Monday, November 3, 2008
OBAMA A SOCIALIST?
Calling Obama a “socialist” simply isn’t logical. He doesn’t share the belief that industries should be nationalized by the government or even taken over by the workers as many American Marxists espouse. He may not be as wedded to the free market as a conservative but he doesn’t want to get rid of it. He wants to regulate it. He wants “capitalism with a human face.” He wants to mitigate some of the effects of the market when people lose. This is boilerplate Democratic party liberalism not radical socialism.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
and that is silly.
who draws this line?
Who decides what is enough? We about to be bankrupted by Medicare, which started as a small program. What you describe is Socialism lite which is like being a little pregnant.
And your Fascism comment? there is nothing in your definition that describes Conservativism. Patriotism and a strong military does not imply Fascism. You can BS and make up all you want. Liberalism is the precursor to Socialism. Conservativism stands on it own as an original idea.
Hey, Terry, just wondering. You imply a lot with your comments about intolerance and how Conservativism begat's Fascism which is implied racism.
You seem to give Rich, of the anti Religion, anti Palin branch, and yourself of the anti Joe the Plumber a pass in terms of intolerance.
I know you are a pious man, but pious folks sure can be intolerant.
So...your turn to show some tolerance and attempt to understand the other side.
Conservatives believe in the good and the best of man. We do not believe in racial set asides, we do not believe in bigotry. I refuse to be labeled by your intolerant bigoted silly ness. We reject your hateful words by attempting to connect our beliefs to the ugliness of Fascism. One of the topics I have attempted to bring to this blog is the wrong definition of Conservativism. I remain able to easily classify a liberal, Social redistribution, you don't argue. Your always must use distortion to define my side.
Can you accept Conservatives are not bigots or agents of intolerance?
Heavens, this is a time for serious people and you have given us a dope with hope.
And bless you Terry for giving me the opportunity to rant in such a productive manner. Now about that slice. .
Where did we get so far adrift? Coservativism is not bigotry nor racism or agents of intolerance. I never implied or said that. I was I guess trying to show Liberalism to its extreme is socialism. So there is no extreme to Conservatism just doesn't make sense, I will have to consult my guru Dr. Bob and get back to you as to what he thinks the extreme of conservatism is. So I ask you what is the extreme of conservatism? Bush ran on being a compassionate conservative, was he? I know I hear conservatives give more to charity's than liberals, but of course you can look up any blog you want and get the answer you want to prove your point so I disregard that conservatives give more. People are people and they give what they can. It's like the silly argument that the rich pay all the taxes. Is that proportionate to their income. poor people pay payroll taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, so I doubt it is in proportion to their entire income.
They used to call a political party the MugWumps because they had their mug on one side of the fence and their wump on the other.
We have come this far because you (your side) insists that our desire for small government and low taxation somehow equates to selfishness and is a bad thing. You have also implied several times how "intolerant" the right is and I specifically refer you to your description of a "right winger".
Now, Terry, (God love ya, stand up), you are on both sides of the issue. You agree and disagree with limited government and never answer my questions about how we decide how much is enough. If you ask Tom, our resident Libertarian, none is enough.
Rich is silly, it is not under taxation that has bankrupted our country, it is too much government which is manifested in entitlements and which you (I guess on odd days) support.
Now don't get me wrong. I love to discuss with you and my fervor is a sign of respect not condemnation but don't be confusing and don't label us as bigots, which is a diversion.
My friend Tom, I am sure, has opinions.
Gosh this is fun...what did we do with our time before?
I think Mark has been absent due to the need to make a living.
OK, Terry, last thought.
Given my comments above, what exactly is "Capitalism with a human face"?
The right size of government states that when government at all levels
in a nation exceeds about 20% of GDP, the people as a whole are harmed because
economic growth is stunted, and the rate of wealth creation is the casualty.
Right now all US governments together are spending about 35% of GDP. As recently as
1948 – shortly after WWII – total government spending in the US amounted to about
23% of GDP. If government had remained at 23%, instead of growing to 35% of GDP,
economist Gerald Scully calculates that our Nation’s economy would have grown at
5.8% annually instead of 3.5%. And such a compounded growth rate would have made
all of us, today, three times wealthier than we are – and our economy three times larger
than it is.
We have paid a heavy price for government that is patently obese. Unless we right-size
government, no combination of policy and program adjustments will enable us to
achieve, near term, a rate of economic growth sufficient to deal with the demands our
Nation faces. So the question is what is lost when you reduce Goverment to 23% of GDP? I frankly am not smart enough to know, so I ask all of you where do the cuts begin?
I would like to reach through the computer and just give you a hug.
Wow, what a great post, completely at odds with your previous posts but, wow.
OK, so you are for smaller government and since one group pays for the vast majority, when it is down sized, they will get to keep more of their money?
As Flounder said in the movie Animal House..."this is great"
What is the extreme of Conservatism? That is an interesting question. It is certainly not Facism. Facists are also Socialists. The name of the party that Hitler headed in Germany? That is correct Nazi. What does it stand for? The word Nazi is based on the first two syllables of the German word Nationalialsozialist. The National Socialist German Workers Party (German: Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) better known as the NSDAP or the Nazi Party. The term 'Nazi' was in widespread use in Germany as a mildly derogatory term in the early 1930s. It was inspired by the use of 'Sozi' for socialists. (Compare with 'Commie' for 'Communist'). Rival gangs of young kids in German school playgrounds in the early 1930s called themselves 'Nazis' or 'Sozis' and fought one another.
So what is the extreme of Conservatism? I googled this and besides all of the left wing garbage about Sara Palin I came up with this from the site moral-politics.com.
Extreme Conservatism is the variation of Conservatism that balances strong Conformance and strong Independence.
People in this category will tend to have strong opinions about enforcing the moral order (religious conformance, strict family values, lesser freedom of expression, stricter laws...) and about favoring individual initiatives (lower taxes, less corporate and environmental regulations, ...).
This variation overlaps with these ideologies:
Fundamentalism
PaleoConservatism
Conservative NeoLiberalism
Ultra Capitalism
Yep, no mention of facism here. You could call an ultra religious evangelical Christian who is very moralistic in their religious beliefs and family values and who want to censor violence and sexual media from the airwaves as an Extreme Conservative.
Funny thing is that this definition sort of matches the description of the kinds of people who came across the ocean in the 17th century and established the first colonies in what ultimately became the United States.
mark R come on I am dieing to hear your thought
Mark r. those who came over in the 17th century were PURITAN'S, are you suggesting we return we return to witchcraft
Terry,
That is another example of your shallow commentary. Since you have already forgotten your US History lessons I will enlighten you. The first colonists who settled in jamestown where known as "pilgrims". Remember Thanksgiving?
The witch trials were located in Salem, MA the current home of ultra liberals elitists like Ted Kennedy and John Kerry.
The vast majority of people who migrated to America during the 17th century were Christians trying to escape religious persecution. This country has been built on the backbone of Christian fundamentalists and if not for them there would not be a United States as it is today.
Almost all of the Founding Fathers were deeply religious Christians and unlike what the radical left and judicial activists argue there is no question that they meant the "separation of church and state" to be freedom "to" worship not freedom "from" worship.
Don't you find it hypocritical that those that argue that you cannot display Christmas based themes in public buildings also argue that it is OK to contruct footbaths and religious prayer rooms for Muslim students in the same public buildings?
Post a Comment