The Tea Party Republicans are Revolting

I am not sure I understand how you think your narrative is different than mine.

I think what you are saying is that you sincerely believe it when you call Obama a "lying socialist" and that this makes it something other than "hyperbolic nonsense." In truth it is the American voters who are the arbiters, not your opinion no matter how sincere it is. I suppose that this is a good thing.

If you are sincere, then you are rather unusual, especially for your side. I didn't make up the lying African thing.

"All the bums out" is all inclusive. You do have difficulty with English, don't you?

He is no socialist, and I have read on the subject and have many books on the subject... Socialism was not our earliest economy but it has been our longest enduring economy, but it falls apart with out honor, and begins to die as soon as society becomes divided.. Mr. Obama has bought into the capitalist system bigtime.... He is keeping capital on life support while the people lose the support of their government...He is no socialist...

Spot on! Most conservatives do not understand definitions.

Max you wrote

"You quite often accuse Obama of being a "socialist" and even an "lying African". "

If you didn't mean me specifically, please clarify.

I'm not sure why you guys consider "socialist" a slur.

I apologize. My intent was "you" as the second person plural (as in "you guys"), but even that sounds more personal than I would like. If I had considered it more, I would have written "Tea party members quite often accuse Obama of being a 'socialist' and even an 'lying African'. "

As far as socialist, in todays US political speech socialist has two meanings. The first is the tradition academic sense meaning someone who advocates "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods".

There is no one with any understanding who would claim that that Obama is a socialist in this sense. Obama has never advocated collective or governmental ownership other than the brief Keynsian reaction to economic Crisis.

The other meaning of socialist is certainly a slur meaning roughly "un-American traitor who is threatening my freedom".

Isn't it obvious that anyone who isn't completely ignorant of the meaning of the word "socialism" in its academic sense would be using it as a slur?

Your definition and analysis are correct. Why do so many people have difficulty with simple words and their use?

I think Voltaire said: If you would discuss with me, define your terms... That is half the battle because if you can define the terms you have the argument half won... To control the dialogue is to control the conclusion, and this is what Lenin did, and that is what Bismark did, and that is what Napoleon did, and what Hitler did... The republicans are getting America to talk about the problems we face in the way they want to talk about them, and that does not mean rationally... To the extent we have bought into the dream of America the land of individualism, individual initiative, and free enterprise we will also accept the republican way of thought and their solutions... If we think this place has got to work for all of us, and see the problem as giving too much of the government and country to capital, we will reject the republican solution...Which is not so much solution, but deja vue all over again without the resources, manufacturing or the markets... The problem is not one simply of definitions... How we define America, for example, is a big part of the problem...

The definition thing is A problem since we are dealing with moral forms that people give meaning to, rather than physical forms that everyone can explore as objects... So we have these subjective meanings... But history shows us that when in the past we have not been able to agree on the meaning of simple words like liberty, that violence as grown out of it... Now we might laugh at anyone saying: My liberty depends upon the enslavement of others... But once we did not laugh, but killed over the thought... Well; the thought is still there... The thought is there that the price of keeping the poor fed and healthy is an infringement on the liberty to use people and dispose of them... Is it worth killing over??? The answer depends upon your definitions...

Here, in Germany "Socialist" became and was a slur word in late 19th/early 20th century: Kaiser Bill originally coined the term "unpatriotic persons" (vaterlandslose Gesellen) for Communists, Socialists and Social Democrats. That was shortened quickly just to "communist" and/or "Socialist" as a shorter slur word in common language. (Source: Dieter Groh, Peter Brandt, Vaterlandslose Gesellen. Sozialdemokratie und Nation, 1860–1990., Munich, 1992)

Usage of words in different cultures can have different meanings as you have explained the different usage in the states and in Germany.

Apology accepted.

The Tea Party should not be held accountable for every idiotic expression any more that the Anti-War movement should be.

Do you agree?

Obama has on numerous occasions, expressed a desire to redistribute wealth in America. Obamacare, irrespective of what weasel arguments you might buy, is effort to nationalize healthcare.

Is he a card carrying member of the American Socialist Party? No.

Are his policies and inclinations socialistic? Yes.

There is only one reason Liberals, who favor socialism, react so vociferously to identification as socialist...they know the majority of Americans don't approve of socialism. So blind them with bullshit...form the advantageous "narrative."

Obama favors socialistic policies, but it is not only absurd, it's horrendous to call him a socialist.

Well that's quite applicable because as we all know, as goes Germany, so goes America.

It actually is quite applicable - since there hasn't been any Socialist party anywhere before there was one in Germany. (1869)

And the term socialism was first used by Marx and Engels, who were Germans.(1848)

That is amusing given that there is an army of lobbies on any given day in Washington trying and getting laws pass to distribute the wealth of this nation away from the middle class and the working class and to the super wealthy.

Wealth is being redistribute but not towards the mass of the people but toward both corporations and the wealthy.

We now have a top rate that is the lowest it been in many generations and major corporations such as GE who have a profits of 15 billions in 2010 and not only pay zero taxes but was given 3 billions in addition by the treasury. Two percents of this nation now own fifty percents of the total national wealth and that is only going to be increasing in th coming years.

There is and had been class warfare ongoing in this county for a least 30 years and the wealthy are winning the war with the aid of fools who can not think beyond labels such as socialism.

A label that is being apply to anyone who is trying to prevent this tend from turning most of us into serfs.

Bull Finn,

Your argument is full of contradictions. You throw out terms like "socialism" redistribution of wealth" and "nationalize healthcare" and then make statements about what the "Majority of Americans" support that directly contradict your definitions.

The majority of Americans support government run health care. What you are calling "Obamacare" is a compromise solution (that isn't anything like socialism because it is run by private companies) that loses support on both sides. But polls that ask Americans directly if they support government run health care show strong support for the idea.

And your term "distribution of wealth" is poorly defined. The clear majority of Americans support Obama's plan (correct me if I am mistaken about what you were talking about) to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans.

You are calling these "socialist policies" only because your political narrative benefits by calling them "socialist policies". In truth, they aren't socialist at all.

Bernie Sanders is a socialist. He is calling for a primary challenge to Obama.

Even though the Kaiser wanted to draw a bloodbath for the Socialists as a Christmas present, German Socialism was always more nationalistic than socialist, and just like FDR, Bismark had the sense to co-opt their demands for the improvement of the Reich... Kindergarten and a national retirement plan were about preventing revolution rather than for the purpose of helping the poor...

Kindergarten had nothing to do with "preventing revolution". Friedrich Fröbel and Maria Montessori can hardly be subsumised under this 'label'

Don't miss my point... It was not out of generosity that they instituted universal education... The needed an industrial work force and school was only a part of their propaganda system... Well into the Weimar republic pictures of Bismark and the Kaisar still graced the classroom walls, and the argument had to be made for the flag of the republic to replace that of the Empire... School teachers made up a large part of Nazi Party leadership... The completion, the fulfillment, the happiness and freedom of the people was never their object in education... People were produced to fill a role, and one where education for education had no point...

Well, I guess when you have wealth you may have a different perspective on the government's redistribution of it than when you're counting on being on the receiving end.

Labels are useful. They help us know what we are dealing with. If some people consider socialism to be the equivalent of evil, that's not my problem. I happen not to, but I don't feel obliged to avoid using the term because others might.

Well, we'll see how many people support Obama and his socialist ways in 2012, won't we?