Originally posted by KidRock
I think people call Obama a socialist or a marxist because of his massive redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor policies..which they would be right about.
which were also not brought up in this article which accuses him of socialism.
And again, maybe take a international view of what socialism actually is, and you find mr. obama to be a moderate centrist who leans a bit right.
When your country's national debate on child care is which party can throw as much money at people, then sure, complain about socialism.
Also, wealth redistribution is hardly socialist or even leftist.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Huh?
its not libertarian or anarchist by any means
but even something like "a high tide raises all ships" seems to assume that built into free market economy is a natural type of wealth redistribution, if only using a mechanism that isn't the state.
and, last I checked, conservatives still charged taxes.
Originally posted by inimalist
its not libertarian or anarchist by any meansbut even something like "a high tide raises all ships" seems to assume that built into free market economy is a natural type of wealth redistribution, if only using a mechanism that isn't the state.
and, last I checked, conservatives still charged taxes.
Well, I suppose they do redistribute wealth. But taking it from the rich to pay for the poor is certainly a socialist principle.
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I suppose they do redistribute wealth. But taking it from the rich to pay for the poor is certainly a socialist principle.
Yeah, redistribution of wealth certainly is a socialist principle and what I was getting at with Obama are all his social programs to benefit the poor are being paid for by the massive increase in taxes for the rich..taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. I don't know how anyone can disagree with Obama not being socialist here.
Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, redistribution of wealth certainly is a socialist principle and what I was getting at with Obama are all his social programs to benefit the poor are being paid for by the massive increase in taxes for the rich..taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. I don't know how anyone can disagree with Obama not being socialist here.
On a different note, Bush spent 1 000 000 000 000 + dollars on a war somewhere quite far away...if McCain goes down that road (and he seems to want to), even economically it is just a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwhich again.
Originally posted by Bardock42
On a different note, Bush spent 1 000 000 000 000 + dollars on a war somewhere quite far away...if McCain goes down that road (and he seems to want to), even economically it is just a choice between a giant douche and a turd sandwhich again.
I agree. But I also don't believe all of Obama's "WE WILL GET THE TROOPS OUT OF IRAQ!" talk. So it is either we pay for a useless war..or we pay for a useless war AND a bunch of social programs that will drain our economy even more.
Or the US actually listens to Maliki's words and follows his timetable of troop withdraw.
Originally posted by Robtard
Kidrock,Weren't you the gun-ho, bring on the war, we'll kick their asses because they deserve it and we're doing a good thing guy? Now the war is "useless"? Odd.
I have always been gun-ho about the war on terror and in Afghanistan hunting for Bin Laden and I believe we should still be there. On the war in Iraq there is a difference between supporting the war and supporting the men fighting it, something Democrats have yet to learn. I also did support the war in the beginning when I was told that Iraq broke their regulations and were building WMD's, now that it has been shown to be false I don't support it anymore and feel we should leave (but not before the government and military of the country is stable.) but I will always support the men fighting it. The war in Iraq hasnt been a completely useless war though, we did establish a democracy in Iraq and killed plenty of terrorists operating inside the country freely..but now I feel that since we have done those things the time to leave is approaching.
You know, I'm about 100% certain that it was/is the Republicans/Conservatives who hold the belief and touted the "you can't support the tropps if you don't also support the war" rhetoric.
Edit: I forgot to add, Iraq isn't a Democracy. When you have a very good chance of getting blown apart, shot or beheaded because of the way you vote, it isn't really a Democracy.
Originally posted by chithappens
Before I go into any real rebuttal, how is the "programming" of McCain any different?
I suppose it is not any different. Voight is right about one thing though, Obama's really team is doing a good job of playing the part of The Pied Piper and rounding up all the gullible young voters.
Originally posted by Blinky
I suppose it is not any different. Voight is right about one thing though, Obama's really team is doing a good job of playing the part of The Pied Piper and rounding up all the gullible young voters.
Yeah, it's not easy to round up a bunch of "KidRocks" to go kick terrorist ass even if we have to run over a nation that has nothing to do with it!
It's the same shit.
I don't see the point.
Originally posted by Blinky
Never said it was easy. My hat goes off to them for deceiving so many youngsters.
You say they're gullible - by default, because of the definition of the word, that implies that it's easy.
In fact, young people are among the most cynical when it comes to politics, they're the least gullible around, hence why it's been so difficult to get them involved in the past.
That said, it's cute how people say Obama is inherently deceiving them by getting them involved finally, as if there can't be good reasons why young people would go for him. Quite stupid, really. Guess that means McCain is deceiving old people by getting them, and veterans, and so on.
Originally posted by Robtard
How about Marxist?I did like the "Thank God for Gen. David Petraeus, he stopped terrorist from setting up base in Iraq". Saddam was actually doing a great job in that respect.
I mean, say what you will about the tenants of National Socialism, Dude, at least it’s an ethos
Originally posted by Robtard
That was a joke, I've heard a few conservatives say Obama is a threat because he has Marxist views (besides beling a Muslim, terrorist supporter and a racist).
ah, me slow
Originally posted by Robtard
Not sure to what level, but didn't Saddam gas the Kurds whenever they made a peep? He was good at that, someone made a noise/challenged his position, gas, gas, gas.
ya, he did a good job of keeping them... dead?
Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I suppose they do redistribute wealth. But taking it from the rich to pay for the poor is certainly a socialist principle.
yes and no. The more direct it is, then sure, but most systems talk about using funds to do things for the state.
I'm probably reading to much into it, so for the sake of brevity, you are correct.
Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, redistribution of wealth certainly is a socialist principle and what I was getting at with Obama are all his social programs to benefit the poor are being paid for by the massive increase in taxes for the rich..taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor. I don't know how anyone can disagree with Obama not being socialist here.
Socialist: http://www.ndp.ca/
being from a Socialist nation I find it very easy to disagree with that claim made about Obama