Obama '08?

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

Okie's graph was people who STRONGLY approve compared to people who STRONGLY disapprove.

It was not a simple Approve/Disapprove graph.

true enough, so what do you think it all means?

2 Replies

@dyslexia,

That more and more people are not strongly approving of Obama's job performance, and they are probably only approving of it (which given some of his recent decisions (bailouts, AIG, GM, FISA, state secrets, etc)) is very believable.

It's probably safe to say that the general feeling about Obama's job performance (on the 5 point scale) is declining. Hell it wasn't going to stay at 60% strongly approve forever.

0 Replies

@dyslexia,

dyslexia wrote:

so what do you think it all means?

What, indeed. I have been tossing out Rasmussen polling data periodically since March 1st. A recap - the 1st number is President Obama's index number: % of folks who STRONGLY APPROVE - % of people who STRONGLY DISAPPROVE. The second set of numbers drops the word "strongly."

3/1: +8 58-40%
3/15: +6 56-43%
4/1: +5 56-44%
4/7: +8 58-41%
4/14: +3 55-44%

I realize that some or many of yall don't believe in polls. If you have expressed that opinion before, there is no need to do it again unless you really want to. Also, polls should not be compared with each other horizontally: Rasmussen vs Gallup vs Fox vs CNN. Each of them uses different methodoligies and each, perhaps, has a bias. Each should, in my view, be viewed vertically.
So what does it all mean, DysBob? I don't know. Mr Obama may have gotten a bounce out of his tour of Europe but seems to have gotten little if anything out of the pirate thing.
I believe that things are stabilizing in the economy a bit. We came close to falling over a cliff. But in recent days some of the banks are reporting earnings that are good, or at least not awful. There could be-or could already be happening-a backlash there. The general public could be thinking: the fat cats get fatter at the expense of the rest of us.

p.s. If there is some poll from a reputable source that any of yall follow, please post an update periodically.

1 Reply

@realjohnboy,

rjb, I believe and encourage you to keep posting those poll numbers. They surely do have meaning in our political system where people of all shapes and colors make their own subjective choices as the wind blows. It'll be interesting to see what happens when things settle down in a few years.

0 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

The Nazis were very creative with names, okie. You've made this point before - that the fact that they referred to themselves as "National Socialists" indicated that they were in fact socialists. I'd like to know what makes you think this name correctly reflected their ideology - do you think they were more honest in choosing a name for their party than they were when it came to invading countries and murdering people in gas chambers?

But that doesn't mean the Nazi Party was not a socialist party, oe, that is hardly a good argument at all, that the Nazi's were good at deception, therefore they named the party to deceive. I think not.

Quote:

Worker ownership means worker ownership. I think this would be your strongest point, though - Socialism, according to Marx at least, is the phase where the means of production have been taken away from the capitalists, presumably via the state.

The difference I see is semantics, oe, but ultimately the state has control, whether it be Marx or Hitlers brand of state control.

Quote:

Please point out what you think is "spin". Merely saying that something is a "spin" doesn't make it so.

I did as briefly and concisely, hitting some high points, with Advocate. I would rather not get into a detailed debate here, oe, on Obama's thread.

Quote:

No. Eugenics is the idea that certain characteristics of a given human population can be improved either by discouraging or banning reproduction by persons who have certain defects, or by encouraging reproduction by persons with desirable traits.

This has nothing to do with feminism.

Also, unrelated to the question of whether Hitler was a socialist.

You might want to read up on Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and eugenics, and she was apparently an inspiration for Hitler along these lines? Not exactly a conservative issue or a to the right issue, oe, Sanger and abortion is right out of the liberal leftist playbook, kind of a holy grail of liberalism.

Quote:

okie wrote:
Dictators are necessary under socialism, not conservatism,

That's a logical fallacy.

It is totally logical, oe. To manage the confiscation of the labor and wealth of individuals and spread it around, that requires a strong state, a socialist state, to administer the whole mess, leading to dictatorships. The more socialistic it becomes, the stronger the government and potential dictator it has to be. Go to the end of the spectrum from socialism to all out communism, how many communistic states do not have strong dictators, oe?

2 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Nazism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nazism, officially National Socialism[1][2][3][4] (German: Nationalsozialismus), refers to the ideology and practices of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party under Adolf Hitler, and the policies adopted by the dictatorial government of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945.[5][6][7][8]

Nazism is often considered by scholars to be a form of fascism. While it incorporated elements from both left and right-wing politics, the Nazis formed most of their alliances on the right.[9] The Nazis were one of several historical groups that used the term National Socialism to describe themselves, and in the 1920s they became the largest such group. The Nazi Party presented its program in the 25 point National Socialist Program in 1920. Among the key elements of Nazism were anti-parliamentarism, Pan-Germanism, racism, collectivism,[10][11] eugenics, antisemitism, anti-communism, totalitarianism and opposition to economic liberalism and political liberalism.[12][13][11]

In the 1930s, Nazism was not a monolithic movement, but rather a (mainly German) combination of various ideologies and philosophys which centered around nationalism, anti-communism, traditionalism and the importance of the ethnostate. Groups such as Strasserism and Black Front were part of the early Nazi movement. Their motivations were triggered over anger about the Treaty of Versailles and what was considered to have been a Jewish/communist conspiracy to humiliate Germany at the end of the World War I. Germany's post-war ills were critical to the formation of the ideology and its criticisms of the post-war Weimar Republic. The Nazi Party came to power in Germany in 1933.

In response to the instability created by the Great Depression, the Nazis sought a Third Way managed economy that was neither capitalism nor communism.[14][15] Nazi rule effectively ended on May 7, 1945, V-E Day, when the Nazis unconditionally surrendered to the Allied Powers, who took over Germany's administration until Germany could form its own democratic government.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

ci, thanks for mentioning the "third way" concept. I have brought this up before, and this has been debated with oe. I have argued, and this is my opinion, well founded, that the "third way" is a policy somewhere between communism or Marxism and capitalism. This is also where various degrees of socialism resides on the scale between communism and capitalism. Hitler's third way was a brand of socialism. To be accurate, Hitler was one mixed up dude, so to make sense of some of his policies and beliefs is a daunting task indeed.

The way I see it, today's liberalism, even Obama's view of the world, merely substitutes a new form of worldism for the nationalism, but retains the anti-Jewish sentiments, collectivism, forms of racism embedded in liberal groups, and in regard to eugenics, its still there in the form of abortion, euthanasia, and so forth. Basically, it boils down to the "have-nots" being mad and envious at the "haves," and being able to vote policies in to confiscate wealth and realign society. Thats what Obama's mantra, "change," was principally about, that somehow all the unfairness was going to be corrected. Thats how alot of leftists gain power.

0 Replies

Probably the closest analogy to Nazidom is to an absolute monarchy, a VERY absolute monarchy, with no nobility as an opposing force. If you'll remember, monarchy was the original right wing. There was no nonsense about peoples' control or even input, which is the essence of socialism. The state controlled everything, or had the power to do so if it wished. That's what the Nazi slogan "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Fuhrer" was all about. It wasn't remotely socialistic. It was a form of right wing extremism that the right wing doesn't think about too much these days, but it was firmly on their side of the aisle or maybe their side of history.

1 Reply

And, I might add, John Yoo's and Dick Cheney's proselytizing for their concept of the unitary presidency, where absolutely no-one, not Congress, not the courts, not the people, NO ONE can deny the president the power to do anything he damn well pleased to do, is really very much in the same vein--only a first step to be sure, but "ein Fuhrer" was the end of that road.

0 Replies

@MontereyJack,

The way I see it, feudalism is a form of socialism, administered by a king, or a dictator, Monterey. The people work for the state, or the king, and he doles it back out as he sees fit. What does it matter whether you call him a king or a dictator. We might as well call Castro a king, not that much difference in real practice. Sure, there were elections, but all rigged.

0 Replies

VERY good, okie. You've succinctly pointed out precisely why feudalism, nobilities, monarchies and Nazis were not in the least socialistic. Under them people had no control over their labor or the things they produced. They were controlled by, and subject to, others, and had no say in the matter .
That is the precise anthithesis of socialism. The crucial point of socialism is that the people have the ultimate say as to where it goes, not the king, not the nobility, not the fuhrer (oh, hell, I'm not gonna capitalize the bastard's title, just because you do it in German, I went back and lower-cased him).

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

But that doesn't mean the Nazi Party was not a socialist party, oe, that is hardly a good argument at all, that the Nazi's were good at deception, therefore they named the party to deceive. I think not.

Hitler signed a peace treaty with England, only to turn around and attack England shortly afterwards. He signed a treaty of non-aggression with the Soviet Union, only to invade the country later. And as I've said earlier, the Nazis used terms like resettlement, auxiliary equipment or final solution for the deportation into concentration camps, mobile gas trucks for mass killings and the meticulously planned mass murder of millions of Jews respectively.

I would say that the only reason for Hitler to rename the DAP (which was a tiny party with less than 55 member when Hitler joined it) and add the adjectives "National" and "Socialist" to its name was to try and appeal to a larger segment of the population.

Your argument, on the other hand, is that Hitler actually was a socialist, and that he was completely honest and upfront about that when he decided to change the name of the party accordingly. Doesn't sound very convincing to me.

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
Please point out what you think is "spin". Merely saying that something is a "spin" doesn't make it so.

I did as briefly and concisely, hitting some high points, with Advocate.

No, you didn't. I replied to each and every point you brought up. If you have more points that you think are more convincing, you haven't mentioned them in your reply to Advocate.

okie wrote:

You might want to read up on Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood and eugenics, and she was apparently an inspiration for Hitler along these lines?

The idea of eugenics was around before Hitler was even born. The various possible methods of eugenics were discussed, considered and implemented in many countries, including the United States.

---

Margaret Sanger was pro-choice and also in favour of negative eugenics. Hitler was a fan of Wagner operas, and also in favour of exterminating millions of Jews.

The idea that everybody who is pro-choice also favours eugenics is as misguided as the notion that all Wagner fans are also ruthless mass murderers.

And it's also, as I already said in my earlier post, completely unrelated to the question of whether Hitler was a socialist.

okie wrote:

old europe wrote:
okie wrote:
Dictators are necessary under socialism, not conservatism,

That's a logical fallacy.

It is totally logical, oe.

It's a fallacy if you're trying to use it as supporting your claims that Hitler was a socialist.

If we agree that all apples are fruit, that doesn't mean that every fruit is an apple.

Even if it were true that socialism can only be implemented in a dictatorship (which you haven't shown so far), that doesn't mean that every dictatorship is socialistic.

It's a logical fallacy.

old europe wrote:

To manage the confiscation of the labor and wealth of individuals and spread it around, that requires a strong state, a socialist state, to administer the whole mess, leading to dictatorships.

If you want to forcibly part every citizen from his possessions, then you are right. That would be an authoritarian measure, and it would require an authoritarian government.

The alternative is obviously that everybody gives up his possessions voluntarily.

Likewise, if you want to forcibly remove all illegal immigrants from a country, that would be an authoritarian measure, and it would require an authoritarian government, too.

The alternative would be that all illegal immigrants would leave the country voluntarily.

old europe wrote:

The more socialistic it becomes, the stronger the government and potential dictator it has to be.

I agree to a certain degree.

Apart from people joining a commune or a Kibbutz, the idea that everybody should give up all his possessions is probably rather unpopular. The more you want to force people to comply with those ideas, the more authoritarian measures you will have to put into place.

Of course, the same is true on the other side of the spectrum.

Apart from illegal immigrants who suddenly develop a bad conscience about living in a foreign country illegally, people are probably not in favour of just leaving everything behind and returning to their country of origin. The more you want to force people to comply, the more authoritarian measures you will have to use.

old europe wrote:

Go to the end of the spectrum from socialism to all out communism, how many communistic states do not have strong dictators, oe?

All of them? Now go to the other end of the spectrum, from conservatism to all out fascism: how many fascist states do not have strong dictators, okie?

0 Replies

It all comes down to what definition of socialism you use. You can go with the state controlling the people and means of production (mid-Marxism) to utopian socialism which which would be the mythical voluntary communistic anarchy.

Quote:

so•cial•ism
noun
Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Quote:

so•cial•ism
n.
1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Quote:

socialism
Noun
a political and economic theory or system in which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by the community collectively, usually through the state
Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

Quote:

socialism
1. a theory or system of social organization advocating placing the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production in the community as a whole. Cf. utopian socialism.
2. the procedures and practices based upon this theory.
3. Marxist theory. the first stage in the transition from capitalism to communism, marked by imperfect realizations of collectivist principles. "
________________________________________
a theory of government based upon the ownership and control of capital, land, and means of production by the community as a whole
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/socialism

Quote:

socialism
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism

COMPARE TO:

Quote:

fas•cism
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
b. A political philosophy or movement based on or advocating such a system of government.
2. Oppressive, dictatorial control.
________________________________________
fas•cis tic
Word History: It is fitting that the name of an authoritarian political movement like Fascism, founded in 1919 by Benito Mussolini, should come from the name of a symbol of authority. The Italian name of the movement, fascismo, is derived from fascio, "bundle, (political) group," but also refers to the movement's emblem, the fasces, a bundle of rods bound around a projecting axe-head that was carried before an ancient Roman magistrate by an attendant as a symbol of authority and power. The name of Mussolini's group of revolutionaries was soon used for similar nationalistic movements in other countries that sought to gain power through violence and ruthlessness, such as National Socialism.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
________________________________________
Fascism
Noun
1. the authoritarian and nationalistic political movement in Italy (1922"43)
2. any ideology or movement like this [Italian fascio political group]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/fascism

Quote:

Na•zism
n.
The ideology and practice of the Nazis, especially the policy of racist nationalism, national expansion, and state control of the economy.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
________________________________________
Nazism
the German form of fascism, especially that of the National Socialist (German: Nazionalsozialist) Workers’ party under Adolf Hitler. " Nazi, n., adj.
See also: Fascism
________________________________________
the principles and practices of the National Socialist Workers’ party under Adolf Hitler from 1933 to 1945. " Nazi, n., adj.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Nazism

There is a state in Marxist concepts that does not differ all that much from Facism and there are those who apply socialist philosophy in a way that is virtually indistinguishable from core components of Marxsm, Facism, Nazi-ism. It would probably be helpful to agree on a defintiion of socialism before attempting to claim or deny that such concepts are being put into practics now.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

There is a state in Marxist concepts that does not differ all that much from Facism and there are those who apply socialist philosophy in a way that is virtually indistinguishable from core components of Marxsm, Facism, Nazi-ism.

That's true, to a certain degree. It's also true for democratic forms of government, though. You'll find certain aspects of that are common with the theory of socialism implemented in virtually every country. You'll find certain sectors - means of production and distribution, exchange, land, etc. - that are owned by the population as a whole via a centralized government.

In the United States, you'll find land (in the National Parks) that is owned by the community as a whole via the federal government. You'll find means of distribution (in the National Highway System) that are owned by the community as a whole via the federal government.
That doesn't mean that the United States have been a socialist country for decades.

Likewise, you'll find certain similar aspects in Socialism, in Fascism and in Nazism. That doesn't mean there's not a huge ideological difference between all of those systems.

Foxfyre wrote:

It would probably be helpful to agree on a defintiion of socialism before attempting to claim or deny that such concepts are being put into practics now.

I think that the central concept would simply be the ownership and control of means of production etc. by the community as a whole - whether that's actual common ownership (like in the Israeli kibbutzim), common ownership via the state or, as postulated by Marx, incomplete collective ownership as an intermediary stage between capitalism (complete private ownership) and communism (complete collective ownership) with the goal of ultimately implementing communism.

1 Reply

@MontereyJack,

MontereyJack wrote:

VERY good, okie. You've succinctly pointed out precisely why feudalism, nobilities, monarchies and Nazis were not in the least socialistic. Under them people had no control over their labor or the things they produced. They were controlled by, and subject to, others, and had no say in the matter .

Neither do they under socialism, Jack, it is in the hands of the all powerful government, the people have lost control over what they produce.

Quote:

That is the precise anthithesis of socialism. The crucial point of socialism is that the people have the ultimate say as to where it goes, not the king, not the nobility, not the fuhrer (oh, hell, I'm not gonna capitalize the bastard's title, just because you do it in German, I went back and lower-cased him).

Thats wrong in my opinion. What you are missing here is that you are claiming the people control their labor and the fruits of their labor in socialism, but in practice it always takes a strong central government to administer it for the people, so in practice it isn't the people doing it at all, it becomes a dictator or all powerful government structure to do it.

Look at Hugo Chavez, who assumably was duly elected to institute more socialism, spread the wealth around, but as time goes on, in order to accomplish the program, he requires and usurps more power, nationalizes some industries, takes over the media, to the point of rigging elections to stay in power.

Hitler did a similar thing, with some variation of the above, but it was all done in the honor of the "folks" out there, to make things fair, and spread the wealth around. The evil capitalists, and the Jews, sometimes one and the same, were railed against, and he was going to right all of these wrongs. And you claim the people had no say, but Hitler was in fact elected by the people, Jack, just as other dictators are often placed into power, such as Castro, and now, Hugo Chavez. These dictators always claim it is for the people, thats what the people want, why else do they call their countries things like "The Peoples Republic of China"? But the individual is sacrificed for the whole, by a dictatorship or strong central government. Call it a king, a dicatator, or a "central committee," such as the politburo, its a similar result.

0 Replies

@old europe,

I agree with your definitions.

0 Replies

And now we have the Obama administration issueing a report stating that if you are a veteran, if you oppose abortion, if you are concerned about illegal immigration, increasing federal power and restrictions on firearms you are or could be a "right-wing extremist.

And to make matters worse, it singles out veterans as susceptible to recruitment.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/15/protest-grows-report-right-wing-radicalization/

So, according to the DHS and the Obama admin, the catholic church is a "right-wing extremist" group.

As a veteran, I am angered that the Obama admin thinks so little of the veterans that they would issue a statement even suggesting this

So, once again we see that the Obama admin says one thing and does another, something they constantly criticized the Bush admin for.

They owe every vet in this country an apology.

Quote:

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano defended the report Wednesday, saying it is part of an ongoing series of assessments to provide information to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies on "violent radicalization" in the United States.

So, according to her, a veteran is or can become a violent radical.

2 Replies

@mysteryman,

MM, I would hate to see what you would think about a government that targets Muslims because they might be terrorists.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

By the way MM, did you read the report before you made your claims about it?

Quote:

The willingness of a small percentage of military personnel to join extremist
groups during the 1990s because they were disgruntled, disillusioned, or suffering from
the psychological effects of war is being replicated today.

2 Replies

@parados,

If they target Muslims, or any other religion simply because of their religion, they are 100% wrong and dont deserve to be in power.
I said that during the Bush admin and will say that about the Obama admin also.

1 Reply

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know