A better term than socialist to describe Obama

[Bern80]

A discussion was had some time ago about whether Obama is was leading us down a path to socialism. Many disagreed because making the excuse that we weren't using the word 'socialism' accurately. I believe the definitions of terms change over time because, well, they have. Yesterdays liberals are today's conservatives for example.

That's neither here nor there now, because I stumbled on a term that more accurately describes the path Obama is on: Totalitarianism. It is a bit harder to argue against this I believe. He without question is expanding the federal government to a point larger than it has EVER been. And we will most certainly have fewer freedoms along the way from what you can smoke (if at all) to the kind of car you're allowed to drive.

 

[Sarah G]

Pragmatist.

 

[Iriemon]

A discussion was had some time ago about whether Obama is was leading us down a path to socialism. Many disagreed because making the excuse that we weren't using the word 'socialism' accurately. I believe the definitions of terms change over time because, well, they have. Yesterdays liberals are today's conservatives for example.

That's neither here nor there now, because I stumbled on a term that more accurately describes the path Obama is on: Totalitarianism. It is a bit harder to argue against this I believe. He without question is expanding the federal government to a point larger than it has EVER been. And we will most certainly have fewer freedoms along the way from what you can smoke (if at all) to the kind of car you're allowed to drive.

So I'll ask the questions conservatives frequently asked when folks were complaining about Bush administration actions:

"What specific freedom have you personally lost"?

 

[NOBama]

A discussion was had some time ago about whether Obama is was leading us down a path to socialism. Many disagreed because making the excuse that we weren't using the word 'socialism' accurately. I believe the definitions of terms change over time because, well, they have. Yesterdays liberals are today's conservatives for example.

That's neither here nor there now, because I stumbled on a term that more accurately describes the path Obama is on: Totalitarianism. It is a bit harder to argue against this I believe. He without question is expanding the federal government to a point larger than it has EVER been. And we will most certainly have fewer freedoms along the way from what you can smoke (if at all) to the kind of car you're allowed to drive.

No matter what color lipstick ya put on a pig, it's still a pig!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

A discussion was had some time ago about whether Obama is was leading us down a path to socialism. Many disagreed because making the excuse that we weren't using the word 'socialism' accurately. I believe the definitions of terms change over time because, well, they have. Yesterdays liberals are today's conservatives for example.

That's neither here nor there now, because I stumbled on a term that more accurately describes the path Obama is on: Totalitarianism. It is a bit harder to argue against this I believe. He without question is expanding the federal government to a point larger than it has EVER been. And we will most certainly have fewer freedoms along the way from what you can smoke (if at all) to the kind of car you're allowed to drive.

Indeed Bern, the meaning of words change, and often for innoculous reasons which bring no serious harm to the culture.

But in many cases the meaning of words change because of serious cultural disorders. Socialism still means what it's always meant; which is the false rights of the collective overide the true and valid rights of the individual; and that is the meaning of totalitarianism.

Leftist need to constantly change the meaning of the words used to define them. This is due to the stigma associated with the failures which they have wrought which become closely associated with these terms... thus the next generation of those who hold to those same traits as the 'socialist' rejecting that "THEIR IDEAS" mean the same or will result int he same catastrophic ends which the last batch of socialist produced.

This is why fascist, and communist are treated as fictional characters... because those two ideas; the concepts which those words represent are reprehensible... and the people advocating for the SAME THING that brought us those catastrophes are NOT TRYING TO BRING CATASTROPHE... they're trying to bring the secular utopia that their predecessors were trying to bring... 'but everybody KNOWS that their predecessors were BAD PEOPLE and they're not bad people... they're good people who know BETTER THAN THE BLACK AND WHITE PEOPLE OF THEIR IDEOLOGICAL PAST.

Anyone that reads the drivel of Ag-whats-her-name or any of her nom de gers will see how she KNOWS BETTER than the corrupt individuals that destroyed the communist efforts... SHE and her comrades are NOT CORRUPT... NO No... IT was the STATE CAPITALIST that screwed things up. AG will tell you that SHE can't be called a COMMUNIST, she's an Anarcho-communist... ANYTHING but what she is... which is what her ideological predecessors were... she's a fool, who is pushing the false rights of the collective, over the true and valid rights of te individual... she's a communist/socialist; she's a totalitarian.

As is The Lord of the Idiots, King Hussein of the US; as is Harry Ried, Nancy Pelosi, Bawney Fwank and the full scope of the Congressional Caucus which just happen to be Black...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

A discussion was had some time ago about whether Obama is was leading us down a path to socialism. Many disagreed because making the excuse that we weren't using the word 'socialism' accurately. I believe the definitions of terms change over time because, well, they have. Yesterdays liberals are today's conservatives for example.

That's neither here nor there now, because I stumbled on a term that more accurately describes the path Obama is on: Totalitarianism. It is a bit harder to argue against this I believe. He without question is expanding the federal government to a point larger than it has EVER been. And we will most certainly have fewer freedoms along the way from what you can smoke (if at all) to the kind of car you're allowed to drive.

So I'll ask the questions conservatives frequently asked when folks were complaining about Bush administration actions:

"What specific freedom have you personally lost"?

Gee, let's see... So the member comes to ask "What freedoms have we lost since The Lord of the Idiots has come to power, of these three whole months...

Well, we've lost the freedom we lost due to leftist policy...

Hmm... the freedom to Pay Bonuses which we may have contracted to pay, before the Government forced us to accept bailout money... the freedom to have who we choose to have as the Cheif Executive of our Company.... We're looking presently at losing the freedom to pay BACK money the government forced us to pay, so as to unburden ourselves from the absurd restriction that the government placed upon us when they forced us to take that money...

We've lost the freedom to have our currency resting against a true, demonstrable value...

We've lost the freedom to determine what defines Holy Matrimony...

We're looking at losing the freedom to keep and bear arms...

We've lost the freedom to expect that once conceived, we should not be MURDERED by our own MOTHER...

And so on...

 

[MaggieMae]

A discussion was had some time ago about whether Obama is was leading us down a path to socialism. Many disagreed because making the excuse that we weren't using the word 'socialism' accurately. I believe the definitions of terms change over time because, well, they have. Yesterdays liberals are today's conservatives for example.

That's neither here nor there now, because I stumbled on a term that more accurately describes the path Obama is on: Totalitarianism. It is a bit harder to argue against this I believe. He without question is expanding the federal government to a point larger than it has EVER been. And we will most certainly have fewer freedoms along the way from what you can smoke (if at all) to the kind of car you're allowed to drive.

So I'll ask the questions conservatives frequently asked when folks were complaining about Bush administration actions:

"What specific freedom have you personally lost"?

Gee, let's see... So the member comes to ask "What freedoms have we lost since The Lord of the Idiots has come to power, of these three whole months...

Well, we've lost the freedom we lost due to leftist policy...

Hmm... the freedom to Pay Bonuses which we may have contracted to pay, before the Government forced us to accept bailout money... the freedom to have who we choose to have as the Cheif Executive of our Company.... We're looking presently at losing the freedom to pay BACK money the government forced us to pay, so as to unburden ourselves from the absurd restriction that the government placed upon us when they forced us to take that money...

We've lost the freedom to have our currency resting against a true, demonstrable value...

We've lost the freedom to determine what defines Holy Matrimony...

We're looking at losing the freedom to keep and bear arms...

We've lost the freedom to expect that once conceived, we should not be MURDERED by our own MOTHER...

And so on...

You can pay bonuses 'till all your CEOs get their starter castles get built--just not using bailout money.

The plunge of the dollar hardly started when Obama took office.

The legal definition of "marriage" remains between a man and a woman. What "freedom" in marriage have you lost?

Your stance on abortion is skewed just like the rest of your overbearing articulation of it.

Frankly, put to the test for a decent response to a simple question, you failed.

 

[amrchaos]

A discussion was had some time ago about whether Obama is was leading us down a path to socialism. Many disagreed because making the excuse that we weren't using the word 'socialism' accurately. I believe the definitions of terms change over time because, well, they have. Yesterdays liberals are today's conservatives for example.

That's neither here nor there now, because I stumbled on a term that more accurately describes the path Obama is on: Totalitarianism. It is a bit harder to argue against this I believe. He without question is expanding the federal government to a point larger than it has EVER been. And we will most certainly have fewer freedoms along the way from what you can smoke (if at all) to the kind of car you're allowed to drive.

I think your arguement has a couple of flaws.

First--Totalitarianism is basically a dictatorship. Expanding the ROLE of government does not lead to this--but taking power/rights away from the public does.


So you need to relate role expansion of government to the elimination of the peoples right to make this case

Second--Socialism or corporatism is probably closer to what Obama is doing. The socialist part comes in the expanded public benefits and unemployment coverage. Corporatism in the Bailout of corporations and banks. Unfortunately, if we are in an economic crisis, both policies being applied may be necessary in order for the government to do its main job--MAINTAIN ORDER. Understand, maintaining ordr is not always just crime and punishment. In most cases, crime and crisis prevention policies are necessary to keep a sound society in tact.

 

[Iriemon]

A discussion was had some time ago about whether Obama is was leading us down a path to socialism. Many disagreed because making the excuse that we weren't using the word 'socialism' accurately. I believe the definitions of terms change over time because, well, they have. Yesterdays liberals are today's conservatives for example.

That's neither here nor there now, because I stumbled on a term that more accurately describes the path Obama is on: Totalitarianism. It is a bit harder to argue against this I believe. He without question is expanding the federal government to a point larger than it has EVER been. And we will most certainly have fewer freedoms along the way from what you can smoke (if at all) to the kind of car you're allowed to drive.

So I'll ask the questions conservatives frequently asked when folks were complaining about Bush administration actions:

"What specific freedom have you personally lost"?

Gee, let's see... So the member comes to ask "What freedoms have we lost since The Lord of the Idiots has come to power, of these three whole months...

Well, we've lost the freedom we lost due to leftist policy...

Hmm... the freedom to Pay Bonuses which we may have contracted to pay,

I'll continue with the game.

Tells us about the bonus you were denied.

before the Government forced us to accept bailout money... the freedom to have who we choose to have as the Cheif Executive of our Company....

Which company did you lose your freedom to choose CEO?

We're looking presently at losing the freedom to pay BACK money the government forced us to pay, so as to unburden ourselves from the absurd restriction that the government placed upon us when they forced us to take that money...

We've lost the freedom to have our currency resting against a true, demonstrable value...

Uh huh. And what have you been prevent from doing for losing this freedom.

We've lost the freedom to determine what defines Holy Matrimony...

And who prevented you from choosing who you wanted to marry you?

We're looking at losing the freedom to keep and bear arms...

And who has come and taken your weapons.

We've lost the freedom to expect that once conceived, we should not be MURDERED by our own MOTHER...

And so on...

And who has come to abort you?

Same kind of stuff argued by conservatives when folks were complaining about the Bush administration.

 

[amrchaos]

Hey Iremon

The quote concerning government forcing corps to take bailout money--What about FORD?

 

[xsited1]

I liked what the Bass said:

"Obama is a house nigga for rightwing Zionists in Israel and AIPAC."

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1168693-post3.html

 

[Bern80]

A discussion was had some time ago about whether Obama is was leading us down a path to socialism. Many disagreed because making the excuse that we weren't using the word 'socialism' accurately. I believe the definitions of terms change over time because, well, they have. Yesterdays liberals are today's conservatives for example.

That's neither here nor there now, because I stumbled on a term that more accurately describes the path Obama is on: Totalitarianism. It is a bit harder to argue against this I believe. He without question is expanding the federal government to a point larger than it has EVER been. And we will most certainly have fewer freedoms along the way from what you can smoke (if at all) to the kind of car you're allowed to drive.

So I'll ask the questions conservatives frequently asked when folks were complaining about Bush administration actions:

"What specific freedom have you personally lost"?

So far few if any. I'm speaking more of what Obama has said he plans to do and what his past indicates he will do.

If his position on guns will be anything like the way he voted as a senator, the freedom to own guns will most certainly be severely restricted.

In his push to make us go green we will lose the freedom to purchase the vehicles of our choice.

If his plans for universal health care are implemented you will most certainly lose choices in seeking healthcare.

Without question he is giving more power to the federal government meaning the states are losing there freedom to govern the way they see fit.

The founders weren't morons. They had a plan to evenly distribute power between multiple branches of government and between state and federal government. If someone doesn't like the system, fine, but you need to follow the rules of the constitution if you want to change the constitution.

 

[Annie]

Pragmatist.

Caesar of our times.

 

[Annie]

Hey Iremon

The quote concerning government forcing corps to take bailout money--What about FORD?

Banks. Started with Bush, continued with Obama:

Barack Obama Maintains Control Over Banks By Refusing to Accept Repayment of TARP Money - WSJ.com