You use their socialist to describe a democrat, you might be a moron

I want to adresses how terms like Marxism and socialist are thrown around to describe liberal or democratic policies. First of all after the debacle of the red scare of the 50's and 60's it seems really backwards to accuse people of socialism. What is this 1958. Second of all using those terms are ignorant and make no sense. Socialism is characterized by the government nationalizing industries, redistributing wealth. No one's calling for an end of the free market economy or redistributing wealth or property ( an increase in taxes for wealthy is NOT wealth redistribution.)

Frankly I think its disgusting to throw around those terms so freely with our current economic realities.

majority of bankruptcies are because of medical bills, Majority of those people who had filed because of medical bills were middle class homeowners who had health insurance,

but healh care reform is socialism

Also those who use that term never complain in regards to corporate welfare. Governemnt spent over 200 billion bailing out bear stearns, that right there is the socialism because the government in a sense purchased a private company and in way nationalized it

Our infastructure is crumbling and one sign and yet somehow were socialist, in most socialist countries the government employs massive amounts of people to work on infrastructure projects

Finally, I hate it just as much when right wing are called fascists yet calling someone on the left socialist is accepted

Originally posted by obamafan14
I want to adresses how terms like Marxism and socialist are thrown around to describe liberal or democratic policies. First of all after the debacle of the red scare of the 50's and 60's it seems really backwards to accuse people of socialism. What is this 1958. Second of all using those terms are ignorant and make no sense. Socialism is characterized by the government nationalizing industries, redistributing wealth. No one's calling for an end of the free market economy or redistributing wealth or property ( an increase in taxes for wealthy is NOT wealth redistribution.)

Um.... do you ever watch the news?

This is EXACTLY what Maxine Waters has threatened to do. What is disgusting to me is that so many people try to cover-up and make excuses for the Marxist-like agenda of today's so-called Democrats.

Watch this video, and if you can't conclude that Maxine Waters is threatening for the government to nationalize the oil industry, it is you who might be a moron:



And yes. increasing taxes on one group to distribute the money directly to another group is by definition a redistribution of wealth.

[edit on 1-6-2008 by jamie83]

reply to post by obamafan14


You can never get some people to understand anything that contradicts their preconcieved ideas... this is especially true of politics.

I know it will fall on deaf ears but I will say it one more time:

Whomever, Obama, Clinton, McCain etc... whomever gets this far in national politics as to actually having a real chance at the white house... has by necessity already gotten the nod from the status quo... the ruling class... and they (the status quo) are not about to let anyone seriously endanger their interests.

Originally posted by grover
reply to post by obamafan14

 

You can never get some people to understand anything that contradicts their preconcieved ideas... this is especially true of politics.

I guess Maxine Waters contradicts your preconceived idea that Democrats would never have the government take over private industry, therefore you don't recognize her as a socialist, right?

So... just because ONE lawmaker threatens nationalizing the oil industry.. that makes ALL Democrats socialists?

Give me a bloody break. What a crock of bull hooey!!!

But I notice that you have no complaint about the oil executive holding the threat of even higher oil prices over the public's head unless congress gives them what they want... essentially a carte blanc to drill wherever they want.

I have been saying for some time that the high prices we are experiencing now are part of an attempt by the oil companies to Enron America into doing what they want.

Originally posted by grover
So... just because ONE lawmaker threatens nationalizing the oil industry.. that makes ALL Democrats socialists?

Give me a bloody break. What a crock of bull hooey!!!

Quit twisting and misstating direct questions to avoid an answer. I never said that all Democrats were socialists. I asked you a simple question.

Do your preconceived ideas prevent you from recognizing Maxine Waters' threats to have the government take over the oil industry prevent you from seeing that she is a socialist?

Did ya see and hear the others laughing at her comments.

There are a lot of Dem's that feel that way.

Roper

You brought up her statement to repute the premise of this thread.

I did answer your question... Just because ONE person makes that threat does not make the whole party socialist... and given the fact that it is ONE person making it... a minor player at that... then it really does not matter much.

now you answer this one:

Why would nationalizing the oil industry in the national interest be a bad idea?

Originally posted by grover

now you answer this one:

Why would nationalizing the oil industry in the national interest be a bad idea?

I'll give it a go.

The oil industry would be top heavy in administrators.

The oil industry would become a political tool.

For those that fear the Government will someday force us to our knees, a nationalized oil industry would be a sure bet.

The Gumment can't do very many things right.

When the government gets involved in the markets, as in price freezes, prices really shoot up after it unfreezes the price.

Hows that????

Roper

Originally posted by obamafan14
Socialism is characterized by the government nationalizing industries, redistributing wealth.

I agree with you it's stupid to call anybody in American politics a Socialist, but your definition of Socialism is wrong.

Socialism is the collective ownership of production by the workers, no government is necessary for socialism. For example Libertarian Socialism is socialism without government, a form of Anarchism.

Also no redistribution of wealth necessary either, you can keep what you have, but once the workers own and control their own means of production then they will start to share a larger portion of the wealth the worker creates through their labour. As most of you are workers you can only benefit from this. The exploiters of your labour will no longer be in the position to exploit you. If you think that is 'redistributing wealth', and a bad thing, then you are either chasing carrots and hoping to be the 'boss' one day, or you are just not getting it. You may end up the boss, but most don't...

reply to post by jamie83


First of all maxine waters is not even a senator. She's a freaking congresswoman. One of over 500. So she has no power whatsoever to nationalize anything. Plus I like how you are not concerned at all by a oil excutive threating the government with higher gas prices. Nothing wrong at all with multinational corporations who only concern is for their own profits, telling the government what to do. Second of all waters is form the most liberal district in America and was only idleing threating the oil companies. That sh** would not even get a majority of votes from democrats in congress. Hey mark foley a republican emailed 16 year old pages for sex. So i guess by your ridiculous logic all republicans are pederasses

"You use their socialist to describe a democrat, you might be a moron"


Or...

If you cant get a single line of grammar correct, you might be one too.

Obama is a racist politician. No different than any other than ever runs for any office. The difference? He uses Race to make white people feel guilty, and then people like the O.P. here, go back to jr. high school, and tell all his/her friends that its okay, because "down whif da man!!"

Remember your blind support for a racist, because in 3 years, when we're all in the same discussion again, and this time we're forced to speak Russian or Arabic, im blaming you.

reply to post by ybab hsur


What a crock. Is that all you have to contribute?

Originally posted by obamafan14
Plus I like how you are not concerned at all by a oil excutive threating the government with higher gas prices.

The government doesn't want increased drilling in the face of increased demand.

How is stating the obvious that gas prices will increase without increased production a threat?

The government also makes some extreme cash from the taxing of oil companies. Its almost as if the high gas prices are a tax in disguise.

It's Rovian style propaganda to associate everything evil and vile with the Democrats, to vilify 'liberal' and to taint the ideology that doesn't agree with the Cons.

The only way this will change is a concerted grass roots effort. Otherwise...

Originally posted by grover

Why would nationalizing the oil industry in the national interest be a bad idea?

Nationalizing the oil industry would be a horrible idea because it would rely on government bureaucrats, presumably the Democrats who couldn't even manage their own primary without screwing it up royally, making decisions that would be better than the oil executives from several competing firms.

Basically, what does anybody in the government know about running an oil company? What specific action would they immediately take to make oil production any better than it is now?

These clowns in Washington, most of whom are lawyers, have already shown how they want to solve the problem of high gas prices. By suing OPEC.

Don't feel so bad, as a Canadian I've had Americans outright call me a communist, though anyone with a high school understanding of politics knows this to be absurd. I just smile and nod, theres no use arguing political science with someone who clearly did not graduate high school.

Neither of the parties in America is anything resembling socialist ideals. Even if you have "social health care", it does not mean your country is socialist on a whole, making that argument is laughable.

Socialism, like Marxism, is an all encompassing political system, not one or two haphazardly chosen aspects of one out of thousands. It's like saying America is in fact a fascist dictatorship because it incorporates aspects of a fascist dictatorship into its political system, such as warrantless wiretapping, or having everyone carry a national ID card.

America is of course not a fascist dictatorship, Canada is not a socialist democracy, and the democrats/republicans are neither as well. Those spreading this disfo know its not true and know because this is the case that it was aggravate people, simple as that.