Obama Is Not A Real Socialist

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Anarcho Union, Jun 21, 2010.

  1. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    Because then they are still forced to buy food, power, water ect ect. From corparations who charge what they want when they want because they can. Instead of being able to support yourself and your community, your forced to have to depend on someone else to support them in trade for unfair and immoral slave labour
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    So they should be given everything for free?

    Then who does the work to provide? If one person is entitled to food or a house, then he is entitled to the labor of the farmer and the builder, which makes them slaves.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Repo Man Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,955
    No, Obama isn't a socialist by any stretch of the imagination. Even Ron Paul admits that:
    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/10/ron-paul-barack-obama-is-not-a-socialist/

    But that's irrelevant to those who use the word as an epithet. To them socialist=very bad man. Any further investigation into the actual meaning of the word is unnecessary, and more than a little suspect.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Uploaded with ImageShack.us
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Corporatism is only slightly less evil than socialism.
     
  8. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    Repo Man is quite right. Obama isn't even a Democratic Socialist, although that would be nice. He's a centrist Democrat, perhaps slightly to the left of Bill Clinton, but not by much.
     
  9. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Why would it be nice?

    If you want other peoples' money so badly, try asking them for it.
     
  10. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801

    I'm confused,
    There is not a difference between "Democratic Socialist" and "Social Democratic"?

     
  11. Anarcho Union No Gods No Masters Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,048
    This is one place I agree. Democrtic-socialism is bullshit
     
  12. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    I don't know if there is a difference, but there is certainly the similarity that they are both immoral in the extreme and espoused only by jealous, bitter, and resentful people who thrive on that immorality.
     
  13. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801

    I am against government interference in the economy.
    Government should not have economic activity.
    Government should not redistribute capital.
    But those who have trouble,not their fault,must ensure their existence.
    (Sick, unemployed, elderly, etc.)
    To that I say that there is a social component but not socialist.
     
  14. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Good post, Emil.

    But can't we donate and take care of the sick and poor through our own private voluntary means? Charities do a world of good.
     
  15. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801

    I may not have time or do not know.
    Sun is easier to give some money to government and government have responsibility identify people who need help and evenly distribute the money.
    And this will be one of his duties.
     
  16. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Maybe it's "easier" but it isn't moral. Unless people choose to give money to the government.
     
  17. Emil Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,801

    From this point of view you're right.
    But still it is immoral to let people starve if you have enough and you could give without feeling.

    I propose a system: everybody is obliged to give money,unless he explicitly claims not to give money.
    When he did not give money but receives no help.
    It is fair enough?
     
    Last edited: Jun 21, 2010
  18. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Fine by me.
     
  19. thinking Banned Banned

    Messages:
    1,504
    Obama is not even close to being a real socialist , really
     
  20. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    You know, we tried that, it didn't work out so well. So then we decided that ensuring our own existence requires a coordinated effort, and we call that government.
     
  21. Norsefire Salam Shalom Salom Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,529
    Yes, to ensure that we do not murder or steal from each other, and to defend the borders. I can't see much else that the gov't needs to do that we can't do ourselves.
     
  22. spidergoat Liddle' Dick Tater Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,966
    It would be nice if the poorest of us didn't starve to death, or for old people to freeze in their beds in the wintertime.
     
  23. Doreen Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,101
    If he is a socialist he never would have made it through the guantlet of either of the two parties. I cannot see how his 'rule' remotely approaches the policies of socialist regimes past or present. He would have to want to deprivatize all of what has been privitized since Reagan really got the ball rolling AND keep going right through the private sector. All his money backing would disappear and he would not get a second term. He has done some socialist things. But then so did Bush. And Nixon puts them both to shame.
     

Share This Page