RVM

...not have a freakin' clue what Socialism actually is?

__________________
There is no substitution for human competition.

snowjeeper

No, they really don't. And those that do - lie about it.

Outlander

By today`s Republican platforms, Ronald Reagan would be called a Socialist too. These teabaggers who are calling Obama a Socialist have no idea what Socialism is. Obama is far from a Socialist and if any of these people think he is, then they need to admit that their Republican messiah was also a pinko socialist too.

CheeseForSteeze

I don't think anyone denies the radical expansionism of the Federal Government under the administrations of the past decades are equally socialist. I abhor Mr. W. Bush as well as Obama.

Outlander

Yes there has been massive expansion of the government, but it is not even remotely close to Socialism. To suggest it is indicates that you have a gross misunderstanding of what Socialism is. Trust me, I have dealt with Socialist regimes and nothing in the United States even comes close or ever has. If you have actually residing in or adjacent to true Socialism, you would not make such a grossly erroneous statement.

As for your "abhorrence" of both administrations, it sounds more like you prefer to ride the fence rather than boldly stand up for your principles. No offense, just an observation. I fully supported President Bush overall and was not optimistic about President Obama, but I give him 110% of my respect and support as the Commander In Chief.

Flick Montana

It's all political rhetoric. They're trying to scare people away from the left with the word Socialism. It used to be Communism. Before that it was Monarchy.

It's never going to end. Just learn to ignore the alarmists.

__________________
Zombie Nation
Gear:
Rome Design 165 / Rome Arsenals
Rome Anthem 158

RVM

Our country actually displays several key parts of Socialism. Graduated income tax, inheritance taxes, public education etc. are all elements of Marxism, and therefore Socialism.

I would argue, at least on an academic level, that the US is a pseudo Social Democracy.

The real irony behind all this is that most of the right wing Christians hate Socialism, yet they don't realize their own deity is in fact one of the biggest communists to have ever lived.

__________________
There is no substitution for human competition.

CheeseForSteeze

There is not some sort of absolute definition which defines when the scope of government has breached into the realm of "socialism". These are just words. I described it as becoming "more socialist" because the State (not the states, which is a completely different concept) wants to assume functions that society would have already provided itself. For you to claim you have dealt with a "Socialist" regime, in some sort of definitive sense of the word, and disclaim the United States has elements that could be described as in the context I used it, is sheer semantic nonsense.

What you're presenting is a false dilemma. This isn't a multiple choice test. There isn't only the choice of support Bush W., support Obama (or for that matter, any other administration who has been elected or candidate who vied for to the office of the President) or you're a fence sitter. I will support a candidate who defends The Constitution. Neither of those candidates did so. So me not choosing to support them actually is boldly standing up for my principles.

jdang307

There is no one definition of socialism so you have to define what socialism is.

I am a republican. I take that back, more accurately I'm a fiscal conservative. I don't give a rats ass about social issues either way. Let people be what they be.

What we've seen since FDR is not technically socialism. That's a political fear mongering tactic. Not socialism in the classical sense. But there are many splinters of socialism with many different names. A toned down socialism. Democratic socialism. Social Democracy etc. These are real things that exist today and that Obama et. al. both want to emulate. That is fact.

To call it socialism though is to try and conjure up images of old Europe WWII. Yes, but it's politics. It would be more accurate to call it Statism, and that's the word someone like Mark Levin prefers to use. And that is not exclusive to Democrats, as Levin points out. Bush was as much a statist as any democrat.

I can easily flip the script and say that Democrats have ZERO idea what the tea party stands for. They demagogue the Tea Party's stance. The tea party stands for limited govt., similar to that which the Founding Fathers put forth in the Constitution. Democrats create the straw man argument that the Tea Party then stands for zero govt. That is not true. Zero govt. is anarchy, or at the very least libertarian style govt. I've heard some from the left throw out Somalia as an example of what Tea Partiers want.

What??? There are ignorants on either side of the aisle.

Democrats also don't know what capitalism means. They label someone who is a capitalist as someone who wants zero intervention into the markets. Not true. That is laissez-faire/true free market. Nobody is arguing for that. Capitalism requires govt. to protect property rights. Capitalism is not zero govt involvement. That's a red herring, it's silly. Don't believe it the next time you hear it.

I'm not a tea partier, but I agree with some of their points. The founding fathers established this country as a constitutional republic with strong state rights. Times have changed, yes. The absolutely hated democratic forms of govt. and definitely did not envision such a strong form of Federal Govt. Abraham Lincoln was the first to break that, FDR killed it.

jdang307

Don't forget a member of the Senate Democratic Caucus, Bernie Sanders, is a self-professed socialist. Obama appointed Van Jones Green Jobs Czar. He's a self professed communist. Obama in college sought out the marxist teachers.

So is Obama a socialist a la Lenin/Stalin?

No.

Is Obama a democratic socialist a la the Europeans? The argument can be made, yes. If Obama were to show his true colors, without laws, without US politics, he'd be a European socialist. I have zero doubt in my mind. In practice though he's restricted.

The new socialism is statism. Centralized planning, control, regulations. You regulate something to the point you are a de facto controller, but in name you are not in fact the owner.