Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Socialism

Socialism Socialism Forum - Political Philosophy Forum


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old December 6th, 2012, 10:29 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,048
Oh, I'm pretty sure this topic will ruffle some feathers on this debate website.


And, in my educated opinion, Obama is by no means a socialist. And here are some of the reasons why he isn't a socialist, as stated by a...well...actual socialist:

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">

Ask the card-carrying socialists: Is Obama one of them?


April 14, 2010|By John Blake, CNN



Billy Wharton should be happy.


"Socialized health care" is on its way. The "socialist agenda" is taking over America. And best of all, Barack Obama, a "committed socialist ideologue," is in the Oval Office.


But Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate. He's seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn't a socialist. He's not even a liberal.


"We didn't see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama," Wharton says, " and we certainly didn't see our agenda move from the streets to the White House."


Are many Americans secret socialists?


Obama's opponents have long described him as a socialist. But what do actual socialists think about Obama? Not much, says Wharton.


"He's the president whose main goal is to protect the wealth of the richest 5 percent of Americans."


He and others say the assertion that Obama is a socialist is absurd.


"It makes no rational sense. It clearly means that people don't understand what socialism is."


Definitions of socialism vary, but most socialists believe workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own or control them.


Not all socialists, though, want to confiscate personal property. Democratic Socialists are more interested in protecting ordinary people from unregulated capitalism through regulation and progressive taxation.


Some of the socialist agenda is already part of American life, according to Wharton and others.


Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits -- all reflect socialistic values, says Van Gosse, an associate professor of history at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, who has researched socialist movements in the United States and Latin America.


The widely accepted notions of public education and Pell Grants for college students are socialistic in origin, Gosse says. They fit well with the socialistic premise that government should provide basic security from the cradle to the grave to all of its citizens, he says.


"We assert that education should not be left up to the private market -- where those who can pay, get it and those who can't, don't get it," Gosse says. "It's a common good and in that sense it is a socialistic institution even if the U.S. remains a capitalist nation."


Why socialists hate Obama's health care bill


Those who call Obama a socialist, though, point to his policies. Big on their hit list: "Obamacare," which they call "socialized medicine."


Socialists scoff at the notion. They don't applaud the passage of the recent health care bill either. They wanted a national "single-payer" health insurance plan with a government option. The bill that Obama championed didn't have any of those features.


Wharton said the new health care bill only strengthens private health insurance companies. They get 32 million new customers and no incentive to change -- something a socialist wouldn't accept.


"Most of it was authored by the health care industry," Wharton says. "I call it the corporate restructuring of health care."


Other critics point to Obama's Wall Street bailout -- which actually had its roots in the Bush administration. Critics say it's socialistic for government to assume control of private industry.


Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says the bailout had nothing to do with socialism.


Llewellyn says a socialist leader would have at least nationalized some of the troubled banks.


"He gave them [the banks] too much with no strings attached," Llewellyn says. "Banks that were too big to fail are bigger, and they can still fail."


How about Obama's bailout of the Detroit auto industry? During the bailout, the federal government assumed partial ownership of General Motors.


"It's not socialism," Llewellyn says. "The mere fact that the government owns something or has a stake in it, doesn't make it socialist. If that was true, you would say that we have a socialist army. The government owns the army."


Defining socialism is complex, Llewellyn says, but it starts with a simple goal: Socialists want to introduce democratic features into the economy to reduce inequality.


The economy has "to be run for the overall benefit of the entire population, not for the benefits of a very few people."


By that measure, Obama's economic policies are not socialist, he says.

"He's trying to save capitalism from itself rather than a radical trying to change into a new system," Llewellyn says.


This kind of name-calling is not new. Civil rights demonstrators and the politicians who passed Medicare were also called socialists and communists, Llewellyn says.


"Every time an expansion of the public's right has been put forward, Republicans have called it extreme, communistic and socialistic. It's a repeated tactic because they can't defeat the idea."


A Tea Party member explains why Obama is a socialist


Those arguments don't sway Conrad Quagliaroli, a Tea Party member who says Obama is a socialist.


He says that Obama's voting record as a senator was more to the left than the U.S. Senate's sole socialist, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.


He says Obama's association with radicals and his pledge to "spread the wealth" seal his socialistic credentials.


"The role of government is to provide a safe environment to conduct business, not to take from one and give to the other," says Quagliaroli, a financial planner who lives in Woodstock, Georgia.


Quagliaroli was not persuaded by the arguments of other socialist leaders who reject the idea that Obama is a socialist.


"He's just not socialist enough for them."


Quagliaroli says he doesn't like socialism because it breeds mediocrity and encourages people to "live on the dole." Capitalism "breeds excellence" because it encourages initiative, he says.


Does that mean that Quagliaroli will refuse his Social Security checks, a government program that has been described as socialistic, and which he opposes?


Not necessarily, says Quagliaroli. He says he'll accept his Social Security checks for two reasons.


"They confiscated it from me to begin with, and the more money they give me, the less they'll have to waste," he says. "I can spend it better than they can. I don't pay $500 for a hammer."


The argument over Obama's ideology may rage on, but at least one socialist says another prominent politician ought to be inserted into the debate.


Llewellyn, the national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says he was struck by one player in the 2008 presidential elections who displayed more socialistic leanings than Obama.


This candidate raised taxes on the big oil companies, and sent the revenue to the people.


If you want to learn something about spreading the wealth, Llewellyn says, don't look to Obama.


"To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin."

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-14/p..._s=PM:POLITICS
</blockquote>
baloney_detector is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 10:40 AM   #2
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,048
And this essay is like a breath of fresh air:

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">


Obama is a capitalist, not a socialist


August 15th, 2009 by Brian Ashmankas


Is anyone else tired of the "Obama is a socialist" rhetoric coming from the far right. I sure am and I would like to take this opportunity to define socialism and then to demonstrate why Obama is not a subscriber to this economic theory.


Socialism does not describe a single economic system, however there are certain principles that are common to all forms of socialism. 1. The abolition of private property and the implementation of some form of collective ownership. In other words, the people, or their representatives (a government, party, union, guild, etc.) control land, property, and capital as a group instead of it being controlled privately by individuals and companies as in capitalism. 2. The elimination of social and economic classes. Under socialism there is no rich and poor and equality in wealth and power. 3. Production according to ability and distribution according to need. Thus in a socialist society, all produce goods and provide services according to their talents and skills and receive whatever goods and services they need from other producers. Historically, this distribution method has been accomplished through a government bureaucracy, but state control is not a necessary quality of socialism. In other words socialists seek to eliminate the capitalist (supply and demand) form of distribution.


In order to defend my thesis that Obama is not a socialist, I will look at three of his policies as president that have most often resulted in the misuse of that label--the bailout of the auto companies, the economic stimulus, and his current health care proposal. First, the auto bailout. A socialist, as mentioned above, opposes private ownership and would want automobile manufacture to be controlled collectively and for automobiles to be distributed according to need. The auto bailout's goal, however, was to help the private companies, known as the Big 3, to survive as private institutions that sell their cars according to what customers will pay for them. Thus, its goal was to preserve an aspect of capitalism (the American share of the automobile market), not establish socialism.


The economic stimulus, officially called the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, had a similar intent. The recovery's website lists several goals of the act. Some of them include reviving the renewable energy industry, investing in infrastructure, and granting tax credits to working families. These are not the goals of a socialist. Remember that a socialist seeks to eliminate private property and companies, not revive them. A socialist would also do the infrastructure investment differently. Under socialism, the government would enlist employees directly to rebuild infrastructure, not hire private contractors who will in turn hire employees as is the case in this act. Finally, the tax credits are meant to encourage spending by individuals to reinvigorate the economy. The basic premise is that the recipients of these tax credits will use the money to make purchases. This will help companies, who will use their extra earnings to hire more employees, who will be able to spend themselves, thus restarting the economy and saving capitalism. This is known as Keynesian economics, not socialism. The cash for clunkers program also works this way, encouraging spending by subsidizing the purchase with government spending. No socialist would ever try to save capitalism, which they see as the creator of the class system that they despise.


President Obama's health care plan is possibly the policy that most often results in Obama being accused of being a socialist. However, it is also the policy that best demonstrates that he is not. Obama's health care plan has many stipulations, but the primary one is the creation of a public option for health care through which insurance is purchased as a group for a lower premium. This would, however, only be an option. Persons would not be required to drop their existing insurance, nor would private insurance companies be eliminated. The plan also includes several reforms that are meant to reduce health care costs, including subsidies for employers, record-keeping improvements, and regulations of prescription drug companies. These reforms are made without nationalizing any private entities. It even seeks to help small business, by assisting them in paying for their employee health benefits. It doesn't even distribute health care according to need, as persons are still required to pay for the public option. It is therefore quite clear that this bill is not a "socialist" bill, nor is President Obama a socialist.


President Obama is a capitalist. His policies are directed at rescuing companies, revitalizing the capitalist economy, helping small businesses, and creating competition, all things actual socialists would cringe at. So please stop saying that Obama is a socialist, please stop posting it on your blogs, or yelling it at town meetings, or wearing T-shirts of it, or writing it on picket signs. Concentrate instead on legitimate criticisms of his policies and your opposition will be much more effective and better received.

http://www.examiner.com/article/obam...ot-a-socialist
</blockquote>
baloney_detector is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 10:54 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Fort Rucker, Alabama
Posts: 957


After his re-election and what he has mandated from congress and what he is asking for as for as the debt ceiling is concerned there should be no doubt that Obama is a Socialist, I was go as far a saying his a fascist marxist.
Danjb25 is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 11:39 AM   #4
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,048
And here is an article from someone who has known socialism first-hand, unlike many in America who claim that they think they know about socialism:

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">


Obama the Socialist? Not Even Close


By MILOS FORMAN


Warren, Conn.


WHEN I was asked to direct “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest,” my friends warned me not to go anywhere near it.


The story is so American, they argued, that I, an immigrant fresh off the boat, could not do it justice. They were surprised when I explained why I wanted to make the film. To me it was not just literature but real life, the life I lived in Czechoslovakia from my birth in 1932 until 1968. The Communist Party was my Nurse Ratched, telling me what I could and could not do; what I was or was not allowed to say; where I was and was not allowed to go; even who I was and was not.


Now, years later, I hear the word “socialist” being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, “Obamacare is socialism!” They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism.


My sister-in-law’s father, Jan Kunasek, lived in Czechoslovakia all his life. He was a middle-class man who ran a tiny inn in a tiny village. One winter night in 1972, during a blizzard, a man, soaked to the bone, awakened him at 2 in the morning. The man looked destitute and, while asking for shelter, couldn’t stop cursing the Communists. Taking pity, the elderly Mr. Kunasek put him up for the night.


A couple of hours later, Mr. Kunasek was awakened again, this time by three plainclothes policemen. He was arrested, accused of sheltering a terrorist and sentenced to several years of hard labor in uranium mines. The state seized his property. When he was finally released, ill and penniless, he died within a few weeks. Years later we learned that the night visitor had been working for the police. According to the Communists, Mr. Kunasek was a class enemy and deserved to be punished.


I found myself in an equally absurd, but less depressing, situation when I was moonlighting on Czech TV as a moderator, introducing movies, in the early ’50s. It was live, so there was no chance to bleep politically undesirable words. Every utterance, even in supposedly spontaneous interviews, had to be scripted, approved by the censors, learned by heart and repeated verbatim on the air.


When I was preparing to interview one Comrade Homola, a powerful Communist, I sent him questions, but didn’t receive his answers. My boss, also a powerful party member, told me: “He is lazy! Write his answers for him, and remind him to learn them by heart.” So I did.


Comrade Homola arrived at the last moment. When the red light went on and I asked the first question, he reached into his pocket, took out my answers and started to read them, awkwardly and obediently — including my inadvertent grammatical mistakes. And thus, to my consternation, went the whole interview. In the control booth, my boss hit the roof. I was fired the next day for ridiculing a representative of the state.


Whatever his faults, I don’t see much of a socialist in Mr. Obama or, thankfully, signs of that system in this great nation. Mr. Obama is accused of trying to expand the reach of government — into health care, financial regulation, the auto industry and so on. It’s fair to question whether the federal government should have expanded powers: America, to its credit, has debated this since its birth. But let’s be clear about how frightening socialism actually could be.


Marx believed that we could wipe out social inequities and Lenin tested those ideas on the Soviet Union. It was his dream to create a classless society. But reality set in, as it always does. And the results were devastating. Blood flowed through Russia’s streets. The Soviet elite usurped all privileges; sycophants were allowed some and the plebes none. The entire Eastern bloc, including Czechoslovakia, followed miserably.


I’m not sure Americans today appreciate quite how predatory socialism was. It was not — as Mr. Obama’s detractors suggest — merely a government so centralized and bloated that it hobbled private enterprise: it was a spoils system that killed off everything, all in the name of “social justice.”


What we need is not to strive for a perfect social justice — which never existed and never will — but for social harmony. Harmony in music is, by its nature, exhilarating and soothing. In an orchestra, the different players and instruments perform together, in support of an overall melody.


Today, our democracy, a miraculous gathering of diverse players, desperately needs such unity. If all participants play fair and strive for the common good, we can achieve a harmony that eluded the doctrinaire socialist projects. But if just one section, or even one player, is out of tune, the music will disintegrate into cacophony.


I am not asking Mr. Obama and the Republican leaders to stop playing instruments of their choosing. All I am asking is that every player keep in mind the noble melody of our country. Otherwise the noisy dissonance might become loud enough to wake another Marx, or even worse.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/11/op...gewanted=print
</blockquote>
baloney_detector is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 11:45 AM   #5
Senior Member
 
baloney_detector's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: USA
Posts: 5,048
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Danjb25" data-cid="443404" data-time="1354823662">

After his re-election and what he has mandated from congress and what he is asking for as for as the debt ceiling is concerned there should be no doubt that Obama is a Socialist, I was go as far a saying his a fascist marxist.</blockquote>


Then you apparently don't understand socialism...or even fascism.
baloney_detector is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 01:36 PM   #6
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 36,319


does a bear crap in the woods..***


*


*
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 01:38 PM   #7
Truth Troll
 
Nienna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Viking World
Posts: 3,301
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="baloney_detector" data-cid="443402" data-time="1354822184">


Oh, I'm pretty sure this topic will ruffle some feathers on this debate website.


And, in my educated opinion, Obama is by no means a socialist. And here are some of the reasons why he isn't a socialist, as stated by a...well...actual socialist:


<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote">


Ask the card-carrying socialists: Is Obama one of them?


April 14, 2010|By John Blake, CNN



Billy Wharton should be happy.


"Socialized health care" is on its way. The "socialist agenda" is taking over America. And best of all, Barack Obama, a "committed socialist ideologue," is in the Oval Office.


But Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate. He's seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn't a socialist. He's not even a liberal.


"We didn't see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama," Wharton says, " and we certainly didn't see our agenda move from the streets to the White House."


Are many Americans secret socialists?


Obama's opponents have long described him as a socialist. But what do actual socialists think about Obama? Not much, says Wharton.


"He's the president whose main goal is to protect the wealth of the richest 5 percent of Americans."


He and others say the assertion that Obama is a socialist is absurd.


"It makes no rational sense. It clearly means that people don't understand what socialism is."


Definitions of socialism vary, but most socialists believe workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own or control them.


Not all socialists, though, want to confiscate personal property. Democratic Socialists are more interested in protecting ordinary people from unregulated capitalism through regulation and progressive taxation.


Some of the socialist agenda is already part of American life, according to Wharton and others.


Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits -- all reflect socialistic values, says Van Gosse, an associate professor of history at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, who has researched socialist movements in the United States and Latin America.


The widely accepted notions of public education and Pell Grants for college students are socialistic in origin, Gosse says. They fit well with the socialistic premise that government should provide basic security from the cradle to the grave to all of its citizens, he says.


"We assert that education should not be left up to the private market -- where those who can pay, get it and those who can't, don't get it," Gosse says. "It's a common good and in that sense it is a socialistic institution even if the U.S. remains a capitalist nation."


Why socialists hate Obama's health care bill


Those who call Obama a socialist, though, point to his policies. Big on their hit list: "Obamacare," which they call "socialized medicine."


Socialists scoff at the notion. They don't applaud the passage of the recent health care bill either. They wanted a national "single-payer" health insurance plan with a government option. The bill that Obama championed didn't have any of those features.


Wharton said the new health care bill only strengthens private health insurance companies. They get 32 million new customers and no incentive to change -- something a socialist wouldn't accept.


"Most of it was authored by the health care industry," Wharton says. "I call it the corporate restructuring of health care."


Other critics point to Obama's Wall Street bailout -- which actually had its roots in the Bush administration. Critics say it's socialistic for government to assume control of private industry.


Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says the bailout had nothing to do with socialism.


Llewellyn says a socialist leader would have at least nationalized some of the troubled banks.


"He gave them [the banks] too much with no strings attached," Llewellyn says. "Banks that were too big to fail are bigger, and they can still fail."


How about Obama's bailout of the Detroit auto industry? During the bailout, the federal government assumed partial ownership of General Motors.


"It's not socialism," Llewellyn says. "The mere fact that the government owns something or has a stake in it, doesn't make it socialist. If that was true, you would say that we have a socialist army. The government owns the army."


Defining socialism is complex, Llewellyn says, but it starts with a simple goal: Socialists want to introduce democratic features into the economy to reduce inequality.


The economy has "to be run for the overall benefit of the entire population, not for the benefits of a very few people."


By that measure, Obama's economic policies are not socialist, he says.

"He's trying to save capitalism from itself rather than a radical trying to change into a new system," Llewellyn says.


This kind of name-calling is not new. Civil rights demonstrators and the politicians who passed Medicare were also called socialists and communists, Llewellyn says.


"Every time an expansion of the public's right has been put forward, Republicans have called it extreme, communistic and socialistic. It's a repeated tactic because they can't defeat the idea."


A Tea Party member explains why Obama is a socialist


Those arguments don't sway Conrad Quagliaroli, a Tea Party member who says Obama is a socialist.


He says that Obama's voting record as a senator was more to the left than the U.S. Senate's sole socialist, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.


He says Obama's association with radicals and his pledge to "spread the wealth" seal his socialistic credentials.


"The role of government is to provide a safe environment to conduct business, not to take from one and give to the other," says Quagliaroli, a financial planner who lives in Woodstock, Georgia.


Quagliaroli was not persuaded by the arguments of other socialist leaders who reject the idea that Obama is a socialist.


"He's just not socialist enough for them."


Quagliaroli says he doesn't like socialism because it breeds mediocrity and encourages people to "live on the dole." Capitalism "breeds excellence" because it encourages initiative, he says.


Does that mean that Quagliaroli will refuse his Social Security checks, a government program that has been described as socialistic, and which he opposes?


Not necessarily, says Quagliaroli. He says he'll accept his Social Security checks for two reasons.


"They confiscated it from me to begin with, and the more money they give me, the less they'll have to waste," he says. "I can spend it better than they can. I don't pay $500 for a hammer."


The argument over Obama's ideology may rage on, but at least one socialist says another prominent politician ought to be inserted into the debate.


Llewellyn, the national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says he was struck by one player in the 2008 presidential elections who displayed more socialistic leanings than Obama.


This candidate raised taxes on the big oil companies, and sent the revenue to the people.


If you want to learn something about spreading the wealth, Llewellyn says, don't look to Obama.


"To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin."

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-04-14/p..._s=PM:POLITICS
</blockquote>


*
</blockquote>


I agree with you Obama is not a*socialist any more than Bush is a fascist or Hitler was a catholic or socialist and Osama Bin-Ladin was a true muslim.
Nienna is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 01:38 PM   #8
I'm debt free
 
TNVolunteer73's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Lebanon, TN
Posts: 36,319
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="baloney_detector" data-cid="443407" data-time="1354826711">


*
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Danjb25" data-cid="443404" data-time="1354823662">


After his re-election and what he has mandated from congress and what he is asking for as for as the debt ceiling is concerned there should be no doubt that Obama is a Socialist, I was go as far a saying his a fascist marxist.
</blockquote>


Then you apparently don't understand socialism...or even fascism.


*
</blockquote>


Facism is* Socialism* National in type


*


Marxist is Socialism* Communist in Type


*


One right wing the latter left wing


*


both evil
TNVolunteer73 is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 01:38 PM   #9
Truth Troll
 
Nienna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Viking World
Posts: 3,301
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="TNVolunteer73" data-cid="443435" data-time="1354833409">


does a bear crap in the woods..***
</blockquote>


Not if its a polar bear
Nienna is offline  
Old December 6th, 2012, 01:45 PM   #10
Truth Troll
 
Nienna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Viking World
Posts: 3,301
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="TNVolunteer73" data-cid="443437" data-time="1354833504">


*
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="baloney_detector" data-cid="443407" data-time="1354826711">


*
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Danjb25" data-cid="443404" data-time="1354823662">


After his re-election and what he has mandated from congress and what he is asking for as for as the debt ceiling is concerned there should be no doubt that Obama is a Socialist, I was go as far a saying his a fascist marxist.
</blockquote>


Then you apparently don't understand socialism...or even fascism.


*
</blockquote>


Facism is* Socialism* National in type


*


Marxist is Socialism* Communist in Type


*


One right wing the latter left wing


*


both evil


*
</blockquote>


What you write is not necessarily false other than National Socialism


*
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="TNVolunteer73" data-cid="443437" data-time="1354833504">


*
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="baloney_detector" data-cid="443407" data-time="1354826711">


*
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Danjb25" data-cid="443404" data-time="1354823662">


After his re-election and what he has mandated from congress and what he is asking for as for as the debt ceiling is concerned there should be no doubt that Obama is a Socialist, I was go as far a saying his a fascist marxist.
</blockquote>


Then you apparently don't understand socialism...or even fascism.


*
</blockquote>


Facism is* Socialism* National in type


*


Marxist is Socialism* Communist in Type


*


One right wing the latter left wing


*


both evil


*
</blockquote>


True, so is Capitalistic love of money which is right (the root of all evil), and Nationalistic love of power (which corrupts). Unfortunately most ideologies seem to be "evil" in nature for to be good it must show a belief in mankind and care more for freedom than security and control, and what system of ideology does that today?
Nienna is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Forum > Political Ideologies > Socialism

Tags
obama, socialist



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why Socialist Health Care is Not the Answer borden123 Healthcare 20 December 21st, 2016 03:17 PM
Socialist United States kowalskil Americas 0 December 23rd, 2010 12:05 PM
Why Socialist Ideas Don't Work borden123 Money and Finance 274 February 12th, 2010 10:54 AM
McCain, Palin hint that Obama's policies are 'socialist' chandon12 Politicians 2 October 18th, 2008 03:44 PM
Socialist countries have it better hevusa Money and Finance 88 November 26th, 2006 03:32 AM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.