A united country must be socialist? (sm)
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2009-01-10
In Reply to: One nation, under Stalin....right....you keep pushing that unity thing and we'll be completely - socialist...they're all laughing at us know, yo
 I don't even have anything to say to that rediculous assumption.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
Rise of the United Socialist States of America
If you can honestly approve of all this, I just don't know what else to say...
Click here: The Rise of the United Socialist States of America
The United States is a country in decline.
And you must want to live in a socialist country
What part of my message didn't you understand? It was pretty simple. It was Biden's words himself. So let me spell it out for the intellectually challenged (maybe if you read this slowly you might understand it).
1. We don't need the liberals stealing from the american people who have worked hard (the ones who have small business, etc (words of Newt Gingrich).
2. Taking more money from the people who work hard to earn it while not stopping the spending will not help the economy grow.
Most importantly - now read this extra slow so you can understand it.
Stealing money from the american people under the guise of "taxes" while trying to make them believe its their patriotic duty to pay more, when we can hardly afford to live anymore and while government does not stop spending on uneccessary programs is not patriotism - it's socialism.
You do the research. And you say I'm not too bright???
What would it be like living in a socialist country
Because we know Obama is a far left/socialist and if elected will change the country into a socialist country, can someone please tell us all what exactly that means for us. Seems too many people are dummed down by the TV reality shows that they don't pay enough attention to what is going on. So...because it's a fact about Obama, what will that mean for our country and what difficulties will be be facing.
Doesn't anyone know what it will mean for us to live in a socialist country?
While everyone is busy attacking the republicans while crying that everyone is attacking Obama, nobody has answered the question.
You can't even see the end of the nose on your face. Its a fact that democrats have put us economically where we are. Who cares about Bush! He did not vote on the FMFM thing 2 years ago. There are bills signed, records voted on. It is black and white. with Dodd, Franks, and Cox at the top (not to mention Obama). It is undeniable, yet you continue to ignore the facts (plus the democrats had control of the congress). Stop living in the victim state and face the facts.
Still just trying to find out what socialism will mean for us in our daily lives IF Obama is elected. Nobody knows yet if he will be elected or not - especially with the latest news of the swing states finding republican registration cards thrown in the garbage. I don't trust any poll until the day after election (look at the Bush/Gore election). That was close.
Anyway...guess I will have to do some research but not sure where to start.
A socialist country doesn't seem like such a bad thing?!? Then vote for Batista Obama.
xx
The United Nations has always been a joke.
They never accomplish anything, never take responsibility for anything and want everything for themselves.
There is nothing wrong with Sarah Palin as a VP candidate. Besides, McCain has a right to pick who he wants.
United Daughters of the Confederacy
I'm off to a meeting. Just wondering what comments this will bring. LOL
In which United States do minorities
Please elighten, oh wise one.
In which United States do minorities
Please elighten, oh wise one.
and we ARE talking about the President of the United States here...
he is not running for the senate. He is running for the top spot. Obviously the postings I made before about Marxist leanings were not so off the wall...if the Marxists are high-fiving him in open letters to newspapers. And not just any Marxist...son of the big Kahuna. Don't understand how someone can consider abstinence and sex education valid issues to attack a candidate's family for pete's sake and totally ignore this little revelation. How sweet it is to wear blinders, I suppose.
Do what? Screw the rest of the United States?
Sarah Palin, United Nations, she has
.
United States Senate...who voted for what
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=2&vote=00137
Do you actually look up anything?
This is simply NOT TRUE. Read what the United
Mine Workers of America have to say about it. I've copied and pasted it in its entirety. It completely REFUTES yet another false claim that's been repeated on this board.
McCain campaign’s last minute distortion of Obama’s coal record an act of desperation
United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) International President Cecil E. Roberts issued the following statement today:
“Sen. John McCain and his running mate, Gov. Sarah Palin, have once again demonstrated that they are willing to say anything and do anything to win this election. Their latest twisting of the truth is about coal and some comments Sen. Obama made last January about the future use of coal in America.
“Here is what the McCain campaign left out of Sen. Obama’s actual words: ‘But this notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion. Because the fact of the matter is, is that right now we are getting a lot of our energy from coal. And China is building a coal-powered plant once a week. So what we have to do then is figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it.’
“Sen. Obama has been consistent with that message not just in the coalfields, but everywhere else he goes as well. Despite what the McCain campaign and some far right-wing blogs would have Americans believe, Sen. Obama has been and remains a tremendous supporter of coal and the future of coal.
“I noted that Sen. McCain even went so far yesterday as to say he has always been a supporter of coal. I wonder, then, how he can justify his statement at a Senate hearing in 2000 that, ‘In a perfect world we would like to transition away from coal entirely,’ and his leading role in sponsoring legislation in 2003 that would have wiped out 78 percent of all coal production in America?
“Fortunately, UMWA members, their families and their friends and neighbors in the coalfields know all too well what is going on here. They’re not going to fall for it, and we urge others throughout America who care about coal to review what the candidates’ records on coal actually are. We are confident that once they do, and once they see the many other benefits to working families of voting for Sen. Obama, they will make the right choice for themselves and their families
People's United Means Action
I had heard it before but didn't know what it meant.
Someone whose loyalties lie with the United States of America
nm
N. KOREA THREATENS UNITED STATES
N. Korea Threatens Military Action if U.S. Imposes Blockade
Saturday, June 13, 2009
June 10: South Korean soldiers use binoculars to look at the North side from Imjingak, north of Seoul, South Korea.
June 10: South Korean soldiers use binoculars to look at the North side from Imjingak, north of Seoul, South Korea.
SEOUL, South Korea — North Korea vowed on Saturday to embark on a uranium enrichment program and "weaponize" all the plutonium in its possession as it rejected the new U.N. sanctions meant to punish the communist nation for its recent nuclear test.
North Korea also said it would not abandon its nuclear programs, saying it was an inevitable decision to defend itself from what it says is a hostile U.S. policy and its nuclear threat against the North.
The North will take "resolute military action" if the United States or its allies try to impose any "blockade" on it, the ministry said in a statement carried by the North's official Korean Central News Agency.
The ministry did not elaborate if the blockade refers to an attempt to stop its ships or impose sanctions.
North Korea describes its nuclear program as a deterrent against possible U.S. attacks. Washington says it has no intention of attacking and has expressed fear that North Korea is trying to sell its nuclear technology to other nations.
The statement came hours after the U.N. Security Council approved tough new sanctions on North Korea to punish it for its latest nuclear test on May 25.
The U.N. resolution imposes new sanctions on the reclusive communist nation's weapons exports and financial dealings, and allows inspections of suspect cargo in ports and on the high seas.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,526090,00.html
this is slandering the President of the United States..sm
saying that the President is stupid WITHOUT having ANY proof of this.
No. I love the country side in Alabama...I'm a country girl...nm
United Methodist Church Calls For Withdrawal ...sm
Sweet Victory: United Methodist Church Calls For Withdrawal
It's one thing when former high-ranking members of your own Administration come out against your war. It's another thing when two-thirds of the country calls the invasion and occupation a mistake. It's really something when your own church issues a statement urging you to pull out the troops now.
Last week, the United Methodist Church Board of Church and Society--the social action committee of the church that both President Bush and Vice President Cheney belong to--resoundingly passed a resolution calling for withdrawal with only two 'no' votes and one abstention.
As people of faith, we raise our voice in protest against the tragedy of the unjust war in Iraq, the statement read. Thousands of lives have been lost and hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in a war the United States initiated and should never have fought.... We grieve for all those whose lives have been lost or destroyed in this needless and avoidable tragedy. Military families have suffered undue hardship from prolonged troop rotations in Iraq and loss of loved ones. It is time to bring them home.
The board also issued a strong statement against torture, urging Congress to create an independent, bipartisan commission to investigate detention and interrogation practices at Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan.
It is my hope and prayer that our statement against the war in Iraq will be heard loud and clear by our fellow United Methodists, President Bush and Vice President Cheney, said Jim Winkler, General Secretary of the UMC's Board of Church and Society. Conservative and liberal board members worked together to craft a strong statement calling for the troops to come home and for those responsible for leading us into this disastrous war to be held accountable.
With its bold stands against the Administration, the UMC is fulfilling the words of Martin Luther King Jr., who called for the church to be not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion but a thermostat that transformed the mores of society.
Bush has asserted that he entered Iraq on a direct order from God. Now, he has a direct order from his own church to leave. Is he listening?
Obama must be United States Citizen to be president!!!!
Until he proves to all the people of the United States that he was born a US citizen, how can anyone support him for president! Are we all that desperate?
A civics lesson in the Constitution of the United States
Our country's highest governing document, The Constitution, has been our guiding light throughout most of this country's history and has provided protection and equal treatment of the citizens of this country for over 200 years. Now, some people are saying that it needs to be changed, amended or done away with because it is "old-fashioned" and out of date. What I think these people want done away with is just the parts that they don't find fits their particular needs or desires at the moment, in particular, it would seem, the 14th Amendment and its definition of who is a natural citizen of this country and eligible to run for the office of President of the United States.
Let's look at the constitutional requirements for President of the United States, the 14th Amendment which further defines a natural citizen and the law which fills in the gaps and makes the explanation whole and more easily understood.
Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?
The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.
Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth:"
- Anyone born inside the United States
- Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe
- Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
- Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
- Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
- Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
- A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.
Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.
The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was "declared" to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms "natural-born" or "citizen at birth" are missing from this section.
Some have theorized that because John McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): "a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person." Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain - but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.
http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html
If one group of people who want to see Obama in office manage to do away with the 14th Amendment, then what is to keep another faction of people from doing away with any of the other constitutions? The Constitutions, its Amendments and Articles were put in place not to oppress the American people but to protect them and their rights and freedoms. What if all the men in the country decided they wanted to do away with the 19th Amendment? I bet we would see some really mad women in this country. Or how about doing away with the 22nd Amendment which limits the number of terms that a President can serve? Can we say "dictatorship?"
I saw a documentary on the abuse of boys in United Arab Emirates...sm
as donkey racers and it was downright heartbreaking. I would adopt them ALL if I could.
I don't think the US should throw a penny their way. Only the rich would benefit anyway.
Look....any president of the United States is going to trust people to do their jobs...
he trusted FEMA to do their jobs. He trusted that Blanco and Nagin were listening to what the weather experts were telling them and what the corps of engineers were telling them...they asked for the evacuation to be mandatory a full 24 hours before Nagin made it mandatory. A very precious 24 hours. So it was impossible to get people out. Can we possibly lay the failure at the feet of all responsible?
And as i said...would have taken the post a lot more seriously had the poster not made the "baker" comment at the end. It lost all credibility at that point..but of course, I am sure that escaped you.
And what any of this has to do with John McCain, whose birthday it was, having a piece of cake...he was a senator at the time. So was Obama. I figure he had a meal that day, and maybe even some cake.
This is a nonissue. There are a bazillion reasons why Katrina was such a disaster. One, the corps of engineers had been telling local and state officials for years that the levees would not hold if there was a big storm. Good lord, the whole town is below sea level!! Which, incidentally, is not Bush's fault either.
But NONE of these things have ANYTHING to do with JOhn McCain. Nice try to link it to him...but no.
How about : Stop telling the President of the United States WHAT functions
to attend and which not?
I think O and his cabinet are doing a better job in this than you.
Yes killing this country - have you been out of the country the last 3 months or so
Don't you have a clue as to what is happening in America? Where have you been? Don't you listen to what is happening or are you still drinking the kool-aid. That time is over. Put the aid down and wake up. The country is being destroyed. These have been the worst 4 months in the history of bad presidents. Foreclosures are on the rise, unemployment is on the rise, 3+ trillion more in deficit and on the rise, companies shutting down, Clinton for SoS. Napolitano - one of the biggest tragedies to happen to America. The list goes on and on and on and on.
Dubya is not in office anymore. You think dubya "pulled the trigger", well the O keeps reloading it and continues to pull the trigger.
jew - socialist?????
Your ignorance is showing. Blacklisting was just that, blacklisting, a modern day witchhunt. Chomsky is a great columnist and professor. Im amazed at the gall of you bringing up jews and linking them with socialism and communism. I have many jewish friends who have worked extremely hard for all that they have and I frankly dont know what socialism or communism and being a jew has anything to do with the other. P.S.: This is America, land of the free..remember? And if anyone, christian, jew, atheist wants to be a socialist or communist, they can be..its not against the law of the land..
He is a socialist
Wake up! Read his plans, read what he wants to do to America. They are all socialist ideas.
he is a socialist
I will not calm down. He is not my president. My president and leader is and always will be Jehovah.
Socialist?
Who Are You Calling a Socialist?
Wednesday 04 March 2009
by: Harold Meyerson | Visit article original @ The Washington Post
Conservatives are currently attacking President Barack Obama by calling him a socialist. (Photo: Wired.com)
"We are all socialists now," proclaims Newsweek. We are creating "socialist republics" in the United States, says Mike Huckabee, adding, on reflection, that "Lenin and Stalin would love this stuff." We are witnessing the Obama-era phenomenon of "European socialism transplanted to Washington," says Newt Gingrich.
Well! Even as we all turn red, I've still encountered just two avowed democratic socialists in my daily rounds through the nation's capital: Vermont's Sen. Bernie Sanders . . . and the guy I see in the mirror when I shave. Bernie is quite capable of speaking for himself, so what follows is a report on the state of actual existing socialism from the other half of the D.C. Senators and Columnists Soviet.
First, as we survey the political landscape, what's striking is the absence of advocates of socialism, at least as the term was understood by those who carried that banner during the capitalist crisis of the 1930s. Then, socialists and communists both spoke of nationalizing all major industries and abolishing private markets and the wage system. Today, it's impossible to find a left-leaning party anywhere that has such demands or entertains such fantasies. (Not even Hugo Chávez - more an authoritarian populist than any kind of socialist - says such things.)
Within the confines of socialist history, this means that the perspective of Eduard Bernstein - the fin DE siecle German socialist who argued that the immediate struggle to humanize capitalism through the instruments of democratic government was everything, and that the goal of supplanting capitalism altogether was meaningless - has definitively prevailed. Within the confines of American history, this means that when New York's garment unions left the Socialist Party to endorse Franklin Roosevelt in 1936, they were charting the paradigmatic course for American socialists: into the Democratic Party to support not the abolition of capitalism but its regulation and democratization, and the creation of some areas of public life where the market does not rule.
But in the United States, conservatives have never bashed socialism because its specter was actually stalking America. Rather, they've wielded the cudgel against such progressive reforms as free universal education, the minimum wage or tighter financial regulations. Their signal success is to have kept the United States free from the taint of universal health care. The result: We have the world's highest health-care costs, borne by businesses and employees that cannot afford them; nearly 50 million Americans have no coverage; infant mortality rates are higher than those in 41 nations - but at least (phew!) we don't have socialized medicine.
Give conservatives credit for their consistency: They attacked Roosevelt as a socialist as they are now attacking Obama, when in fact Obama, like Roosevelt before him, is engaged not in creating socialism but in rebooting a crashed capitalist system. The spending in Obama's stimulus plan isn't a socialist takeover. It's the only way to inject money into a system in which private-sector investment, consumption and exports - the other three possible engines of growth - are locked down. Investing more tax dollars in education and research and development is a way to use public funds to create a more competitive private sector. Keeping our banks from speculating madly with our money is a way to keep banking alive.
If Obama realizes his agenda, what emerges will be a more social, sustainable, competitive capitalism. His more intellectually honest and sentient conservative critics don't accuse him of Leninism but of making our form of capitalism more like Europe's. In fact, over the past quarter-century, Europe's capitalism became less regulated and more like ours, one reason Europe is tanking along with everyone else.
Take it from a democratic socialist: Laissez-faire American capitalism is about to be supplanted not by socialism but by a more regulated, viable capitalism. And the reason isn't that the woods are full of secret socialists who are only now outing themselves.
Judging by the failures of the great Wall Street investment houses and the worldwide crisis of commercial banks; the collapse of East Asian, German and American exports; the death rattle of the U.S. auto industry; the plunge of stock markets everywhere; the sickening rise in global joblessness; and the growing shakiness of governments in fledgling democracies that opened themselves to the world market - judging by all these, a more social capitalism is on the horizon because the deregulated capitalism of the past 30 years has blown itself up, taking much of the known world with it.
So, for conservatives searching for the culprits behind this transformation of capitalism: Despite our best efforts, it wasn't Bernie and it wasn't me. It was your own dam system.
socialist blair
He is a socialist, doesnt just tend to sway that way..He is a socialist, LOL. Gee, I thought socialism, you know, help each other, my bread is your bread, sure I will donate or pay taxes to set up programs, run by the government, to help those less fortunate..Socialism..the same thing you fight against in America, Social Security, without private accounts, Medicare, and many more, all programs set up by democrats.
You never meant a socialist Jew! sm
What do you think they come up to you and say hi, I am a socialist Jew. Do you know Noam Chomsky? How about David Horowitz's parents? How about the Rosenbergs? Shall I go on. Do you wonder why almost all the actors blacklisted in Hollywood way back when were almost all JEWS?!?
This is utter BS, but I'd take a socialist nm
xxxxxxxx
Couldn't have said it better...socialist to
xx
They are socialist/Marxist. That has been the...
mantle of the DNC for years, growing steadily worse. They employ the Alinsky method...read up on it. Obama not only embraces it, he taught it.
It is built on class warfare. You find out what bothers people most, then you rabble rouse. Whatever that sore is, you make it more sore. And you blame whatever institution you are trying to take down. With Hitler it was Jews. With socialists it is "the rich." You make people think the cause of ALL their problems is either (Jews or big nasty corporations). Here it is big nasty corporations. They have fed people this for so many years they have bought into it. People actually think big evil corporations are the cause of everything bad that happens to them.
Saul Alinsky himself summed it up (paraphrasing): "It doesn't matter if it is true or not. It just matters if you can make them believe it."
Basically, in order to keep people voting for them, they have to keep people thinking that the big bad corporations are the cause of all the problems, and they say we are going to take from them and give to you and you have to do nothing to receive that other than keep voting for them. In recent years it has been changed to evil corporations and evil Republicans, and it is working, you see it demonstrated on this board every day. Most of these people really don't even know how corporations figure into our economy. They just know they're "evil." They hate a whole portion of society (Christians, conservatives, etc.) because they are "evil" and the cause of all their problems. Socialism 101. They have practiced it well...they have a lot of believers.
Marxist/socialist? Please. You are just being...sm
inflammatory. He is a liberal democrat, period. If I had called McCain a fascist would you not be insulted. Can we have some brains here? Next thing you will be calling him a communist. Good grief!
They you lean socialist, I don't, and we will...
agree to disagree. I do not begrudge anyone who has been successful in their lives and I sure don't think they owe ME any part of it. I don't understand that logic. And if a good many of those "rich" did not contribute extensively to charitable programs, there would be a lot more "with outs" than there are. But nobody ever mentions that. Just like nobody ever mentions those rich people and their businesses employ about 80% of us. But what does that matter, right? Why should we have to work? Just give us YOUR money. Sigh.
That is also where we differ...McCain is not Bush. And don't give me the voted with him 95% of the time. So did the democrats, or bills would not have passed. That doesn't hold water. McCain has gotten in Bush's face more than the democrats have over a lot of things.
If the Democrats had not blocked McCain's reform bill in 2005, perhaps we would not have had the Fannie/Freddie crisis.
But, oh well, I guess none of that matters....lol
Have a good day! :)
Was Jesus a socialist?...sm
On the last day, Jesus will say to those on His right hand, "Come, enter the Kingdom. For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was sick and you visited me." Then Jesus will turn to those on His left hand and say, "Depart from me because I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was thirsty and you did not give me to drink, I was sick and you did not visit me." These will ask Him, "When did we see You hungry, or thirsty or sick and did not come to Your help?" And Jesus will answer them, "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!"
Obama IS a socialist. And I think you know it.
nm
Not Obama. He is a socialist first.
Have you not read his books?
No, he is a socialist first.........and no doubt his
It is known for a FACT that the Obama campaign has contributed over 800K dollars to ACORN, a corrupt organization committed to voter fraud with many members of ACORN indicted for those crimes and more...... you figure it out.
And pleeeze do not tell me Obama doesn't know anything about this...
SOCIALIST STATE
I agree with you 100%.
VT, Socialist Senator
Bernie Sanders. Isn't that special?
Obama is a socialist
Redistribution of wealth is a key characteristic of socialism. We already redistribute enough wealth, so why punish those who work hard to make a better life for their families by making more money? Take more taxes from them to give to the crackheads on the street who won't work? Also, remember, it is generally the wealthy people who create the most jobs.
None were As socialist as Obama...
he is eliminating the federal taxes of 10 million and making up the lost revenue by taxing the "rich" at a higher rate, while at the same time letting the bush tax cuts for those same people expire, which is not reflected in any of your charts.
answer: None of them were more socialist than Obama.
At least HE is honest about it.
OBAMA THE SOCIALIST
HE'S A SOCIALIST, MUSLIM; WE WILL HAVE SOCIAL MEDICINE, ALL THE CHURCHES WILL BE CLOSED AND ALL CHRISTIANS WILL BE PERSECUTED. NO HOMESCHOOLING FOR SURE. OUR BORDERS WILL BE OPEN. YOU MUST HIRE HOMOSEXUALS IN YOUR CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS AND BUSINESSES. REMEMBER WHAT HITLER DO, IT WILL BE MUCH, MUCH WORSE. ******
**** Edited by Moderator: No name-calling, please.*****
Not according to the socialist party.
Brian Moore, the presidential candidate for the socialist party, says that it is an insult to say that Barack Obama is a socialist. He was interviewed on TV last week and said that Obama is a capitalist and could not be described as a socialist in any way, shape, or form. I think he knows a little bit more about socialism than any of you do.
socialist ideology
Other folks have got the Obama transition covered here, so I won't talk about that. What I will say is how stupid it is for people to get in a lather about ''socialism.''
You quote that line, ''It wasn’t socialism and hand outs from the federal government that made this the country that people literally die trying to get into,'' and that's actually exactly the opposite of the truth. Our recovery from the Depression and our postwar boom succeeded pretty much exactly in proportion to how much money the government handed out.
Obama is not a socialist, but his policies will only succeed insofar as they take money out of the hands of the rich and powerful, and put it back into the hands of the folks that work for a living. There is simply no other way to sustain an economy without going through these ridiculous periods of speculation and depression. The mess we're in now is what happens when capitalism tries to ''prop things up.'' It always fails, and we always bail it out, and then we always wonder how this could possibly have happened again.
So the only way, is the democrat (socialist) way from now on?
The uninformed public such as you scare me more than them.
OH NO!!!! He's much worse than a socialist....
xx
|
