Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sorry but your wrong, the definition of socialism is ADVOCATING, government ownership of enterprises. It does not seperate the reason into "to shore up capitalistic value" as "non socailistic"..
If your advocating government ownership and or control, regardless as to the reason, its socialism..
Does "socialism" mean temporarily, in an emergency situation, stepping in to grab the steering wheel of an out of control outfit and trying to set it back on a healthy, capitalist course? No, "socialism" would be permanent ownership. The OA is not in the least interested in permanently owning these companies.
Because the govt stepped in and "took ownership" of these particular companies (http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png - broken link), temporarily, in an emergency situation, that does NOT mean the US is now a socialist country.
1. The definition given above does not include "spreading the wealth" except by oblique implication. In contrast, it includes plenty of explicit points that Obama never said anything about.
2. A belief that "capitalism is bad" is consistent with Marxism but also with many other points of view, e.g. feudalism, fascism, anarchism, etc.
3. While you have the dictionary out, teach yourself the difference between "infer" and "imply."
Regarding the infer/imply thing, FYI, again from dictionary.com:
Infer has been used to mean “to hint or suggest” since the 16th century by speakers and writers of unquestioned ability and eminence: The next speaker criticized the proposal, inferring that it was made solely to embarrass the government. Despite its long history, many 20th-century usage guides condemn the use, maintaining that the proper word for the intended sense is imply and that to use infer is to lose a valuable distinction between the two words.
Although the claimed distinction has probably existed chiefly in the pronouncements of usage guides, and although the use of infer to mean “to suggest” usually produces no ambiguity, the distinction too has a long history and is widely observed by many speakers and writers.
But then, I don't claim to be much of a speaker or writer. What I was trying to say is that I don't think that it would be unreasonable to come to the conclusion that Obama doesn't like capitalism.
Also, I am not claiming that because Obama doesn't like capitalism, he must be a Marxist. I am simply suggesting that this is a possibility. It is very obvious that he has socialist tendencies. In my book, he is no capitalist.
Obama is a socialist, he has even admitted this! He wants big government, he wants to tax the life out of businesses, he wants to redistribute the wealth by increasing taxes on the upper middle class. Karl Marx would be proud of Obama.
Also, I am not claiming that because Obama doesn't like capitalism, he must be a Marxist. I am simply suggesting that this is a possibility. It is very obvious that he has socialist tendencies. In my book, he is no capitalist.
Do you agree that he doesn't like capitalism?
I agree that it is a "possibility" he doesn't "like" capitalism. I also aver that we would get about as much socialism from the Republicans who do "like" capitalism as we would from Obama. We saw that in the Wall Street bailout.
I'd love for a real free-market libertarian to become president. But, basically the choice in 2008 came down to a watered-down European social-democrat, or a warmongering, bomb-happy lunatic whose party advocates socialism for the rich and the law of the jungle for everyone else. I made my choice and so far, at least, see no reason not to stand by it.
To you is Obama a capitalist like Ronald Reagan for example, or do you see him as something else ?
Oh, he is quite obviously something else ...
Reagan paid a great deal of attention to the United States of America, whereas, Obama, could care less, and pays a great deal of attention to terrorist nations .. all wanting to be their buddy or something.
Obama is absolutely "not" the tallest hog in the trough in the U.S., whereas Reagan was ...
Reagan was a good ole American .... Obama is not, and goes out of his way to prove it every day
Reagan was a good ole American .... Obama is not, and goes out of his way to prove it every day
I'm not a typical Reagan-hater or anything, but thank God your idea of who is or isn't a "good ole American" is getting more and more distant by the day.
I'm not a typical Reagan-hater or anything, but thank God your idea of who is or isn't a "good ole American" is getting more and more distant by the day.
Hey, you gotta laud the fact that Reagan, being the good ole American B.S.'er that he was, was able to B.S. the U.S.S.R. into thinking that Luke Skywalker (starwars) ruled the day ... even if Starwars was a pure fantasy ..
Hey, you gotta laud the fact that Reagan, being the good ole American B.S.'er that he was, was able to B.S. the U.S.S.R. into thinking that Luke Skywalker (starwars) ruled the day ... even if Starwars was a pure fantasy ..
I do, and I have. The fact that he outplayed the Soviets without starting a major war places him head and shoulders above any of the Republicans nowadays, who not only couldn't do the same if they wanted to, but simply prefer war to peace on general principle. He was a goober in some ways, but far from a terrible president.
He wants to control everything and everyone, he does NOT want to put money into peoples hands to create jobs and make money.
He is as far from a capitalist as anyone I know in public office.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
