Obama Socialism?

Funnier still is that rather than doing their own work and creating a new false chain email, those that send and post this stuff steal someone else's work and just post Obama's name on it. Even though this work is not theirs and is not in their cause, they felt they could just take it. Someone worked to create this and they took it for their own ends because they feel entitled to use the work of others.

Goddamned socialists!

Get under the bed, Red!

His only stock and store, and ever has been. What a waste of a brain! Straighten up and fly logically possum!

Awwwww,....Robert ain't That bad.

Don't be so smug man, you aren't anything like that in person.

Not a bad arguer though.

I find it amusing that liberals so vehemently contest the use of "socialist" when it comes to this president and his administration.

What's the problem with a "socialist" label?

The same problem that arosewith the "liberal" label?

Can we agree, once and for all, upon a definition of socialism so that we can debate wheter or not Obama embraces it?

Offer a definition rather than a "You ******* assholes Obama (is/isn't) a socialist.

Or don't.

When it describes all it describes none. Socialist to me is a meaningless term if it includes clear capitalists like Obama.



We can try, though there is some inherent ambiguity that I don't see as being excisable. I would define Socialist as someone who advocates or prefers a predominantly socialist economic system, not someone who prefers big government and strong social services in a predominantly capitalist system.

To me, a key part of the definition of socialism is the contrast with a capitalist economic system, and Obama is quite clearly a capitalist.

You consider Obama a clear capitalist but many do not. We believe that once he is no longer restrained by the politics of a seeking election to a second term, he will run true to form.

Regardless of whether or not he has been triumphant in advancing a socialist agenda, he is a socialist.

Personally, "socialist" isn't a curse word. I don't argee with socialist principles, but I hardly think those that do are demons. Idiots perhaps, but not demons.

Obviously the socialtist among us fear the label of "socialist," just as the leftists among us fear the label of "liberal."

Is anyone retreating from "conservative," or "capatalists?"

Correct. That was Communism.

That's what I've always thought: our Conservatives are all hidden commies

For me none.

Or just a tiny one: you have to be one to be called one.

Yeah that must be it.

Leaving aside that elsewhere outside the USA "liberal" means something different - I'm a social-democrat, and I really wouldn't like to be called 'socialist'. (Though my party is a member of the Socialist International.)

Oh and you cannot it any way be called a socialist?

It's funny how leftists (perhaps not yourself) throw around facist and reactionary when it comes to conservatives but they so cutely retreat from a label of "socialist."

Let's end the dance Walter.

Whether or not you consider yourself a socialist, how do you react to those that clearly do?

Spare us the "everyone has a right to their beliefs" pablum. What to you think about there beliefs?

You don't need to voice them to the media or the government, just us.

How do you differ from Germans that self-describe as "socialists?"

These are simple and clear questions, please respond in kind.

Why not?

First of all, he's gonna campaign on that platform (see the budget he just released, or will release, I haven't checked if it's out yet but we are within a week from it) and not wait for election. He's flip-flopped on deficit and austerity and will submit a budget with a greater deficit and campaign on taxing the rich more. This is not going to be a post-election surprise, it will be his platform (and Romney is going to have to adapt to it).

But I still think we aren't talking about the same thing though. Even if his timidity takes leave in his second term it is very clear that while he wants to expand the social contract he has no aspirations to instill a socialist economic system or undermine the market economy.

You sound like you are describing someone who wants to do big government or even social capitalism with an increasingly planned economy, not someone who wants to market socialism which I think most people think of when they hear the term "socialist". Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't see him as wanting to make the economic system of the US abandon capitalism do you? You are just saying he's going to be more aggressive about pursuing social agendas right?



But there are many who do consider it to be a slur on the basis of the pernicious effect that a socialist economic system has on quality of life. And that legitimate qualm with the ideology is leveraged to indict big-government, which is only marginally related to true economic socialism.



I don't see it as being the same thing. I get the connection, as many people will disavow labels that have undergone linguistic derogation, but the derogation of "socialism" was largely achieved under a meaning that is quite different from how you use it, while the derogation of "liberal" doesn't include such definitional equivocation.



Not as many, but that makes perfect sense because the overwhelming majority of US liberals are capitalists and would not as easily derogate the term. You will see greater use of "right winger" or "neocons" as a slur and thusly greater derogation and disavowal of those labels.

But this is a purely rhetorical rebuttal that does not bother to attempt to address his claim at all. It is more emotionally satisfying than intellectually honest and a better way to argue would be to point out that the fallacy of equivocation usually means switch-referencing (often mid-stream), which you haven't done (as far as I can tell, I haven't read all your posts) and are just guilty of stretching the meaning of things like "socialism" to meaningless lengths and stirring up a logomachy.

Your best defense against this particular claim isn't mere rhetorical distain (or the completely unrelated text that follows it) but to actually address the claim directly by disambiguating your use of the terms people find ambiguous (at which point you can't be accused of the fallacy of equivocation unless you move the goal posts afterwards) and disarming the logomachy because as far as I can tell you aren't engaging in the more intellectually dishonest kind of equivocation that would be switch-referencing (moving the goal-posts mid-argument, you moved them before you started).



I hope you had your tongue firmly planted in your cheek when you went for the smoke and mirrors here. If not I wonder what on earth this part of your reply has to do with the claim that you've moved the definitional goalposts.

Just and only because I'm not a Socialist but as said a Social-Democrat.