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.
LOL, yeah, this post makes no sense. Riddle me this Einstein, how is it not possible that the world can be happy about Obama but unhappy about the economic disaster that started BEFORE he got into office? I'm waiting.
I think most people know [MOD CUT/racist] is a socialist. How many years do you think he can get away with blaming Bush for his diastrous policies?
I thought that this was a sardonic thread, but you are serious. Actually, the world really has a new sense of hope for what America can become - or regain, under Barack. The millions of people around the world who come out to cheer him did not pay their respects that to Bush/Cheny - ever.
I thought that this was a sardonic thread, but you are serious. Actually, the world really has a new sense of hope for what America can become - or regain, under Barack. The millions of people around the world who come out to cheer him did not pay their respects that to Bush/Cheny - ever.
This is a crock. It's right out of the Soviet handbook; reate an illusion for the masses. Liberal leaders are not viewed as the great saviors. Millions didn't willingly go out and cheer Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, etc.
At no time in history has a liberal leader done anything for people worthy of praise. Why on earth would they be idolized, while those who do the real nuts and bolts work, securing freedom, bring prosperity, be ignored?
It's a concoction of the liberals and their willingly accomplices in the world and US media.
I think most people know [MOD CUT/racist] is a socialist. How many years do you think he can get away with blaming Bush for his diastrous policies?
WTF??? You haven't even answered the question! Are you unable to comprehend questions? Yeah, this thread is officially done. Mods, nothing contructive is going on w/this thread anymore considering the OP himself seems to have no idea what he's even talking about & also refuses to engage in discussions where people ask him questions & he refuses to answer.
This is a crock. It's right out of the Soviet handbook; reate an illusion for the masses. Liberal leaders are not viewed as the great saviors. Millions didn't willingly go out and cheer Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, etc.
I'm pretty conservative myself, but it just makes us look stupid if you equate Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Saddam with post-modern American liberalism. First off, Hitler and Saddam were about the farthest cry you'll get from post-modern American liberalism. Hitler was technically a socialist, but fascist socialism is fundamentally - and radically - different than the socialism in today's European policy, which is more akin to what American liberals are now pushing. To equate Hitler to modern socialist policies would be like saying that the nationalism exhibited by conservatives during the Bush-Cheney Administration was akin to Nazism because Hitler was a nationalist who used fear to provoke a populous to self destruct in the overly zealous anger and conquest that followed said fear. Even Stalin and Mao represent a leftist extreme that can't be equated to post-modern American liberalism, which is more like the democratic socialism of modern Europe than totalitarian socialism.
We have to drop all the misinformed fear-mongering and fallacious comparisons, and stick to the core American value that government regulation isn't the cure for corruption, but merely a "redistribution" of the opportunities for corruption from the private sector to the public sector. After all, it doesn't take much awareness to note that a lot of legislators are just as corrupt as the corporate and bank moguls that got us in this mess (many can reasonably argue that legislators helped get us in this mess, in fact).
It's obvious at this juncture that we can't trust the decision makers in unregulated businesses to uphold their responsibility to employees and stockholders, but we can't let the government grab hold of this opportunity to further erode our liberties. This isn't going to work if Democrats push needless agendas, nor is it going to work if Republicans refuse to budge from out-dated economic philosophies. Capitalism and socialism must learn to differentiate the issues for which they hold their ground and the issues for which they must compromise to survive the challenges of the 21st Century.
This is a crock. It's right out of the Soviet handbook; reate an illusion for the masses. Liberal leaders are not viewed as the great saviors. Millions didn't willingly go out and cheer Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam, etc.
At no time in history has a liberal leader done anything for people worthy of praise. Why on earth would they be idolized, while those who do the real nuts and bolts work, securing freedom, bring prosperity, be ignored?
It's a concoction of the liberals and their willingly accomplices in the world and US media.
Talk about a 'crock' - yours is overflowing. Obama has millions around the world turning out to greet him - willingly, so where is your analogy to a coerced turnout? Maybe you are thinking of those Republican rallies, where people had to be paid to go look at Bush or McCain.
Last edited by KRAMERCAT; 03-16-2009 at 09:34 PM..
I agree. Still, the OP's assertions gave me such a great laugh, I figured I owed some commentary about the broad expanse and diversity of political ideas/movements that are now becoming modern ideologue buzz words. The application of "socialism" goes beyond the extent in which it could allow all subscribers to be lumped together in any form of direct association. Socialism goes right and left, and the totalitarianism of fascism and communism that have been implemented thus far in other countries and times cannot be used to lump together all nationalists and socialists, respectively, as seems to be such an eager goal of the American media. Those two words (nationalism and socialism) have had so many manifestations that it's "TV speak" to even try to assert that falling under that label predicts anything about the basis from which federal policy is actually developing, or the ends that policy is intended to meet.
I'm pretty conservative myself, but it just makes us look stupid if you equate Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Saddam with post-modern American liberalism. First off, Hitler and Saddam were about the farthest cry you'll get from post-modern American liberalism. Hitler was technically a socialist, but fascist socialism is fundamentally - and radically - different than the socialism in today's European policy, which is more akin to what American liberals are now pushing. To equate Hitler to modern socialist policies would be like saying that the nationalism exhibited by conservatives during the Bush-Cheney Administration was akin to Nazism because Hitler was a nationalist who used fear to provoke a populous to self destruct in the overly zealous anger and conquest that followed said fear. Even Stalin and Mao represent a leftist extreme that can't be equated to post-modern American liberalism, which is more like the democratic socialism of modern Europe than totalitarian socialism.
We have to drop all the misinformed fear-mongering and fallacious comparisons, and stick to the core American value that government regulation isn't the cure for corruption, but merely a "redistribution" of the opportunities for corruption from the private sector to the public sector. After all, it doesn't take much awareness to note that a lot of legislators are just as corrupt as the corporate and bank moguls that got us in this mess (many can reasonably argue that legislators helped get us in this mess, in fact).
It's obvious at this juncture that we can't trust the decision makers in unregulated businesses to uphold their responsibility to employees and stockholders, but we can't let the government grab hold of this opportunity to further erode our liberties. This isn't going to work if Democrats push needless agendas, nor is it going to work if Republicans refuse to budge from out-dated economic philosophies. Capitalism and socialism must learn to differentiate the issues for which they hold their ground and the issues for which they must compromise to survive the challenges of the 21st Century.
I'm a liberal but that is a great post!!!! I want a strong opposition party, as one party rule would be a disaster.....
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.
Nonsense
