That's what strikes me about this election the most... I live in NY, so we don't get nearly the political ads that swingstates get, but I can't remember one McCain ad being solely about himself or his policies.
Even in 2004 with the anyone but Bush mentality, Kerry still had some positive ads about his own policies.
Indeed...for all the talk about the 'Angry Left', this year the Left seem energized by their candidate. Practically everyone I've met that is supporting McCain is doing so more of a disdain for Obama than an appreciation for McCain. That must be a weak position to be in for the party faithful.
And socialism requires complete government control of all social, protective and legislative services, which is not even close to resembling Obama's plan. Yet you continue to say that the Democratic economic platform supports socialistic ideals. Therefore, I am well within my right to say that the Republican Party platform believes in fascistic ideals. Me saying that is inflammatory, unnecessary and an unfair portrayal of what it means to be a modern Republican, but I'm technicially right. You are technicially right when you say Obama supports socialistic ideals, because he is left. Socialism is left. I simply find it curious that you describe his policies as 'socialist'; why not 'liberal?' Socialism is a loaded word in this country, as is fascism. Your logic is misguided because it does not accurately represent what it means to be a Democrat in this country. So, as you continue to generalize Obama's plans as 'socialist', I will continue to generalize the Republican platform as 'fascist', because those are both defining relatively moderate platforms in the most extreme language available for their respective leftist and rightist ideologies.
Honestly, Obama would be to the right in any country these days practicing socialism, so this point is pretty much moot as is.
Dude, I'm sorry but the Democrat economic plan does support socialist ideals.
It seeks to shrink the private sector and increase government's share of the pie. That's the platform. Government enlargement and private sector shrinkage. That's IS supporting a socialistic ideal.
Also, socialism is not communism. It's the step after capitalism on the way to communism.
That's what strikes me about this election the most... I live in NY, so we don't get nearly the political ads that swingstates get, but I can't remember one McCain ad being solely about himself or his policies.
Even in 2004 with the anyone but Bush mentality, Kerry still had some positive ads about his own policies.
EVERYTHING I'm getting here in NC from the McCain camp is anti-Obama, nothing has been Pro-McCain...the flyers I've gotten in the mail are about Ayers and that Obama will take my gun...
Obama's ads are a mix of anti-McCain and Pro-Obama...
Dude, I'm sorry but the Democrat economic plan does support socialist ideals.
It seeks to shrink the private sector and increase government's share of the pie. That's the platform. Government enlargement and private sector shrinkage. That's IS supporting a socialistic ideal.
Also, socialism is not communism. It's the step after capitalism on the way to communism.
You don't seem to be making a differentiation between the American definition of a Democrat and a socialist, and you need to, because they are not the same thing. Being a Democrat in America involves more taxes and more spending, increased social programs and more government involvement. Yes, there are all markers of socialism, but you seem to just be stopping there while failing to acknowledge that there is not a general "left" and a general "right", but that there are more extreme and moderate positions. I think it'd be pretty partisan to not acknowledge that on that global spectrum of rightist policies to leftist policies, the average Democrat in America does not stray far from the center.
To be living in a socialist state, we would need complete government intervention and occupation of all sectors of public and economic life. Factories would be government-run, and all occupations and industries would be run collectively by society. This is how socialism is defined in economic terms. Where is this in the party Democratic platform? Where is the takeover of all industry? Where is the push towards a Venezuelan-style of economy policy on the Democratic party platform?
As it is, you're taking the twenty feet that being a Democrat in America gives you and running half-a-mile with it to try to illustrate the Democratic Party as having a socialist agenda. Do they? If you consider leftist politics, by definition, "socialist" politics, then yes, sure they are. But I'm surprised you would want to take such a surface view of the political climate in the country and in the worldwide political spectrum from right to left. I continue to maintain that socialists around the world would find it remarkable to suggest that the Democratic Party is a 'socialist' party. If you want to keep saying it espouses 'socialist' ideals, then go ahead; you're right in definition. As am I right in definition to follow the Republican platform farther right and define it as espousing 'fascistic' ideals. We can go skin-deep with both parties, or we could take a bit more nuanced view of what it means to be a 'socialist' and a Democrat in America.
EVERYTHING I'm getting here in NC from the McCain camp is anti-Obama, nothing has been Pro-McCain...the flyers I've gotten in the mail are about Ayers and that Obama will take my gun...
Obama's ads are a mix of anti-McCain and Pro-Obama...
It's the same here in Florida, the McCain campaign has flooded my mailbox with flyers about Bill Ayers, and the GOP the same with their suggestions of socialism, I can't say that I haven't received negative mailing from the Obama campaign but they are attacking policies not character, and the positives ones outweight the negatives, I have received more flyers from the Obama Campaign about his healthcare and tax cut plan that negatives about his opponent...
"Without the album covers, where do you clean your pot?" - EV
You don't seem to be making a differentiation between the American definition of a Democrat and a socialist, and you need to, because they are not the same thing. Being a Democrat in America involves more taxes and more spending, increased social programs and more government involvement. Yes, there are all markers of socialism, but you seem to just be stopping there while failing to acknowledge that there is not a general "left" and a general "right", but that there are more extreme and moderate positions. I think it'd be pretty partisan to not acknowledge that on that global spectrum of rightist policies to leftist policies, the average Democrat in America does not stray far from the center.
To be living in a socialist state, we would need complete government intervention and occupation of all sectors of public and economic life. Factories would be government-run, and all occupations and industries would be run collectively by society. This is how socialism is defined in economic terms. Where is this in the party Democratic platform? Where is the takeover of all industry? Where is the push towards a Venezuelan-style of economy policy on the Democratic party platform?
As it is, you're taking the twenty feet that being a Democrat in America gives you and running half-a-mile with it to try to illustrate the Democratic Party as having a socialist agenda. Do they? If you consider leftist politics, by definition, "socialist" politics, then yes, sure they are. But I'm surprised you would want to take such a surface view of the political climate in the country and in the worldwide political spectrum from right to left. I continue to maintain that socialists around the world would find it remarkable to suggest that the Democratic Party is a 'socialist' party. If you want to keep saying it espouses 'socialist' ideals, then go ahead; you're right in definition. As am I right in definition to follow the Republican platform farther right and define it as espousing 'fascistic' ideals. We can go skin-deep with both parties, or we could take a bit more nuanced view of what it means to be a 'socialist' and a Democrat in America.
If you vote Democrat you vote to take a step further towards socialism.
If you vote Republican you vote to take a step further towards capitalism.
If you vote Democrat you vote to take a step further towards socialism.
If you vote Republican you vote to take a step further towards capitalism.
We're not getting much out of this, so let's end it. My point is that your analysis is as simplistic as this, in my opinion; "Democrats are to the left of center. Socialism is to the left, also. That means Democrats are socialists!" Which is, as I said, simplistic at best.
We're not getting much out of this, so let's end it. My point is that your analysis is as simplistic as this, in my opinion; "Democrats are to the left of center. Socialism is to the left, also. That means Democrats are socialists!" Which is, as I said, simplistic at best.
The same thing could be said about Republicans being capitalists. I don't think you'd ever ever ever hear a Republican scared away by being called a capitalist. But, you do see Dems are scared of being called socialists. The question is why. But, I agree this debate is going nowhere, so I'm fine with ending it.
All Obama will do is let the tax credit that GW put in place for the countries wealthiest, expire. And I am glad he is doing it. I was against it from the beginning.
it's not just the wealthiest. Child tax credit is knocked down by 50% and the low-income tax brackett goes from 10% up to 15% taxes.
It's not an economic system; sorry. As I've said fascism is a means of governing which requires by defition a dictatorship. Saying a "vote" for something is a step towards "fascism" is counterintutive.
Whereas, a vote for Democrat is a vote for wealth redistribution; hence a vote for socialism.
It's not an economic system; sorry. As I've said fascism is a means of governing which requires by defition a dictatorship. Saying a "vote" for something is a step towards "fascism" is counterintutive.
Whereas, a vote for Democrat is a vote for wealth redistribution; hence a vote for socialism.
I'll take a hint of socialism over fascism any day.
Telling people how they should live because of religion has fascist tendencies.
A lot of people already consider the UK and Canada socialist countries.
If we keep voting Democrat, put simply... yes.
even if you're first statement was true - the US is nowhere close to having the same policies as Canada ... you either choose to ignore that fact or truly do not know what a socialist country really is ... ask anyone outside of america who you respect and see if they agree with you ...
america is never gonna be confused with a socialist country - even if you elected michael moore ...
It's not an economic system; sorry. As I've said fascism is a means of governing which requires by defition a dictatorship. Saying a "vote" for something is a step towards "fascism" is counterintutive.
Fascism does not require a dictator, but it does require a controlling "power" -here's FDR's take:
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power"
Here's where the GOP's recent push towards hyper-privatization (coupled with an insistence on American exceptionalism and appropriation of fundamentalist Christian theology) points the Republican party, currently construed, towards fascism. Note also the current movements by hard-line conservatives of the Limbaugh-Hannity types towards ever-increasing party purity.
A lot of people already consider the UK and Canada socialist countries.
If we keep voting Democrat, put simply... yes.
It amazes me how you continually seem to put your opinions out there and try to state them as facts. Do you have an agenda or are you really that egocentric?
It's not an economic system; sorry. As I've said fascism is a means of governing which requires by defition a dictatorship. Saying a "vote" for something is a step towards "fascism" is counterintutive.
Whereas, a vote for Democrat is a vote for wealth redistribution; hence a vote for socialism.
You do realize the Nazi party was voted into power in Germany in the early 1930's? I do not think it's an identical situation, but it's untrue to state that no one can 'vote' for a position or party that would edge a country closer towards fascism. It usually begins with a vote.
It's not an economic system; sorry. As I've said fascism is a means of governing which requires by defition a dictatorship. Saying a "vote" for something is a step towards "fascism" is counterintutive.
Whereas, a vote for Democrat is a vote for wealth redistribution; hence a vote for socialism.
Whoa.
Have you ANY idea of what fascism ACTUALLY is? from a political and economic standpoint??
What you've been saying throughout the thread just highlights that you SIMPLY don't. And that's to put it mildly.
Your assertions have no grounding in historical facts nor political theory.
If you vote Democrat you vote to take a step further towards socialism.
If you vote Republican you vote to take a step further towards capitalism.
Haven't you watched the news this past month or so?
Which party basically nationalised US banks?
So, by your own (warped) definition of socialism, is the GOP a socialist party?
By the way, redistribution of wealth is taxation.
If that's your criterion to define socialism, it's still wrong.
All western capitalist states have taxation. Without it, states cannot function and perform basic activities, including financing a standing army, among other things.
I think there are many socialists in the world that would laugh at the notion that Obama's policies are 'socialist.' In many cases, they are not even in the same ballpark.
I'll take a hint of socialism over fascism any day.
Telling people how they should live because of religion has fascist tendencies.
Tell me, how exactly has this religion thing affected you? Could you still have sex with a dude if you wanted to? Yes. Can your girlfriend have an abortion if she wanted to. Yes. Can you be an athiest and speak out against religion. Yes. Can you ignore creationism and study evolution. Yes. Can you be as Green or as anti-environment as you want? Yes. Was the war in Iraq fought for religion or oil? The answer is oil, at least to most Dems.
So to summarize, this whole religion thing does not support your fascism agenda.
Tell me, how exactly has this religion thing affected you? Could you still have sex with a dude if you wanted to? Yes. Can your girlfriend have an abortion if she wanted to. Yes. Can you be an athiest and speak out against religion. Yes. Can you ignore creationism and study evolution. Yes. Can you be as Green or as anti-environment as you want? Yes. Was the war in Iraq fought for religion or oil? The answer is oil, at least to most Dems.
So to summarize, this whole religion thing does not support your fascism agenda.
If the neo-cons from the Gop ever got their way, abortion would be illegal and gays would never be allowed to marry.
Oxford American Dictionary:
Fascism n. A system of extreme RIGHT WING government.
Just got back in from the field, tending to the working poor...
Good discussion. Just wanted to make a couple quick points.
While it seems oh so practical to roll back the top tax to the Clinton years, we seem to forget that we were in a time of peace then. We simply can't afford to hike taxes for small business right now. Disagree with the war, or parts of it, like most of us do, the facts are the facts (FACT!)
But I'm lookin out for you. I work in Palm Beach County, specializing in single family home construction. And it may be a little slower, but there's no end to the amount of wealth in this area. Rich people will always be able to afford to build a new home, so I'm set. I'm good, I'm experienced, and I'm well enough connected that I'll not worry about this too much. It's only the not so good, the not so experienced or established that are falling.
But to all you newcomers to the workforce, when my business starts making around 230k a year (and it's headed that way even now), and you need a job from me, guess what?
Just got back in from the field, tending to the working poor...
Good discussion. Just wanted to make a couple quick points.
While it seems oh so practical to roll back the top tax to the Clinton years, we seem to forget that we were in a time of peace then. We simply can't afford to hike taxes for small business right now. Disagree with the war, or parts of it, like most of us do, the facts are the facts (FACT!)
But I'm lookin out for you. I work in Palm Beach County, specializing in single family home construction. And it may be a little slower, but there's no end to the amount of wealth in this area. Rich people will always be able to afford to build a new home, so I'm set. I'm good, I'm experienced, and I'm well enough connected that I'll not worry about this too much. It's only the not so good, the not so experienced or established that are falling.
But to all you newcomers to the workforce, when my business starts making around 230k a year (and it's headed that way even now), and you need a job from me, guess what?
Comments
Indeed...for all the talk about the 'Angry Left', this year the Left seem energized by their candidate. Practically everyone I've met that is supporting McCain is doing so more of a disdain for Obama than an appreciation for McCain. That must be a weak position to be in for the party faithful.
Dude, I'm sorry but the Democrat economic plan does support socialist ideals.
It seeks to shrink the private sector and increase government's share of the pie. That's the platform. Government enlargement and private sector shrinkage. That's IS supporting a socialistic ideal.
Also, socialism is not communism. It's the step after capitalism on the way to communism.
EVERYTHING I'm getting here in NC from the McCain camp is anti-Obama, nothing has been Pro-McCain...the flyers I've gotten in the mail are about Ayers and that Obama will take my gun...
Obama's ads are a mix of anti-McCain and Pro-Obama...
You don't seem to be making a differentiation between the American definition of a Democrat and a socialist, and you need to, because they are not the same thing. Being a Democrat in America involves more taxes and more spending, increased social programs and more government involvement. Yes, there are all markers of socialism, but you seem to just be stopping there while failing to acknowledge that there is not a general "left" and a general "right", but that there are more extreme and moderate positions. I think it'd be pretty partisan to not acknowledge that on that global spectrum of rightist policies to leftist policies, the average Democrat in America does not stray far from the center.
To be living in a socialist state, we would need complete government intervention and occupation of all sectors of public and economic life. Factories would be government-run, and all occupations and industries would be run collectively by society. This is how socialism is defined in economic terms. Where is this in the party Democratic platform? Where is the takeover of all industry? Where is the push towards a Venezuelan-style of economy policy on the Democratic party platform?
As it is, you're taking the twenty feet that being a Democrat in America gives you and running half-a-mile with it to try to illustrate the Democratic Party as having a socialist agenda. Do they? If you consider leftist politics, by definition, "socialist" politics, then yes, sure they are. But I'm surprised you would want to take such a surface view of the political climate in the country and in the worldwide political spectrum from right to left. I continue to maintain that socialists around the world would find it remarkable to suggest that the Democratic Party is a 'socialist' party. If you want to keep saying it espouses 'socialist' ideals, then go ahead; you're right in definition. As am I right in definition to follow the Republican platform farther right and define it as espousing 'fascistic' ideals. We can go skin-deep with both parties, or we could take a bit more nuanced view of what it means to be a 'socialist' and a Democrat in America.
It's the same here in Florida, the McCain campaign has flooded my mailbox with flyers about Bill Ayers, and the GOP the same with their suggestions of socialism, I can't say that I haven't received negative mailing from the Obama campaign but they are attacking policies not character, and the positives ones outweight the negatives, I have received more flyers from the Obama Campaign about his healthcare and tax cut plan that negatives about his opponent...
If you vote Democrat you vote to take a step further towards socialism.
If you vote Republican you vote to take a step further towards capitalism.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
We're not getting much out of this, so let's end it. My point is that your analysis is as simplistic as this, in my opinion; "Democrats are to the left of center. Socialism is to the left, also. That means Democrats are socialists!" Which is, as I said, simplistic at best.
Unfortunately, if you vote for either a Democrat or a Republican you are voting for a larger, more intrusive government.
That's a fair point. Saveuplife does seem to be describing the Republican Party as it was thirty years ago. It's changed quite a bit since then.
The same thing could be said about Republicans being capitalists. I don't think you'd ever ever ever hear a Republican scared away by being called a capitalist. But, you do see Dems are scared of being called socialists. The question is why. But, I agree this debate is going nowhere, so I'm fine with ending it.
it's not just the wealthiest. Child tax credit is knocked down by 50% and the low-income tax brackett goes from 10% up to 15% taxes.
will anyone ever consider USA a socialist country regardless of who is voted in?
no socialist would ever but feel free to follow the GOP play book ...
A lot of people already consider the UK and Canada socialist countries.
If we keep voting Democrat, put simply... yes.
A republican vote is a step towards fascism.
It's not an economic system; sorry. As I've said fascism is a means of governing which requires by defition a dictatorship. Saying a "vote" for something is a step towards "fascism" is counterintutive.
Whereas, a vote for Democrat is a vote for wealth redistribution; hence a vote for socialism.
I'll take a hint of socialism over fascism any day.
Telling people how they should live because of religion has fascist tendencies.
even if you're first statement was true - the US is nowhere close to having the same policies as Canada ... you either choose to ignore that fact or truly do not know what a socialist country really is ... ask anyone outside of america who you respect and see if they agree with you ...
america is never gonna be confused with a socialist country - even if you elected michael moore ...
Fascism does not require a dictator, but it does require a controlling "power" -here's FDR's take:
"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power"
Here's where the GOP's recent push towards hyper-privatization (coupled with an insistence on American exceptionalism and appropriation of fundamentalist Christian theology) points the Republican party, currently construed, towards fascism. Note also the current movements by hard-line conservatives of the Limbaugh-Hannity types towards ever-increasing party purity.
My vote's for the smart guy. Yeah, that one...
It amazes me how you continually seem to put your opinions out there and try to state them as facts. Do you have an agenda or are you really that egocentric?
You do realize the Nazi party was voted into power in Germany in the early 1930's? I do not think it's an identical situation, but it's untrue to state that no one can 'vote' for a position or party that would edge a country closer towards fascism. It usually begins with a vote.
Whoa.
Have you ANY idea of what fascism ACTUALLY is? from a political and economic standpoint??
What you've been saying throughout the thread just highlights that you SIMPLY don't. And that's to put it mildly.
Your assertions have no grounding in historical facts nor political theory.
Who is a lot of people?
Haven't you watched the news this past month or so?
Which party basically nationalised US banks?
So, by your own (warped) definition of socialism, is the GOP a socialist party?
By the way, redistribution of wealth is taxation.
If that's your criterion to define socialism, it's still wrong.
All western capitalist states have taxation. Without it, states cannot function and perform basic activities, including financing a standing army, among other things.
Indeed.
Tell me, how exactly has this religion thing affected you? Could you still have sex with a dude if you wanted to? Yes. Can your girlfriend have an abortion if she wanted to. Yes. Can you be an athiest and speak out against religion. Yes. Can you ignore creationism and study evolution. Yes. Can you be as Green or as anti-environment as you want? Yes. Was the war in Iraq fought for religion or oil? The answer is oil, at least to most Dems.
So to summarize, this whole religion thing does not support your fascism agenda.
If the neo-cons from the Gop ever got their way, abortion would be illegal and gays would never be allowed to marry.
Oxford American Dictionary:
Fascism n. A system of extreme RIGHT WING government.
Good discussion. Just wanted to make a couple quick points.
While it seems oh so practical to roll back the top tax to the Clinton years, we seem to forget that we were in a time of peace then. We simply can't afford to hike taxes for small business right now. Disagree with the war, or parts of it, like most of us do, the facts are the facts (FACT!)
But I'm lookin out for you. I work in Palm Beach County, specializing in single family home construction. And it may be a little slower, but there's no end to the amount of wealth in this area. Rich people will always be able to afford to build a new home, so I'm set. I'm good, I'm experienced, and I'm well enough connected that I'll not worry about this too much. It's only the not so good, the not so experienced or established that are falling.
But to all you newcomers to the workforce, when my business starts making around 230k a year (and it's headed that way even now), and you need a job from me, guess what?
Good luck with your job search.
Now some family time.
How american of you, such a patriot.