive, a liberal, a black liberationist. The choice of words doesn't matter. What matters is that President BUSH is a card-carrying member of the ruling class, and every act of this president aims to concentrate more power in the government or distribute favors to his supporters.
Is there any difference? Bush was a "card-carrying member of the ruling class," yes? He is, in fact, from a dynasty of ruling class types.
Do you suppose this author would argue that Bush, too, is a socialist? Or that it doesn't matter what you call him?
Again, the problem here is dumbing down words to the point of where they mean nothing. The author and his followers can call Obama a Unicorn, if he wishes, that doesn't make Obama a unicorn.
I guess Dan would be right if you didn't know the definition of the word socialist. Which apparently he does not.
One of the cornerstones of the Bush Presidency was personal ownership. Obama's self described policy is "shared sacrifice". They are polar opposites.
Liberals being incapable of asking followup questions or seeing things to their logical conclusion never asked
"to whom are we sacrificing, President Obama?"
The answer of course would be the federal government. In Obama's own words we should (for the good of the country) give our money to the federal government. The Government will in turn give our money to whoever needs it the most.
That is the very definition of socialism.
I don't know why you fight the Socialist label so hard Dan. It could be because the most famous socialist in history have also been the most ruthless. But you can't deny you too are a socialist (in terms of economics of course).
Obama policy of "Shared Sacrifice":
tiny.cc/xin25
tiny.cc/nstt4
tiny.cc/ketrw
In Obama's own words we should (for the good of the country) give our money to the federal government. The Government will in turn give our money to whoever needs it the most.
That is the very definition of socialism.
Yes it is. IN YOUR MIND. Unfortunately (for you), the rest of us rely upon Standard English dictionaries, like Websters and real world positions of people rather than the wacky unicorn positions in the world of your fevered imagination, which hears and defines things differently.
Drood, you know nothing. Best to remain quiet and thought a fool, you know?
Do you not understand that you're bearing false witness or do you just not care? Do the ends justify whatever means you use? Slander, lying, twisting positions, torture? Where is your ethical limit, sir, of what you'll say and do to those you feel afraid of and disagree with?
Your getting mad because you cant articulate why you think I'm wrong. You're calling me names and insulting me because you lack maturity.
Failure to properly articulate your thoughts and immaturity are two contributing facts to your lack of intelligence.
Re: "shared sacrifices" - this is a common notion throughout US history, the call for selfless living in order to make things right.
"Every single person in the United States is going to be affected... (Business) profits are going to be cut down to a reasonably low level by taxation .... (Americans) will have to forgo higher wages .... All of us are used to spending money for things that we want, things, however, which are not absolutely essential. We will all have to forgo that kind of spending."
Franklin Roosevelt, Socialist?
"All the property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition."
~Benjamin Franklin, socialist?
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
~Samuel Adams, socialist?
"And so my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you--ask what you can do for your country."
~JF Kennedy, socialist?
"The great mass of the articles on which impost is paid is foreign luxuries, purchased by those only who are rich enough to afford themselves the use of them. Their [ie, the rich] patriotism would certainly prefer its continuance and application to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of federal powers."
~Thomas Jefferson, socialist?
According to you, Drood, it appears that JFK, Franklin, Roosevelt and even Thomas Jefferson would be considered socialists, just for considering it a good thing that we have a shared sacrifice in this nation in order to help us live to our ideals.
Is that your position, really?
Once again, "the problem here is dumbing down words to the point of where they mean nothing."
Words have meanings and are for the purpose of communication, not twisting the words and attacking based upon strawmen nonsense.
"When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me."
~St Paul
In fact, though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you the elementary truths of God's word all over again. You need milk, not solid food!
Anyone who lives on milk, being still an infant, is not acquainted with the teaching about righteousness. But solid food is for the mature, who by constant use have trained themselves to distinguish good from evil.
~Hebrews
Please O wise one, tell us what is a Socialist and why is Obama not one
You first: I asked if you think Thomas Jefferson is a socialist because he believed in the wealthiest as their "patriotic" duty?
Or were Roosevelt or Kennedy or Franklin socialists, by your understanding?
no answer huh, since you don't even know what a socialist is then why did you even bother to comment.
Or, to simplify it further: Is the notion of "shared sacrifice" - all of us coming together for the good of the nation and one another - is anyone who believes in such an ideal a socialist, in your world?
Conversely, is anyone who is in it all "just for me" a good American and anyone who thinks we have common needs that need to be paid for together and that a progressive tax scheme (as favored by Jefferson and probably most folk throughout US history) is a "bad American?"
I've already answered your question: I'm using the Standard English definition. I'll gladly repeat it, but I'd ask you to answer my questions, since you seem to have such a problem with answering basic questions and tend to snipe then leave.
umm, I looked back and all you did was insult me and invoke the names of past Presidents and historical figures.
You defiantly did not define what a socialist is or how Obama does not meet this definition.
I figured it may be relevant since the title of the post you are disagreeing with is "Of Course Obama's a Socialist"
Obama a "Socialist"? I Wish.
Yeah. Me too.
maybe he just sucks at being a socialist.
Or maybe he just isn't a Socialist.
He's said he wanted to do many of the things on that list. I'm sure he would have if he knew how he could get them passed. That says to me that he is a Socialist just a very ineffective one.
Or in layman's terms: He sucks at that too.
Allow me.
First, Dan will stick by a dictionary definition that doesn't quite hit all the notes. Even the worst socialists of our time weren't identical to each other. Dan will deny Barry O the apt appellation because he doesn't compare to such types in the first place. And he will deny it because of things Barry has said or not said in the second place.
But Barry has said quite enough throughout his unproductive life to demonstrate socialist/marxist leanings. As the article that Dan didn't read points out, he has made his moves in the socialist direction and he will take bigger bites to the extent to which he feels he can get away with it. All the while, like the proverbial boiling frog, the American public won't notice until it's too late. The Dans of the world will still pretend it is not so.
Let's look at Dan's historic figures based on the quotes presented:
Franklin--absolute socialist. This guy damn near started it all in this country, grabbing for more government control, trying to stack the SCOTUS with activist judges willing to back his moves. He tried to create his own bill of rights that pushes the socialist agenda of, not "shared sacrifice", because that's just a rhetorical tool, but the creation of a dependent populace that will keep the likes of him in power.
Franklin--by that quote, socialist in nature, one could be fooled. But he did not live by that himself, as he was quite well do to. He did a lot to help create a better society, one of volunteered sacrifice, but he hoped to make money by his personal efforts and did not live like a pauper, despite not necessarily flaunting his financial success.
Sam Adams--this quote had nothing to do with socilism or capitalism and is a poor choice for defense of Dan's position. It was speaking to those who favored the King's tyranny, because they felt their property would otherwise be in jeopardy. In fact, he was speaking to real freedom of the kind over which so many at the time lost their fortunes to gain, fortunes that they had hoped to pass on to their heirs.
JFK--also asking for volunteerism, not gov't mandates to share anything. Don't forget he also dropped tax rates so that more people could thrive and the government coffers could swell. It worked then as it always has. There's no better way for more people to have, than to let them go and get it, keep it and use it as they wish.
Jefferson--this quote sounds as if he was saying the rich would like the taxes gained from their purchases of luxury items to continue to be applied in the manner already in effect, not that he was calling for more taxes upon them.
Except for FDR, none of the quotes suggest the kind of things that Barry Obumble tries to institute. Except for FDR, none of them seems to be calling for FORCED shared sacrifice. Barry does just that and more that suggest his socialist/marxist bent.
So, you're saying that FDR - consistently ranked as one of thegreatest presidents in US history (always WELL above Reagan, usually above Thomas Jefferson, usually in the Top 3) - was a socialist?
I return to my initial assertion: The problem is dumbing down words until they mean nothing. Your words mean nothing because they mean everything.
Thanks for the laugh, Dan. Rankings that score FDR highly diminish the point of his socialism? Your links don't provide much in the way of why any of them are ranked as they are, but what little one can find shows that some rank him high for "getting us out of the Great Depression". This is one of the great lies perpetuated by lefty educators as nothing in his "New Deal" did ANYTHING to help the economy, in very much the same way Obama's BS policies are failing.
The reasons anyone gives for ranking a prez as "great" don't have to mean that what he did was any good for us. Barry can get points for getting some his socialist agenda passed, but that doesn't mean he's good for the nation. I would rate a prez solely on how his policies made us better as a nation, or more prosperous or powerful. He's done nothing in either regard except to take us in the negative direction.
What's even more fun is your last link. Did you even read it beyond it stating FDR ranked #1 in a Sienna poll? The author is ripping the historians as poor judges of presidential effectiveness. And how anyone would put stock in a system that ranks Obama 15th with less than two destructive years to his credit... They give him points for the way he talks, for pete's sake! Not even for what he's saying!!!
But back to FDR, of course he's socialist. He did all he could to make gov't larger and more controlling, raising taxes to spread the wealth... very similar to what Barry is trying to do. Yeah, without a doubt he was a socialist.
The trouble is not that I don't use the words properly. It's that you demand the strictest definition of words when it suits you. There's no dumbing down of words here. But from your end, there's a dumbing down of understanding of the direction that Barry is taking us, what his policies are simply because they don't, in your opinion, match the dictionary definition that you insist upon and from which no one must dare stray one milimeter. This allows you and lefties in general to be socialist without bearing the stigma attached to the word. But a turd by another other name smells just as bad and Barry is as socialist as he feels is safe to be for the time being. To say otherwise is lying.
My use of the word in describing Barry does not justify your insistence that it must then be used for every prez or person that has called for a single socialist move. I don't call Bush a socialist, but he has enacted some very leftist policies. There's a strong possibility, and a good argument can be made, that some of that was to bribe the obstructive Dems in order to continue fighting the good fight against Islamonazi terror. But to compare, Barry is still to the left of Bush and for that alone he cannot be ranked higher than Bush. No true American can rank Obama high because of what a sorry American he continues proving to be, to say nothing of how bad a president he so far is.
Don't tell the Japanese that FDR was a great president.
But I guess every socialist is allowed one racial interment every now and again.
Tu Stultus Es Dan
PS. Still waiting for that definition of what a socialists is and why Obama doesn't meet that definition.
"He's said he wanted to do many of the things on that list."
Politicians say a lot of things.....to get elected.
On the spectrum of economic philosophies, there's a clear divide between what I call libertarians and collectivists -- those who trust a truly free market and affirm individual economic freedom, and those who believe in state control.
There are a lot of subgroups within the latter: those who cling to the quasi-religion of Marxist theory in its purest form, Soviet-style Marxists, Maoists, British Fabian socialists, Swedish social democrats, and American Progressives. There are sometimes significant disagreements among these groups -- Maoists have been far more brutal than the Swedes -- but they are united by a distrust of and even contempt for the free market.
Obviously, Barack Obama belongs somewhere in the category of collectivists, and I think it's a quibble whether he belongs in a specific subset called socialists or whether the larger category can be rightly described as socialism.
He sure as shit ain't a laissez-faire capitalist.
If he were, he would never have embraced radicals like Wright, Ayers, and the thugs at Acorn -- and they would have never embraced him.
There's room for disagreement on the right: some libertarians are de facto anarchists who believe that the private sector can even handle criminal justice; others believe that the government should enforce laws protecting individual rights but do little else; still others believe that the government can perform public duties like road maintenance or education. But none of these differences imply a basic opposition to the individual's property rights, the right not only to own property in principle, but also to determine its disposal in practice -- including the fundamental right to set prices for the goods or services being offered.
And, to our shame and detriment, too many U.S. Presidents since the Progressive Era have strayed from true free-market principles, with Coolidge and Reagan being the only obvious exceptions. Between LBJ and Obama, the two greatest expansions of the welfare state were the work of Nixon and George W. Bush.
Both Bush 41 and Bush 43 tried to repudiate Reaganism to some degree or another, the former suggesting that Reagan's America wasn't sufficiently kind and gentle, the latter suggesting that Reaganite conservatism wasn't sufficiently compassionate. They were both big-government conservatives, using progressive means to advance traditionalist ends such as a strong work ethic.
But while Bush 43 tried and failed to reform the government's safety net to make it solvent and somewhat more market-based, Obama has pushed the political limits to drive the government to a fiscal catastrophe, seemingly to justify ever higher taxes.
By any measure, Obama is the most radical politician ever to occupy the highest office in this country, and he is far, far to the left of this country's founding principles.
Philosophically, he has more in common with Karl Marx than he does with Adam Smith. And, politically, he has more in common with Hugo Chavez than he does with Washington, Jefferson, or Lincoln.
Marty, you write that you wish Obama was a socialist, but I think you fail to take into account a constitutional political system that hinders rapid, radical change and a political environment that is inimical to socialism, and I wonder if your doing so isn't deliberate.
You and I both know that Barack Obama is pushing this country as far to the left as he can, as quickly as the political system allows. Alinskyite politicians can try to benefit from the political cover provided by more honest radicals who at least claim to be disappointed in the supposed lack of progress, but only a fool would put any stock in that little bit of political theater.
And you write, "Politicians say a lot of things.....to get elected."
But Obama didn't broadcast his collectivist bent, at least not beyond fundraisers with true believers.
On the contrary, his campaign and (as the JournoList leaks are now confirming) his willing accomplices in the media tried to destroy a private citizen, Joe the plumber, who dared ask an inconvenient question and received a regretfully honest answer about how Obama believes we should "spread the wealth around."
Obama ran a campaign that was vague in its promises of change, and a campaign that was thoroughly dishonest in its promises of a post-racial, post-partisan, open government that wouldn't impose new taxes on the middle class.
He didn't run on a collectivism that is obvious from his record and background, because the American people have long since made such an approach politically suicidal.
Rankings that score FDR highly diminish the point of his socialism? Your links don't provide much in the way of why any of them are ranked as they are, but what little one can find shows that some rank him high for "getting us out of the Great Depression".
Poll after poll, survey after survey - whether of historians or just regular US citizens - finds FDR to be amongst the best of presidents, usually in the top three. Do you think that the US citizens who rate him so highly (time after time after time, for generations, now) REALLY think he was a socialist?
You thinking FDR is a socialist puts you WAY on the extremes of US political thought. You have a definition that makes nearly everyone a socialist, meaning AGAIN that your words mean nothing.
On the other hand, you DO make a good point, that the last time we had a depression, we had to have an FDR type to bring us out and it took a lot of investment to do so and that wasn't socialism, wasn't permanent, but a temporary solution to a problem. And perhaps Obama will prove to be an FDR type after all. If so, I expect most US citizens will rightly judge him well.
Boy, wouldn't that boil your goose?
Hopefully, he will do so without the crime of internments (or the continuing the bad policies of the previous administration).
My Mom and Dad hold FDR in very high regard. They were very poor. My Dad had to join the military right out of high school in 1935 just so he could eat. They never voted back in those days because they couldn't afford to pay the poll tax. Voter suppression?
Both of them said if it hadn't been for FDR millions of people would have starved to death and they would have been among them.
Bush's policies of personal ownership had us at full employment and had the stock market at record high and record GDP.
Socialist policies (or at least anti capitalist) of the 2006 congress led to the collapse.
Then theres Obama blaming Bush totally forgetting he was in congress and oversaw the entire collapse.
Now we have Obama using the crisis to implement even more socialists policies and unemployment is going up and GDP and productivity are going down.
Two things to take away from this, Obama is a socialist and socialism(lite) is responsible for our situation.
Speaking of FDR, Dan asks:
"Do you think that the US citizens who rate him so highly (time after time after time, for generations, now) REALLY think he was a socialist?"
An irrelevant question. How could I possibly ask all those people what they think? But if all of them said no, I'd then have to ask them what they think constitutes socialism and compare that to FDR's actions. This is what I do with Obama's actions and words to this point and it is clear that he leans heavily, as did FDR, in the socialist direction.
"You have a definition that makes nearly everyone a socialist, meaning AGAIN that your words mean nothing."
Not at all. I speak mainly of socialist actions and words, take note of how many of each come from the same guy, and label accordingly. For example, in my recent post regarding racism, I would not label Mel Gibson a racist merely for spouting a few epithets during drunken rages. This would ignore his close work with Danny Glover for a series of films. This would ignore his relationship with his girlfriend.
But you add to that any other unknown actions or words of Gibson's that are not public knowledge and he becomes more of a racist (should that be the case with him). With Obama, the words and actions are overwhelming in number.
"On the other hand, you DO make a good point, that the last time we had a depression, we had to have an FDR type to bring us out and it took a lot of investment to do so and that wasn't socialism, wasn't permanent, but a temporary solution to a problem."
What are you talking about? I made no positive statement regarding FDR's economic policies whatsoever. Indeed, his policies did more to hurt than heal and that is quite clear to anyone who reads history honestly and objectively. A few public works programs did nothing to turn the economy around and they did little to drop the overall unemployment rate. There were no "solutions" to speak of. Even "temporary" solutions must lead to something more permanently positive. That also never happened.
Some have already ranked Obama highly. I take no stock in the stupidity of such people. Considering he even got elected, I have no doubt that some will rank him highly no matter what he does. Too many stupid people are allowed to vote. Too many greedy and ignorant people who ignore the words of Kennedy you presented are allowed to vote. In the same way, the very same type of people regard FDR highly. A sad reality.
I take no stock in the stupidity of such people.
So, in the case of FDR, you must think that the majority of Americans are stupid and you are in the tiny minority who get it "right"?
Get over yourself, brother. You are not the keeper of all knowledge or right and wrong.
Nor are you Daniel Webster.
Obviously.
So Dan we now know your opinion on FDR. How about Obama? Do you think he's a socialist? Why or Why not?
I do generally think it best if Dan and I stay out of each other's way, but I'm willing to make an exception to point out the hilarious.
The American Thinker piece was prompted initially by a poll by the polling group Democracy Corps -- a liberal group co-organized by James Carville.
As NRO summarizes the poll, "55 percent of likely voters think 'socialist' is a reasonably accurate way of describing Obama."
Ahem.
In the case of Obama, Dan must think that the majority of Americans are stupid and he is in the tiny minority who gets it "right."
Like dictionary definitions, the writings of the Founding Fathers, and even the Bible, public opinion is important to Dan only when it's useful -- when it fit his agenda or can be twisted into suiting his purposes.
"How about Obama? Do you think he's a socialist? Why or Why not?"
That question has been answered in the link I provided.
Get real, Marty. Scanning your link's list, we can plainly see that it is comprised of things that Obama HAS tried to do, would try to do if he thought he could get away with it, or has done to a lesser degree than the schmuck writing the article would prefer. Again, you fail to see reality and like Dan, refuse to call evil by it's name simply because it isn't as evil as you want it to be.
Barry hasn't nationized the banks, but that's not because he wouldn't prefer to. In the meantime, however, he boldly attempts to dictate to these private businesses how they should be run and how much their execs should be paid. Totally socialistic/fascistic.
"I wish Obama would have proposed redistributing income from the wealthy to those who really need it by raising the marginal income tax, and the capital gains tax, and the estate tax."
He is entirely for wealth redistribution. The proposal above will kill our economy as it always does. Rank stupidity to suggest that any president implement such proposals.
"I wish Obama would have proposed raising the minimum wage to $10 an hour, as Ralph Nader has proposed."
Another job killing move. When will socialist jerks start businesses of their own so that they can pay as much as they want and find out what it does to their bottom line. We've already seen that the last raises in minimum wage has cost jobs that students could have had, or second jobs for others, or unskilled positions for many others, including former retired people who find they need to continue working.
"I wish Obama would have proposed a public works program to put every American who needs a job to work."
This is incredibly stupid. They want to raise taxes to employ the people who lost jobs, or cannot find jobs, due to the burden taxes have placed on business. Here's a better idea: lower taxes permanently so that businesses can feel confident enough to expand and hire. Socialist idiocy!
"I wish Obama would have addressed the cruel problem of poverty in America."
He has. And he is looking to address it again by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire. This will help poverty by increasing it. Can't have enough poverty, can we, socialists? Poverty can only be resolved in two ways: allow business to flourish (can't be done with excessive taxation and regulation), and insist that individuals adopt better behaviors conducive to attaining a more financially sound life.
I could go on. And on. Rothschild has his head buried deeply up his own backside. He goes on to say what "decent" socialists would do. First of all, there is no such thing. Socialism isn't "decent" in any way, shape or form. And of course he can't finish up without a word about "obscene" salaries. How dare anyone suggest they can speak on the good fortunes of others except to say "good for them"? Only a socialist has the audacity to hope they can dictate what is an appropriate level of success for anyone else. Greedy and envious bastards. And Obama is one of them.
Marty that link was mostly garbage. It doesn't take into account that we have three branches of government. Like many "progressives" the author doesn't understand how government works. Most importunely it doesn't even address that fact the the President doesn't legislate. For those on the left that big word means he can't introduce laws.
I am inclined to believe your support of "progressivism"/socialism is born out of ignorance (or hatred) of history and our constitution. Why else would you follow a philosophy that is named after a undefined euphemism
"I am inclined to believe your support of "progressivism"/socialism is born out of ignorance (or hatred) of history and our constitution."
Yeah. Right. Whatever.
The
evidence says something different.
You guys don't have a clue. You're just a bunch of disgruntled saps who have fallen prey the likes of Beck and Limbaugh.
What do you call the party that is all for raising taxes on the rich, while members of said party evidently do not call themselves rich and cheat on their taxes, park their ultra-expensive yachts in another state to avoid taxes, and the list goes on and on. Rental property unreported, misuse of public facilities for parking, you get the idea. mom2
Jim asked elsewhere for evidence that socialism has always failed. This link has two articles that serves the purpose.
Mom2, are you talking about democrats? If so, it's like the pot calling the kettle black. We are supposed to have a two party system in this country, but frankly, I can't tell a hairs difference between the two and the crap you mentioned is a plague in both of them. You have been blinded by partisanship. If you ain't repbulican then you're a socialist. Is that how it works? Well I can point you to democrats who think if you're not a democrat then your a fascist. It's just two sides of the same damn coin. Makes me sick.
Marty,
Again, you are, like Dan, insisting on a very narrow definition that eliminates those who are not "socialist enough" to satisfy either you or that definition. But when the guy's whole life is spent at the feet of socialist/marxist chuckleheads, and as president he inserts the federal government in places it doesn't belong, to deny the leanings of this guy because he doesn't satisfy that definition to the letter is quibbling about semantics and denial.
One guy in your article suggests that the ownership stake in GM, for example, is temporary. Aside from the fact that it should never have been allowed to take place (a perfect place for SCOTUS to state the unConstitutional nature of the action had anyone brought it to them to decide), we need to see them get their asses out of GM in order to make that case. While they still have ownership, the move can only be described as a gov't take over of the kind one expects from a socialist.
Marty, I was a Democrat for many, many years. Grew up in a family of Democrats on both sides of my family, married a man with the same kind of background and now, neither of us are Democrats. I'm a conservative. mom2
According to GM the government has a "hands off" approach.
Marshall, Obama is a socialist only "in the imaginations of an odd assortment of conservatives". That includes you and your clueless cronies here.
"Marty, I was a Democrat for many, many years. Grew up in a family of Democrats on both sides of my family, married a man with the same kind of background and now, neither of us are Democrats. I'm a conservative. mom2"
So?
Marty,
"If you ain't repbulican then you're a socialist. Is that how it works? Well I can point you to democrats who think if you're not a democrat then your a fascist. It's just two sides of the same damn coin."
That's a bit simplistic to say the least, but it is also a pointed difference between both sides. This side at least uses appropriate labeling. As mentioned before, fascism is the extreme of leftism. It is beyond socialism on the leftward scale. So even if we're being "alarmist", we're at least using the right words. The left has been improperly assigning the fascist label to the right for quite awhile.
But more specifically (as well as more seriously), it would be more accurate to say that if one is not a capitalist then one is a socialist. In Barry's case, he's a socialist that says (can't say I've seen him "do") capitalist things. Yet, we can see clearly that anything center-left does indeed look to expand the role of government into the affairs of men and private enterprise rather than to implement policies that promote free market activity. It looks to consolidate power in the central government to whatever degree a given lefty believes is best.
Does someone who disassociates themselves with a denomination because of distaste for their beliefs, but continues to draw a paycheck from denomination that they detest fit into the same category as the previously mentioned politicians? mom2
FYI mom2, the Baptist church where I work hired me twenty years ago because I wasn't a member there. They want it that way. They've had problems in the past with secretaries who were members taking sides in conflicts. They have no problem with me being a Methodist. They even know why I switched and understand. Your little attempt to demonize me has left you looking like a fool.
Marty, That should make you feel pretty good about the Church you work for then. Some comments from your past have not been so complimentary of them, however. mom2
Normally, like most guys, I enjoy a good cat fight. But I'd prefer you two keep yours related to the topic at hand. It is true that some churches go outside their own for employees. Ours considered that and then decided not hire at all.
Marty,
You can post links to as many opinions as you want. Thus far, none of them have proven wrong our point of view regarding Barry's socialist tendencies. There's just too much proof of it from his own mouth to say otherwise and the fact that he hasn't had the stones or opportunity to go whole hog is irrelevant. He knows he wouldn't get far trying to be himself totally and that is evidenced by how little "real" socialists (by your reckoning) have been able to achieve in this country. If Barry shows any smarts at all (assuming he's actually trying), it's in knowing he has to move in baby steps more often than not. It's the only way he can truly continue to sucker people into supporting more leftward moves. The only question is, are there enough suckers amongst voters to allow it to happen? Considering he was elected at all, it's obvious that the rest of us cannot rest on our laurels.
To argue this point any further is proving to be a waste of time (more so than blogging in general) since you lefties won't accept reality. It's clear you resist all attempts to help you do so. You want him to say "I'm a socialist and will do all I can to make America a socialist nation." But such statements are about all he hasn't done.
I don't much care who feels the label is appropriate or not. It's enough for me to know that he's about as close to any number of failed socialist states as I hope to ever again see in this country.
That you, Marty, feel he's not socialist enough for your tastes, and that you would like to see MORE socialism speaks very poorly for you. That anyone would wish that upon their fellow Americans is shameful. I prefer better.
I'm not the one who swerved off topic Marshall. Mom2 is a fusspot who likes to drive by and make little snippy comments about which she knows nothing about, especially the personal lives of others. I should have ignored her.
I am not a complete Socialist. I do believe in private ownership. But I would like to see Medicare expanded to include every American citizen. I do believe that is a right to life issue. I knew going into this that we would agree, but thanks for reading my links and commenting on them. I really have nothing left to say on this topic.
Later.
I mean that we wouldn't agree.
Tea Baggers... not racist
BHO... not socialist
Parky,
Why bring homosexuals into the discussion? And how do you know none of them are racist?
But Obama? Definitely socialist. You deny his own words.
Marshy,
I'm not sure why you think only homosexuals are able to tea bag. It seems that a homo-phobic group has named themselves after this sex act. One day, you may grow a pair. Then you would be able to tea bag Mom2 all day.
Dare to dream.
This "BHO is a socialist" argument might be the dumbest thing you have done since your last post... or the one before that.. or the one before that...
Parkster,
I never said ONLY homos tea-bag. But it's a homo term and it was NOT any Tea Party advocate that applied it to Tea Party supporters. It was a leftist, most of whom are homo enablers if not homo themselves. But as the hateful cretin you appear to be, you avoid actually keeping abreast of such things and prefer to just talk trash.
And you are certainly equally uninformed about Obama's background and proposals to believe that socialism isnt' a term appropriately applied. You really should spend a little time learning about a topic or risk exposing yourself as a total fool. Oops! Too late!
lol
Post a Comment