That is the problem with our world... instead of seeking a job based on interest and passion, we seek jobs based on the wealth that can be earned." I see your point but it is flawed. There are jobs that are not fun at all, but still have to be done. In a capitalist country, the incentive for doing those hard job is higher wages, but in a socialist country, there is no incentive for those jobs. Also, if everyone wanted to work, your theory might work, but the mentality of most is to do just enough to get by, but in a socialist country, doing just enough to get by can be doing very little, yet making the same as someone doing very much which is not right if you ask me. Also, in a capitalist society, you can make your passions work out for you in the end, it just takes hard work. Which is why the majority of people in America are not very wealthy. They are lazy. And to introduce an ideology of giving people more money for working less, then America would crumble with the lazy society we have now. Yes, there are certain jobs such as manual labor which don't pay as much as more of a mental job and may be more labor, but it's only because brains are better than brawn. It all boils down to the simple fact that in a capitalist society, if you work hard with anything (even if it's something you love), you can make quite a bit of money off of it. In a socialist or communist society, all it does is breed laziness because those who do not work as hard get paid as much as those who do. I challenge one person. Just one to give me one thing you love that can't or hasn't made a lot of money in America!
1296 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Yes he is socialist...yes we can come back but we have to stop the political correctness and start doing what is best for our children and grand children and not what is best for the rest of the world.
1302 days ago | Side: Socialistic
What does political correctness have to do with socialism? What does political correctness have to do with Obama? And what does foreign policy have to do with socialism? It sounds to me like you're angry but you don't know why and are just flailing around in random directions.
1295 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Why the barbs man? My son just read the post and commented that he thought this was CreateDebat not CreateInsult! In that spirit I am going to refrain from any insults. On to my response. It has nothing to do with socialism. But question was not about socialism. It was Obama and socialism". It has to do with the fact that people are afraid to or just plain don't call a duck a duck anymore and that is political correctness! A socialist is a socialist...plain and simple. Any denial by Obama and his supporters is spin designed to cover his tracks. One does not have to listen to what Obama or his opponents say, or to liberal/conservative spin, but to look at what he has tried to do. Personally I say "try" because in my opinion, he has yet to accomplish one productive thing. Angry? You bet and I know exactly why.
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
It has to do with the fact that people are afraid to or just plain don't call a duck a duck anymore and that is political correctness! Part of the problem is that most people, you included, don't seem to know what socialism is. I would argue that the American perspective was retarded by an encounter with a post October Revolution dictatorship--a continuum of them at that. Unless you've read socialist literature and have come into contact with its philosophy and theory, I can't be expected to take your non-politically correct rhetoric seriously. You might call a duck a "duck", and that's fine as long as you're looking at a duck. But if you've never seen a duck before, and are calling a brace, a gaggle, then you need to learn some humility and recognize your ignorance. It's somewhat disingenuous to call Obama a socialist when the Socialists don't call Obama a socialist. In fact, his policies, while not antithetical to socialism, aren't socialist policies. It's as simple as that. Any denial by Obama and his supporters is spin designed to cover his tracks. And you're just poisoning the well in an attempt to mask the fact that you've lodged an allegation with literally no evidentiary support beyond your opinion.
1292 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
OK. Lets do this. Based on your posts most of us dont know what a socialist is. Your a self professed socialist. Instead of insults, educate us. In your opinion what is a socialist? Please, for interest of time and space, dont write a book. Stick to the basics. And while you are at it...if Obama is not a socialist based on your socialist guidelines...what is he? Also notice I didnt insult you, demean you, or or vote you down just because I disagree with you. Lets try to keep this on the high road. Looking forward to your response.
1292 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Instead of insults, educate us. Government (as an institution) is an antagonizing force--it is either non-existent or extremely limited, depending on who you read. It's why socialism and communism are called the next step to (classical) anarchy. Capital is antagonizing (Marx explicitly, implicit in most other literature as it is absent in nearly all Utopian societies). Both capital and government restrain what Marx called the battle of Democracy. And in some real sense, socialism, as a utopian project, seeks to enlighten and liberate people from self imposed history and systems of discipline. Little or no private property (Marge Piercy, Plato, Michel de Montaigne, Karl Marx, Thomas Moore sees it as an antagonizing force, William Morris). And that isn't to say that someone else owns your property--that would contradict the point. Individual responsibility for the collective good (all socialists). The most commonly known is dialectic materialism: the struggle between classes and the attempt to ultimately moot the class system (the proletariat vs the Bourgeoisie in Marx and Lenin, the Captains of industry vs the worker in John Ruskin's literature, the colonists vs the corporations in Stanley Robinson). Obama is not a socialist based on your socialist guidelines...what is he? What is he? Why does he have to be anything? He ran on a Democratic ticket, he has instituted some basic Kenseyan economic policies, which makes him a capitalist for the most part. He is a left-leaning centrist, has maintained most official policies from preceding administrations, removing only a few. But, I ask again, why does he have to be anything specific? Is anyone ever completely conservative or liberal? Is everyone always a socialist or a capitalist? Is politics only dichotomous
1292 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Barbs and insults happen when people can't win a discussion with intelligent ideas. It just means they have no basis to win a debate on truth or logic or history so they attack to get people off track of the topic. The truth is Obama is a socialist by definition. Choose your dictionary or historical reference. [quote]It's somewhat disingenuous to call Obama a socialist when the Socialists don't call Obama a socialist. In fact, his policies, while not antithetical to socialism, aren't socialist policies. It's as simple as that.[/quote] Not really, Carl Mark said he wasn't a Marxist. His words, not mine. You haven't given evidence of why Obama isn't a socialist, you just claim that he is not. There is a difference there. The proof of his socialist activities lay in his administrative actions; IE: spreading the wealth, for one. From the Wikipedia definition of Socialism "Most socialists share the view that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and derives its wealth through exploitation..." This is Obama's view, one that that was emphasized during a conversation with Joe Wurzelbacher in 2008 where Obama said to him "...I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody." The discussion was about Joe buying a business where he would be taxed heavily based on his income. In this case I point to the words of Thomas Jefferson “A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.” -Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801. To that end: Where capitalism is not established, you basically have a feudalistic or totalitarian society. Socialism has never been provided by a feudal or totalitarian government. Revolution never moves a population towards socialism, but toward independence and freedom. Capitalism has, also, never been provided in a feudal or totalitarian society and can only come about after freedom and independence has been won. Therefore, socialism, as we know it, can only come about after capitalism has been established. Once capitalism is destroyed, socialism can not be maintained because the government does not generate a profit. Totalitarianism is the end result and can only be overcome by revolution so we start all over again. Now, if you have something more than just your opinion, go ahead, but you have nothing other than your own words. Guaranteed, I can counter rhetoric with Obama's own words and the definitions of history and literature. I would be glad to entertain some actual facts on why Obama is not a socialist by definition. In actuality, this duck is a duck and this is not the "Change" you are looking for.
1269 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Political correctness allows anti-American groups to grow and do harm to Americans. It allows for complacency which leads to weakness and prevents laws from being enforced to protect Americans; essentially eliminating liberties. Obama has himself been guilty of promoting racism which is ironic since America voted for a black president. When Obama has applauded the socialist dictators of Latin America he is espousing socialism for America especially since his agenda is not merely suspiciously socialistic. Of course the majority of America is angry. His agenda is unconstitutional. I used to vote Democrat for 32 years until this president. If you can't see the relationship between the two or have any pride in your country's history perhaps, you should read, "The 5000 Year Leap" which will give you a clear comprehension of what our founders went through to create an ideal government system. I also suggest you look outside your leftist leanings for information. The facts are out there, I found them a few months ago and that is why I am no longer a Democrat. Take a look at the people he's surrounded himself with, people who think alike hang together. He's definitely a socialist and trying to push our country into financial hell. He admitted that the private sector was key to putting people back to work yet, he's bent on spending more "stimulus" dollars which didn't work the FIRST time. It was all a sham. He bitched and moaned for over 6 months about how he was "left with a 1.3 trillion dollar deficit" all the while he's pushing to spend more and more and now we're up to $7.6 trillion. Are all of the liberals in Washington crooked and corrupt? You bet they are and they are Progressives" which is a hidden term for Communist.
1261 days ago | Side: Socialistic
What the hell are you people talking about? What do you mean by "political correctness"? How does calling black people African-Americans lead to "eliminating liberties"? Obama has not promoted racism. Why do you think he has? What is his "agenda"? I can assure you it involves nothing more than improving the lives of the American people. I took a look at the people Obama has surrounded himself with. I see good Americans. The stimulus was not a sham, you're allegation that it was reflects a lack of understanding of economics. Short term deficit increases were necessary to clean up the messes Obama inherited when he took office. Deficit reduction will begin after we have taken care of them. (Source) You need to provide some concrete evidence for all of these outrageous accusations you're throwing around. Without any evidence, you just sound like a delusional idiot.
1260 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
You have given absolutely ZERO evidence that Obama is a socialist. In fact, anyone that knows anything about real socialism knows that Obama is no socialist. Bernie Sanders?? Now there's a socialist!
1300 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Gun control (same thing all communist countries did) fairness doctrine socialized healthcare government run buisnesses taking money away from hard working Americans & giving it to free loaders. Explain that. Obama is not a capitalist.
1298 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Gun control What about gun control? All countries have gun control. America had gun control laws before Obama was in office. And what exactly has he done with respect to gun laws that you don't like? 8fairness doctrine By your previous complaint about the fairness doctrine, it's almost abundantly clear that you don't know what it is or what it deals with. government run buisnesses There are currently no government run businesses. taking money away from hard working Americans & giving it to free loaders Like who? Explain that. Obama is not a capitalist.* I can explain these things quite easily. Your head is filled with misconceptions, vagaries and outright lies.
1298 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
you label all poor people as "Free Loaders", be definition if you feel that way then you must label all rich people as "the most attractive, smart, powerful, best people in the world" even the ones who rode there daddies coat tails to the top. And about gun control, a taser and knowing how to use martial arts is a far better way of self defense unless you want to go hunting. Also, taxes increase a lot under republican leadership to. And so far, America has no Gov't run business unless you count the stuff thats been there for 100's of years like the postal services.
1293 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
"Gun control" What has Obama actually DONE in this area?? Nothing. "fairness doctrine" Again, what has Obama actually DONE in this area?? Nothing. "socialized healthcare" I WISH that Obama's plan was a single payer health care system, but it isn't, period. "government run buisnesses" Absolutely ZERO businesses in the USA are being run by govt. bureaucrats, period. "taking money away from hard working Americans & giving it to free loaders." Exactly how many tax increases has Obama implemented so far?? Zero, in fact, he's CUT the payroll taxes for over 90% of Americans, period!
1296 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Health Care...what has he done in this area? NOTHING! A lack of accomplishment is not a lack of attempting. Just glad there are correct thinking Americans out there blocking his way. But hey! He did win a Nobel Peace prize for "trying"
1295 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"Health Care...what has he done in this area? NOTHING!" He's already gotten the health care insurance companies to cut 1.5% out of the cost of health care for every year over the next 10 years. Also, he's gotten hospitals to agree to accept slightly less in the way of payments from the govt. as it relates to health care. I frankly don't know HOW he was able to pull this off already, but he has, period.
1295 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Man I'm getting tired of typing this. AHEM!!! The Living Webster Encyclopedic Dictionary of the English Language. And I quote..."socialism, A theory or method of social organization and government wherby the citizenry jointly owns he means of production and distribution, and the power of administrative control is vested in the state; in Marxism, an intermediate state which must necessarily follow capitalism before the goal ot a totally lassless society can become a functional reality. socialist, One who advocates socialism; a person who belongs to a political party so named. socialize, To render social, as to suit something to the uses or needs of society; to render sociable, as to make fit for life in companionship with others; to render socialistic, as to establish or regulate according to the theories of socialism. To participate in friendly interchange with other people. Now, that being said. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States do I recall anything about the government being entitled to the power of creating an equal society. Sure, it is nice that some elected officials truly want to help their fellow man, but it does not take long for greed to get a grip and turn things upside down. The statement that there is no evidence Obama is not a socialist, are you kidding me? Government mandated health care? You all know what mandate means don't you? Being commanded to do so. That means YOUR government is wanting to command everyone in this country to get healthcare. Again, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States do I ever remember seeing anything about the entitlement of power given to the government to demand anything from the Soveriegn (us, as in We The People).
1297 days ago | Side: Socialistic
It appears like several people on this site believe that, if a person promotes or believes in a particular course of action then that alone can make a person anything that is associated with that action. You mention that because Obama is suggesting mandated healthcare he is socialist. You assume that government mandates are socialistic and thus obama is a socialist. It also happens to be the case that mandates exist in countries ruled by fascists or democratically elected presidents. In the US we have laws (mandates) that you can't rob or kill someone. Does this make the US socialist what about the person who came up with this law? No. Also most US states mandate that you have car insurance. Does this make the US or advocates of such a mandate socialist? No. Fascists are often associated with state executions so would that make proponents of the death penalty in america fascists? No. If you examine the healthcare plan that obama offers you will see that as a whole it is capitalistic or at least not socialistic. I already mentioned in another post but for your convenience I will point out more about the capitalistic nature of the plan. 1) The public option is a vast pool of resources that is bought in bulk from other health providers. In actuality the plan is merely a government insurance company that promises to be cheaper yet remain competitive with other companies. a) The government won't fix prices that operations or prescriptions must adhere to. The prices will drop because the government can buy in bulk and thus create savings. 2) The public option is an OPTION you don't have to choose it. You have the OPTION of keeping your own insurance company that you purchased or get from your employer. a) being able to choose your provider means that the market is still the ultimate manipulator of prices. If the government provides cheaper and better healthcare, using market strategies then it will because of the market that you decide to purchase that healthcare. 3) This plan retains the health insurance companies and allows them to choose their own prices and methods. It does not close them down or set artificial price ceilings or floors. a) it merely requires that the insurance companies don't drop already paying customers if they have a precondition. b) it also requires that the insurance companies don't discriminately price their services or products based on someone's' health. If you are judging obama and his actions, and this bill is a reflection of his actions, on one association between the actions and the methodology then shouldn't you be saying he is a capitalist? There are more capitalistic features in the bill than socialistic and the capitalistic ones are also of a greater magnitude.
1297 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Mandatory laws against robbery and killing are worlds apart from forced health care. Roberry is a violation against another persons private property. Killing is a violation against another persons life. A violent act. Both immoral, but robbery is not considered violent. So, by your comparison, an individual that does not buy health insurance, is an immoral act towards another person. Hmm. That's some pretty messed up logic. You state that there wil lbe an option. You do not have to get the government policy, BUT you have to be insured none-the-less, or else face fines and penalies. THAT my friend is communism, whatever form. So before you try to get all factual on me, think about this. Communism is a type of government that makes law that infringes on peoples freedom of choice, no matter what. This Republic was set up to not infringe, in any way, upon the personal choices of it's citizens, so long as the choice was not contradictory of morality.
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
First of all, I was pointing out that there are already institutions in place that resemble your definition of socialism, I was not saying I agree with them (the auto insurance and the health insurance mandates). The mandates means that the health insurance companies will be guaranteed customers. That doesn't seem very socialistic to me, the promise that a corporation will make a lot of money at the expense of the common people and workers. It's a ceo's and stockholder's dream come true. Yes the republic was set up to not infringe on a persons rights, so why is there such a large population of Americans, a majority being conservative, who fight against same-sex marriage, marijuana, and abortion? Opposing these are all infringements on a person's rights yet many believe the government should infringe on those rights. Are all those people, who happen to be mainly conservatives, communists? Generally, not at all.
1293 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
"The statement that there is no evidence Obama is not a socialist, are you kidding me? Government mandated health care? You all know what mandate means don't you? Being commanded to do so. That means YOUR government is wanting to command everyone in this country to get healthcare. Again, nowhere in the Constitution of the United States do I ever remember seeing anything about the entitlement of power given to the government to demand anything from the Soveriegn (us, as in We The People)." Well, if you think that Obama's health care plan in "unConstitutional", then I guess that govt.-mandated auto insurance and things like Medicare & Medicaid are also "unConstitutional", which there aren't BTW. Oh well...
1296 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Government mandated auto insurance is a must. Why? When you are on the road, you, through simply being in a motorized box of steel, create a risk of injury and or death to all other motorists on the same road, therefore, needing to protect the other guy. That is the reason why there are different levels of protection and is solely up to you to make the judgement on which is right for you. But still yet, it is not mandatory in all states, although they do have some sort of program. As I stated before, the reason for auto insurance is mainly to protect the other guy which is completely different than health insurance. So, your rebuttle there is null. Medicare and medicaid? These two programs are, although tax payer funded, are completely voluntary, not mandatory. The "un"Constitutional aspects of Mr. Obamas' "plans" are that health care BE mandatory, i.e. forced. Again, your rebuttle is voided.
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"Government mandated auto insurance is a must. Why? When you are on the road, you, through simply being in a motorized box of steel, create a risk of injury and or death to all other motorists on the same road, therefore, needing to protect the other guy." Hmmmm, it seems like having mandatory health care coverage would insure that a minimum of sick people would be going around infecting everyone else. "Medicare and medicaid? These two programs are, although tax payer funded, are completely voluntary, not mandatory." How is Medicare & Medicaid (otherwise known as two wildly popular & successful govt.-run health care systems) "unConstitutional" then?? "Again, your rebuttle is voided" ...in your own mind that is...lol... There is NOTHING "unConstitutional" in the current health care reform packages, period.
1289 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
No evidence is necessary. It is self evident...wait a sec where have I heard that one : ) Constant interference in the individuals right to make decisions for themselves. Interference or just plain take over of education, banks, auto industry, housing, health care, guns, media, ....man the list is almost endless. Self evident.
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
the rest of the world is more important. 6 billion vs 300 million, which is more. We have the power help something other than are selfs so we should
1295 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
No one in this world is more important than my family. No one! I will help all that I can and the the people of the USA have always been the most generous of all the world but we do this at OUR discretion. All power of the government comes from us. Not the other way around They have no power to do what we cannot..that is take from one to give to another...except from the point of a gun. They are no different than a thug on the street.
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
i agree that our power comes for the people, but thats a very communist thing to say; after all, China (the PEOPLES Republic of China) and other socialist nations try to make the people the leaders by makeking everyone the same. Personly, if i could save my family of for, or 6 billion people i would chose the 6 billion because im not the only one who has a family and neither are you, with out them there is not you.
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Nothing Communist about what I said and actually its the governments power that comes from the people...not the peoples. That "power" or our "rights" are natural and self evident. China's use of the name "Peoples Republic" is propaganda. They are almost completely dominated in every facet of their lives by the government. Even in what little economic freedom they are "allowed" to have by that government. That is not power from the people. Also the term republic has no place in Red China http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/republic As far as your statement about "everyone being the same" in no way shape or form can anyone say that there is a place on this earth where everyone is the equal. Even in the USA. The main difference is in the USA everyone is born equal with the RIGHT to become unequal.
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
i never said that China was a nation driven by the people, but most socialist nations ARE driven by the people. And Obama hasn't done anything Socialist yet, even his health care is not socialist because it is not being entitled to all of America, only the ones who don't have it already. I don't see whats so wrong about trying to keep people healthy, no matter what the cost. Every human life is importance, from the poorest beggar to the riches person and every and all in between.
1292 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
"...i agree that our power comes for the people, but thats a very communist thing to say; after all, China (the PEOPLES Republic of China) and other socialist nations" My apologies. I must have been confused by the way you highlighted the "Peoples" in the Peoples Republic of China and then grouped them in with other countries that you consider socialist. "...And Obama hasn't done anything Socialist yet, even his health care is not socialist because it is not being entitled to all of America, only the ones who don't have it already" Well I have to admit I am going to split hairs here...if I am am not mistaken...and I very well could be... Obama has no plan as of yet it is all Reid or Baucus or Pelosi bills so he gets a bit of slack here but not much as he is an import driving force in the whole matter. But all these bills will eventually require ALL people in USA to be on the Government plan. Also I have to disagree with you, respectively, that Obama has done nothing socialistic yet. He has committed , in my opinion, many socialistic actions since taking office and plans many more. From trying to control wages to firing executives of PRIVATE companies. And he is not finished yet. This is just opinion here but I believe he will sign ANY bill that comes to him so that he can claim a victory. "...I don't see whats so wrong about trying to keep people healthy, no matter what the cost." I don't either! As long as it is ME that gets to choose where MY money goes...not being forced to by others. But "real" life requires us to be aware of the ultimate cost. The cost can, and will most likely will, bankrupt this country. Who then will pay for our health care? The Chinese? Thank you for your response.
1292 days ago | Side: Socialistic
those things arn't very socalist that you said... "firing executives of PRIVATE companies..." that is a very capalist thing to do in my opion. Cut out the dieased parts before they spead. That CEO got us into this by trying to make more money in unstable loans and such. If you don't win, you lose. And NONE of the plans requires every one to be on a gov't plan. This plan will lower the prices of private healthcare. health care cost more in America than anyother place in the world because of coprate greed. You can get the same health plans for less in Mexico and get better treatement (unless your a CEO or old rich dude, then in America your paper cuts are more grave than that guy who's arm got cut off)
1291 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
I would agree with you that firing executives from companies IS a very capitalistic thing to do when you are fired from your job in the private sector by your boss. It is socialistic when a private citizen is fired from his job by a politician. I have to disagree with your assertion that none of the bills will require us to be on the government plan. While they may or may not allow you at first to not participate the environment is being created that will "nudge" us all into that trap through penalties on our employers as well as private citizens. And all of the plans that have a "public option" or "consumer option" or what ever euphemism one chooses to use, have triggers set up so that when the government decides that certain guidelines are not met, forced enrollment in the government plan is required. That should be interesting as all the politicians I have heard acknowledge that the only way any of these plans can work is if every citizen is on their plan. Better treatment in Mexico? I seriously doubt that. Otherwise people from all over the world would go there to get treated instead of coming to USA. The reason Health care cost more in the US than anywhere else is because it is the BEST and because it is less subsidized by the government here than anywhere else. Don't forget that when the government subsidizes ANYTHING it is with OUR money as they have none of their own. They must take it from us to give it to others. Thank you for your response.
1290 days ago | Side: Socialistic
actually, alot of people do that in California and more south states, but most Mexicans can not afore the health care even if its cheaper that many parts of the world, is only useful if you live in a city with a hospital in it.
1290 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
This is interesting as I live in the South. It has never been my experience that people here go to Mexico for anything other than drugs or vacation. Any stats to back that up? It would be interesting to look at the demographics of stats of that type. Thank you for your response
1290 days ago | Side: Socialistic
I agree. Not only do we need to think about the future results of our actions now, but we also need to realize what this nation was founded on... GOD. One nation under God~!
1302 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"...but we also need to realize what this nation was founded on... GOD. One nation under God~!" No it wasn't. Do you know what Article 11 of the The Treaty of Tripoli is? It was a declaration of peace between The United States and the Tripoli of Barbary, signed in 1796 (only 20 years after the Declaration of Independence), which stated: "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." [source]
1299 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Give me proof that Obama is a full green capitalist. Cause theres not an ounnce of capitalism in him.
1298 days ago | Side: Socialistic
and where is your proof? I see words and no facts. If he was a socialist he would of not bailed out the Auto Makers and try to do all the things he is doing. Mexico has free health care, and Canada, and the UK and they are not even close to socialism. I belive the Conservatives in Canada introduced Universal Healthcare to there nation.
1293 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Well, all of Obama's efforts to create a real revolution in green jobs in the USA should be proof enough that he is in favor of BOTH having the USA be more energy independent AND having U.S. companies make more money on green jobs (most of which cannot be outsourced).
1296 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Just so you know I don't COMPLETELY disagree with you on all of your points but feel compelled to chime in on some things. "As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,..." ABSOLUTELY...but!!! There is a huge difference between "founded on the Christian Religion" and being founded on the PRINCIPLES of the Christian religion. Anyone who has spent any time reading the letters of the Founding Fathers can come to no other conclusion but that they absolutely had a great respect and admiration of Cristian principles, regardless of their own choice of religion, and believed that leaders of free men could not succeed with out them. Also, there is a great difference between the "separation OF church and state" and the "separation of church FROM state" The founding fathers believed that religion was a personal decision and that it was not up to the state to decided which if any religion should be adhered to. This is where the "separation OF church and state" come from However they most certainly believed that those who felt called to "positions of honor" or that of the position of leadership of free people should have a great understanding of Judeo-Christian principles in order to lead properly and that there should not be a separation of church FROM state.
1295 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"Also, there is a great difference between the 'separation OF church and state' and the 'separation of church FROM state'" Well, be that as it may, we have the former, not the latter in the USA...and a longstanding tradition of it that is directly supported by the Founders, period.
1289 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
No argument on the first part of your message. I was just trying to point out the differences. I also believe it was NOT the Founding Fathers intentions for us to have this so called "separation" as is interpreted today. That is just my opinion. But on the second part it is easy to argue that the Founding Fathers definitely supported the idea that men who aspire to Positions of Honor should definitely have a deep understating of the Judeo-Christian principles in order to lead FREE men. I have some letters in a book at home...I would be glad to provide some examples from it if you like. Looking forward to your response. PERIOD : _ )~
1287 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"I also believe it was NOT the Founding Fathers intentions for us to have this so called 'separation' as is interpreted today. That is just my opinion" ...which is fine, but it flies directly in the face of what the Founders actually said at the time. Look, a lot of these guys came over here for the main reason that they were tired of an oppressive govt. telling them how to live based on the teachings of a particular religion. Religion isn't based on fact...it's based on faith. We need a govt. that deals in facts, not faith. "But on the second part it is easy to argue that the Founding Fathers definitely supported the idea that men who aspire to Positions of Honor should definitely have a deep understating of the Judeo-Christian principles in order to lead FREE men." Let's say that this was true (and I really doubt that it was given the makeup of the Founders)...I don't believe at all that one needs to believe in God (whether it's a Christian or Jewish God) to believe that the concepts of love thy neighbor, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, turn the other cheek, etc., etc. are valid ideas to live by. The Founders were a lot smarter than many in our modern world give them credit for. Sure, they screwed up issues related to slavery and equal rights for women, Native Americans & non-property owners, but they were very smart in the way that they crafted the U.S. Constitution, which does not mention "God" once BTW.
1287 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
1. Actually I am pretty sure that the Founding Fathers were born in the Colonies. They did not come here from Europe. Also they considered themselves loyal British citizens and were driven to revolution based on a lack of representation in that government and not by religious reasons. But I do understand what you are trying to say about the original colonists. 2. I did not say "believe in a god". I said "follow PRINCIPLES". So on this one you and I agree on some level? 3. I disagree that they screwed up on these issues. They were shrewd politicians and I think that they understood that there were some things that would be deal breakers such as slavery. That there would be NO Constitution if they tried to push that agenda. However they were the most amazing group of leaders the world has ever seen and they had the wisdom to craft a document that would sew the seeds of freedom that eventually accomplish the goals that you mentioned here. I am curious what you mean by screwing up on non-property owners. Are you referring to the idea that if you did not own property you could not vote? Could you elaborate for me please? Thanks for you time and effort man.
1286 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"Actually I am pretty sure that the Founding Fathers were born in the Colonies." Tell that to Thomas Paine & Alexander Hamilton. In any event, some of the Founders were born in Colonial America, which was run (very harshly I might add) by the British from afar...hence the Revolution. "Also they considered themselves loyal British citizens" LOL...I don't think they would have revolted if this were really true. If anything, the Loyalists considered themselves "loyal British citizens"...so much so that many of them moved to Canada (or elsewhere within the British Empire) after the Revolution. "So on this one you and I agree on some level?" Maybe, but it's wrong to try & state that this country was founded on "Judeo-Christian values", since many of the Founders (especially some of the main ones like Jefferson & Franklin) didn't even believe in organized religion at all. Several of the Founders also considered themselves to basically be deists. One of the main founders of my old home state of RI is a great example of the way a lot of them (certainly not all of them) felt about religion. Roger Williams (who was born in England BTW) was a notable proponent of religious toleration and the separation of church & state. He, at the same time, was known to be one of the biggest pains in the butt to the people that were running MA at the time, and he felt that he held himself to a much higher standard of living in terms of how one should be a "man of God" in one's personal life. For both these reasons, he was exiled and ended up forming what we now know to be RI. He was able to separate civil matters from religious matters, even while he took religious matters very, very seriously, and he felt very strongly that people should be allowed to live their religious lives as they please & not be forced by anyone to do something religious that they didn't want to. "I disagree that they screwed up on these issues." Whatever...the fact is that they got those issues wrong from the start. No man or woman is perfect, and I feel that it's wrong to deify the Founders as such. "I am curious what you mean by screwing up on non-property owners. Are you referring to the idea that if you did not own property you could not vote?" Exactly.
1286 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
That may or may not be what it says by you need to check the history records~! V
1299 days ago | Side: Socialistic
1298 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
We are debating whether Obama is a full red communist or a full green capitalist. Not whether this country is Christian.
1298 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"We are debating whether Obama is a full red communist or a full green capitalist" ...and you're losing. "Not whether this country is Christian." Tell that to the people that are falsely arguing that the USA is a "Christian nation".
1296 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
This nation was NOT founded on "One nation under God". It was founded on, in part, the separation of church & state, as stated quite eloquently by some of our key Founders at the time. The phrase "Under God" was officially incorporated into the Pledge of Allegiance only in 1954...not 1776!
1300 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Obama is a full red communist. There's no question to it. I wonder why he won't admit it.
1298 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"Obama is a full red communist. There's no question to it." You've given exactly ZERO evidence of this, period. BTW, the era of Red Herrings actually working is over...look into it.
1296 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
(With apologies to Vonnegut), doesn't everything socialist just make you want to throw up? Like public schools, health care for all, policemen, fire departments, public parks, Social Security, and unemployment benefits? Every time I hear this argument, I'm always amazed. Astounded, really. Don't you people realize that socialism is all around you? Don't you realize that socialism does not lead to dead grandmas and Jesus crying crocodile tears and puppies being run through meat grinders? Do you even know what socialism is? I pay taxes that support public schools, yet have no children and have been out of public school for over 10 years. Is there a better example of socialism? I should be outraged, right?
1298 days ago | Side: Socialistic
ummm yes he is trying to give more power to the government and take it away from the people. socialism is the first step towrds communism and u know how that ends up... not good is how that ends up. throughout american history we have gone through recesions and have come out of them due to a great presidents work. Reagan lowered taxes. and didnt give more power to the government.
1279 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"Reagan lowered taxes" ...before he raised them, and he ended up blowing a HUGE hole in the federal budget as a result.
1267 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Obama does not have an ounce of capitalism in him. Whether you dimwits believe it or not he is in fact a full red communist. If he's not then give me proof he's a capitalist.
1298 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Calling people names does NOTHING to further your "arguments", period.
1296 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
1295 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Your first link is merely an opinion piece from the "conservative" AIM website. It proves nothing objectively. I've read the FMD Wiki entry, and I've already addressed it previously. There is ZERO evidence that Obama was "mentored" by this guy. "Here are just a few oh I forgot to mention his other Communist buddy Ayers." Wow, a whole year has gone by & you guys are still talking about Ayers, who has been proven to have little to NO contact with Obama. Ayers has NOTHING to do with the current Obama administration, period. It's nice to know that there's neither any smoke NOR fire in your argument. Thanks! :)
1295 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Yeah we are still talking about it. You hypocrite! If this was Bush you left nuts would still be talking about it and want his head on a silver platter. They still talk about Bush and he has been out of office for 10 months. You have your head stuck in the sand and you are in total denial. Do I need to go down the list of connections with Obama from his Reverend buddy for 20 years and then acted like this is not the man I knew Fucking BS. then his buddy who Gates in Boston who has Marxist ties and acted like an A hole and then Obama's whole reaction to that. It just keeps going and they are all from the same cloth. So don't just tell me that all of this is coincidence. Have you heard Obama read the dreams of my father that whole book is Racist. But how dare do I contest being a white man for I will be called one. There's a double standard right now and our freedoms and what I recognize our country to be at this time and how this fucked up admin is trying to change the whole complexion of what America is. 2012 he's done one hit wonder. You know I voted for him because he comes across nice and sounded like a Conservative blue dog near the end of the campaign but as soon as he got in you saw the real person and it doesn't sit well that's why the media and his polls are plummeting we got sold on something that is but it's not what we thought.
1294 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
"You hypocrite!" Excuse me?? Seriously, leave your petty personal attacks at the door. I grow tired of them silly man... "They still talk about Bush and he has been out of office for 10 months" ...and that's not a lot of time yanno...sheesh... "Do I need to go down the list of connections with Obama from his Reverend buddy for 20 years" No, since Obama never held ANY of his former pastor's controversial views, period. That was another red herring that the Right-wing & the press at the time tried to sell to the American people, and they didn't buy it, peirod! "then his buddy who Gates in Boston who has Marxist ties and acted like an A hole and then Obama's whole reaction to that." Obama's initial reaction was stupid to the Gates thing, but Gates isn't a Marxist, period. "Have you heard Obama read the dreams of my father that whole book is Racist" ...in your wild opinion that is. "2012 he's done one hit wonder" ...in your wildest dreams that is...lol...
1289 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
All you have to do is look at Obama's mentors and it's obvious that he has deep Marxist sentiment. Obama even has said that Frank Marshall Davis was his childhood mentor. He has even admitted that he attended and read communist literature and has friends that he admires who are communist. The evidence goes even deeper just google Frank Marshall Davis and Obama has ties to all of it. Almost no argument here.
1296 days ago | Side: Socialistic
I don't know when it was a crime to read communist literature but if he did read it at least he was able to see a different view of the world. I'm assuming that since you make a big deal about someone reading a book about communism or with such tendencies that you have never read such a book. If that is so how can you actually understand communism if you've never tried to learn from the root of the idea and Form you Own opinion. why do so many conservatives etc... believe that who one associates with even if it was when they were young or for a short time, defines that person forever? I believe current actions by a person are a better way to define a person than the past associations.
1295 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
"Obama even has said that Frank Marshall Davis was his childhood mentor." Ummm, this guy was a friend of Obama's grandfather, period. He died in 1987 when Obama was only 26! "He has even admitted that he attended and read communist literature and has friends that he admires who are communist." Like who?? Let's see your "evidence"...
1296 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Dude are you really that naive? He has. Just type in the words Frank Marshall Davis. So he was 26 when he died Um-mm I think that is considered an adult and he would had plenty of time to have known him so why you put that up there makes no sense. Go look into it I think you really know but don't want to know. Why do you think he has had his records sealed? Mainly so that we cannot read anything he has written in college like his thesis which most believe is straight from Frank Marshall. I like the guy and i even voted for him but I don't like his far left policies as yesterday's voting reflected that. Evidence just the fact alone that he has gone through and sealed his records the only president ever I might add should raise a red flag. But his relationship is well documented with Frank Marshall Davis.
1295 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"Just type in the words Frank Marshall Davis." I already had, and there's NOTHING to your ramblings about him, period. "Go look into it I think you really know but don't want to know." LOL...keep dreaming... "Why do you think he has had his records sealed?" Who's records are "sealed"?? "Evidence just the fact alone that he has gone through and sealed his records the only president ever I might add should raise a red flag." Ummmm, GWB sent most of his records from TX to his daddy's Presidential Library after he was selected by the Supreme Court in 2000 yanno. Learn some history my troubled friend...
1295 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Dude if you type his name in and you see nothing you are either the biggest bullshitter around or your are using a commodore 64 from the 1980's are F&*% kidding me. i just type his name in Frank Marshall Davis Google and there was 1.5 million references to him. Dumb ass Bush sent it off but he still made it public and thats why you even know about it. Dude i don't say this to many people but your lame ass.
1294 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"Dude if you type his name in and you see nothing you" Did I ever say that?? Nope, that's a strawman argument. "Dumb ass Bush sent it off but he still made it public" No, he really didn't. Sealed records mean that they are sealed from view my friend. "Dude i don't say this to many people but your lame ass" ...and you apparently don't know how to spell, but none of that furthers anyone's arguments here...so skip it...
1289 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
The more I read your stuff the more I realize how completely clueless you are. You don't even know about him sealing his records? That is public knowledge that he did that. You can't pull anything up on Obama about anything that relates to his personal and background mainly his published college thesis. But you will probably come back and say that there's nothing out there that you can find. Are you for real or are you just like to raise cane for the hell of it? Like i said I put in Frank Marshall Davis and there is 1.5 million references to him so I don't know what your smoking.
1294 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"You don't even know about him sealing his records?" No, and you've provided absolutely ZERO evidence here that Obama has sealed ANY records at all! Once again, all you are apparently left with at the end of the day is silly personal attacks, which do nothing for your "arguments", period.
1289 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Everybody who does not see this must not know how hard it is to start a business and make a profit. Obama has not shown much of any support for the private sector which creates all of the jobs. I think that 2010 when the mid term elections hit it will be a rude awakening. People like Obama the man but they don't like his policies and that ripple is already being felt by the White House.
1295 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"Obama has not shown much of any support for the private sector which creates all of the jobs." Ummm, what about all the efforts that he's been dedicating to enhancing the green economy in the USA?? What about all the tax cuts in the stimulus bill for businesses??
1295 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
OK so how many jobs has that created? just green tech alone is not going to help recover what we have lost. It's simple you don't put all of your eggs in one basket hoping that they will be OK and if something does then what, your fucked. Go learn something Most of the Stimulus went to government infrastructure oh and Acorn and you know what Acorn has done lately congress had to put an emergency order to stop from them receiving any of it because of their latest incidents.. There are no tax cuts for any private sector but only for green tech. look at the recent elections in Virgina how Conservatives took over it should be a sign that we are not impressed with big government taking over or the policies therof.
1294 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
"OK so how many jobs has that created?" By the goverment's count, about 650,000 jobs. "just green tech alone is not going to help recover what we have lost" ...and no one has said that here or elsewhere, period. That's another strawman argument. "It's simple you don't put all of your eggs in one basket hoping that they will be OK" ...which is why many of us want more investment in real, alternative, renewable, infinite sources of energy, period. "Most of the Stimulus went to government infrastructure" ...you mean like roads & bridges & the like?? Sounds good to me! "and Acorn and you know what Acorn has done lately congress had to put an emergency order to stop from them receiving any of it because of their latest incidents." What does that have to do with anything?? You're just rambling now my friend... "There are no tax cuts for any private sector but only for green tech." Nonsense, go read some FACTS for a change! "look at the recent elections in Virgina how Conservatives took over it should be a sign that we are not impressed with big government taking over or the policies therof." Ummm, the idea that VA was ever a "liberal bastion" to begin with is silly on the face of it. I was personally surprised that Obama won states like that & IN & NC in 2008.
1289 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
give me one tax cut for small business that you know of in the Stimulus. Good luck at trying to find that one when you do get back to me.
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"give me one tax cut for small business that you know of in the Stimulus. Good luck at trying to find that one when you do get back to me." LOL...here ya go: -As of the end of August 2009, 19% of the stimulus had been outlaid or gone to American taxpayers or business in the form of tax reductions. http://www.slate.com/id/2232185/ -Bonus depreciation: $5 billion to extend a provision allowing businesses buying equipment such as computers to speed up its depreciation through 2009. -Money losing companies: $19.5 billion to allow companies, with revenue under $5 million, to use current losses to offset profits made in the previous five years, instead of two, making them eligible for tax refunds. Thanks for proving once & for all that you have ZERO facts to back up your wild rhetoric on these issues, period.
1289 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
I am surprised. I am new to this website and I didn't think that I could find socialists here. I was just about the only one at my last site. I will warn you however, sometimes I become rather Communistic. Anyway... I have no issue with sharing our countries prosperities with everyone within. That is Socialism. I think that everything should be free as long as we respectively give what we can.
1295 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Capitalism doesn't work. We figured that out the hard way. It's time for change. Open your eyes... Look into what socialism is and you may find that in practice it works. Look at Canada. They practically have to import their crime!
1295 days ago | Side: Socialistic
OMG! You have to be kidding! Doesn't work? What do you think built this country to from basicaly farmers to be the greatest economic power on earth? It sure was not Lennin, Marx, Stalin , Mao, or any of the other socialist, marxist, or communist "Revolutionaries". Please name me one Socialist country that succeeded and before you start screaming China don't forget that the have been a huge user of capitalism wheather they want to call it that or not.
1293 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Canada. Too bad the impact of this statement has been reduced by me having to write a minimum of 50 Characters.
1293 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
:)~ :)~ :)~ :)~ :)~ :)~ :)~ ...I see what you mean!!!!!!!!!!!
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
No there's a non-argument is I've ever seen one. I hate when people do that. If you can't write 50 characters in favor of your own position, then skip it please.
1289 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
England Canada Japan Germany France Spain Australia Sweden Finland Greenland Iceland Norway Denmark Kuwait Andorra Monaco There you are!
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Less of an argument here from me than a observation as I realize from your response that everyone has a different idea of successful. This is to my chagrin! I suppose I would call those countries a successes if by success you mean that they are still on the map. Looks like most of your list was either partly supported by a free country at one time or still is and almost certainly set free from domination by one. I feel that the fact that they are still on the map does not mean that they were or are successful. They all lack basic freedom from overbearing governmental interference in their personal lives. England is my favorite though! They are 11 months closer to total collapse than we are.
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"I feel that the fact that they are still on the map does not mean that they were or are successful. They all lack basic freedom from overbearing governmental interference in their personal lives" ...in your opinion that is. "England is my favorite though! They are 11 months closer to total collapse than we are." Have any sources to back that wild claim up??
1289 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Only that of Daniel Hannan! Only that of Daniel Hannan! Only that of Daniel Hannan! Is that 50 characters? : )
1287 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Who the heck is he, and why should I care what he has to say (whatever that is)?? BTW, your "debate" style is quite pathetic.
1287 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Daniel Hanan is a member of the European Union. You should care because he is from UK so he has a dog in the hunt, he is very intelligent, and because I think your smart enough to look it up if your really interested. You are right that my last message was a bit on the lame side.....it was meant as a bit of a light hearted comment with a tiny bit of humor. One more thing..I was the one that voted up your response! No reason we cant have some fun here man. Thanks for your response!
1287 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Actually I would argue that my "opinion" has nothing to do with my statement . I would say that there is plenty evidence to back that up. Would you argue that citizens in Europe have the same level of freedom from intrusive government that we have here in the US? I would argue thats it not even close even in the UK which is the closest thing Europe has to freedom. Thanks for your response.
1287 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"I would say that there is plenty evidence to back that up." Well, let's see it then. "Would you argue that citizens in Europe have the same level of freedom from intrusive government that we have here in the US?" Yes, and, in some cases, even more in certain countries. But don't take my word for it. In reality, the social democracies of Northern Europe are the freest societies in the world according the UN. The UN's Human Freedom Index compares the amount of freedom that citizens of different countries enjoy. It considers the right to travel, assemble, and speak; the absence of forced labor, torture and other extreme legal punishment (such as the death penalty); freedom of political opposition, the press and trade unions; an independent judiciary; gender equality; and the legal right to trial, counsel of choice, privacy, religion and sexual practice. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UN_Human_Development_Report_2009.PNG http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Democracy_Index_2008.png http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2009_Freedom_House_world_map.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Civil_liberties_world.PNG
1287 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
BTW I checked your links out anyways. I did not want to be unwilling to at least look at your research. I need your opinion on something. To me the data seemed vague and could be used to prove either point. Your input on this please. Thanks for your patients
1286 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
"To me the data seemed vague and could be used to prove either point." Most of the graphs that I've shown you show that much of Europe is as free as the USA, and one of the graphs (Democracy Index 2008.png) shows that small portions of Europe (mostly northern Europe & a few of the smaller countries in west-central Europe...and even Canada & Australia!) are actually more free than the USA. This jives very nicely with my personal experiences & knowledge of these countries. I know it's hard to fathom that America might not be the most free place on Earth (gasp!), especially based on all the propaganda that we see from BOTH major U.S. political Parties & our horrific American media, but it's really not too hard to see if you broaden your experience.
1286 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
You and I will just have to disagree brother. I respect your research. Problem is I don't respect your sources. I do not accept the UN as a reliable source of independent research as they as many others have their own agenda. That data will be skewed to their individual points. I know that most resources are that way so I recognize that there will be bias in almost all sources right-left, yours-mine-theirs and so on. That being said... I would not take the UN's word on what time of the day it is. I could argue on almost any point the UN supports but any organization that would try to interfere with a parent/child relationship, believing that they know whats best for the worlds children better than the parent, is way to left for me to have any other opinion about them other than they are attempting to control peoples lives. They have their own agenda for one world government. The UN thinks that if a parent makes their child go to church, or if the try to teach their children religion, regardless of the religion, it is child abuse. Seriously? Nor do I trust Wiki for accurate info as they are built as much on opinion as they are facts. I respect your opinion and your passion I just don't agree with you. Thank you for your time and effort on this debate. Voting you up for you efforts and passion!
1286 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"Problem is I don't respect your sources. I do not accept the UN as a reliable source of independent research as they as many others have their own agenda." Hey, you don't like the UN. Well, fine, but the UN really doesn't have it in for the USA...they are located IN the USA afterall yanno. I don't agree with everything that the UN says as well, but their graphs are just displays of actual data that they've gathered. "I could argue on almost any point the UN supports but any organization that would try to interfere with a parent/child relationship, believing that they know whats best for the worlds children better than the parent, is way to left for me to have any other opinion about them other than they are attempting to control peoples lives." What are you even talking about here?? "They have their own agenda for one world government." Oh my, another "one world govt." conspiracy guy...ugh...this isn't going in a very good direction. "The UN thinks that if a parent makes their child go to church, or if the try to teach their children religion, regardless of the religion, it is child abuse. Seriously?" Where have they said that?? What does that have to do with the graphs that I've shown you?? "Nor do I trust Wiki for accurate info as they are built as much on opinion as they are facts." Ugh...and yet another "I don't trust Wikipedia" person. Look, if you don't like a source that has actual facts, and actual sourced links to back up those facts, then I guess Wiki isn't going to be your cup of tea. The fact is that the links that I gave you were merely links to graphs that are located on Wikipedia but are derived from actual data from actual groups like the UN, the Economist's Democracy Index, and Freedom House. All those original sources are stated, and you can check their own websites to verify the data. It's really not that hard...
1286 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
American stock brokers are scraping their teeth on the floor because the system therein allowed them to play with everyones money.
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Are you saying that the money that individuals invested was taken from them by force? Of course not sir! Everyone who invests recognizes there are risks and those that don't were dabbling in things they should not have been. A fool and his money are soon parted.
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
I'm saying it is rediculous to "buy" value. These multimillion dollar companies are hoarding their money and preventing economic flow. Throw on top "risky" investors whom gamble on hopes and you get a ticking time bomb. The money I spend (emphasis on: s p e n d ) may never return because of this. How am I suppose to feel with my silver spoon stuck in somebody elses mouth?
1292 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Thank you for a response free of accusations, name calling, or abusive sarcasm. "...How am I suppose to feel with my silver spoon stuck in somebody else's mouth?" This is an interesting comment coming from a self described socialist. Believe me I feel your silver spoon pain! You have a great perspective on how regular everyday people feel when YOU are robbed by the government to supply others, regardless of who they are, with YOUR silver spoon! Its your silver spoon! You worked for it. You should be able to keep it. And ONLY you should get to make the choice of helping others.
1292 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Do you feel like government has or is going to have more control over your life and with what has happened with this admin. Here is a cut and paste from Wiki that defines socialism we are there already and going deeper. Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources, and a society characterized by equal access to resources for all individuals with a method of compensation based on the amount of labor expended.[1][2][3]
1296 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"Do you feel like government has or is going to have more control over your life and with what has happened with this admin." No, but thanks for asking. Under Obama so far, the super-vast majority of people are paying LESS in payroll taxes. We also no longer have an official policy of torturing people, and spying on Americans without due process. That sounds like LESS govt. intrusion to me! "Socialism refers to various theories of economic organization advocating public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production" OK, now how has Obama himself, since he's been in office, taken over "public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production"??
1289 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
OBAMA IS SO FOR SOCIALISM. People need to stop beating around the bush here.. honestly... Obama speaks for EQUALITY amoung all.. okay that's awesome glad we are all equal. But, at the end of the day.. CAPITALISM is what America is about. If we are all equal no body is going to want to work to be the best. Capitalism creates competition in the work force, the best roofer with the best price wins. Socialism would be like putting 10 roofing companies in a hat, and saying draw one. Completely pointless, and we lose quality work like there is no tomorrow. I wouldn't work for my grades if I was given an A for everything. Same with socialism.. if schools were social then we wouldn't have a valedictorian, we wouldn't have students trying like crazy to get good grades to get into good schools. Socialism= LAZY
594 days ago | Side: Socialism equals lazy
Duh, he was raised as a socialist there is no argument here if you think otherwise then you don't know what socialism is. For Obama the great thing about being a Socialist is that Socialism needs Capitalism in order to work. If you even doubt that he is a socialist you can pull up his audio book on the the dreams of my father Obama himself reads it. Here is a great link that is very well done and accurate. i love this opening statement so I pasted it for your intrigue. People who say Obama is NOT a socialist are either blind or they purposefully don’t want to admit it. He’s made it more than clear that he wants socialist ideas put into practice. We should be very concerned about this!!!!!!!!!! http://bridgetdgms.wordpress.com/2008/04/07/obama-supports-socialism-more-proof/
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
"he was raised as a socialist" ...which is yet another wild statement made by the likes of you with absolutely ZERO evidence to back it up! Your "quotes" are just more ramblings from the Right-wing blogoshere...nothing more or less...
1289 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
|
Britain isn't a socialist and has had a national health service for many years. Only idiots call him socialist.. To all you intelligent Americans out there... this is what the world sees as America - these few retards that burn Obama signs and call him socialist, anti-american, anti-christ etc. just for bringing in something that in no way is Socialist.
1297 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Have you ever take to an actual Brit or know people who live their. I do. They absolutely hate their health care system. For the most part the hospitals are dirty and the service is horrible even further my friend who lives there got into a bad crash here in American and was thankful she told me for certain that she would have died if she was in Britain.
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Bullshit. For the most part NHS is an efficient and extremely useful service. You CANNOT look at the NHS in a tangeable sense. Not only does that mean you're putting prices on lives but it means that you see health only as a monetary thing. Public schools - Are they socialistic? Police service - Is that socialistic? Fire Department - Is that socialistic? Military - Is that socialistic? If no then why is national health systems socialistic? If yes then why don't you argue against those services??
1292 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
You have to look at the definition of Socialism. True Socialism is defined as state owned of an industry and ownership of it's capital. Military, Schools, Police, and most fire not all fire dept are funded by big bro but by tax payers by which the city it is in. The constitutional allows for Government to take roll in protection and to bare arms in defense for our country. The key to Socialism is government having a stake in the profits or a company. Police, Schools and Fire they are not out making money they perform a public service there is no bottom line revenue for Gov to take. Where the problem lies is when they start to take over equities or private sector, GM, the banks, Cap and trade, Your health care single payer system. These are all revenue makers and government having claim in it. Right now the hot topic is Health Care which the bill right now is horrible and it will kill private health care and is all on a single payer system, with no other competition that is true Socialism killing private business to redeem your own. The bill right now as stands does this and Nancy Pelosi has not been shy about saying this. Some Social things we have are fine but what is left? So now they have cars, energy, banks, health care. Combine everything together there is not much left that the Government does not have and the line moves more towards Socialism.
1292 days ago | Side: Socialistic
LOOL!. Wow. The government does not make money from this new health care bill. Infact it isn't even actual national health care. It's just giving poor people the oppurtunity to get healthcare. They're definately not social reforms. lol. You're blinded to the truth by saying that. It's something new in America and the right-wing people are afraid. How does the government have cars, energy and banks? lol. Stop reading right wing propaganda. Read both sides atleast.
1292 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
I'm blinded they make money of of it by taxes that they will raise to pay for it that's how Gov makes their money dumb-ass by taxes you should know that. I'm all for giving health care to poor people but the main reason this bill won't pass even though they have a majority Democrat house to pass and they won't get it passed is that it will kill the people who do pay for the private health care by penalizing them 8% and even the CBO has projected 4 millions jobs will be lost if they keep this in the bill. I do read both sides your the blind one. What do you think the CBO or do you even know? There reports and numbers are unbiased just to save you some time from having you go look it up the CBO is the Congressional budget Office and they are put in place by government to give actual data and cost of things they are the main resource I pull from and form what the Government pulls from. I never said It's something new and the Right -wing are afraid you must be quoting somebody else there buddy. I have said that Americans are nervous about it and that is true. Just stick to the subject if you read I'm for a public option but they need to take out the 8% penalty to private. The government owns 30% of GM actually the symbol is no longer Gm it's something else they will always now own GM, the energy do you know anything about the cap and trade bill they want to pass. They do own the citi and part of BofA and also they took over for Fannie and Freddie. Do some homework first before you come back with your lack of knowledge on anything. Lool Wow your pretty ignorant. Your probably young and think you know it all but your clueless.
1292 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Oh yeah. They partly own GM. If they hadn't bought shares in it, GM would've been fucking destroyed. Same with citi. You think the government shouldn't have done that? They don't own energy. Tax isn't profit lol. Tax is paid by people to the state to provide services SUCH AS schools. I can't even understand half of what you're saying cause your english is so bad. What you don't understand is that the only way poor people can be given healthcare funded by the government is a hike in taxes - which wouldn't even cause it to be one of the highest taxed countries in the world. What do I care though? It's fucking America. If it does make it a hell hole, the world will be a better place.
1291 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
I was just reading some of your stuff. Why do you have so much animosity towards everybody especially America because we are westerners? I want to ask you a fundamental question do you think the 9/11 attacks of our country was wrong? Or what is your feelings about 9/11 and what that means? As far as your comment you don't care if America does not make make it. The world will be a better place. I got one diplomatic response for you. FUCK YOU!!
1291 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Wow. Must've taken you a long time to think of that one. 9/11 attacks were wrong ofcourse. I don't really care too much about it though. It doesn't make a big part of my thoughts, mentality or attitude. It means fuck all to me. If it happened or if it didn't happen, I don't really care. It's a different world to me. America - Financial, Uptown, Rich etc. Nothing of 9/11 filters down to me. It's what resulted due to 9/11 that I do care about. Don't ask me about 9/11 cause I really don't care. America will not make it. Just like all superpowers past present and future, it has its ups and downs. You just got to worry about how everybody remembers you. Trust me.. it won't be good.
1291 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Calling someone else (from one of the USA's best allies no less) a bunch of silly names does NOTHING to further your arguments.
1289 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
What the bleep would you know about our system or even have any say in our country on how we operate you live in England. Didn't we just kick your countries ass 233 years ago to get away from your type of Ideology.
1292 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Lol idiot. This has nothing to do with 'my say in America' or America's past with Britain. And it wasn't to get away from our type of ideology. HAHAHHA dumbass.. you make me laugh. Not really.. I die a little inside everytime I hear something so stupid and pointless.
1291 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Do you realize that the CBO says that it will consume 1/6 of our total economy if passed that is huge and we have no way to pay for it unless they ramp up selling government bonds and raise taxes even more. I have see some other good bills be presented to the house but Nancy and Obama behind closed doors have rebuffed all of them. I even watched last night when a republican wanted to add that even all of the politicians be on the same plan they refused it. The main thing that is holding this up is that the bill has an 8% added tax if you do not take the public option and of course if your are going to get hit with a penalty you will not want to pay and dump yourself and your employers on the public version. Thats why they are even having trouble with their own party that one reason in my opinion is the biggest hold up more than the cost of it. If they take out the 8% penalty to private sector it has a much better chance of getting done. But until they do i don't see this one put together getting through. I'm all for reform but it has got to be done smart and correctly and this one is not it.
1292 days ago | Side: Socialistic
I was from England and all my friends are from England (and a few from Canada) And they all say they love there health care. Its cheaper because you only pay 700 euros (1000 in USD) as aposed to 1000 euros (1500) the private sector has to offer, and the waiting line is only long in Canada because a bunch of dumbass doctors left it in fear they would lose there jobs. In America he have enough doctors so that we could provide the same surice as the private sector.
1292 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
OK how many people do you have in England? We have over 300 million and the cost of this bill is going to take 1/6 of our total nations economy. If you love it there so much then why are you here in America? I have several friends from England and they say that your hospitals are shit! This is America we take responsibility for ourselves I don't want us to be like Europe economy we pride ourselves from that that's why this is America. I'm all for reform but not going to the single payer system like they are trying to push through. What pissed my off last night I was watching the rules committee on passing Amendment. One of the Amendments was from a Republican that asked that all Government be on the same plan. Well guess what they voted no on it. There was a majority Democrat so they can say and do what they want. If the health plan is so great then they should be on it as well but they rebuffed it. Fact check dot org by the way is a lobbyist organization that get money from the domocrat party so I don't think they are going to slam the president and bring up his shady friends and mention again that he sealed his records.
1292 days ago | Side: Socialistic
i agree with that fact that in England, the waiting list is long, but the Health Care companies here in America, there almost as evil as George Bush! All they want is money. I think that now, single payer health care can wait, so long as we don't have to pay so much money for your company to tell you they cant cover your "preexisting" injury. Might not be good now in this eco-mess, but eventually once every think is all good it think it would then be a better time to look into this.
1289 days ago | Side: Either Way
There are quite a few doctors who say they will leave or retire as soon as socialized medicine becomes practice in America...
1268 days ago | Side: Socialistic
This is just more blind fear-mongering from the Right-wing, and it's not working...
1267 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
It isn't just the national healthcare program. It's the countless false promises, the bailouts, the promises that are actually true (but promise something un-American), the "Spread the Wealth" and "Yes We Can".
1226 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Personally, i believe the bible has no place in government. Maybe in private life, but not government. Some people don't believe in God or they believe in other gods or other forms of God (Jewish people, Muslims, Ect.) Personally, a Theocracy is the worst for of government (thats the government that Iran and such has, just because were Christian, doesn't mean we can make it work because were 'better') I know this statement has nothing to do with what you have said about socialism, but America will, and never be a Socialist nation. Simply because there is no proof Obama is a Socialist.
1292 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Wow, you are anti-Christian. I've been an atheist for thirty years and even I know that this country was founded on Judeo/Christian ethics. Read some American History, the Federalist Papers perhaps or a book called, "The 5000 Year Leap". I have NO problem with the laws in this country based on those ethics. Our government, to correct you, is NOT a theocracy. The separation of church and state has it's roots in the government not endorsing one particular faith or church ONLY. Try to read up on our country's history. Obama and his administration are socialist. Look up their political leanings, the majority of his 28 Czars (by the way George Bush had only 8) are communists, look it up. People who think alike hang together. The communists in America have infiltrated black churches and have espoused "social justice", "redistribution of wealth". Those are socialist terms. Look those up and you'll find that even Obama has used them in his speeches. He has kept his past well hidden so as not to alarm the voters and expose his true beliefs. Look it up. Stop allowing their rhetoric to cloud your judgment, they try to demonize anyone who speaks out against their agenda, those are the tactics of socialists, straight out of the Saul Alinsky book. Look it up. Please don't say "never" when it is happening now. They are trying to "fundamentally change America" didn't you listen when he said that? Didn't you stop to think what he meant by that? They are passing spending bills that are taxing us into oblivion, don't you see that when they do that we lose a little bit more of our liberty? If we pay more and more of our income to pay for programs for others who aren't contributing we are losing the say-so of where we choose to spend our hard earned money. I sure hope you can understand what I'm trying to say. I voted Democrat for 32 years until I decided to look into this administration, research for myself. I'm no longer a Democrat.
1261 days ago | Side: Socialistic
He is definitely somewhere in the middle right now. Although he may appear socialistic right now, this is mainly because of the economic state we are in. Usually in a depression or recession the government becomes more socialistic, and then swaps back to capitalistic values after their economy returns to normal.
1279 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
The "New Deal" dragged the depression out much longer than it would have if they had just let it alone.
1268 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Wrong again, the U.S. economy was on the rebound throughout almost FDR's entire Presidency, period.
1267 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
I agree with you sir. In fact it was the War that got us out of the Depression. My parents were teenagers during the Depression, I learned a lot form them. I voted Democrat for 32 years until this administration, I woke up. This is the worst president for America. I love my country and I DON"T want it "fundamentally changed".
1261 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Now before I say anything, I have a disclaimer: I am a fourteen year old kid, so I just might have no idea what I'm talking about. Now that that's over with, here I go. The free market economy is structured in such a way that it will rebuild itself over time if a recession such as the current one occurs. In the month of November, and for the four months before that, sales, housing, stocks, and consumer confidence have gone up. Call me crazy, but I think that this free market economy just might be serving its purpose. Obama has no business messing with the ebb and flow of our free market, which by the way is quite possibly the greatest economy in the world.
1254 days ago | Side: Socialistic
Obama is not a socialistic. Most of the bailouts are in part because of the previous president and incompetent CEO's.
1190 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Obama is not a socialist or socialistic. He has not advocated for state or worker control of private enterprise. He has merely given some corporations a lot of money. He doesn't control or own them. Expressing a desire to help those in need does not make you a socialist. It shows that you are human. Not being overly religious doesn't make you socialist. Opposing religion in politics doesn't make you socialist. It also doesn't mean you hate religion. It just means that you think they shouldn't influence each other. Obama certainly isn't as openly religious as Bush but he isn't going to persecute religion like how Bush and his followers persecute non-believers. More people are free to live their lives without government influence because Obama believes in the separation of church and state.
1302 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Uh, HELLO! What do you think happened when they bailed out those corporations? They used our money, the tax payers money. They forced people to resign and take pay cuts. "Expressing a desire to help those in need does not make you a socialist. It shows that you are human". You are right, but nowhere in the Constitution does it state that Government has the obligation to help the individual person or make an equal, classless society OR have the vested power to "BAIL OUT" any industry. Which of course has been done before.
1293 days ago | Side: Socialistic
If you remember Bush signed the $700 billion to bail out the banks and not obama. Also the bailout benefited the owners and corporations and not the common people or workers as a socialist action would. Sure the constitution doesn't say we need to bail out corporations or such but it also doesn't say we need to invade countries for imperialistic aims, spread capitalism around the world, or deny people certain rights because they conflict with the ruling religion. What i'm getting at is that, apparently in America the constitution, sadly, is merely a guideline of how to act or at least that is what most conservatives act like it is. When you mention people being forced to resign and or take pay cuts, are you talking about the ceos and other positions of power or the workers? Ceos and related personnel might have been forced out by bailout conditions but workers were forced to resign or take lower payouts because the corporation decided to do that and not the government. Don't get me wrong, i think the bailouts were a terrible idea, and executed even worse but that is because the bailouts were constructed to help keep the corporations and the people running them able to continue their practices that brought about this mess in the first place. Bush forced all this to happen, does that make him a socialist in your view? Obama inherited the mess and expectations of the country. The majority of his solutions and the end goals have been capitalistic in nature so really are saying he is a socialist because you dislike him and know that many Americans will accept that and blindly go along with that idea.
1293 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Yes, there are "progressives" on both sides of the isle. But in Bush's defense, he did state he hated to have to do it. I still don't think he should have, but he is still somewhat on the "progressive" bandwagon.
1268 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
and who was in full support off that? The Republicans, i believe they drew up the whole bailout thing in the first place under Bush.
1293 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Obama is a full red communist! He doesn't have an ounce of capitalism in him! What kind of idiot are you to say he's not at all a socialist? Thats just like questioning whether Hitler was a nazi.
1298 days ago | Side: Socialistic
I feel like i'm gonna repeat my self again but obviously you haven't payed attention so far. I'm gonna break it down for you. First some definitions from http://www.merriam-webster.com which i assume is credible in your opinion. Socialism: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market Now that you know where i'm coming from you should be able to realise that obama is in fact a capitalist. That is if you actually listened to him and what he did and didn't get your marching orders from the likes of rush limbaugh or glenn beck. 1) The automakers bailout was a capitalistic move because he gave huge sums of money to the corporations so that they could keep going without challenging the business structure at all. a socialist as you should know would have abolished the position of ceo and either given COMPLETE control over to the workers of each plant or fully nationalized the company so that the government owned it. giving money without gaining official control or ownership doesn't constitute a socialist action. 2) His remedy for the healthcare system in the US is also capitalistic because he seeks to maintain private health companies with them giving few concessions. A socialist would have made a plan to abolish all private health insurance companies and create a sole organization to run healthcare. merely adding an additional insurrance company(which happens to be owned by the government) does not make this plan a socialistic move. i could go on but i'l be lucky if you really read all of what i just wrote. If you still believe he is socialist(which sadly you probably will) please respond with a list of defineite policies obama has taken that make him so. Also I down voted your argument not because i disagree with you but because your argument contained no substance or support. You make big claims and believe that we should just accept them at face value.
1298 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
I am a Socialist. Barack Hussein Obama (mmm mmmm mmm) is not a Socialist.
1298 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
Not really. I actually think he is pissing off some Socialists because he isn't as left leaning as they had hoped based off of the stories the conservatives were telling before his election.
1082 days ago | Side: non-Socialistic
|
