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.
Ask the card-carrying socialists: Is Obama one of them?
Billy Wharton should be happy.
"Socialized health care" is on its way. The "socialist agenda" is taking over America. And best of all, Barack Obama, a "committed socialist ideologue," is in the Oval Office.
But Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate. He's seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn't a socialist. He's not even a liberal.
"We didn't see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama," Wharton says, " and we certainly didn't see our agenda move from the streets to the White House."
AND, wait for it...the very last line : ""To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin."
Really good point. I also had the same thought when he was elected. In fact the Socialist newspaper from NYC had a cartoon on the cover showing him carving up the poor.
Now since I voted fro him twice and 4 years have passed since this post I have to say he has turned out to be a harsher Republican than many other Presidents and a war hawk to boot.
Now since I voted fro him twice and 4 years have passed since this post I have to say he has turned out to be a harsher Republican than many other Presidents and a war hawk to boot.
I wouldn't go that far.
The problem is most people in Western countries cannot distinguish liberal social policies from neoliberal economics. Both major parties in the US (and the major parties in Canada, UK, and Australia) embrace neoliberal economics.
The difference between the Democrats and the Republicans really is neoliberalism (Dems) vs. corporatism (GOP).
Ask the card-carrying socialists: Is Obama one of them?
Billy Wharton should be happy.
"Socialized health care" is on its way. The "socialist agenda" is taking over America. And best of all, Barack Obama, a "committed socialist ideologue," is in the Oval Office.
But Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate. He's seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn't a socialist. He's not even a liberal.
"We didn't see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama," Wharton says, " and we certainly didn't see our agenda move from the streets to the White House."
AND, wait for it...the very last line : ""To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin."
and do you believe in the tooth fairy? Ok, most of us do not really think he is a true socialist: but he does share socialist ideas and would like to go down in history as the Pres who moved up toward a socialistic society. The same for his connecting with Muslim: do I think he is a Muslim? No, I do not, but I do think he is a Muslim sympathizer.
and do you believe in the tooth fairy? Ok, most of us do not really think he is a true socialist: but he does share socialist ideas and would like to go down in history as the Pres who moved up toward a socialistic society. The same for his connecting with Muslim: do I think he is a Muslim? No, I do not, but I do think he is a Muslim sympathizer.
If he isn't a socialist, then why do so many right-wing arguments lead with calling him a socialist?
How is being a Muslim sympathizer relevant to anything? Islam is a religion.
Silly nonsense. Socialism is not a static state. It is a transition between capitalism and communism. The beautiful evil of socialism is that it is designed to slowly and inextricably lead to totalitarianism. Any "piece" of socialism works to spread the virus until it consumes its host. As the State provides more, it necessarily takes more. As it takes more, it has to provide more. Rinse and repeat until the State has consumed everything and all needs of the people must be supplied by the State. When it can not provide enough to the people any more, then the rational of killing off people becomes necessary.
Silly nonsense. Socialism is not a static state. It is a transition between capitalism and communism. The beautiful evil of socialism is that it is designed to slowly and inextricably lead to totalitarianism. Any "piece" of socialism works to spread the virus until it consumes its host. As the State provides more, it necessarily takes more. As it takes more, it has to provide more. Rinse and repeat until the State has consumed everything and all needs of the people must be supplied by the State. When it can not provide enough to the people any more, then the rational of killing off people becomes necessary.
Of course. However, socialism is designed to take any free people and make them choose totalitarianism over freedom voluntarily. It was specifically designed to take advantage of the absolute worst traits of humanity, jealousy, greed, and laziness and use those traits to have humans choose slavery to the State over freedom.
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.
