How is Obama NOT a Socialist?

[kaz]

not exactly... you are closer to communism with that definition.

Agreed. But how is socialism not like that?

Socialism does not preclude private enterprise, you are just not allowed to operate sweat shops or otherwise unfairly exploit your workers or tenants if you are a landlord.

Socialism is central economic planning, central planning can only be done by government with force. Capitalism is a distributed (individual) economic system. "Private enterprise" in a socialist system means that the socialist system has allowed this particular private enterprise, which means it's still socialism. Central planning is in control.

That is what confuses liberals, you think as long as you allow any individual choice, you're not socialists. It's like saying that because you can turn left or right at an intersection, the streets aren't run by the government.

 

[tooAlive]

Socialism does not preclude private enterprise, you are just not allowed to operate sweat shops or otherwise unfairly exploit your workers or tenants if you are a landlord.

After debating with many socialists, that's what they all ultimately believed in.

They don't see the difference between employing someone and exploiting them.

People who go around calling themselves socialists are not usually reasonable people, they are much the same as any political fringe dweller, use them as examples at your peril.

Or maybe they were real socialists?

Not like the closet-socialists that occasionally show their true colors and cherry pick the facts they like to make them sound less retarded.

I will agree with you on one thing though; neither of those two groups was very reasonable.

 

[occupied]

Agreed. But how is socialism not like that?

Socialism does not preclude private enterprise, you are just not allowed to operate sweat shops or otherwise unfairly exploit your workers or tenants if you are a landlord.

Wrong, moron. Socialism does preclude private enterprise.

I love how all these libturds claim conservatives don't know what socialism is. Then they immediately prove they don't know the meaning themselves.

Communist socialism in theory, perhaps, but hardly ever in practice. there are different flavors of socialism, typical an extremist such as yourself can only talk in absolute terms and extreme concepts.

 

[tooAlive]

Socialism does not preclude private enterprise, you are just not allowed to operate sweat shops or otherwise unfairly exploit your workers or tenants if you are a landlord.

Wrong, moron. Socialism does preclude private enterprise.

I love how all these libturds claim conservatives don't know what socialism is. Then they immediately prove they don't know the meaning themselves.

Communist socialism in theory, perhaps, but hardly ever in practice. there are different flavors of socialism, typical an extremist such as yourself can only talk in absolute terms and extreme concepts.

We may talk in absolutes sometimes because that's where the yellow brick road of socialism ultimately goes.

The socialism you may be talking about is the one currently in America.

 

[occupied]

Wrong, moron. Socialism does preclude private enterprise.

I love how all these libturds claim conservatives don't know what socialism is. Then they immediately prove they don't know the meaning themselves.

Communist socialism in theory, perhaps, but hardly ever in practice. there are different flavors of socialism, typical an extremist such as yourself can only talk in absolute terms and extreme concepts.

We may talk in absolutes sometimes because that's where the yellow brick road of socialism ultimately goes.

The socialism you may be talking about is the one currently in America.

And much of the world. It seems to be the basis of civilized nation states whereas the lack of it seems to be the basis of anarchy or dictatorship.

 

[tooAlive]

Communist socialism in theory, perhaps, but hardly ever in practice. there are different flavors of socialism, typical an extremist such as yourself can only talk in absolute terms and extreme concepts.

We may talk in absolutes sometimes because that's where the yellow brick road of socialism ultimately goes.

The socialism you may be talking about is the one currently in America.

And much of the world. It seems to be the basis of civilized nation states whereas the lack of it seems to be the basis of anarchy or dictatorship.

Funny, when the founding fathers set the blueprint for what our country was going to be like, there wasn't much socialism. And we prospered like no country before us ever had.

It wasn't until socialism started to creep up on us that our nation has slowly been digging itself into the hole we see today.

Granted, some of it is healthy for an economy. But eventually too much sugar will ruin your coffee.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'm not even going to mention all the "conspiracies" linking him to Marxists in his early life or his solidarity with other Socialist dictators around the world.

But how is someone who preaches redistribution and wants to further Socialize our country not a Socialist?

Obviously, the hard-core Marxists don't welcome his as one of their own. But it's not as if he can do whatever he wants like it's all hunky-dory.

"Just because he sleeps wit other men doesn't mean he's gay."

How much socialism do you have to support in order to be classified a socialist?

 

[occupied]

We may talk in absolutes sometimes because that's where the yellow brick road of socialism ultimately goes.

The socialism you may be talking about is the one currently in America.

And much of the world. It seems to be the basis of civilized nation states whereas the lack of it seems to be the basis of anarchy or dictatorship.

Funny, when the founding fathers set the blueprint for what our country was going to be like, there wasn't much socialism. And we prospered like no country before us ever had.

It wasn't until socialism started to creep up on us that our nation has slowly been digging itself into the hole we see today.

Granted, some of it is healthy for an economy. But eventually too much sugar will ruin your coffee.

You seem to have a somewhat moderate position on it, some have extreme positions where they would just as soon cut off everything and let the bodies pile up. The extremists cannot be allowed to control the discussion of how the government should be run. The left keeps a pretty good handle on their extremism, the right is out of control.

 

[tooAlive]

And much of the world. It seems to be the basis of civilized nation states whereas the lack of it seems to be the basis of anarchy or dictatorship.

Funny, when the founding fathers set the blueprint for what our country was going to be like, there wasn't much socialism. And we prospered like no country before us ever had.

It wasn't until socialism started to creep up on us that our nation has slowly been digging itself into the hole we see today.

Granted, some of it is healthy for an economy. But eventually too much sugar will ruin your coffee.

You seem to have a somewhat moderate position on it, some have extreme positions where they would just as soon cut off everything and let the bodies pile up. The extremists cannot be allowed to control the discussion of how the government should be run. The left keeps a pretty good handle on their extremism, the right is out of control.

I think we can both agree on that.

 

[bripat9643]

Socialism does not preclude private enterprise, you are just not allowed to operate sweat shops or otherwise unfairly exploit your workers or tenants if you are a landlord.

Wrong, moron. Socialism does preclude private enterprise.

I love how all these libturds claim conservatives don't know what socialism is. Then they immediately prove they don't know the meaning themselves.

Communist socialism in theory, perhaps, but hardly ever in practice. there are different flavors of socialism, typical an extremist such as yourself can only talk in absolute terms and extreme concepts.

It doesn't happen "in practice" because the closer you get to 100% socialism the closer you get to mass starvation and societal collapse.

Yeah, there are various "flavors" of socialism. There are various mixtures of socialism and capitalism. The more socialism in the mix, the more poverty.

 

[bripat9643]

Communist socialism in theory, perhaps, but hardly ever in practice. there are different flavors of socialism, typical an extremist such as yourself can only talk in absolute terms and extreme concepts.

We may talk in absolutes sometimes because that's where the yellow brick road of socialism ultimately goes.

The socialism you may be talking about is the one currently in America.

And much of the world. It seems to be the basis of civilized nation states whereas the lack of it seems to be the basis of anarchy or dictatorship.

Horseshit. Was the USA suffering anarchy and dictatorship in 1890? Most dictatorships practice socialism to varying degrees. The theory that socialism contributes in any way to civilization is utterly lacking any trace of supporting evidence.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm not even going to mention all the "conspiracies" linking him to Marxists in his early life or his solidarity with other Socialist dictators around the world.

But how is someone who preaches redistribution and wants to further Socialize our country not a Socialist?

Obviously, the hard-core Marxists don't welcome his as one of their own. But it's not as if he can do whatever he wants like it's all hunky-dory.

"Just because he sleeps wit other men doesn't mean he's gay."

How much socialism do you have to support in order to be classified a socialist?

Obama and all his apologists in this forum are well past any conceivable limit.

 

[occupied]

We may talk in absolutes sometimes because that's where the yellow brick road of socialism ultimately goes.

The socialism you may be talking about is the one currently in America.

And much of the world. It seems to be the basis of civilized nation states whereas the lack of it seems to be the basis of anarchy or dictatorship.

Horseshit. Was the USA suffering anarchy and dictatorship in 1890? Most dictatorships practice socialism to varying degrees. The theory that socialism contributes in any way to civilization is utterly lacking any trace of supporting evidence.

You are all kinds of wrong but remembering our past dialogs I am not about to make an effort to explain exactly why you are full of shit as usual.

 

[kaz]

I'm not even going to mention all the "conspiracies" linking him to Marxists in his early life or his solidarity with other Socialist dictators around the world.

But how is someone who preaches redistribution and wants to further Socialize our country not a Socialist?

Obviously, the hard-core Marxists don't welcome his as one of their own. But it's not as if he can do whatever he wants like it's all hunky-dory.

"Just because he sleeps wit other men doesn't mean he's gay."

How much socialism do you have to support in order to be classified a socialist?

If you think it's the job of government to answer this question, then you are a socialist.

 

[bripat9643]

You seem to have a somewhat moderate position on it, some have extreme positions where they would just as soon cut off everything and let the bodies pile up. The extremists cannot be allowed to control the discussion of how the government should be run. The left keeps a pretty good handle on their extremism, the right is out of control.

There have never been any bodies "piled up" as a result of capitalism. The body piles are all found in socialist countries.

 

[bripat9643]

And much of the world. It seems to be the basis of civilized nation states whereas the lack of it seems to be the basis of anarchy or dictatorship.

Horseshit. Was the USA suffering anarchy and dictatorship in 1890? Most dictatorships practice socialism to varying degrees. The theory that socialism contributes in any way to civilization is utterly lacking any trace of supporting evidence.

You are all kinds of wrong but remembering our past dialogs I am not about to make an effort to explain exactly why you are full of shit as usual.

Of course you don't want to explain it. The effort is futile.

Again, was the USA suffering anarchy and dictatorship in 1890?

 

[occupied]

Horseshit. Was the USA suffering anarchy and dictatorship in 1890? Most dictatorships practice socialism to varying degrees. The theory that socialism contributes in any way to civilization is utterly lacking any trace of supporting evidence.

You are all kinds of wrong but remembering our past dialogs I am not about to make an effort to explain exactly why you are full of shit as usual.

Of course you don't want to explain it. The effort is futile.

Again, was the USA suffering anarchy and dictatorship in 1890?

Lol you are not worth the typing it would take to explain something you are just going to reject out of hand, you are just about the worst excuse for a conservative I have ever encountered and totally uneducable.

 

[regent]

It sounds like an "either-or" argument either a nation is sociailist or it is not. Most nations on earth are a mixture of socialism and capitalism, and depending on definition the US may have had socialist elements as soon as the Constitution was ratified.

 

[bripat9643]

You are all kinds of wrong but remembering our past dialogs I am not about to make an effort to explain exactly why you are full of shit as usual.

Of course you don't want to explain it. The effort is futile.

Again, was the USA suffering anarchy and dictatorship in 1890?

Lol you are not worth the typing it would take to explain something you are just going to reject out of hand, you are just about the worst excuse for a conservative I have ever encountered and totally uneducable.

So a god conservative is one who falls your socialist idiocies? You don't want to answer the question because you know it proves that your theories are moronic.

Of course I'm going to reject what you say out of hand. You're a socialist idiot. You also reject what I say out of hand, but I don't respond to your posts in the hopes that you will one day see the light. I know that's a fools hope. I respond to your post for the sake of lurkers who are educable. I know the minute they read a cogent argument against your delusions, they will easily see that your ideas are just plain wrong.

 

[bripat9643]

It sounds like an "either-or" argument either a nation is sociailist or it is not. Most nations on earth are a mixture of socialism and capitalism, and depending on definition the US may have had socialist elements as soon as the Constitution was ratified.

The military has always been socialist. It can't be any other way because you can't have a military that isn't run by the government.