09 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by JigtieWhat I'm debating about is the use of the word in the context of American politics, and in particular, the false label that the Republican party attempts to use to describe Democratic ideals or Democratic politicians.
1. A good point. To clarify, socialists advocate that capital should not be controlled mainly by a
relatively small group of private owners as that leads to inequality (capitalists exploiting workers). To
have the state "own" and distribute capital is one solution that has been labelled socialist, but the
socialism lies in the idea that in order to ensu aningful sense, if you ask me. Why
would you even make that comment in response to my post?
Your spelling of "labor vs. labour" indicates that perhaps you are European? If that's the case I can see how you didn't understand my context.
Socialism as a system of government is the utmost extreme form of collectivism. Taxing the rich more than the poor is collectivist by nature (not Socialist). And just because one party advocates doing so to a lesser degree than the other does NOT justify applying a false label - in this case "Socialist" or "Marxist"
For crying out loud the Republican party actually used tax dollars to hold a meeting about whether or not to "rename" the Democratic Party the "Democratic Socialist Party." That's wonderful. We're in a huge recession, we're bogged down in two wars, and we have all sorts of other major problems. These guys are paid on OUR dime and that's how they want to spend their time? Coming up with childish, ignorant names to call their opposition party?
09 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI'm from Sweden. I disagree with some of what you say here, but I see that it's not really about
What I'm debating about is the use of the word in the context of American politics, and in particular, the false label that the Republican party attempts to use to describe Democratic ideals or Democratic politicians.
Your spelling of "labor vs. labour" indicates that perhaps you are European? If that's the case I can see how you didn't underst r time? Coming up with childish, ignorant names to call their opposition party?
socialism per se with you, but the use of the word to misrepresent the opponent party. I'm just vaguely
aware of US internal politics, so I will just... step back... slowly... out the door here...
See ya'!
Oh, and Bush is no Socialist! We agree on that.
Bye!
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperIf it didn't happen then how do you know they considered it? Because that one columnist with an anonymous source says so? The whole thing doesn't make much sense to me.
I don't know if they actually went through with it. But just having it on the agenda for serious consideration speaks miles.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22445.html
Also, where are the taxpayer dollars?
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by JigtieNeither Bush nor Obama nor Clinton nor... etc. are Socialists. That's what pisses me off. These politicians, presumably with college degrees in law, political science, etc. knowingly throwing out false and outragious labels. And the parrots just repeat every talking point no matter how retarded they are.
I'm from Sweden. I disagree with some of what you say here, but I see that it's not really about
socialism per se with you, but the use of the word to misrepresent the opponent party. I'm just vaguely
aware of US internal politics, so I will just... step back... slowly... out the door here...
See ya'!
Oh, and Bush is no Socialist! We agree on that.
Bye!
They even use the term Marxist to describe Obama. I'm all for legitimate disagreement but there's too much crap like this that just goes beyond the pale.
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperSo, ignore the crap and focus on the idea. That's what I do.
Neither Bush nor Obama nor Clinton nor... etc. are Socialists. That's what pisses me off. These politicians, presumably with college degrees in law, political science, etc. knowingly throwing out false and outragious labels. And the parrots just repeat every talking point no matter how retarded they are.
They even use the term Marxist to descri ...[text shortened]... r legitimate disagreement but there's too much crap like this that just goes beyond the pale.
Limbaugh called Obama a communist?
Moore called Bush a despot?
Coulter called Hillary a tramp?
Franken called Cheney a criminal?
In one ear and then out the other... Barely sticks in my brain long enough to register.
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76I don't know about the taxpayer dollars, but I remember this story when it came out.
If it didn't happen then how do you know they considered it? Because that one columnist with an anonymous source says so? The whole thing doesn't make much sense to me.
Also, where are the taxpayer dollars?
I'm not sure if it actually ended up being voted on, but it was proposed and I think it might not have been voted on just because of the deserved bad press it got. After all, it was a resolution to basically call the other party a name.
It would essentially be akin to the democratic national convention having a vote to call the republican party the 'poopy pants party'.
09 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76"Steele wrote a memo last month opposing the resolution. Steele said that while he believes Democrats “are indeed marching America toward European-style socialism,” he also said in a (rare) flash of insight that officially referring to them as the Democrat Socialist Party “will accomplish little than to give the media and our opponents the opportunity to mischaracterize Republicans.”
If it didn't happen then how do you know they considered it? Because that one columnist with an anonymous source says so? The whole thing doesn't make much sense to me.
Also, where are the taxpayer dollars?
Politico is a respected, reputable political news outlet. Would you like another source? The story was everywhere.
When I said, "the Republicans" perhaps it came across as if all of them were for the idea. There were some, like Steele who wisely thought it would make the party look like ass. But they still wouldn't back away from the rediculous label.
Edit: There are as far as tax dollars everything they do involves our tax money, even simple meetings. If you do a cost analysis of their salaries alone divided by the time they spent multiplied by the number of participants the number would be higher than you think.
09 Jul 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I don't care about Limbaugh, he sells hate and anger as a commodity.
So, ignore the crap and focus on the idea. That's what I do.
Limbaugh called Obama a communist?
Moore called Bush a despot?
Coulter called Hillary a tramp?
Franken called Cheney a criminal?
In one ear and then out the other... Barely sticks in my brain long enough to register.
What does bother me is when high level elected officials, who are (supposed) to be dignified and respectable are involved in Limbaugh-like tactics.
See also:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/120806/Limbaugh-Gingrich-Cheney-Seen-Speaking-GOP.aspx
PRINCETON, NJ -- Asked to name the "main person who speaks for the Republican Party today," Republicans across the country are most likely to name three men: Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and Dick Cheney.
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by sh76I'd dispute the equivalence of those insults. Calling Obama a communist is not merely absurd, but also offensive - the real insult is to the people who suffered and died under Communist rule in Eastern Europe and East Asia. On the other hand, Cheney authorised waterboarding; a number of Japanese officers who had authorised waterboarding were executed after World War II; so by the standards applied at the Tokyo Trials, yes, Cheney is a criminal.
So, ignore the crap and focus on the idea. That's what I do.
Limbaugh called Obama a communist?
Moore called Bush a despot?
Coulter called Hillary a tramp?
Franken called Cheney a criminal?
In one ear and then out the other... Barely sticks in my brain long enough to register.
Sadly it doesn't seem that he's a criminal under current US law, though.
09 Jul 09
Originally posted by TeinosukeIf torture is going on now by the United States or hired out by the United States, then all those knowledgeable about it that can stop it is a criminal. Is Obama guilty? We know Bush is.
I'd dispute the equivalence of those insults. Calling Obama a communist is not merely absurd, but also offensive - the real insult is to the people who suffered and died under Communist rule in Eastern Europe and East Asia. On the other hand, Cheney authorised waterboarding; a number of Japanese officers who had authorised waterboarding were executed after ...[text shortened]... ey is a criminal.
Sadly it doesn't seem that he's a criminal under current US law, though.