6 replies to this topic

[swmr545]

Is Obama a socialist? Or was Palin?

"Llewellyn, the national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says he was struck by one player in the 2008 presidential elections who displayed more socialistic leanings than Obama.

This candidate raised taxes on the big oil companies, and sent the revenue to the people.

If you want to learn something about spreading the wealth, Llewellyn says, don't look to Obama."

http://www.cnn.com/2...list/index.html

The story also has some points made by an actual socialist and a member of the Tea Party

[SmartMoney]

Hmmm...From CNN....that's fresh!!

[uberman]

Is Obama a socialist? Or was Palin?

Neither, socialism is controlling the means of production and the allocation of resources, you can argue minute details of each person's political record, but unless Alaska, under Palin, actually purchased the oil derricks and drilled the oil themselves and then distributed the earnings to the people, it's still capitalism with a hearty dose of regulation.

"Llewellyn, the national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says he was struck by one player in the 2008 presidential elections who displayed more socialistic leanings than Obama.

This is counter-productive, liberals are on a quest to teach conservatives what socialism means (many don't understand the definition.) Accusing conservatives of being socialists doesn't help much.

[uberman]

I had no idea that liberals were on a quest to teach conservatives what socialism is!

Well, when your ilk constantly call Obama a socialist, it's clear you all don't know what socialism means. This post is affirmation of that fact.

Here's a definition of socialism and communism:

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Communism: A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

Now, these definitions aren't decisive, there is no ONE definition for these terms, but these are the definitions which I feel are best suited for our discussion.

I think it's JBailey who uses the word "Nanny-stateism" instead of Socialism or Communism, I applaud him for that because if you want to describe Obama with any one particular word, it would be "nanny." In a lot of ways, he is nannyist, the whole democratic party and liberal left are nannyists, (we're proud of it and understand that others have a reasonable and rational opposition to such an approach to government.)

But to call Obama a socialist, which you do CONSTANTLY, reaffirms my observation of tea partiers, that they have no idea what they are saying, and pull stuff out of their arses to push forward a narrative given to them by the only news organization and medium which they can understand, Fox News Television. God forsake a Tea Party "Thank God," for a written form of news, that person would be ostracized for reading!

I've heard that socialism is when the people agree it is socialism, but when they don't agree on that form of government it's communism. I think many more than you think know the definition of the word "socialism". We just DON'T LIKE IT!

WHAT? I've sat here reading this for a while now trying to extract and extrapolate what you're trying to say into a rational argument, I have failed miserably. Can you PLEASE restate what you're trying to say?

The first sentence makes the acclimation that a socialist regime is essentially ANY regime that believes they are socialist. Which is axiomatically incorrect, a duck that thinks he's a penguin is NOT a penguin, it's a duck!

I think many more than you think know the definition of the word "socialism". We just DON'T LIKE IT!

I really don't think many of you know what the definition of socialism is, I've come to grips with the fact that you all don't like it, but you're understanding of socialism is still under question. Which leads me to believe that if you oppose something THIS strongly for something you don't understand, then coming to understand the term is futile, hence why no one at Fox News teaches you what socialism means.

Do you think Hitler called his form of government communistic?

Sigh, fine, here we go...

fascism "is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum." I agree to this definition with varying skepticism, I feel fascism (specifically the NAZI political ideology,) takes aspects of leftist and rightist ideals and aspirations. However, call it what you will, it wasn't communism. That much anyone with half a brain can agree on.

The cats out of the bag.....no matter how you try to spin it, it sucks!

There's only 1 cat out of a bag, and that's your lack of understanding regarding the political movements of the past 3 centuries.

[Bill Z]

Here's a definition of socialism and communism:

Socialism: Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Communism: A form of socialism that abolishes private ownership

Now, these definitions aren't decisive, there is no ONE definition for these terms, but these are the definitions which I feel are best suited for our discussion.

Aw, so you get to pick the definitions of socialism for our discussion, how elitist of you.

Wiki goes into a better explanation than your simpleton definitions:
Here is clip from their definition

Socialism is not a concrete philosophy of fixed doctrine and programme; its branches advocate a degree of social interventionism and economic rationalisation (usually in the form of economic planning), but sometimes oppose each other. A dividing feature of the socialist movement is the split between reformists and revolutionaries on how a socialist economy should be established. Some socialists advocate complete nationalisation of the means of production, distribution, and exchange; others advocate state control of capital within the framework of a market economy.

So I think most of those right leaning folks on here would agree with me that socialism is defined by our governments social intervention. Thus nanny laws (which I like to think of as Uncle Sam trying to be my mommy), economic manipulation, taxing the rich to give to the poor( mainly through social programs that enable the lazy to abuse the safety nets), as all falling under the category of socialism.

And I thought you read books to gain an understanding, but obviously you read books to justify your own narrowminded labels for the purposes of your arguments.