Rob's House Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 The cries of socialist are among the most ignorant things ever. First, President Obama is not a socialist. Second- socialism may not be suited to be the primary system in this country, but it is neither inherently good or bad. Believe me, you don't see me defend our current president, unless the criticism is ridiculous on him. He should be criticized and should the Super Pacs, for the attacks on Romney's wife and the call for his taxes. The birthers are equally ignorant. I will say this- I see a lot of patriotism in both major party candidates. Why else would anyone run for office in a country such as this........ Why is it out of bounds to call him a socialist? And why do you say he is not socialist? His economic policy is largely modeled on European socialism. I don't get this idea that calling a duck a duck is somehow below the belt if the duck wants to be called a swan. Also, socialism isn't the same thing as totalitarian communism. Why is it you say (unequivocally, as it were) that he is not a socialist? And if socialism isn't inherently bad, why is it wrong to identify a socialist as such?
Adam Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 (edited) Why is it out of bounds to call him a socialist? And why do you say he is not socialist? His economic policy is largely modeled on European socialism. I don't get this idea that calling a duck a duck is somehow below the belt if the duck wants to be called a swan. Also, socialism isn't the same thing as totalitarian communism. Why is it you say (unequivocally, as it were) that he is not a socialist? And if socialism isn't inherently bad, why is it wrong to identify a socialist as such? He is not trying to put everything under government- that is the insinuation. I know the political games in this country is to insinuate that the other side is something that it isn't, but it really doesn't help things. The far right (not the right, which includes the current candidate), calls everything they don't like, socialism, just like most of the history starved people of this country, relate any leaders they don't like, to Adolph Hitler. By the way- the super pac ad linking Romney to that woman's death is reprehensible, as is their denial that it was the main message of the ad. Personally, I can live with either guy as president. I just wish the election was over with already......... Edited August 12, 2012 by Adam
Rob's House Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 He is not trying to put everything under government- that is the insinuation. I know the political games in this country is to insinuate that the other side is something that it isn't, but it really doesn't help things. The far right (not the right, which includes the current candidate), calls everything they don't like, socialism, just like most of the history starved people of this country, relate any leaders they don't like, to Adolph Hitler. By the way- the super pac ad linking Romney to that woman's death is reprehensible, as is their denial that it was the main message of the ad. Personally, I can live with either guy as president. I just wish the election was over with already......... I get this, but I think he does want government controlling the economy to an extent that would undoubtedly be considered socialist, but the political reality is such that he can only push for that incrementally. The evidence supporting my assertion is vast (past associations, comments, proposed legislation) while the evidence suggesting he's a moderate free-enterprise capitalist is scarce to say the least. I agree that overstating someone's stance for effect (e.g. calling anyone you have a slight disagreement with Hitler) is both silly and counter-productive, but I don't get the case for giving someone vying for power the benefit of the doubt when no evidennce supports such a finding.
Adam Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 I get this, but I think he does want government controlling the economy to an extent that would undoubtedly be considered socialist, but the political reality is such that he can only push for that incrementally. The evidence supporting my assertion is vast (past associations, comments, proposed legislation) while the evidence suggesting he's a moderate free-enterprise capitalist is scarce to say the least. I agree that overstating someone's stance for effect (e.g. calling anyone you have a slight disagreement with Hitler) is both silly and counter-productive, but I don't get the case for giving someone vying for power the benefit of the doubt when no evidennce supports such a finding. What evidence have you seen that he is socialist- and do you really think he can turn the primary focus of our economy to socialism? I don't think one branch of our government has that type of pull, nor should it.
WorldTraveller Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 (edited) You assume wrong. From polling last year, when plans were being debated. http://hotlineoncall.nationaljournal.com/archives/2011/04/gallup-seniors.php . That's very interesting Edited August 12, 2012 by WorldTraveller
3rdnlng Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 What evidence have you seen that he is socialist- and do you really think he can turn the primary focus of our economy to socialism? I don't think one branch of our government has that type of pull, nor should it. For heaven's sake, he f'n usurped the bankruptcy laws, screwed the bondholders and propped up the union's pensions with our money. He's also using our money to pay his buddies for stupid ventures and getting kickbacks via campaign contributions. Get off the fence and quit making excuses for this Criminal-in-Chief.
Adam Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 For heaven's sake, he f'n usurped the bankruptcy laws, screwed the bondholders and propped up the union's pensions with our money. He's also using our money to pay his buddies for stupid ventures and getting kickbacks via campaign contributions. Get off the fence and quit making excuses for this Criminal-in-Chief. Yes, he usurped everything. We now have bread lines, he started the bail out programs. Political back room deals just started with him. And by the way, if anyone sits on a fence, son, it is you. You have more positions than a folk-style wrestling match.
meazza Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 What evidence have you seen that he is socialist- and do you really think he can turn the primary focus of our economy to socialism? I don't think one branch of our government has that type of pull, nor should it. The only reason Obama has not went full force socialist is because he wouldn't have been able to get any legislation passed. The aca was already socialist enough for some and those that supported it got their asses handed to them in 2010. If you look at his speeches and quotes from his book, as well as some of the decisions he has taken, he certainly is far left.
Adam Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 The only reason Obama has not went full force socialist is because he wouldn't have been able to get any legislation passed. The aca was already socialist enough for some and those that supported it got their asses handed to them in 2010. If you look at his speeches and quotes from his book, as well as some of the decisions he has taken, he certainly is far left. So, you are saying that the system takes care of itself
Rob's House Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 1. What evidence have you seen that he is socialist- and 2. do you really think he can turn the primary focus of our economy to socialism? 3. I don't think one branch of our government has that type of pull, nor should it. 1. The short version: Every mentor he can be traced back to is a socialist. Every piece of economic legislation he has supported involves more government in the economy. He has repeatedly told us who he is ("spread the wealth around", scoffs at those who are successful - classic Marxist rhetoric) and always comes out in favor of government taking greater control of the economy. He supports socialized medicine, basically socialized GM, wants the government to decide energy policy for businesses and individuals, wants more federal control over schools, wants more federal welfare, and the list goes on and on. Some of these things you may or may not agree with, but the consistent theme throughout is more government control. Contrast this with any evidence to support the theory that he's a free-market capitalist and you've got an uphill battle trying to argue that he's anything but a socialist. 2. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "turn the primary focus". If you mean from a campaign perspective, no, that's why he shuns the label and tries to play himself off as a moderate. I think he could absolutely increase government control over the economy exponentially over the next four years. It works as follows: Take a profitable industry; cripple it with taxes, regulations, etc.; come to the rescue by taking it over (in which case it should be thankful to beloved leader for showing the charity to bail them out and they should be happy to relinquish control.) 3. One branch shouldn't have that kind of power. However, this President has proven time and again that he is not constrained by the constitutional limits on his office. From making illegal recess appointments to issuing illegal waivers for welfare work requirements, he has shown he is happy to expand his own power. I forget the bill, but he was recently mulling acting by executive order on a bill that congress shut down. He seeks to eliminate the checks on the Presidency, which if successful could lead us effectively to monarchy. This was foreshaddowed by Obama complaining that Chinese leaders don't have to deal with the constraints he does.The denial of this is a scathing indictment of the media who seems to yawn at these abuses of power, the Democrat party, and rank and file Democrats who are all to happy to allow abuses of power and constitutional usurpation as long as it is their guy doing it. We should all be very afraid of this.
meazza Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 So, you are saying that the system takes care of itself I'm saying that the remaining checks and balances keep him from going full on France but don't worry, once he executes order 66, he'll be able to do anything he wants.
3rdnlng Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Yes, he usurped everything. We now have bread lines, he started the bail out programs. Political back room deals just started with him. And by the way, if anyone sits on a fence, son, it is you. You have more positions than a folk-style wrestling match. Yes, I have positions and they are pretty consistant. You on the other hand seem to have never met a position that you didn't consider.
Adam Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 1. The short version: Every mentor he can be traced back to is a socialist. Every piece of economic legislation he has supported involves more government in the economy. He has repeatedly told us who he is ("spread the wealth around", scoffs at those who are successful - classic Marxist rhetoric) and always comes out in favor of government taking greater control of the economy. He supports socialized medicine, basically socialized GM, wants the government to decide energy policy for businesses and individuals, wants more federal control over schools, wants more federal welfare, and the list goes on and on. Some of these things you may or may not agree with, but the consistent theme throughout is more government control. Contrast this with any evidence to support the theory that he's a free-market capitalist and you've got an uphill battle trying to argue that he's anything but a socialist. 2. I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "turn the primary focus". If you mean from a campaign perspective, no, that's why he shuns the label and tries to play himself off as a moderate. I think he could absolutely increase government control over the economy exponentially over the next four years. It works as follows: Take a profitable industry; cripple it with taxes, regulations, etc.; come to the rescue by taking it over (in which case it should be thankful to beloved leader for showing the charity to bail them out and they should be happy to relinquish control.) 3. One branch shouldn't have that kind of power. However, this President has proven time and again that he is not constrained by the constitutional limits on his office. From making illegal recess appointments to issuing illegal waivers for welfare work requirements, he has shown he is happy to expand his own power. I forget the bill, but he was recently mulling acting by executive order on a bill that congress shut down. He seeks to eliminate the checks on the Presidency, which if successful could lead us effectively to monarchy. This was foreshaddowed by Obama complaining that Chinese leaders don't have to deal with the constraints he does.The denial of this is a scathing indictment of the media who seems to yawn at these abuses of power, the Democrat party, and rank and file Democrats who are all to happy to allow abuses of power and constitutional usurpation as long as it is their guy doing it. We should all be very afraid of this. I agree with you about people being fine as long as their guy is doing it. On your second point, we can't increase taxes significantly, because we are crippled by the worst tax code in the history of the planet. If we fixed it, more money would come in. I'm saying that the remaining checks and balances keep him from going full on France but don't worry, once he executes order 66, he'll be able to do anything he wants. And those checks and balances keep the country somewhat sane. Thankfully. Yes, I have positions and they are pretty consistant. You on the other hand seem to have never met a position that you didn't consider. I am sorry that thinking dazzles you. I know how tough the world must be for the younger generation. Hang in there- you're positions are indeed "constant"
Rob's House Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Speaking of Socialism: http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/08/08/liberals_progressives_and_socialists What goes untaught -- and possibly is covered up -- is that socialist and communist ideas have produced the greatest evil in mankind's history. ... The unspeakable acts of Adolf Hitler's Nazis pale in comparison to the horrors committed by the communists in the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the People's Republic of China. Between 1917 and 1987, Vladimir Lenin, Josef Stalin and their successors murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 62 million of their own people. Between 1949 and 1987, China's communists, led by Mao Zedong and his successors, murdered and were otherwise responsible for the deaths of 76 million Chinese. ... it's acceptable both in Europe and in the U.S. to hoist and march under the former USSR's red flag emblazoned with a hammer and sickle. Mao Zedong has long been admired by academics and leftists across our country, as they often marched around singing the praises of Mao and waving his little red book, "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-tung." President Barack Obama's communications director, Anita Dunn, in her June 2009 commencement address to St. Andrews Episcopal High School at Washington National Cathedral, said Mao was one of her heroes.
3rdnlng Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 I agree with you about people being fine as long as their guy is doing it. On your second point, we can't increase taxes significantly, because we are crippled by the worst tax code in the history of the planet. If we fixed it, more money would come in. And those checks and balances keep the country somewhat sane. Thankfully. I am sorry that thinking dazzles you. I know how tough the world must be for the younger generation. Hang in there- you're positions are indeed "constant" Sure, Yesbut.
Adam Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 Speaking of Socialism: http://townhall.com/columnists/walterewilliams/2012/08/08/liberals_progressives_and_socialists I do agree with you that President Obama is the farthest left president that we have had. I don't blame socialism, communism or fascism for attrocities committed against people. The leaders are responsible for that. Those systems and capitalism can do a lot of good, but they all have their flaws, as all manmade things do. I haven't read up about the attrocities in Russia, but have heard sketchy details. I heard firsthand stories about Nazi attrocities. Sure, Yesbut. I tried to give you some respect because you claimed that you served. I am starting to doubt that claim, I don't know any other veterans that behave as ignorantly.
Rob's House Posted August 12, 2012 Posted August 12, 2012 I do agree with you that President Obama is the farthest left president that we have had. I don't blame socialism, communism or fascism for attrocities committed against people. The leaders are responsible for that. Those systems and capitalism can do a lot of good, but they all have their flaws, as all manmade things do. I haven't read up about the attrocities in Russia, but have heard sketchy details. I heard firsthand stories about Nazi attrocities. Read the whole article. Also, the problem with those systems is that they enable their leaders to have the power to execute such atrocities. Obama, Bush, Clinton, etc. would have been stuck with thumbs up their asses if they tried to ship people to concentration camps. Let's get congress out of the way, consolidate power in a monarch, and see how long our individual liberties are respected. Remember, these ideologies that lead to genocide are almost always rooted in a "greater good" argument and usually start off as populist movements to help the poor or middle/working class.
meazza Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 I do agree with you that President Obama is the farthest left president that we have had. I don't blame socialism, communism or fascism for attrocities committed against people. The leaders are responsible for that. Those systems and capitalism can do a lot of good, but they all have their flaws, as all manmade things do. I haven't read up about the attrocities in Russia, but have heard sketchy details. I heard firsthand stories about Nazi attrocities. I tried to give you some respect because you claimed that you served. I am starting to doubt that claim, I don't know any other veterans that behave as ignorantly. bull ****. Any system that does not allow ownership will inherently be violent because no one will ever willingly give up what they own so you are forced to take it from their cold dead hands. Seriously have you ever formed an opinion in your life that didn't finish with, well I'm 50/50 on this issue.
WorldTraveller Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 Let's be real here, if half our politicians were like Bernie sanders, Obama would be the head socialist in charge
3rdnlng Posted August 13, 2012 Posted August 13, 2012 bull ****. Any system that does not allow ownership will inherently be violent because no one will ever willingly give up what they own so you are forced to take it from their cold dead hands. Seriously have you ever formed an opinion in your life that didn't finish with, well I'm 50/50 on this issue. Adam, I'm with Meazza here. Take your middle of the road, nobody is to blame bs and stick it up your Yesbut.
Recommended Posts