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.
The bail-out is a form of economic interventionism.
All Socialist advocates economic interventionism.
Therefor the bail-out is a form of Socialism.
John McCain voted for the bail-out.
Therefor John McCain is a Socialist.
Social Security is a form of welfare.
All Socialists advocate welfare.
Therefor Social Security is a Socialist idea.
John McCain supports Social Security.
Therefor John McCain is a Socialist.
My premise is obviously flawed but it is a mirror of the argument used to claim that Obama is a Socialist; which is:
All Socialists support welfare.
Barack Obama supports welfare.
Therefor Barack Obama is a Socialist.
These arguments are a type syllogistic fallacy called the fallacy of the undistributed middle[1,2,3,4,5,6]. Here's a better example that shows why this argument is invalid. I am using exactly the same logic that is used against Obama.
All members of Code Pink are against torture.
John McCain is against torture.
Therefor John McCain is a member of Code Pink.
Let's take a closer look at the claim made on Obama.
Premise: All Socialists support welfare.
Premise: Barack Obama supports welfare.
Conclusion: Therefor Barack Obama is a socialist.
It's apparent that for the conclusion to flow logically, you would have to presuppose instead that "Everyone that supports welfare is a Socialist," not "All Socialists support welfare." The former statement distributes the term "supports welfare." This distribution is not asserted in the original argument. In the original argument, the middle term is undistributed in both premises.
Quote:
1. Rule: In a valid standard form categorical syllogism, the middle term must be distributed in at least one premiss.
2. Reason: for the two terms of the conclusion to be connected through the third, as in the mechanism sketched below, at least one of them must be related to the whole of the class designated by the middle term. Otherwise, the connection might be with different parts of the middle term, as illustrated below, and no connection can be made.
To prove that Obama is not a Socialist we use this:
All Socialists must, by definition[7,8], support the nationalization of the private sector.
Barack Obama does not support the nationalization of the private sector.[9]
I do not believe that McCain is a Socialist or a member of Code Pink. I used those arguments as an example to show how the Obama claim is a logical fallacy. It is also worth noting that I am neither a Democrat or Republican. I dislike both Obama and McCain, however, my dislike for Palin is so overwhelming that I may vote for Obama (If I get off my ass on election day). I'd prefer it if we kept this thread civil and on point. Thank you.
i think you are complicating a pretty simple issue. americans do not want bigger government!
your premise left out a lot of basic facts, so it is selective in nature. i noticed how you left out that barack obama is in the pocket of wall street and helped engineer the wall street bailout, so obviously you did not read the pam martens series on obama and wall street, nor are you considering the loss of rights that our country has just experienced with the clause in the bailout bill giving the treasury secretary (who is going to be a wall street player if obama gets in) unlimited power over the money!
here is my own little chart:
current treasury secretary = big shot at goldman sachs.
next treasury secretary under obama= buyer of goldman sachs with the bailout.
bailout= next treasury secretary, warren buffett, standing 1st in the corporate welfare line to get the taxpayer money for his goldman sachs company.
summary: goldman sachs buyer gets taxpayer money from the bailout and will be our next treasury secretary under obama!
i think you are complicating a pretty simple issue. americans do not want bigger government!
your premise left out a lot of basic facts, so it is selective in nature. i noticed how you left out that barack obama is in the pocket of wall street and helped engineer the wall street bailout, so obviously you did not read the pam martens series on obama and wall street, nor are you considering the loss of rights that our country has just experienced with the clause in the bailout bill giving the treasury secretary (who is going to be a wall street player if obama gets in) unlimited power over the money!
here is my own little chart:
current treasury secretary = big shot at goldman sachs.
next treasury secretary under obama= buyer of goldman sachs.
bailout= next treasury secretary, warren buffett, standing 1st in the corporate welfare line to get the taxpayer money for his goldman sachs company.
summary: goldman sachs gets taxpayer money from the bailout and goldman sachs buyer will be our next treasury secretary under obama!
Thank you! I have asked on several threads why people equate Obama w/ socialism which I did not see. Your well done research proves my point!
A rep for you!
Maybe if America used the Govt. for what it is there for, this current crisis wouldn't be so devastating. The Govt. is in place for the good of ALL Americans not just the elite. There is NO such thing as a purely capitalistic country or purely socialistic country, unless it's a dictatorship, and that again is just for the benefit of the regime in power. Capitalism and Socialism can run hand in hand for the benefit of ALL. I have been astounded at the view of some, of Socialism. They have this idea that the Govt. controls everything and everyone...WRONG! In Europe, socialism is in place to help people who fall upon hard times and need some assistance, typical assistance as the big banks etc. are calling for now in America. It seems that assistance is OK for the banks but a crime for the small business or the poor. Some on here think that goods are limited and choice is limited in a socialistic plan...WRONG! In the UK,for example, there is no restriction on goods or businesses and London is the hub of finance in Europe. Stop thinking that socialism is the GOVT. taking control..it isn't. It just means that people who aren't top earners are not bankrupted or dying for lack of financial help or good health cover. You vote in a Govt. to make decissions and run the countries coffers....Let them do their job without the constant whining from the elitists.
Okay....do you realize that the world "socialist" isn't as scary as it was fifty years ago to Americans?
Unless we're talking about the uneducated section of the population.
It is not scary to the segment of the population with their hands out. It is scary to the population that will have to pay out.
Very simple, no?
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.
