Are those the Beacons of Truth and enlightenment you would like to associate with?
Are your Seriously going to use the ANTI-AMERICAN rhetoric and propaganda of those individuals to support your lunacy?
Are your Seriously going to use the ANTI-AMERICAN rhetoric and propaganda of those individuals to support your lunacy?
Is that all you Got?
Thats the Best response Budlittlemanchildtom could come up with for citing the ANTI-AMERICAN rhetoric of some of the individuals that want to see our Country collapse?
Actually U cited Putin, Chavez and Castro and stated "they cant all be wrong"
But you are a worthless little Troll, But Dont worry I understand that in your real life out side of the internet the built up anger of how shitty life is has to be released somewhere. Your surely not capable of doing anything about it in the real world. Too weak, The problems of Life make the little brain Hurt.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Socialism strictly defined is a system where the government owns the means of production.
Obama has taken over GM, one of the largest companies on the planet, and not too distantly THE largest company on the planet. That alone justifies at least some accusations against Obama for having a socialist agenda.
Another indicator of socialism is a dedication to absolute equality, regardless of cost, and democrats like Obama are among this mindset. They emphasize equality over freedom. Obama has spoken often of "economic justice," which surely alludes to this attitude.
Incidentally, didn't you guys hear that European socialist parties are thinking of changing their names back to democrats, since losing in the recent elections? That's hilarious.
Obama has taken over GM, one of the largest companies on the planet, and not too distantly THE largest company on the planet. That alone justifies at least some accusations against Obama for having a socialist agenda.
Another indicator of socialism is a dedication to absolute equality, regardless of cost, and democrats like Obama are among this mindset. They emphasize equality over freedom. Obama has spoken often of "economic justice," which surely alludes to this attitude.
Incidentally, didn't you guys hear that European socialist parties are thinking of changing their names back to democrats, since losing in the recent elections? That's hilarious.
Budmantom
Lifer
- Aug 17, 2002
- 13,103
- 1
- 81
Originally posted by: smashp
Actually U cited Putin, Chavez and Castro and stated "they cant all be wrong"
But you are a worthless little Troll, But Dont worry I understand that in your real life out side of the internet the built up anger of how shitty life is has to be released somewhere. Your surely not capable of doing anything about it in the real world. Too weak, The problems of Life make the little brain Hurt.
Little lady one thing you won't see me complaining about is my life and me being angry, my life is great, it's poor little ladies like you that I worry about.
Wong.
In socialism, the motive for the government running a business is for it to run the business, for the enefits to society of it doing so. The management can be more democratic, the policies are more filtered by democracy ('we shouldn't pollute so much' is decided not by a board of Directors legally obligated to pursue shareholder profit as their only concern, but by the more democratic processes that have a moral component not to pollute their nation), and so on.
With the government bailout of GM, the motive is to save the company that has gone bankrupt, and the governemnt DOES NOT want to run the company long term, it's looking to get out of the 'ownership' of GM in a relatively short time frame - that's an entireydifferent motive that makes it very NOT socialism.
Except that you are not telling the truth. That does not exist. There is some egalitarianism consistent with democracy, not anything like what you describe.
Half ass anecdotes you might come up with don't prove otherwise. You are simply sayijng somethig not true.
The same way that a kindergarten having children share their crayons prove the school is a communist plo - your comments only show your ignorance and radicalism.
Just because you have no clue what economic justice is about, you attack it as something it is not. I'd refer yout to books to get a cluem but you tell me, would you read any?
No, it's politics. Whether an ideology is right has little to do with the political realities of the day. Is it 'hilarious' that Jews in anti-Semitic areas change their names?
Why the hell do you think the Bush campaign coined the term 'compassionate conservative' - it was to recognize the fact his numbers were lower because of a lot of people opposing him for not haivng a more liberal social view, and they wanted to get more votes from more liberal people.
You are following what i said earlier - I wouldn't put is this harshly about you right now, giving you the benefit of the doubt, but you are quite wrong:
The word has been thrown around so much it has lost any meaning or impact.
It's now only useful as a tool for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to keep their viewers/listeners tuned in so they can keep themselves in a frenzy.
It's now only useful as a tool for Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to keep their viewers/listeners tuned in so they can keep themselves in a frenzy.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
So now we're not denying that Obama is socialist. You're just defending socialism.
I'm calling BS on that. I don't trust government, republican or democrat, to cede ownership in GM. I will be the first to say I'm wrong if Obama proves me so.
Gimme a break Craig. You always tell people to read whatever it was that I-forget-who wrote, yet I once challenged you to read Freedom To Choose, and you shied away from it.
Regarding sharing crayons, it is not the governments responsibility to enforce sharing. Out of curiosity, would you be opposed to a law passed that mandated crayon-sharing in kindergarten?
Maybe so, but it's laughable nonetheless that democrats here continually try to shed the socialist moniker, while official socialists in Europe change their names back to democrat.
Originally posted by: UberNeuman
Originally posted by: OCguy
Are you saying Obama hasnt been the most socialist president we have seen in our lifetime?
I thought the left liked socialism, so why are you acting as if it is a dirty word?
I think Fox News is telling you, et al, to stop going full retard....
Full retard mode is the only thing the wingnuts understand anymore. They're fueled on faux outrage and idiotic labels they don't even understand.
Maybe he's giving these wingnuts and their vocabulary too much credit. Some may think it was a compliment.
You are having big problems with reading comprehension. That's close to the opposite of what I said. I explained why what Obama is doing it not socialism.
I'm calling BS on your BS, and we'll just agree to disagree and time will tell which of us is right. I can say that your claim he's lying is baseless though, no real evidence.
Yes, there are good recommendations and bad recommendations. I didn't mention how much I've seen of Freedom to Choose, because I don't want to set the precedent that every recommendation is tit for tat worthwhile. My response is the same to 'bad recommendations' whether it was the evil of Friedman, the poison of Ann Coulter, the bombastic excrement of a Bill O'Reilly or the lunacy of Glenn Beck. There are too many worthwhile things needint to get time to waste on what I understand to be crap.
I do understand that some people simply can't understand why a good recommendation and a recommendation for the latest Ann Coulter bomb are not equal, but oh well.
IMO, Friedman's book is a dangerous, extremely ideological tract, and while in theory it has some usefulness to understand how wrong it is, it's a bit like Scientology - useful basically in understanding why it's so bad for the world, and that takes reading other things. I'm opposed to Friedman's book and have a similar view on reading it to reading Mein Kampf, simply for the insight into a misguided ideology from the horse's mouth. But it's best avoided IMO, like Scientology, Mein Kampf, or the KKK's core ideology.
You're terribly misguided, misapplying the analogy from the point it was for to one it has nothing to do with.
If I made an analogy to why traffic signals are an appropriate balance of restricting freedom with the law, you would be wrong to then ask me if I was defending the elimination of Habeus Corpus and allowing political prisoners under the name of the balance between freedom and law with that analogy.
I'm for sharing crayons, and against a law mandating it because such a law is unnecessary since the laws that exist providing the charter for Kindergartens allow for it to occur.
You seem to be on some misguided larger point you can now say a ha to and point out why then some compeltely unrelated law is also unneded, but why not forget that?
I support a degree of socialism (which IMO everyone here does too, but the more relevant point is a higher degree than many), I don't support it past a certain point.
My view on that has nothing to do with my correcting people who wrongly call a policy socialist that is not. I might prefer that it WERE socialist, but point out that it isn't.
You seems to have missed my point while agreeing with it, so there's not much else to add.
The question of whether they're right is not the same as the question of their motive.
If you completely eliminated the US defense department for the motive that it'd send a powerful message that would win the hearts and minds of the world and achieve world peace, the result might be the same as an evil American hater magically gaining the ability to do so for the motive of destroying the US; same result, very different motive.
The fact is, as I pointed out, that the motive and the plan of the government in buying a big company has a hell of a lot to do with whether it's 'socialism' or not.
Doing so for the motive of bailout rather than for the state to permanently run the company for the reasons socialists do so, and for a short term, is not 'socialism'.
Murdoch's agenda is to make money, and the ideology he can sell is secondary - if he could profit with a network for Nazis or puppies, I think he'd make those.
In nations with more liberal governments, Murdoch's products have ingratiated themselves with those goernments much of the time; who knows what's behind these Fox aberrations.
It could be market research to see viewers' reaction for all we know, though that's (only sligthly) tin foil.
Don't see why this would be considered conspiratorial. It seems like responsible market research if the goal is profits which usually involves viewership. My guess is that they considered that the winds were blowing a different direction as exhibited by the election. Probably surprised them that so many of the rabid would remain rabid.
Atreus21
Lifer
- Aug 21, 2007
- 12,001
- 571
- 126
Yes, because Milton Freidman hated blacks, called for the mass extermination of jews, and espouses a religious ideology. Perhaps I lack reading comprehension, but you are wholly ignorant of anything regarding Freidman or his writings. Intelligent democrats might disagree with his political stance, but I think they'd stop far short of comparing him with radical ideologues.
Something's wrong with that sentence. I don't understand.
But what happens if a child chooses not to share his or her crayons?
A miniscule degree of socialist activity is required to dull the sharm edges of a free market. The government interfering to the magnitude of taking over one of the world's largest car manufacturers is a gross overstepping.
jonks
Lifer
- Feb 7, 2005
- 13,918
- 20
- 81
Do you not see the difference between gov't taking over a healthy vibrant company to secure and reallocate its profits and gov't taking over a company that was going to go belly-up and flood the market with millions of unemployed workers from both its own industry and affiliated industries?
I think we need a new avatar in light of current events: http://raymondpronk.files.word...8/10/red_socialism.gif
Agreed, think about what would happen if the companies were allowed to collapse instantly instead of gracefully transitioning to leaner and meaner car companies that might be able to be competitive again in the marketplace.
It seems to me that Obama(and Bush) expect a far more pro-capitalist as opposed to a "socialist"(god, the word should just be banned when discussing American politics) outcome.
Neither. My post has nothing to do with the credibility of Fox as a news organization. (it has none)
Fox is a partisan propaganda outfit, but even as slanted as they are they are still saying that people hurling around the word socialism are fucking nuts. Turn it around, if the DailyKos is trashing some left wing people for doing something, you KNOW it's bad.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter