Majority of Republicans believe Obama's a Socialists...

[Nbadan]

...who's out to get your white women!


A new poll of self-identified Republicans released Tuesday shows a large slice of the GOP believes President Barack Obama is a “socialist” who was not born in this country, should be impeached, wants the terrorists to win and only won the 2008 election because ACORN “stole” it for him.

The survey of 2003 self-identified Republicans, who typically trend much more conservative than voters who “lean” Republican, was conducted by Research 2000 for the liberal blog Daily Kos.

According to the poll, 63 percent of Republicans believe Obama is a socialist; 39 percent think Obama should be impeached; 24 percent said Obama wants “the terrorists to win”; and 31 percent agreed with the statement that Obama is “a racist who hates white people.”

Those numbers are just a portion of the results from the poll that paints the GOP as much more socially conservative — and in some cases conspiratorial — than most analysts would be willing to grant.

Politico (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32384.html)

I doubt very many Republicans can define socialism if you paid them. They just hear it on wing-nut radio and think it's something cool to oppose...

[mogrovejo]

This is the poll commissioned by a guy who wrote a book making the case that conservatives are like jihaddist terrorists and killers, right?

[Rogue]

I believe the majority of republicans would make great consensus with democrats on this issue if the current host of the house was another guy.

[Winehole23]

This is the poll commissioned by a guy who wrote a book making the case that conservatives are like jihaddist terrorists and killers, right?Who please?

[Winehole23]

You have an annoying habit of failing to make your very own point by leaving important parts out.

[SouthernFried]

I can't understand anyone who would even try to make a case that OBAMA is not at least a socialist.

Why is he not a socialist?

[DarrinS]

I disagree. I think he's only a Socialist (singular).


Being a Socialist is not evil or anything -- just wrong for America.

[boutons_deux]

Nobody ever defines EXACTLY what Magic Negro does that is socialist. 99% of the people who parrot "socialism" don't have clue what it is or how it works.

[SouthernFried]

Ok Boutons...here's your moment to shine, use it well.

Why is Obama not a socialist?

And what would he have to do to be a socialist?

[coyotes_geek]

:lol @ boutons criticizing someone for parroting.

[George Gervin's Afro]

Ok Boutons...here's your moment to shine, use it well.

Why is Obama not a socialist?

And what would he have to do to be a socialist?

shouldn't you be defining what a socialist is, if you are making the accusation? Or do you make it a habit to make a claim and then require other's to disprove it?

Tell us how he meets the definition of a socialist. I guess the first thing you would do is define what a socialist is. Then you would have to use specific examples of Obama's actions (not inferences) and compare that to your definition. I'll wait.....

In the end you are a lazy arm chair whiner .

[TeyshaBlue]

Pretty good take on this "poll".

"Interesting. Though the article reflects the fact that 63% percent of THESE republicans (admittedly more conservative), think all these things, it does not tell us how many "republicans" think themselves to be STRONG republicans. What if out of 100% of republicans, only 5% actually are strongly republicans. This article is going to be cited over and over and it is going to have pundits try to LEAVE out the fact that it was only a subset of a subset of "republicans" that feel that way. Doesn't surprise me at all. But, let's watch the "spin" on forgetting that this is a subset of a subset. Let's do one on the "subset" of the subset of Democrats that call themselves Dems AND liberal? "

I can't wait for the Daily Kos to handle up the Dem poll.:rolleyes

BTW Dan, I can build a poll that will have you voting for Bush for a 3rd term. Wouldn't make it true.
If you're stupid enough to accept a poll without examining it's methodology, then Rahm has a word for you.:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

shouldn't you be defining what a socialist is, if you are making the accusation? Or do you make it a habit to make a claim and then require other's to disprove it?

Tell us how he meets the definition of a socialist. I guess the first thing you would do is define what a socialist is. Then you would have to use specific examples of Obama's actions (not inferences) and compare that to your definition. I'll wait.....

In the end you are a lazy arm chair whiner .

I'll bet you a bag of donuts the poll had the word socialist as a choice...and it most likely didn't define it either.

[rjv]

i guess that makes them socialists as well

[TeyshaBlue]

Dan, hammer grasped firmly, surveys a vast field of nails. :lmao

[SouthernFried]

Nobody ever defines EXACTLY what Magic Negro does that is socialist. 99% of the people who parrot "socialism" don't have clue what it is or how it works.


Ok Boutons...here's your moment to shine, use it well.

Why is Obama not a socialist?

And what would he have to do to be a socialist?


shouldn't you be defining what a socialist is, if you are making the accusation? Or do you make it a habit to make a claim and then require other's to disprove it?

Tell us how he meets the definition of a socialist. I guess the first thing you would do is define what a socialist is. Then you would have to use specific examples of Obama's actions (not inferences) and compare that to your definition. I'll wait.....

In the end you are a lazy arm chair whiner .

I'm sure Bouton's is out there furiously doing research. This is his moment, give him a chance man.

[Spursmania]

Of course, he's a socialist.

[boutons_deux]

wikipedia

"Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) and allocation of resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resources), and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended"

eg, Socialism was Mitterrand/Socialists nationalizing all the banks in France in 1981, simply because they could having been elected, not because the banks needed nationalizing. purely gratuitous socialism by the French (socialist) government.

What has Magic Negro done that has the US govt, or workers, taking over the means of production?

[spursncowboys]

Obama wants to use taxes to level out the playing field. Could someone explain how that is not a socialist notion.

[DarrinS]

What has Magic Negro done that has the US govt, or workers, taking over the means of production?


http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/business/consuminginterests/blog/AIG.jpg


http://www.pe.com/imagesdaily/2009/05-15/gm_logo_285.jpg

[clambake]

check it out, darrin. you're in one of the categories!

[boutons_deux]

AIG and GM were taken over not for socialist principles, but because "free market" capitalism failed horribly and govt decided that letting the AIG take down the planet's financial system and GM take down 100s of 1000s of jobs was not acceptable.

Very much like St Ronnie deregulating caused the S&L crisis with the "socialistic" takeover of S&L under Resolution Trust Corp. Were you ignorant fuckers bitching about socialism St Ronnie in the '80s?

[TeyshaBlue]

AIG and GM were taken over not for socialist principles, but because "free market" capitalism failed horribly and govt decided that letting the AIG take down the planet's financial system and GM take down 100s of 1000s of jobs was not acceptable.

Very much like St Ronnie deregulating caused the S&L crisis with the "socialistic" takeover of S&L under Resolution Trust Corp. Were you ignorant fuckers bitching about socialism St Ronnie in the '80s?

We were all over the internetz back in the 80's...oh wait. :lmao

[mogrovejo]

Who please?

I don't know his name, it's Markos something, the guy who owns DailyKos, the SBNation network and stuff.

[TeyshaBlue]

BTW, Dan's "poll" = epic fail. No wonder he hasn't come back into this thread. :lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

I don't know his name, it's Markos something, the guy who owns DailyKos, the SBNation network and stuff.

Markos Moulitsas?

[EmptyMan]

Obama cried about negative rights forced upon Government through the Constitution as well as supporting universal health care.

In his own words.

That's all I need to know.

[mogrovejo]

Markos Moulitsas?

Yeps. The guy who authored a book comparing American conservatism to islamic terrorism is the one who comissioned for this "poll" - made by a democrat affiliated firm.

[Spursmania]

Allocation of resources via taking from those who have and giving to those who don't epitomizes the bleeding libs agenda. That is socialism alright.

[Nbadan]

Yeps. The guy who authored a book comparing American conservatism to islamic terrorism is the one who comissioned for this "poll" - made by a democrat affiliated firm.

Your coming off as a whiner...defend that Obama is a socialist...

[mogrovejo]

Your coming off as a whiner...defend that Obama is a socialist...

Uh? I was just adding some info about this poll and its authors, I really don't care about it. If you think the info is irrelevant, please ignore it. Thanks.

[Nbadan]

I believe the majority of republicans would make great consensus with democrats on this issue if the current host of the house was another guy.

Nahh, they'd go with fascist, globalistic corporatist, New World order big Government...you know..the truth..

[Nbadan]

Would someone defend that Obama is a socialist...I mean, GM hasn't been taken over, it's just on Government life support for awhile..and AIG, for better or worse, the U.S. saved millions of jobs by saving AIG...and I would have bought at AIG low too...nice investment...

Do socialists give billions of dollars in subsidies and corporate-welfare to private business?

[spursncowboys]

Your coming off as a whiner...defend that Obama is a socialist...
It should be noted that the website this was from is an ultra left. Rahm would call it a website filled with retards because it is so far left.

[mookie2001]

The majority of republicans don't even know what a socialist is

[mookie2001]

Read the first page


Boutons ruins yall again

neocon, what's a socialist?

-Obama!

[Nbadan]

All hail Obama!!


n4rEV5guaMs

[TeyshaBlue]

Read the first page


Boutons ruins yall again

neocon, what's a socialist?

-Obama!

Get an adult to read the OP to you. Nbadan ruins logic again.

[SouthernFried]

wikipedia

"Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production) and allocation of resources (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resources),

What has Magic Negro done that has the US govt, or workers, taking over the means of production?


AIG and GM were taken over not for socialist principles, but because "free market" capitalism failed horribly and govt decided that letting the AIG take down the planet's financial system and GM take down 100s of 1000s of jobs was not acceptable.

Too funny.

By your...uh, "wikepedia's" own definition...OBAMA is a socialist.

"He didn't take over these industries because of socialism...he did it because capitalism failed."


theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration

I don't see anything that states it's not socialism if they publicly take over industries because "they weren't doing good."

I see it's socialism because they took over industries, not "why" they took them over.

"it's really not socialism if they take over industries cuz they were failing."

Where do you get this idea from?

[baseline bum]

I really hope this poll is full of shit, because otherwise, it's pretty fucking scary that 77% of one party's voters want the book of genesis taught as fact in schools. And 31% saying contraceptives should be illegal??? WTF?

[TeyshaBlue]

I really hope this poll is full of shit, because otherwise, it's pretty fucking scary that 77% of one party's voters want the book of genesis taught as fact in schools. And 31% saying contraceptives should be illegal??? WTF?
It is. It's like taking the uber-left, then sampling the hard core amongst them then proclaiming it represents all liberals. Of course, Dan fell for it.

[mogrovejo]

Do socialists give billions of dollars in subsidies and corporate-welfare to private business?

Yes. http://steynian.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/nra_eagle_we_do_our_part.jpg

[Nbadan]

These same wing-nuts take polls from Frank Luntz as the word of god...go figure...

:rolleyes

[mookie2001]

Thats what they teach in madrasas, socialism

[mogrovejo]

The circumstance of a guy who believes that conservatives are like fundamentalist islamic terrorists calling out people for having radical, marginal world-views amuses me.

[Winehole23]

Wooden, and anti-climactic.

[Winehole23]

How quickly they forget who pawned our future -- er -- massively socialized private financial risk in the first place: Bush and Paulson.

Who all is socialist again?

Is there some reason that wouldn't include the political party of George W Bush and Hank Paulson?

[TeyshaBlue]

These same wing-nuts take polls from Frank Luntz as the word of god...go figure...

:rolleyes

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y64/teyshablue/DaveBowman.jpg

:rolleyes

[TeyshaBlue]

Your coming off as a whiner...defend that Obama is a socialist...

You're coming off as a nutbar. Defend the veracity of your "poll".:rolleyes

[Mr. Peabody]

It is. It's like taking the uber-left, then sampling the hard core amongst them then proclaiming it represents all liberals. Of course, Dan fell for it.

I looked at the polling methodology and I didn't see anything indicating that it was all hardcore Republicans.


The Daily Kos Republican Poll was conducted by Research 2000 from January 20 through January 31, 2010. A total of 2003 self identified Republicans were interviewed nationally by telephone. Those interviewed were selected by the random variation of the last four digits of telephone numbers, nationally.

The margin for error, according to standards customarily used by statisticians, is no more than plus or minus 2% percentage points. This means that there is a 95 percent probability that the "true" figure would fall within that range if the entire self identified Republican population were sampled. The margin for error is higher for any demographic subgroup, such as for gender or region.

Now, it may be the case that the hardcore members of the party are more likely to identify themselves as Republican, but using that would be somewhat speculative as well.

[TeyshaBlue]

I looked at the polling methodology and I didn't see anything indicating that it was all hardcore Republicans.



Now, it may be the case that the hardcore members of the party are more likely to identify themselves as Republican, but using that would be somewhat speculative as well.

Where did you find the methodology? I couldn't find it anywhere.

[Mr. Peabody]

Where did you find the methodology? I couldn't find it anywhere.

http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/31/US/437

[Mr. Peabody]

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a poll that's designed to make Republicans look bad. The types of questions that are being asked appear to be there to feed a narrative of a crazed right wing.

[TeyshaBlue]

Don't get me wrong, I think it's a poll that's designed to make Republicans look bad. The types of questions that are being asked appear to be there to feed a narrative of a crazed right wing.

I found it. Thanks!:toast

It's not a poll. It's a propogandist dream of leading questions.

Some of the gems from the "poll":

QUESTION: Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

QUESTION: Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

QUESTION: Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?


GGA, you owe me a bag of doughnuts!@:lol

[TeyshaBlue]

I found it. Thanks!:toast

It's not a poll. It's a propogandist dream of leading questions.

Some of the gems from the "poll":

QUESTION: Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama wants the terrorists to win?

QUESTION: Do you believe ACORN stole the 2008 election?

QUESTION: Do you believe Barack Obama is a racist who hates White people?

QUESTION: Do you believe your state should secede from the United States?


GGA, you owe me a bag of doughnuts!@:lol

It also doesn't disclose where they found a data pool of "self identified Republicans". I'm pretty sure you can find a nice pool of those within the membership of the Republic of Texas organization.:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

I work with statistics every day. Analysis is what I do for a living. Data integrity is the word here. Unless they disclose their data set from which the poll population was pulled from, then it's difficult to establish a true confidence factor. Terms like " a disproportionate percentage of respondents are from GOP strongholds in the South (42 percent) as opposed to the Northeast (11 percent). " are telling.

[TeyshaBlue]

This is why, dan's strawman aside, I don't put alot of confidence in polls.

[TheProfessor]

Don't really care about the poll, but anyone who actually thinks Obama is an honest-to-God socialist is difficult to take seriously.

[TeyshaBlue]

Don't really care about the poll, but anyone who actually thinks Obama is an honest-to-God socialist is difficult to take seriously.

Agreed.:toast

[TeyshaBlue]

The more I look into this "poll" the squirrelier it is.
They conducted a variant of this "poll" last July, again for the Daily Kos. It proclaimed 58% not sure/doubt Obama born in US.

Yet somehow, 77% of Americans were identified as "thinking that the President is actually an American".

What pitiful crumbs of a data set they do release shows a much larger sampling among, again, southern states and the 60+ crowd...the demographic where you would expect to find latent, or not so lantent, racist attitudes. The same thing is true of this recent "poll". GMFB.

[mogrovejo]

What do you guys think a socialist is? Why do you think Obama isn't one?

In Europe, Obama would be called a socialist and he'd belong to a socialist party. A socialist is a guy who follows socialist, statist policies and a quasi-planned economy and that's what Axelrod has been doing.

(Unless one follows the idea that "socialism" is strictly the government ownership of the means of production, but in my view that definition is dated).

[TeyshaBlue]

What do you guys think a socialist is? Why do you think Obama isn't one?

In Europe, Obama would be called a socialist and he'd belong to a socialist party. A socialist is a guy who follows socialist, statist policies and a quasi-planned economy and that's what Axelrod has been doing.

(Unless one follows the idea that "socialism" is strictly the government ownership of the means of production, but in my view that definition is dated).

Dude, a socialist would not have bailed out the financial industry. It's very existence, in it's current form, is an anathema to basic, socialist principles.

Obama is not a fucking socialist. :rolleyes

[ElNono]

What do you guys think a socialist is? Why do you think Obama isn't one?

In Europe, Obama would be called a socialist and he'd belong to a socialist party. A socialist is a guy who follows socialist, statist policies and a quasi-planned economy and that's what Axelrod has been doing.

(Unless one follows the idea that "socialism" is strictly the government ownership of the means of production, but in my view that definition is dated).

What statist policies have been followed?

[TeyshaBlue]

What statist policies have been followed?

Exactly.

[mogrovejo]

Dude, a socialist would not have bailed out the financial industry. It's very existence, in it's current form, is an anathema to basic, socialist principles.

Obama is not a fucking socialist. :rolleyes

Really? I think economic interventionism is generally associated with socialism and not with liberalism (in the classical sense).

Again, if you mean that socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production, then you're right, but not even Chavez or the Cubans have nationalized everything.


What statist policies have been followed?

Pretty much every single one of them. The bail out has been mentioned, so there's one.

[TeyshaBlue]

Really? I think economic interventionism is generally associated with socialism and not with liberalism (in the classical sense).

Again, if you mean that socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production, then you're right, but not even Chavez or the Cubans have nationalized everything.



Pretty much every single one of them. The bail out has been mentioned, so there's one.

You have a very pliable definition of socialism then. Chavez and Cuba are irrelevant. Obama is not a socialist. The bailout was a capitalists dream. Oil. Water.

You're demonstrably incorrect.

[TeyshaBlue]

Pretty much every single one of them. The bail out has been mentioned, so there's one.

Please, list every single one of them, because I don't believe you.

[mogrovejo]

You have a very pliable definition of socialism then. Chavez and Cuba are irrelevant. Obama is not a socialist. The bailout was a capitalists dream. Oil. Water.

You're demonstrably incorrect.

In that case, free-market is socialist and economic interventionism is not? That's odd.

[TheProfessor]

Really? I think economic interventionism is generally associated with socialism and not with liberalism (in the classical sense).

Again, if you mean that socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production, then you're right, but not even Chavez or the Cubans have nationalized everything.



Pretty much every single one of them. The bail out has been mentioned, so there's one.
This is beginning to border on self-parody.

[TeyshaBlue]

In that case, free-market is socialist and economic interventionism is not? That's odd.

Obverse does not always equal the converse. That was an asinine dodge.

Please list all of the statist policies that Obama has followed.

[mogrovejo]

Increasing the role of the state in the economy is not statist?

That's also odd.

[ElNono]

Pretty much every single one of them. The bail out has been mentioned, so there's one.

The bailout was not Obama's... again, since he's been president, what statist policies have been followed?

You could say Obamacare, but the current incarnation of Obamacare has nothing socialist about it. A socialist would go straight to single payor, much like in socialist France, for example.

[TeyshaBlue]

Increasing the role of the state in the economy is not statist?

That's also odd.

Please list all of the statist policies Obama has followed.

You do know that Bush was guilty of this as well, ergo, Bush was a socialist.:lmao

[rjv]

Dude, a socialist would not have bailed out the financial industry. It's very existence, in it's current form, is an anathema to basic, socialist principles.

Obama is not a fucking socialist. :rolleyes

you would think that would be obvious to someone purporting to know everything about everything. but perhaps his applications of learning are similar to socialism. they work in theory only.

[clambake]

Increasing the role of the state in the economy is not statist?

are you saying it was a premeditated act by pres. bush?

[rjv]

Please list all of the statist policies Obama has followed.

You do know that Bush was guilty of this as well, ergo, Bush was a socialist.:lmao

and we can even follow this yellow (or red if you prefer) brick road to reagan.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's okay to admit you're incorrect.

Unless you are pathalogically unable to do so.

[mogrovejo]

The bailout was not Obama's... again, since he's been president, what statist policies have been followed?


I'm fairly certain that the only reason the bailout fund exists is because of the Obama administration, otherwise it'd automatically expire by the 31st December 08.

[mogrovejo]

The bailout was not Obama's... again, since he's been president, what statist policies have been followed?


I'm fairly certain that the only reason the bailout fund exists is because of the Obama administration, otherwise it'd automatically expire by the 31st December 08.

But you have all the keynesian stimulus measures, for example.

[mogrovejo]

Please list all of the statist policies Obama has followed.

You do know that Bush was guilty of this as well, ergo, Bush was a socialist.:lmao

Yes, I've written that here before, that Bush followed many socialist policies as well and was one of the most statist presidents in the history of the USA.

[TeyshaBlue]

I'm fairly certain that the only reason the bailout fund exists is because of the Obama administration, otherwise it'd automatically expire by the 31st December 08.

I'm fairly certain you are incorrect again, as is the laughable parody of logic you posit with the expiration date of 12/31/08. :lmao:lmao

[TeyshaBlue]

Yes, I've written that here before, that Bush followed many socialist policies as well and was one of the most statist presidents in the history of the USA.

Please list all of the statist policies Obama has followed.

[ElNono]

I'm fairly certain that the only reason the bailout fund exists is because of the Obama administration, otherwise it'd automatically expire by the 31st December 08.

Obama was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009. I fail to see how he could do much in his capacity as president before that day.


But you have all the keynesian stimulus measures, for example.

Keynes-style packages have been issued before in this country, including by the previous administration, and administrations before it, most notably during the great depression. Hardly a socialist trait.

Again, what statist policies Obama has followed?

[mogrovejo]

Can this get much more Orwellian? The expansion of the power and size of the state isn't called statism and socialism any more. Amazing.

[mogrovejo]

Obama was inaugurated as president on January 20, 2009. I fail to see how he could do much in his capacity as president before that day.

You do? But he did. Do you want some links?




Keynes-style packages have been issued before in this country, including by the previous administration.

Again, what statist policies Obama has followed?

Huh? I've just mentioned the Keynesians stimulus packages.

[TeyshaBlue]

Can this get much more Orwellian? The expansion of the power and size of the state isn't called statism and socialism any more. Amazing.

What's amazing is we're still waiting.

Please list all of the statist policies Obama has followed.

[TeyshaBlue]

You do? But he did. Do you want some links?





Huh? I've just mentioned the Keynesians stimulus packages.

You know a person can pick and choose policy decisions without necessarily wearing the cloak of that policy. It's possible to apply statist policies occasionally without being a fucking socialist.

Please list all of the statist policies Obama has followed and describe how they make him a socialist.

[TeyshaBlue]

mogrovejo, you stared off in this thread opposing the results of dan's "poll".
Yet here you are basically trying your hardest to validate dan's lunacy.

Irony much?

[rjv]

Can this get much more Orwellian? The expansion of the power and size of the state isn't called statism and socialism any more. Amazing.


because the expansion of the state on behalf of the corporate sector and wealthy elite is hardly anything you would find in the manifesto.

[mogrovejo]

mogrovejo, you stared off in this thread opposing the results of dan's "poll".
Yet here you are basically trying your hardest to validate dan's lunacy.

Irony much?

What?

I don't think that calling a statist a statist is lunacy. And an administration whose a huge majority of decisions lead to a more prominent role for the state is statist. Saying otherwise is what seems lunacy to me.

[mogrovejo]

because the expansion of the state on behalf of the corporate sector and wealthy elite is hardly anything you would find in the manifesto.

That's funny. It's not socialism because it can't be found in the manifesto? That's the old trick of "oh, socialism never happened; it didn't work because it wasn't really socialism".

[TeyshaBlue]

What?

I don't think that calling a statist a statist is lunacy. And an administration whose a huge majority of decisions lead to a more prominent role for the state is statist. Saying otherwise is what seems lunacy to me.

Apparently, there are just too many dots in this picture for you to connect. Sorry, dude.:depressed

[ElNono]

You do? But he did. Do you want some links?

Are you saying Obama had executive powers as President of the USA before January 20, 2009?

Yes, I want to see the links to that.


Huh? I've just mentioned the Keynesians stimulus packages.

I know you did, and I just called you out for that. Keynes was such a socialist that almost all capitalist governments adopted its policy recommendations in the 50's and 60's, including the USA. :rolleyes

I'm still waiting for the list all of the statist policies Obama has followed.

[mogrovejo]

I know perfectly well that an expansion of the state doesn't lead to an utopia but to a dystopia. That's why I'm fiercely opposed to it.

[ElNono]

What?

I don't think that calling a statist a statist is lunacy. And an administration whose a huge majority of decisions lead to a more prominent role for the state is statist. Saying otherwise is what seems lunacy to me.

What are those decisions? And in which areas has the state taken a more prominent role?

[TeyshaBlue]

Omfg

[mogrovejo]

Are you saying Obama had executive powers as President of the USA before January 20, 2009?

No, please re-read.



I know you did, and I just called you out for that. Keynes was such a socialist that almost all capitalist governments adopted its policy recommendations in the 50's and 60's, including the USA. :rolleyes

Are you seriously argued that state expansion and government interventionism don't qualify as statism because others have done it before? That's a pretty incredible theory.

[ElNono]

I know perfectly well that an expansion of the state doesn't lead to an utopia but to a dystopia. That's why I'm fiercely opposed to it.

Listen, I wanted Obama to be more socialist. This is exactly why I have a gripe with what you're saying. I think a lot of people that voted for him are very disappointed because, as a socialist, his administration has failed miserably.

[TeyshaBlue]

Omfg

Please list all of the statist policies Obama has followed and describe how they make him a socialist.

Please stop moving the goal posts as each of your "arguements" gets utterly shredded.

[TeyshaBlue]

Listen, I wanted Obama to be more socialist.

You need to stop now.:lol:lol

[ElNono]

No, please re-read.

No need to backpedal now.


Are you seriously argued that state expansion and government interventionism don't qualify as statism because others have done it before? That's a pretty incredible theory.

There always have been state interventionism, including in the Reagan years. Hardly a socialist trait. Same thing with deficits.
And you still haven't demonstrated where this administration has expanded the state?

[coyotes_geek]

You know a person can pick and choose policy decisions without necessarily wearing the cloak of that policy. It's possible to apply statist policies occasionally without being a fucking socialist.

Exactly.

[rjv]

That's funny. It's not socialism because it can't be found in the manifesto? That's the old trick of "oh, socialism never happened; it didn't work because it wasn't really socialism".

leave it to you to analyze sarcasm. my point is that the intervention of the state on behalf of the corporate sector, and for the intention of preserving its primarily capitalist endeavors, is hardly socialist. the whole point of socialism is to take power away from the bourgeois not to enhance it. it is too empower the proletariat, not cripple it even more.

[TeyshaBlue]

leave it to you to analyze sarcasm. my point is that the intervention of the state on behalf of the corporate sector, and for the intention of preserving its primarily capitalist endeavors, is hardly socialist. the whole point of socialism is to take power away from the bourgeois not to enhance it. it is too empower the proletariat, not cripple it even more.

Again, too many dots to connect.:depressed

[mogrovejo]

Listen, I wanted Obama to be more socialist. This is exactly why I have a gripe with what you're saying. I think a lot of people that voted for him are very disappointed because, as a socialist, his administration has failed miserably.

Agreed. But that isn't exactly a surprise. All socialist governments tend to fail.


No need to backpedal now.

I wasn't backpedalling. I simply didn't say that "Obama had executive powers as President of the USA before January 20, 2009". I'm even surprised you needed to ask that.



There always have been state interventionism

I still can't understand your theory. The fact that has always been state interventionism is the reason why Obama's statism isn't statism? That's funny.

[mogrovejo]

leave it to you to analyze sarcasm. my point is hardly socialist. the whole point of socialism is to take power away from the bourgeois not to enhance it. it is too empower the proletariat, not cripple it even more.

Socialism has always concentrated power in the hands of a few. That's not a coincident, it's a consequence of its principles. The incompetence of socialists to recognize the necessary consequence of the principles of their philosophy is another different issue.


is that the intervention of the state on behalf of the corporate sector, and for the intention of preserving its primarily capitalist endeavors,

That's a paradox. Intervention of the state, except to regulate against force or fraud, kills capitalism.

Calling massive government expansions, like the bail-out or the stimulus programs, capitalism is just bizarre. In capitalism, entrepreneurs survive and prosper accordingly to their capacity to satisfy the consumer, not due to their ability to meddle with the government. Obviously, if statists weren't always expanding the government, this wouldn't be an issue.

[ElNono]

Agreed. But that isn't exactly a surprise. All socialist governments tend to fail.

LOL... not what I meant. But this thread is a glaring example of your constant deflection of topics.


I wasn't backpedalling. I simply didn't say that "Obama had executive powers as President of the USA before January 20, 2009". I'm even surprised you needed to ask that.

You still are backpedaling. Obama had no legal authority to do what you claimed he had legal authority to do.


I still can't understand your theory. The fact that has always been state interventionism is the reason why Obama's statism isn't statism? That's funny.

Reagan was a statist? You need to make up your mind, THEN make a post. That way, you won't need to backpedal as much. You also get bonus points for keeping threads short and concise and not looking like an idiot.

[admiralsnackbar]

Gotta hand it to mogro... it takes some doing to get the entire political spectrum of this board to call you a clown.

[mogrovejo]

LOL... not what I meant.

Okay, what did you mean?


You still are backpedaling. Obama had no legal authority to do what you claimed he had legal authority to do.

I didn't claim he had a legal authority, did I?

Here, google "Obama extends bailout" or something.

I don't care much for arguing formalities. The only reason the bail-out didn't expire was because Obama asked and fought for his extension.


But this thread is a glaring example of your constant deflection of topics(..) You need to make up your mind, THEN make a post. That way, you won't need to backpedal as much. You also get bonus points for keeping threads short and concise and not looking like an idiot.


I'd appreciate if you could avoid ad hominen attacks or completely lateral stuff that adds little to the discussion. Thanks.

I'd also appreciate if you could answer this question:


I still can't understand your theory. The fact that has always been state interventionism is the reason why Obama's statism isn't statism?

[mogrovejo]

If Reagan was a statist - or to which extent have Reagan Administrations followed statist policies - is a more interesting question, there was a lot of mixed signals coming from Reagan. The other day I reviewed a paper from a LSE student that addressed this particular subject. I've never sided with Prof. Rothbard, but I think it's an issue that needs more historical and economical research.

[mogrovejo]

Can someone indicate a couple of presidents/prime-ministers that can aptly be described as socialists if Obama isn't one?

[ElNono]

Okay, what did you mean?

I meant that for the socialist rhetoric he spouted during the campaign trail, he has failed to live up to those socialist claims.


I didn't claim he had a legal authority, did I?
Here, google "Obama extends bailout" or something.
I don't care much for arguing formalities. The only reason the bail-out didn't expire was because Obama asked and fought for his extension.

That you don't care for formalities doesn't mean they do not exist. You don't seem to care for anything that points at you being wrong.


I'd appreciate if you could avoid ad hominen attacks or completely lateral stuff that adds little to the discussion. Thanks.
I'd also appreciate if you could answer this question:

I still can't understand your theory. The fact that has always been state interventionism is the reason why Obama's statism isn't statism?



I would avoid lateral stuff if you would too, but all you do is deflect and go straight for the strawman. How about you answer my question first:


What statist policies have been followed?

[ElNono]

Can someone indicate a couple of presidents/prime-ministers that can aptly be described as socialists if Obama isn't one?

Chavez would be one. Kirchner would be another.

[boutons_deux]

All the "social democrat"/left parties in Europe as opposed to the "Christian democrat"/right parties.

[ElNono]

François Mitterrand would be a European one

[TeyshaBlue]

I'd also appreciate if you could answer this question:

"It's like 10,000 spoons when all you need is a knife".:lmao:lmao:lmao

Please list all of the statist policies Obama has followed and explain why they make him a socialist?

[TeyshaBlue]

Gotta hand it to mogro... it takes some doing to get the entire political spectrum of this board to call you a clown.

No shit. That's a worthy accomplishment. :lobt:

[Winehole23]

I I've never sided with Prof. Rothbard, but I think it's an issue that needs more historical and economical research.You mean "economic. "

Economical means "affordable" in English.

[TeyshaBlue]

You mean "economic. "

Economical means "affordable" in English.

Why should only the rich be able to afford economic research?

Why do you hate the poor?:ihit
:lol:lol

[mogrovejo]

François Mitterrand would be a European one

Which one? The one for the first 2 years of his mandate, the one of the 110 Propositions pour la France, probably (although there are lots of things in common, including the massive transfers of wealth from taxpayers to private hands), but what exactly differentiates the cohabitation/Rocard Miterrand of Obama? When his initial keynesian policies failed, Miterrand smartly and swiftly corrected his course. Well, he's the father of the CAP and the creator of the oligarchy of European millionaire farmers; but will Obama veto the new farm bill?


Chavez would be one. Kirchner would be another.

Yeah, I guess Chavez and Kirchner are more socialist than Obama. But should we reserve the label "socialist" for complete nutcases like those two?


All the "social democrat"/left parties in Europe as opposed to the "Christian democrat"/right parties.

Really? Are Obama/Pelosi/Reid that different from Blair or Brown? Why? Who else? Zapatero? He's probably to the right of Obama, right now, embarking in massive spending cuts and privatizations. Ditto for Socrates. Fyamann? The SPO uses to be well to the left of the US Dems, but Faymann is the exception. Who else are the other Socialist/social-democrat in power in Europe as of now? Most countries have center-right governments now. The new guys in Greece, but I doubt it really matters, they'll follow whatever the IMF and Alumnia tell them to do. Oh, the DLP in Romania, but those guys these days are less socialist than DeMint.

Exactly how many European government leaders would fall to the left of Obama right now? 2, 3? Who?

[spursncowboys]

I know you did, and I just called you out for that. Keynes was such a socialist that almost all capitalist governments adopted its policy recommendations in the 50's and 60's, including the USA. :rolleyes

I'm still waiting for the list all of the statist policies Obama has followed.
KEynes gives elected officials to give large contracts to the ones who helped them get elected. I think that has been the theories popularity over the years. That and the upper class supports it. However his theory is built around the idea that the govt. is the only answer to fixing the economy ( a statement bho has said) I take as a Socialist notion. Who knows what a politician thinks when no one is around. Should we talk about precise ideas that are Socialist? I think his comment about using taxes to even the playing field is socialist.

[mogrovejo]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B80ES20091209
Obama to extend bailout fund

http://articles.sfgate.com/2009-12-10/business/17182456_1_bailout-troubled-asset-relief-program-jobs-program

Obama administration extends bailout program

[clambake]

it's odd how he continues to claim that his position is plausible.

[spursncowboys]

Gotta hand it to mogro... it takes some doing to get the entire political spectrum of this board to call you a clown.

It's a good thing we aren't a bunch of high school girls who create clicks and belittle anything not agreed by the group speak.

Being called a clown by people who think stealing money from someone to give to someone else is considered helpful to anyone is like being called rude by Arrianna Huffington.

[clambake]

look who just created a clique.

[Winehole23]

It's a good thing we aren't a bunch of high school girls who create clicks and belittle anything not agreed by the group speak.At least you have another Red-baiter to commune with now. You can be grateful for that.

[spursncowboys]

oh oh did I go against the mob?

[spursncowboys]

So how is spreading the wealth not socialism?

How using taxes to even the playing field not socialism?

[clambake]

just supply an answer.

[rjv]

Socialism has always concentrated power in the hands of a few. That's not a coincident, it's a consequence of its principles. The incompetence of socialists to recognize the necessary consequence of the principles of their philosophy is another different issue.

that does not make it socialism any more than the concentrated powers of the US make our system capitalism. corruption does not define the ideology.

what exactly are: " the necessary consequence(s) of the principles of [socialist] philosophy" ? does capitalism not have any?




That's a paradox. Intervention of the state, except to regulate against force or fraud, kills capitalism.

Calling massive government expansions, like the bail-out or the stimulus programs, capitalism is just bizarre. In capitalism, entrepreneurs survive and prosper accordingly to their capacity to satisfy the consumer, not due to their ability to meddle with the government. Obviously, if statists weren't always expanding the government, this wouldn't be an issue.

or perhaps this is capitalism's consequences. certainly this is what it has become. or call it neoliberalism if you prefer.

[admiralsnackbar]

It's a good thing we aren't a bunch of high school girls who create clicks and belittle anything not agreed by the group speak.


It's nice to know I can always depend on your moral outrage and classiness, but the whole drift of my post was to point out that mogro creates a group out of the most incongruous elements.

And for the record, if I argue against the whole board without being able to defend my points or appreciate others', I heartily encourage you to call me a clown.

[ElNono]

KEynes gives elected officials to give large contracts to the ones who helped them get elected. I think that has been the theories popularity over the years. That and the upper class supports it. However his theory is built around the idea that the govt. is the only answer to fixing the economy ( a statement bho has said) I take as a Socialist notion. Who knows what a politician thinks when no one is around. Should we talk about precise ideas that are Socialist? I think his comment about using taxes to even the playing field is socialist.

If you think that's what Keynes is, then you don't know much about Keynes at all. Not surprising, really. What you speak of is called corruption, a trait that can be easily tied to any political system.

Was handing out no-bid contracts to Haliburton socialist? Is Ted Stevens a socialist?

[Winehole23]

So how is spreading the wealth not socialism?

How using taxes to even the playing field not socialism?Like most Americans, SnC takes socialism for granted.

It's a by product of the USA actually having been quasi-socialistic, and massively bureaucratic, for 75 years. We can feel it in our bones because it is there, and was there before most of us.

Conservatives in the USA for the most part do not seem so guilty minded about having already been socialists for so long, as completely unaware of it. So it all gets projected on a scapegoat instead of being claimed as personally owned.

They're the socialists, you say. But the New Deal and Great Society bureaucracies and Medicare part D still stand more or less unchallenged by the same principled American conservatives who threw themselves --and all of us ---under the wheels of the bailout in 2008.

[TeyshaBlue]

It's a good thing we aren't a bunch of high school girls who create clicks and belittle anything not agreed by the group speak.


You do know that occasionally, the group is correct. Right?

[ElNono]

Which one? The one for the first 2 years of his mandate, the one of the 110 Propositions pour la France, probably (although there are lots of things in common, including the massive transfers of wealth from taxpayers to private hands), but what exactly differentiates the cohabitation/Rocard Miterrand of Obama? When his initial keynesian policies failed, Miterrand smartly and swiftly corrected his course. Well, he's the father of the CAP and the creator of the oligarchy of European millionaire farmers; but will Obama veto the new farm bill?

The François Mitterrand that in 1988 reformed Healthcare to mandate payment from everyone into the system, including those with no employment but with capital gains. Imagine the horror of the wealthy having to chip into a single payor healthcare too!


Yeah, I guess Chavez and Kirchner are more socialist than Obama. But should we reserve the label "socialist" for complete nutcases like those two?

Chavez and Kirchner are extreme left. Compared to them, Obama is center right.

[spursncowboys]

Like most Americans, SnC takes socialism for granted.

It's a by product of the USA actually having been quasi-socialistic, and massively bureaucratic, for 75 tears. We can feel it in our bones because it is there, and was there before most of us.

Conservatives in the USA for the most part do not seem so guilty minded about having already been socialists for so long, as completely unaware of it. So it all gets projected on a scapegoat instead of being claimed as personally owned.

They're the socialists, you say. But the New Deal and Great Society bureaucracies and Medicare part D still stand more or less unchallenged by the same principled American conservatives who threw themselves under the wheels of the bailout in 2008.
I asked how those two instances is not socialism. Instead everyone has forgotten that there are actual defintions for words and instead want to have a history lesson. If you think bush did something socialist, then state exactly what you think it was and we should go from there. If you think things obama has stated he wants to do and actual actions barry has done is not socialist because another party had someone do a similar act, then you are missing the point (like I missed my run-on sentence class in school).

[Winehole23]

If you think bush did something socialist, then state exactly what you think it was and we should go from there.I didn't fail to specify Medicare part D.

[Winehole23]

Does TARP somehow not count?

[TeyshaBlue]

No child left behind....

[Winehole23]

If you think things obama has stated he wants to do and actual actions barry has done is not socialist because another party had someone do a similar act, then you are missing the pointI don't think so. I think Obama is just as socialist as the GOP, maybe a little bit more.

[Winehole23]

No child left behind....Federalization of educational standards. Yeah.

[Winehole23]

Teaching to the test. Is it doing the trick yet?

[TeyshaBlue]

Teaching to the test. Is it doing the trick yet?

Beautifully.






Depends on the trick tho.

[spursncowboys]

The poll is silly and is meant for creating divisive topics to help the dems. it's sad how the msm picked it up so quickly but will not as quickly pick up the global warming black eyes. There was a list that the dems came with that they were going to focus on to try and get back support. bring up birthers and see who would call bho a socialist. Also take out of context - glenn beck. I would just want people to discuss the actual policies politicians push and if the policies are socialist or not.

[Winehole23]

Two center left parties, at heart.

[Winehole23]

Beautifully.






Depends on the trick tho.Good news?

[Winehole23]

Seldom gets posted here.

[mogrovejo]

that does not make it socialism any more than the concentrated powers of the US make our system capitalism. corruption does not define the ideology.

what exactly are: " the necessary consequence(s) of the principles of [socialist] philosophy" ? does capitalism not have any?

or perhaps this is capitalism's consequences. certainly this is what it has become. or call it neoliberalism if you prefer.

We can solve this very quickly: point an example of a socialist regime, please.

[TeyshaBlue]

The poll is silly and is meant for creating divisive topics to help the dems. it's sad how the msm picked it up so quickly but will not as quickly pick up the global warming black eyes. There was a list that the dems came with that they were going to focus on to try and get back support. bring up birthers and see who would call bho a socialist. Also take out of context - glenn beck. I would just want people to discuss the actual policies politicians push and if the policies are socialist or not.

The "poll" is nothing more than propoganda....and weak at that. But, if all you have is a hammer....

[mogrovejo]

NCLB and the Medicare bribe are statist policies, and extremely expensive ones.

I have no idea how can anyone say those policies aren't socialist, statist, policies. Unless using the rationale that "they aren't statist because others have followed statist policies before".

[TeyshaBlue]

We can solve this very quickly: point an example of a socialist regime, please.

Still waiting on you to list all of the statist policies, and which of those Obama has followed. Since it was "pretty much all of them" it shouldn't be hard.

[ElNono]

If you think bush did something socialist, then state exactly what you think it was and we should go from there.


I didn't fail to specify Medicare part D.


Does TARP somehow not count?


No child left behind....


The poll is silly and is meant for creating divisive topics to help the dems.

:lmao

[ElNono]

NCLB and the Medicare bribe are statist policies, and extremely expensive ones.

I have no idea how can anyone say those policies aren't socialist, statist, policies. Unless using the rationale that "they aren't statist because others have followed statist policies before".

Did you find that list of statist policies that the Obama administration has followed yet?

[admiralsnackbar]

Did you find that list of statist policies that the Obama administration has followed yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5arm2sw0io

[TeyshaBlue]

Did you find that list of statist policies that the Obama administration has followed yet?

And "pretty much all of them" is not an answer.

[mogrovejo]

Did you find that list of statist policies that the Obama administration has followed yet?

I won't bother. You've stated that the keynesian stymulus isn't statist and in that case, why should I point the other ones?

We have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes "statism". You believe a policy isn't statist because others have done it before; I find that position too bizarre to entertain serious conversation.

[TeyshaBlue]

So you can't. Ok then.

[TeyshaBlue]

BTW, this whole statist thing was a way for you to show us how Obama is a socialist. Since you can't, please, feel free to admit your mistake.

[mogrovejo]

BTW, this whole statist thing was a way for you to show us how Obama is a socialist. Since you can't, please, feel free to admit your mistake.

Oh, yeah, it's difficult to make the case that Obama is a socialist because he follows socialists policies to people who refute that Obama follows socialist policies because "others have followed the same policies in the past, so those policies can't be socialist".

But I don't really care about not persuading people who adopt that kind of reasoning.

[admiralsnackbar]

Oh, yeah, it's difficult to make the case that Obama is a socialist because he follows socialists policies to people who refute that Obama follows socialist policies because "others have followed the same policies in the past, so those policies can't be socialist".

But I don't really care about not persuading people who adopt that kind of reasoning.

That's fine, but then you can't simultaneously say that it's Obama who is the socialist, when there's plenty of precedent for socialist policy in this country.

[ElNono]

I won't bother.

Figures

[mogrovejo]

That's fine, but then you can't simultaneously say that it's Obama who is the socialist, when there's plenty of precedent for socialist policy in this country.

Huh? Why not? I never said Obama is "THE" socialist.

[admiralsnackbar]

Huh? Why not? I never said Obama is "THE" socialist.

Very well, then -- how far back do we have to go before a president no longer qualifies as socialist?

[TeyshaBlue]

Oh, yeah, it's difficult to make the case that Obama is a socialist because he follows socialists policies to people who refute that Obama follows socialist policies because "others have followed the same policies in the past, so those policies can't be socialist".

But I don't really care about not persuading people who adopt that kind of reasoning.

We simply asked for evidence that Obama was a socialist, not that he has adopted some socialist policies. As stated earlier, adopting a policy does not a socialist make. What needs to be presented to support your ascertation that he is a socialist, is an unbroken line of demonstrative, socialist policies that Obama has put in place. Simply riding herd on an existing policy does not a socialist make. You've failed, miserably, to provide that line of proof. Your ascertation is demonstrably false. In the end, you are incorrect, but not man enough to admit it. Sad, really.

[Winehole23]

We have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes "statism". You believe a policy isn't statist because others have done it before; I find that position too bizarre to entertain serious conversation.Another mannerism.

Any notable difference of emphasis from your own august opinion, is often taken for a fatal flaw in reasoning. Maybe too often. With all due disrespect, this line is becoming a little bit of a crutch for you, profe.

[mogrovejo]

The François Mitterrand that in 1988 reformed Healthcare to mandate payment from everyone into the system, including those with no employment but with capital gains. Imagine the horror of the wealthy having to chip into a single payor healthcare too!

I'm more or less familiar with the French public policies in the '80s, but I'm not sure what healthcare reform you're talking about - they've had dozens of them. I can't certainly think of a major health-care reform in 1988. Can you provide a link, please?

In any case, I don't think that the French healthcare system is a good example to follow. I doubt it's sustainable for much longer.

But I do agree that François Miterrand is a great example for Obama to follow though. In his first 2 years in the Élysée, Miterrand governed like a socialist,with huge keynesian programs, protectionism and massive regulations: the deficit exploded, unemployment soured and he quickly became unpopular. He quickly corrected his course and Obama should do the exact same thing.

[Winehole23]

The tone of the condign, avuncular scold suits you well, profe. Well chosen, sir.

[ElNono]

I'm more or less familiar with the French public policies in the '80s, but I'm not sure what healthcare reform you're talking about - they've had dozens of them. I can't certainly think of a major health-care reform in 1988. Can you provide a link, please?


I won't bother.


In any case, I don't think that the French healthcare system is a good example to follow. I doubt it's sustainable for much longer.

Rated top in the world by the World Health Organization...

But I'm sure you know better... :rolleyes

[spursncowboys]

:lmao

Sorry elnono, to NCLB, Medicare, and TARP: Yes, yes and yes.

[spursncowboys]

That's fine, but then you can't simultaneously say that it's Obama who is the socialist, when there's plenty of precedent for socialist policy in this country.

Now you are changing the definition of a word. Like I said if we want to look at someone else then let's do it. However what George Washington did in his presidency shouldn't decide if Obama is a socialist.

[admiralsnackbar]

Rated top in the world by the World Health Organization...

But I'm sure you know better... :rolleyes

To be fair, sustainability and quality are different qualities, no? Considering their modest GDP taken along with their very lax work schedule, the question of sustainability is certainly valid in my eyes... even if it has zero to do with this thread :toast

[spursncowboys]

Rated top in the world by the World Health Organization...

But I'm sure you know better... :rolleyes

Do their elected officials get to partake in their great socialized h.c.?

[admiralsnackbar]

Now you are changing the definition of a word. Like I said if we want to look at someone else then let's do it. However what George Washington did in his presidency shouldn't decide if Obama is a socialist.

A word seems to be what this conversation hangs upon, so... yes.

At what point do you say someone becomes a socialist? Our political history would seem to prove there isn't a black and white threshold.

[Winehole23]

There was a long twilight of the old republic.

[Winehole23]

Now I believe it's night. There might be a faint afterglow.

[ElNono]

Do their elected officials get to partake in their great socialized h.c.?

To be honest, I have no idea. Do you have any proof that all of them do not?

[ElNono]

To be fair, sustainability and quality are different qualities, no? Considering their modest GDP taken along with their very lax work schedule, the question of sustainability is certainly valid in my eyes... even if it has zero to do with this thread :toast

They sure don't have our military budget to deal with...

[Winehole23]

Why should only the rich be able to afford economic research?

Why do you hate the poor?:ihit
:lol:lol


They hated me for being rich first.

[mogrovejo]

Rated top in the world by the World Health Organization...

But I'm sure you know better... :rolleyes

Yeps, it's not sustainable. It's funny, right now the French government is working in a way of making their health-care system more similar to the American.

Again, can you provide a link for that 1988 health-care reform by Miterrand or not? I find it very odd, Miterrand governed from teh right since 1983 or so.

[spursncowboys]

To be honest, I have no idea. Do you have any proof that all of them do not?

It was a shot at Obama and the Dem's keeping their plan all while trying to sell that all the Americans will have this new better, socialized one.

[spursncowboys]

They sure don't have our military budget to deal with...

They also threw a parade for the Nazi invaders.

[clambake]

They also threw a parade for the Nazi invaders.

:lmao

[rjv]

We can solve this very quickly: point an example of a socialist regime, please.


solve what very quickly? the point that corruption is not what defines a system? the question to you as to what the inherent consequences of the philosophies of capitalism and socialism are? my point about neoliberalism?

how would pointing out a regime solve this?

i want to know what the "philosophical consequences of socialism are" because that is the point you posited. what would make these "consequences" unique to socialism?

[coyotes_geek]

They also threw a parade for the Nazi invaders.

Okay, I laughed.

:lol

[ElNono]

They also threw a parade for the Nazi invaders.

This is indeed part of the problem. Some of you still think this is the 40's.

[spursncowboys]

Institute for Historical Review

Paris in the Third Reich: A history of the German occupation, 1940-1944

PARIS IN THE THIRD REICH: A HISTORY OF THE GERMAN OCCUPATION, 1940-1944 by David Pryce-Jones. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1981, x + 294 pages, 116 photographs, $25.00, ISBN 0-03-045621-5.
reviewed by Charles Lutton
The claim that thousands of Parisians were members of the anti-Nazi "Resistance is an aspect of the Second World War that has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. As British historian David Pryce-Jones explains in his study of Paris in the Third Reich, there was little actual resistance activity in the French capital. Indeed, during the German occupation life in Paris went on much as it had before the war.

A striking point is the contrast between the behavior of the victorious German occupiers of France in 1940 and that of the Allied troops who overran Germany in 1945. Unlike what happened in Germany and Central Europe in 1945, when the Germans took Paris there were no scenes of mass pillage, rape, and murder. The French mass circulation weekly L'Illustration described the German soldiers as "handsome boys, decent, helpful, above all correct." Hitler even cancelled a huge victory parade that had been planned by the military, so as not to alienate the Parisians. Within a few days after the onset of the German occupation, the schools, restaurants, theaters, trains, newspapers, and other public services were back in operation on a near-normal basis. The Paris police, who outnumbered the Germans, remained on duty throughout the occupation.

Nor did the Germans round up large numbers of political opponents and suspects. Jean-Paul Sartre, Coco Chanel, Dior, Yves Montand, Maurice Chevalier, Picasso, and Albert Camus were among those who lived and worked -- very productively -- in Paris during the German occupation. One French writer, Louis-Ferdinand Celine, expressed surprise that the Germans were "not shooting, hanging, exterminating the Jews ... stupified that anyone with a bayonet would not be using it all the time. 'If the Bolsheviks were in Paris, they'd show you how to set about it, they'd show you how to purge a population, district by district, house by house. If I had a bayonet, I'd know my business.'"

As noted above, Pryce-Jones sheds additional light on the so-called "Resistance." Many Frenchmen intensely disliked the Partisans, who did not go into action against the Germans until after Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941. The Communist Partisans, large numbers of whom were not native-born Frenchmen, hoped to provoke German reprisals which would then alienate the French populace. In this they succeeded. But Germans were not their only targets: throughout the occupation, other Communists, assorted leftists, and rightists were murdered by the Partisans.

Once the Germans were forced to withdraw from France in the summer of 1944, a new "Reign of Terror" commenced. PryceJones estimates that there were 105,000 summary executions in France between June 1944 and February 1945. "The number of Frenchmen killed by other Frenchmen, whether through summary execution or rigged tribunals akin to lynch mobs or court martials and High Court trials, equalled or even exceeded the number of those sent to their death by the Germans as hostages, deportees, and slave-laborers." (The fullest treatment in English of the bloodbath that accompanied "liberation" is found in Sisley Huddleston's 1955 book France: The Tragic Years, 1939-1947.)

Often, Frenchmen could not understand the logic involved in these reprisals. One women remarked at the time, after her daughter's head was shaved: "My little Josiane, it's too horrible. Her hair has been cut off, monsieur. Poor little Josiane! If she went to bed with Germans, it was because she's seventeen, monsieur, you follow me? But why ever cut off her hair for it? It's a crying shame, monsieur. She's just as willing to go to bed with Americans!"

Paris in the Third Reich includes excerpts from some of the interviews the author conducted with former collaborators, German veterans, and other observers. Over a hundred photographs, some in color, supplement the text. Those interested in this chapter of contemporary history will find the book useful.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p376_Lutton.html


C3aOvjTRFG8

[spursncowboys]

This is indeed part of the problem. Some of you still think this is the 40's.

It is ridiculous for us to try and prop up anything France does. It would never work it America (not saying it worked in France).

[admiralsnackbar]

Institute for Historical Review

Paris in the Third Reich: A history of the German occupation, 1940-1944

PARIS IN THE THIRD REICH: A HISTORY OF THE GERMAN OCCUPATION, 1940-1944 by David Pryce-Jones. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1981, x + 294 pages, 116 photographs, $25.00, ISBN 0-03-045621-5.
reviewed by Charles Lutton
The claim that thousands of Parisians were members of the anti-Nazi "Resistance is an aspect of the Second World War that has come under increasing scrutiny in recent years. As British historian David Pryce-Jones explains in his study of Paris in the Third Reich, there was little actual resistance activity in the French capital. Indeed, during the German occupation life in Paris went on much as it had before the war.

A striking point is the contrast between the behavior of the victorious German occupiers of France in 1940 and that of the Allied troops who overran Germany in 1945. Unlike what happened in Germany and Central Europe in 1945, when the Germans took Paris there were no scenes of mass pillage, rape, and murder. The French mass circulation weekly L'Illustration described the German soldiers as "handsome boys, decent, helpful, above all correct." Hitler even cancelled a huge victory parade that had been planned by the military, so as not to alienate the Parisians. Within a few days after the onset of the German occupation, the schools, restaurants, theaters, trains, newspapers, and other public services were back in operation on a near-normal basis. The Paris police, who outnumbered the Germans, remained on duty throughout the occupation.

Nor did the Germans round up large numbers of political opponents and suspects. Jean-Paul Sartre, Coco Chanel, Dior, Yves Montand, Maurice Chevalier, Picasso, and Albert Camus were among those who lived and worked -- very productively -- in Paris during the German occupation. One French writer, Louis-Ferdinand Celine, expressed surprise that the Germans were "not shooting, hanging, exterminating the Jews ... stupified that anyone with a bayonet would not be using it all the time. 'If the Bolsheviks were in Paris, they'd show you how to set about it, they'd show you how to purge a population, district by district, house by house. If I had a bayonet, I'd know my business.'"

As noted above, Pryce-Jones sheds additional light on the so-called "Resistance." Many Frenchmen intensely disliked the Partisans, who did not go into action against the Germans until after Hitler attacked the Soviet Union in June 1941. The Communist Partisans, large numbers of whom were not native-born Frenchmen, hoped to provoke German reprisals which would then alienate the French populace. In this they succeeded. But Germans were not their only targets: throughout the occupation, other Communists, assorted leftists, and rightists were murdered by the Partisans.

Once the Germans were forced to withdraw from France in the summer of 1944, a new "Reign of Terror" commenced. PryceJones estimates that there were 105,000 summary executions in France between June 1944 and February 1945. "The number of Frenchmen killed by other Frenchmen, whether through summary execution or rigged tribunals akin to lynch mobs or court martials and High Court trials, equalled or even exceeded the number of those sent to their death by the Germans as hostages, deportees, and slave-laborers." (The fullest treatment in English of the bloodbath that accompanied "liberation" is found in Sisley Huddleston's 1955 book France: The Tragic Years, 1939-1947.)

Often, Frenchmen could not understand the logic involved in these reprisals. One women remarked at the time, after her daughter's head was shaved: "My little Josiane, it's too horrible. Her hair has been cut off, monsieur. Poor little Josiane! If she went to bed with Germans, it was because she's seventeen, monsieur, you follow me? But why ever cut off her hair for it? It's a crying shame, monsieur. She's just as willing to go to bed with Americans!"

Paris in the Third Reich includes excerpts from some of the interviews the author conducted with former collaborators, German veterans, and other observers. Over a hundred photographs, some in color, supplement the text. Those interested in this chapter of contemporary history will find the book useful.
http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v04/v04p376_Lutton.html


C3aOvjTRFG8

The IHR? Seriously? You know they're basically a front for anti-semitic nazi-sympathizer bullshit, don't you?

[Winehole23]

...

[ElNono]

It is ridiculous for us to try and prop up anything France does. It would never work it America (not saying it worked in France).

Fries worked...

[ElNono]

The IHR? Seriously? You know they're basically a front for anti-semitic nazi-sympathizer bullshit, don't you?

Ofcourse not. Google isn't that good.

[DarrinS]

God, does this thread suck.

[TeyshaBlue]

Fries worked...

Delicious.

[Winehole23]

http://cheho.free.fr/mfs/img/moules_frites_sauvages.jpg

[mogrovejo]

ElNono, can you expand a bit your remarks about Miterrand and that 1988 health-care reform?

[TeyshaBlue]

http://cheho.free.fr/mfs/img/moules_frites_sauvages.jpg

What, no berets?

[Winehole23]

Just whip out your links, mogrovejo.

You went and boned up. Great. Share what you learned.

[mogrovejo]

The IHR... they're basically a front for anti-semitic nazi-sympathizer bullshit

I agree.

But the book's author is David Pryce-Jones and it'd be a little difficult to accuse him of being an anti-semitic, nazi-sympathizer, don't you think?

[Winehole23]

Please don't keep us in suspense on account of your weak bs again. That got annoying a long time ago.

[Winehole23]

Quit stammering and just make your point.

[spursncowboys]

The IHR? Seriously? You know they're basically a front for anti-semitic nazi-sympathizer bullshit, don't you?

I didn't know that. I don't think what is written in here is wrong though. I read the body and thought it was what I was looking for. He used quotes from people there at the time. Basically the French rolled over. The resistence were the farther left guys - Marxists. Also that the avg. Paris citizen was not put out to the parade out of fear from a Socialist govt. That they went on their own will. I didn't understand why some of you posted a laugh icon and figured you did not think it true. Do you disagree with only the website?

[ElNono]

ElNono, can you expand a bit your remarks about Miterrand and that 1988 health-care reform?

I'm going to own up to this.
The reform I was speaking about was in 1998, not '88. That means it was passed with Chirac in power, not Miterrand.

Here's the article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_in_France)

And this is the reform I was talking about:

Because the model of finance in the French health care system is based on a social insurance model, contributions to the scheme are based on income. Prior to reform of the system in 1998, contributions were 12.8% of gross earnings levied on the employer and 6.8% levied directly on the employee. The 1998 reforms extended the system so that the more wealthy with capital income (and not just those with income from employment) also had to contribute, since when the 6.8% figure has dropped to 0.75% of earned income. In its place a wider levy based on total income has been introduced, gambling taxes are now redirected towards health care and recipients of social benefits also must contribute.[6] Because the insurance is compulsory, the system can effectively be thought to be financed by taxation rather than traditional insurance (as typified by auto or home insurance, where risk levels determine premiums).

I made a mistake when I attributed this to Miterrand, and I stand corrected.
It's interesting to note, however, that Chirac was more of a right winger, yet he passed this reform which basically punishes the wealthy.

I'm doing this to 'raise the bar'... I wish sometimes everyone would stick to some higher standards.

[DarrinS]

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10063/thread_sucks.jpg

[admiralsnackbar]

I agree.

But the book's author is David Pryce-Jones and it'd be a little difficult to accuse him of being an anti-semitic, nazi-sympathizer, don't you think?

I guess I was just wondering why anyone would make the IHR their go-to repository for WW2 information. They're the reason "revisionist history," as a phrase, has become au currant.

[Winehole23]

ElNono breaks the suspense.

[Winehole23]

AS elaborates.

[Winehole23]

DarrinS is correct.

[ElNono]

http://www.forumammo.com/cpg/albums/userpics/10063/thread_sucks.jpg

Is it the French?

[admiralsnackbar]

I didn't understand why some of you posted a laugh icon and figured you did not think it true. I don't think that's what elicited the laugh icons.
Do you disagree with only the website? Yes

[spursncowboys]

Fries worked... Can't believe I cannot find a youtube video of the "Better Off Dead" scene where the mom is naming all the Franch items she has for dinner.

[ChumpDumper]

How did SnC turn this into a pro-Nazi thread?

[Winehole23]

Love of parades, maybe?

[admiralsnackbar]

How did SnC turn this into a pro-Nazi thread? Somebody had to make the thread about something after mogro dodged a question for 6 pages. :lol

[coyotes_geek]

200+ posts in and still no signs of this thread being anywhere close to the inevitable conclusion that it's impossible to "prove" someone is or isn't a socialist when the very definition of the word is still somewhat subjective, as are what the "qualifications" should be.

[admiralsnackbar]

200+ posts in and still no signs of this thread being anywhere close to the inevitable conclusion that it's impossible to "prove" someone is or isn't a socialist when the very definition of the word is still somewhat subjective, as are what the "qualifications" should be.

You spoiled the surprise! :(

[spursncowboys]

Love of parades, maybe?

I'm not French.

[spursncowboys]

How did SnC turn this into a pro-Nazi thread?

Are you shocked at a post going off topic without you doing it?

[ChumpDumper]

Which president in the last century hasn't advocated or enacted statist policies?

[ChumpDumper]

Are you shocked at a post going off topic without you doing it?No. I am not at all surprised at your pro-Nazi tangent.

[coyotes_geek]

You spoiled the surprise! :(

I just wanted to wrap this up so that we could start the debate as to whether or not Obama is a muslim. :king

[spursncowboys]

No. I am not at all surprised at your pro-Nazi tangent.
You do that so well, you should be a member of the media.

[ElNono]

How did SnC turn this into a pro-Nazi thread?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7f/Godwin_WikiWorld.png

[ChumpDumper]

You do that so well, you should be a member of the media.I'd say you do that so well you should be a memeber of the Nazi party, but you probably already are.

[Winehole23]

200+ posts in and still no signs of this thread being anywhere close to the inevitable conclusion that it's impossible to "prove" someone is or isn't a socialist when the very definition of the word is still somewhat subjective, as are what the "qualifications" should be.That question was settled in my mind on the first page, but yeah, it's still true.

It's nearly impossible to prove, because almost all the definitions are invidious, and the dictionary definitions suck.

The question of our collective participation in a quasi-socialistic, technocratic, theraputic/managerial administrative scheme for 75 years, allocated based on norms of distributive justice, is mostly begged and taken for granted now I guess.

[Winehole23]

Even though we can't really afford it anymore.

[ChumpDumper]

But if you really want to stay on topic, SnC:
Which president in the last century hasn't advocated or enacted statist policies?

I know you don't.

[spursncowboys]

me from p. 1 & 5
So how is spreading the wealth not socialism?

How is using taxes to even the playing field not socialism?

[ChumpDumper]

So every president who didn't abolish a progressive income tax since its inception is a socialist according to SnC.

OK.

[clambake]

we need to "bail you out" of this thread.

[spursncowboys]

CD: Is using taxes to redistribute wealth socialism? If not why.

[ChumpDumper]

CD: Is using taxes to redistribute wealth socialism? If not why.If that is your only definition, sure. According to you, all presidents who have not abolished progressive income taxes are socialists.

Reagan: socialist.

[Marcus Bryant]

Americans are mostly blind to the socialistic and fascistic nature of their federal government over the last one hundred and twenty years (or so). They're most aware of it when the political party they do not support takes control of the executive branch.

[spursncowboys]

If that is your only definition, sure. According to you, all presidents who have not abolished progressive income taxes are socialists.

Reagan: socialist.

Thats not the point. So Obama believes that taxes are so you can spread the wealth around. That is a socialist notion.

[xrayzebra]

Good Lord, I cant believe all this jabber about a dumbass poll on
Daily Kos. Some people have way too much time on their hands.

Besides he isn't a Socialist. He is a Marxist. He just likes to socialize things,
like car companies, insurance companies, student loans, home mortgages
and Barney Frank. Barney thrown in cause Boutons needs love.:lol:toast

And Barney isn't picky.

[ChumpDumper]

Thats not the point. So Obama believes that taxes are so you can spread the wealth around. That is a socialist notion.All the other presidents have accepted that notion since the introduction of the progressive tax. They only quibble over the ratios.

[Winehole23]

http://thefastertimes.com/nonsensenews/files/2009/07/joe-21.jpg

[Marcus Bryant]

The American Dream has been 'socialized' for well over seventy years now.

Or, keep your dirty Marxist hands off mah Social Security and Medicare.

[mogrovejo]

I didn't know that. I don't think what is written in here is wrong though. I read the body and thought it was what I was looking for. He used quotes from people there at the time. Basically the French rolled over. The resistence were the farther left guys - Marxists. Also that the avg. Paris citizen was not put out to the parade out of fear from a Socialist govt. That they went on their own will. I didn't understand why some of you posted a laugh icon and figured you did not think it true. Do you disagree with only the website?

You're correct. What you posted was a positive and vanilla review of a book authored by a very mainstream and respectable historian.

Where it was published is completely irrelevant.



The reform I was speaking about was in 1998, not '88.

Ah, it was a typo then. I found it weird when I read it, 88 was way to late for Mitterrand to embark in some kind of meaningful reform.

I know the 1996/1998 reform well.



It's interesting to note, however, that Chirac was more of a right winger, yet he passed this reform which basically punishes the wealthy.

Personally I think that Mitterrand and Chirac are virtually undistinguishable. In any case, that reform was fathered by Alain Juppé. I'm not sure if it punishes the wealthy. Why so? Because of the tax on total earnings substituting the payroll taxes? That's merely a nominal change... It was basically an attempt to widen the financing base and to control costs, by indexing their grown to revenues raised. Unfortunately, it was widely unsucessful - the French health-care system has been running on deficits for the last 20 years.

Sarkozy is now starting to address it, but there's little to do: sooner or later they'd have to settle for a massive downsizing of the public component of the health-care system or, in alternative, deep rationing measures.

[mogrovejo]

200+ posts in and still no signs of this thread being anywhere close to the inevitable conclusion that it's impossible to "prove" someone is or isn't a socialist when the very definition of the word is still somewhat subjective, as are what the "qualifications" should be.

There's no alternative to subjective judgment in political discussions. That doesn't mean that they're useless; just that their objective should be different than "proving" things.

[Nbadan]

So, if OAI did a online poll tomorrow on whether Obama is a socialist or not some of you think he wouldn't beat 70%...

:lol

[SouthernFried]

Obama's a socialist, marxist, communist...pick a label..any label. Come up with something new and unique even!!

He fucking sucks...

"Just don't tarnish the word 'socialist' with Obama..."

give me a fucking break.

[SouthernFried]

I thought this was all proved when Boutons gave us WIKI's definition of socialism...which described exactly what OBAMA was doing.

pretty cut and dry...can't believe this is still going on.

[TeyshaBlue]

So, if OAI did a online poll tomorrow on whether Obama is a socialist or not some of you think he wouldn't beat 70%...

:lol

So you can't defend your OP and it's "Poll". Ok then.

[ChumpDumper]

Well, a good number of board Republicans call him a socialist. Maybe the poll isn't too far off.

[spursncowboys]

The poll loses credibilty in the other questions - Birthers.

[ChumpDumper]

The poll loses credibilty in the other questions - Birthers.Does it?

It wasn't a majority that were birthers.

[spursncowboys]

Does it?

It wasn't a majority that were birthers.
Do you think this is a credible poll, taken by actual conservatives?

[ChumpDumper]

Do you think this is a credible poll, taken by actual conservatives?I think a sizable minority of self-proclaimed Republicans could indeed be birthers. It would be nice if some other pollsters asked the question.

[ChumpDumper]

According to the survey, 36 percent of respondents do not believe the president was born in this country

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0210/32384.html


Republicans are more inclined to say that the allegations have received too little attention. Nearly four-in-ten Republicans (39%) express this view

http://people-press.org/report/533/many-fault-media-coverage-of-health-care

It's not the same question, but there seems to be some correlation.

[Marcus Bryant]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Maccari-Cicero.jpg