Obama is finally busted for being a Socialist

[Oli]

Nice editing on the clip...not!

If Obama's a socialist, how do you describe our current President and his administration?

I mean, buying equity in major financial institutions? Capitalists and free marketers right?

So, we privatize profits, but socialize (or if you'd rather, nationalize) losses?

Yeah, Obama's a real threat to free markets

[NYBURBS]

Nice editing on the clip...not!

If Obama's a socialist, how do you describe our current President and his administration?

I mean, buying equity in major financial institutions? Capitalists and free marketers right?

So, we privatize profits, but socialize (or if you'd rather, nationalize) losses?

Yeah, Obama's a real threat to free markets

Ah I call what we have now fascist. The democratic platform is socialist. Great choices

Fascism:
"A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism." (Post 9/11, Bank Bailout, Excessive signing statements America? Yep)

Socialism:
An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion." (Probably a little more benign definition than it really deserves. Nevertheless it does not do well with individual freedom).

Capitalism:
Capitalism is an economic theory which stresses that control of the means of producing economic goods in a society should reside in the hands of those who invest the capital for production. It is a system based on the production of goods and services for exchange rather than use. Private ownership and free enterprise supposedly leads to more efficiency, lower prices, better products (No we have not had this in this nation in a long time. Rather, we have a system of massive government control and partial ownership).

[InHouston]

Money is not stolen from me. I know what I make and what I pay. I also know what you call research.

Ha! Let me ask you Trish, do you pay federal income tax?

I bet she doesn't. Let Uncle Sam stick her for 30% of her income and see if she wants to dole out more to the lazy "have nots" of this country.

[InHouston]

Nice editing on the clip...not!

If Obama's a socialist, how do you describe our current President and his administration?

I mean, buying equity in major financial institutions? Capitalists and free marketers right?

So, we privatize profits, but socialize (or if you'd rather, nationalize) losses?

Yeah, Obama's a real threat to free markets

Blah blah blah ...

[El Nino]

Money is not stolen from me. I know what I make and what I pay. I also know what you call research.

Ha! Let me ask you Trish, do you pay federal income tax?

I bet she doesn't. Let Uncle Sam stick her for 30% of her income and see if she wants to dole out more to the lazy "have nots" of this country.

Yeah, and/or imperialistic neocon slimeballs who enjoy "nation building" and "forcing democracies" as favorite past times. Money well spent for sure!

[trish]

Get off it. The democratic party is not, has not and never will advocate the elimination of private property and you know it. Such a claim is a complete distortion. Neither is the democratic party advocating the elimination of wealth, only that law that has given the wealthy an undue advantage (beyond the advantage the wealth itself brings) over the last eight years be allowed to run out.

Characterizing the democratic party as socialist, or the republican party as fascist is cheap, sophomoric and lacks intellectual integrity. It would be exactly like characterizing the libertarian party as anarchist, unless of course you like that label.

So InHouston, what makes you think I don't pay Federal taxes, and what makes you think I wouldn't be willing to pay more? You're a rather presumptive little bitch.

[Oli]

Nice editing on the clip...not!

If Obama's a socialist, how do you describe our current President and his administration?

I mean, buying equity in major financial institutions? Capitalists and free marketers right?

So, we privatize profits, but socialize (or if you'd rather, nationalize) losses?

Yeah, Obama's a real threat to free markets

Blah blah blah ...

Another cogent answer from our Conservative friend.

[NYBURBS]

Get off it. The democratic party is not, has not and never will advocate the elimination of private property and you know it. Such a claim is a complete distortion. Neither is the democratic party advocating the elimination of wealth, only that law that has given the wealthy an undue advantage (beyond the advantage the wealth itself brings) over the last eight years be allowed to run out.

Characterizing the democratic party as socialist, or the republican party as fascist is cheap, sophomoric and lacks intellectual integrity. It would be exactly like characterizing the libertarian party as anarchist, unless of course you like that label.

It's not sophomoric at all. There is a partial nationalization of banks taking place as we speak. The neo-con wing of the republican party is fascist, plain and simple. There are endless posts in here by people, mainly democrats, complaining about these policies, I just happen to call it what it is.

Democrats advocate heavily for things such as government sponsored (paid for?) universal health care and increased entitlement spending, along with market policies that require heavy regulation, among other things (The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977?). That is a socialist agenda, it's not yet a total one where they openly advocate no private property, but it's a large step in that direction.

If you want to label my position as anarchist so be it. I do believe in having some government though, just drastically reduced from where it is now.

[El Nino]

Get off it. The democratic party is not, has not and never will advocate the elimination of private property and you know it. Such a claim is a complete distortion. Neither is the democratic party advocating the elimination of wealth, only that law that has given the wealthy an undue advantage (beyond the advantage the wealth itself brings) over the last eight years be allowed to run out.

Characterizing the democratic party as socialist, or the republican party as fascist is cheap, sophomoric and lacks intellectual integrity. It would be exactly like characterizing the libertarian party as anarchist, unless of course you like that label.

It's not sophomoric at all. There is a partial nationalization of banks taking place as we speak. The neo-con wing of the republican party is fascist, plain and simple. There are endless posts in here by people, mainly democrats, complaining about these policies, I just happen to call it what it is.

Democrats advocate heavily for things such as government sponsored (paid for?) universal health care and increased entitlement spending, along with market policies that require heavy regulation, among other things (The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977?). That is a socialist agenda, it's not yet a total one where they openly advocate no private property, but it's a large step in that direction.

If you want to label my position as anarchist so be it. I do believe in having some government though, just drastically reduced from where it is now.

Yes NYBURBS, you speak wisely

[yodajazz]

Money is not stolen from me. I know what I make and what I pay. I also know what you call research.

Ha! Let me ask you Trish, do you pay federal income tax?

I bet she doesn't. Let Uncle Sam stick her for 30% of her income and see if she wants to dole out more to the lazy "have nots" of this country.

So being poor equates to being lazy? Rich people are better than poor people? I don't have the word to discribe what a disgusting philosophy that is. Certainly Jesus Christ didn't think that way when he said "blessed are the poor in spirit ...) The founders of this nation had a principle that all men were created equal.

InHouston, you don't know life as well as you think you do. Every human has qualities as well as faults. There are some sociopath criminals, true, but most people are just living with the hand they have been dealt. People with money are not better, than people with less money, they are just lucky, or blessed in other words.

Jesus Christ was in fact the most critical of the people who thought they were better than others, the pharisees. His one act of violence was throwing the 'money changers' out of the temple.

There is another Bible principle, which says to be thankful of what you have. You could have a stroke and be parylized and be unable to enjoy whatever material wealth that you have. I have a son who is autistic, and is classified as mentally handicapped, but he is a good soul full of love and tells me that he loves me most everyday. I have people close to me that are in ill health. But all you punk assed mf's can do is complain about paying taxes. If you cannot appreciate what you have been blessed with, one day it will be taken from you.

If you are lucky enough to get very old, one day one of those poor people you complain so much about will be taking care of you, feeding you and wiping your ass. Then you will appreciate that there are some poor people low enough to take care of you, or it might happen to someone else you love. Life has a way of teaching us the true value of human hands.

But until you learn...

P.S. I am not paying anywhere near 30% taxes, but I would gladly exchange places with someone who does.