derek bomar wrote: What is the big deal with the word socialism? Are you guys ashamed of it? Are public schools not a form of socialim? Socialism as a political ideology is not evil. In fact I am ok if a state or local community wants to experiment with it. So if it fails or I don't like it, I can move. I just don't want it implemented on a national scale, where implementation of it will require a significant part of the population to be forced to partake in it against their will.

I would suggest if you can't handle these terms being thrown about on a political board then I probably would stay away from them.


what's the big deal with being called something you aren't? Eh...I dunno, seems kinda childish.

Then clarify the general term. There are not single words that describe the varying degrees of ones ideology. In general derek, you lean toward collective solutions to social issues to be managed by a government body. There is nothing wrong with that. I just disagree with you that it should be implemented on a national scale. In general what would you call this. Socialist? Statist?

At the founding there were the federalists and the anti-federalists (believed strongly in state sovereignty). Two general terms to describe the two ideologies. Now being labeled a federalist did not mean one was 100% against the sovereignty of the states. And being an anti-federalist did not mean one was 100% against a central government. In fact there were varying degrees of both in each political camp.

I wonder if there were those that were complaing about the terms being used as political "dirty" words. Do you think there may have been ant-federalists running around claiming federalists wanted to take away state sovereignty and replace it with an authoritarian central government much like the British Empire?

Its politics folks. These are political terms. If you think someone is wrongly applying a term correct them or clarify the general term being used.

cbus4life wrote: Becaues you're using it as some ridiculous fear tactic.

Kinda ridiculous to complain about Obama and his administration using fear tactics when the Republican party has used it quite well, ala the countless Marxist/Communist references, to whip the uneducated masses into a frenzy, just like Obama managed to whip the uneducated masses into a frenzy about "change."

And it is funny because people just throw these names around like they're exactly the same, when in fact they are totally contradictory. Quaker will complain about Obama wanting to turn the United States into a European-style Socialist State, and then in the next sentence claim that he is a Marxist. And those are two things that are completely and utterly not the same, considering European socialism, as he is referring to it, as officially and in practice completely forsaken Marxist views and ideology. Shows a lack of historical perspective and general ignorance, essentially. He's just as much a sheep as those he complains about.

What type of state-controlled state do you think he is trying to turn us into, because clearly he is heading us in a direction completely away from free market capitalism, and individual liberty? Let us know, thanks.

majorspark wrote:
There are not single words that describe the varying degrees of ones ideology. In general derek, you lean toward collective solutions to social issues to be managed by a government body. There is nothing wrong with that. I just disagree with you that it should be implemented on a national scale. In general what would you call this. Socialist? Statist?

Thank you. We must use definitive terms to accurately describe the idealogy, policies, agendas, motives, and leanings of the radical left in order to communicate with and understand one another. Those that wish to hide their stripes and bob-and-weave among nouns and adjectives should no longer be permitted to get away their tactics. They built up political correctness for a reason it seems, so that no one can apply descriptive labels to their kind................. sorry Charlie, we will call a spade a spade.

Seem to be headed to a sort of Western European-style, democratic socialist state. But we aren't even at that point, yet, nor do i think we ever will be.

It is a stretch to even call him a socialist, and it is outright idiocy to call him a communist.

Most real socialists, in the political arena, just laugh when people refer to Obama as some outright socialist.

We're not going away "completely" from free market socialism and individual liberty. Get a grip. Socialism does not automically mean that we're moving completely from the free market. Yes, it is not outright, free market capitalism, but your exaggerations are laughable. I would argue that we're closer to some sort of social market economy, which rejects both outright socialism as well as laissez-fair capitalism. It still respects the free market. But we aren't even at that point yet, and are not even close to being on the socialist side of things.

Yes, Obama is changing things, but you're completely off on basically all your idiotic exaggerations about where we're at and where we're going.

We aren't going "completely" away from anything, not even close.

I'd refer to him as the POTUS and not a socialist, since that's what he is.

majorspark wrote:

dwccrew wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: It will soon be over. Obama will lose the senate and house this next year and he will be powerless. He will then lose 2012.

I hope so.

Does anyone care to define the term Marxist and how it applies to any dictator in the world?

I have always been under the assumption that Karl Marx's theory has never been applied to a "communist" nation. There have in fact been no true communisms, only totalitarian governments led by dictators. That is not a communism by Marx's definition.

That being said, I think we need to get back to the true roots of our country, the way the founding fathers had envisioned it.

What is the big deal with Marx? Was he an evil man? Did he kill thousands? Did he oppress millions? He was a man who espoused a political idealogy. In general, so as to not go into detail, his ideology encompassed a joining together of man to work for the interests of the good of the community. His ideology is in opposition to the one that forms the basis of capitalism, individual man working for his own self interest will in turn benefit society as a whole.

Marx's dream of a stateless, classless society, his communist utopia, has never existed. Although the basics of his political philosophy may not be evil, and elements of it can have some success in a small community, as a large scale national policy it is a proven failure. To implement it on a national scale requires the oppression of a significant number of the population who yearn to be free from the constraints of others. They yearn to have the freedom to use their individual skills and talents to take care of themselves and to be able to freely choose outside of themselves who will best benifit from their resources. The oppression of this group of people is the reason why Marx's political ideology has become associated with totalitarianism.

Exactly what I was referring to. People associate Marx to totalitarian-like dictatorships incorrectly.

If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...it's a duck.

Look, people are NOT EQUAL or the SAME. This is not a bad thing; in fact, it is what makes life INTERESTING! Marxism is totalitarian and oppressive because it equates people. It is most dreadful because it brings the people that flourish in this world down to the lowest common denominator. The world would be boring in a Marxist society because it is fundamentally dishonest--it is not how Nature is

dwccrew wrote:
Exactly what I was referring to. People associate Marx to totalitarian-like dictatorships incorrectly.

I don't think Marxism has any connection to totalitarianism, but socialism is incorrectly used by totalitarian governments. That is why people make the connection.

Much like anarchy, true Marxism is a utopia. Something that would never have a chance of existing in the real world.

LJ wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Ok, right leaning people on this board are henceforth to be referred as fascists, authoritarians, or totalitarians.

Using inaccurate labels as a method of insulting people you don't agree with is stupid and childish. Can't we just describe what we don't like and why we don't like it without simply using general labels for things we don't like?

If someone addresses you or posters directly, giving you one of these titles, you deny it, and then they keep doing it, it will be treated as name calling.

I wasn't saying that they were calling someone on the forum a name directly but what I've been seeing at the beginning of some posts is that the OP labels anyone who shares an idea as something widely considered unfavorable.

A post about climate control or something along those lines would start with "why do all the communists who thing climate control.....etc". It's the same as if I would say something like "Why do all of you fascists who think (whatever)?"

Communist, fascist, and the like are widely considered to be negative terms and using them to label anyone who disagrees with your position is childish.

Maybe I'm just getting butthurt over nothing but I'd like to think that we could discuss politics and argue the ideas and merits/downfalls of policies without it boiling down to "well the communists think..." "yeah, well those fascists think...".

eersandbeers wrote:

dwccrew wrote:
Exactly what I was referring to. People associate Marx to totalitarian-like dictatorships incorrectly.

I don't think Marxism has any connection to totalitarianism, but socialism is incorrectly used by totalitarian governments. That is why people make the connection.

Much like anarchy, true Marxism is a utopia. Something that would never have a chance of existing in the real world.

Agreed, althougyh I don't think anarchy necessarily leads to a Utopia.

Getting back on topic to the $100 billion give-away:
I find it odd that Lumumba Di-aping, chairman of the G77 group, compared the Western countries generous $100 billion solution, to a problem that almost certainly doesn't exist, to the Holocaust (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1237228/Anger-delegates-Holocaust-jibe-climate-deal--country-shares-62bn-bonanza.html). Would it be too cynical to assume that he is more interested in extracting the maximum amount of money possible from the developed countries?

That is what little money will end up helping their people and not in their own Swiss bank accounts.

Oh, and the West doesn't need a lecture on the evils of genocide from the Sudanese whilst there is still a genocide going on right now in the Darfur region of the Sudan.