Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Obama denies he's a Socialist?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 30 2008 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by tmbandt
Is redistribution of wealth not intrinsically Socialist?


"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" is Marxist, which is a political practice. Socialism is an economic practice, one of the main tenets being collective ownership of production and distribution.

What Obama is doing is simply restructuring the tax percentage. The government collects taxes. He's proposing changes in how much different people pay, according to their income. He's not taking from one group and giving to the other. Nor is he proposing collective ownership of anything.

If Obama is a Socialist, then so is Sarah Palin. Neither of them is, of course.




posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:03 AM
link   
Basically one of McCain's idols, Teddy Roosevelt possibly had more views that one might consider socialist especially if held to the test applied to use the word socialist to characterize Obama today, maybe McCain has forgotten history, he did almost screw up the speak softly and carry a big stick line in one of the debates, and maybe he didn't study his ideologies well enough either to remember.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:12 AM
link   
how about a clip of the Socialist Party's Presidential Nominee giving an evaluation on why Obama is NOT a socialist?

will that suffice? A socialist laying out his ideas?

www.colbertnation.com...

Colbert rocks...



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:22 AM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


Nonsense. That entire video was photo shopped.

Obama is a socialist.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


photoshopped? It was the socialist party's candidate for president...

I hope that was sarcasm lol



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 02:29 AM
link   
reply to post by nj2day
 


Yes that was sarcasm hehe


I wanted to say it before ATS's anti-Obama campaign came in to say it.

I have made an effort myself to show what socialism is and how Obama is not a socialist. Won't make much difference. People that are saying it don't actually care, they just want to bang the war drums.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 04:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 


A Marxist anarchist? That statement is in conflict with itself. Marxist socialism espouses dictatorship. If you don't understand how that conflicts with anarchism then you know nothing about it. You should not be throwing these ideas around. Fear monger.

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



And you shouldn't be replying to a post if you do not understand English punctuation. I did not say Marxist anarchist. Go back and read it again, and then if you are so compelled, reply to what was said....oh and I left domestic terrorist off the list.

And why am I a fear monger? I have serious reservations about this guy. There are many unanswered questions about him with only 4 days till the election. He has refused to be upfront, and honest answering any of them. Every time he is asked a tough question about his past, his first response is, "Look, the American people are more concerned about losing their house, their job....blah blah blah".

To me his past is an important issue, and I suspect that is the case with many voters. If he is going to continue to duck and dodge any tough questions about his past, then he will not get my vote. In my opinion he owes it to every voter out there to come clean on every question about his past. Like I said in my original post. Look at who has mentored him since childhood. I hear what he says. He is trying to pass himself off as a moderate. He is not, and cant be a moderate. He is as close to a socialist as you will ever see elected in this country. Socialism has been tried, and it's failed. No, I'm not a fear monger. Just concerned that we about to put a socialist illegal alien into the white house.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Hugues de Payens]

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Hugues de Payens]

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Hugues de Payens]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 04:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hugues de Payens
And you shouldn't be replying to a post if you do not understand English punctuation. I did not say Marxist anarchist.




You are implying that Obama has been influenced by the ideologies of these alleged "marxist" and "anarchist" associations.

Therefore if he has been influenced by both he would have both Marxist and anarchist ideologies himself.

I stand by what I said. Because it is what you said.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Hugues de Payens
 



Socialism has been tried, and it's failed.


The failed attempts you are referring to were utilitarian dictatorships. When socialism was combined with autocracy. Socialism by itself holds the tenet of being purely democratic (all the working people have direct control).

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 05:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 
LL, my apologies if I came across as too anti Obama last evening. A few beers and I start talking out of my bung hole.

That being said, Calling Obama a socialist may be a bit extreme and I retract my statement saying such. I am guilty of listening to the rhetoric being slung around, and forming an opinion from it.

As a whole, I do however see our country slipping further down a socialistic style of governance. With all the talk of socialized medicine, corporate bailouts, mortgage bailouts, and the like, it seems as though the government is the cure for everyone's ills these days. Not a good thing IMO.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 06:01 AM
link   
reply to post by tmbandt
 


No worries bro


I am not a pro Obama person myself (although I like him more then McCain). I wasn't trying to defend him per se, mostly just the accusation.

to Denying Ignorance then


[edit on 31-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by redled
 


Was that a reply to me or the other member?

You realize I posted that Webster definition only because that member was making a statement based on the alleged Webster definition, right?

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]


Just got that. My point is that sometimes the dictionary definition has been made up by someone who wants you to believe in something. The Webster def you supplied was not very broad, it is quite broad really, from moderate to foaming at the mouth, with a lot inbetween. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I was unaware of your reply.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 08:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy
reply to post by redled
 


Was that a reply to me or the other member?

You realize I posted that Webster definition only because that member was making a statement based on the alleged Webster definition, right?

[edit on 30-10-2008 by Lucid Lunacy]


Just got that. My point is that sometimes the dictionary definition has been made up by someone who wants you to believe in something. The Webster def you supplied was not very broad, Socialism is quite broad really, from moderate to foaming at the mouth, with a lot inbetween. Sorry I didn't reply earlier, I was unaware of your reply.

[edit on 31-10-2008 by redled]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 09:04 AM
link   
Oxford English Defintition (Socialism was invented in UK):

socialism

• noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

That's regulated, not controlled, and most of our countries do it.......

Hope it's of interest.......



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Obama came right out in his interview with Rachel Maddow last night and stated he was a capitalist, not a socialist, in very clear terms. He does favor some regulation (it was the absence of any regulation which was largely responsible for the present need to bail out Wall Street) but that has been a Democratic party position for many years and is not socialist.

Unfortunately, my computer is old and doesn't have enough memory to link to a video. I'm looking for a transcript of the program and will post the relevant part when I do.

I have studied some of the principles of socialism and communism (now some ATS'ers will accuse me of un-Americanism) and I have neither read nor heard from him anything that points to Obama being anything but slightly left of center in American politics, tending strongly toward the center. It is a measure of how far right the country has shifted that center-left is now seen as radically left.

Of course, some people said Roosevelt was a socialist back in his day, but I haven't heard about any of them refusing to take their Social Security checks when they retired.

IMO the accusers of Obama in respect to communism/socialism/anarchism etc. are not really interested in the truth about these ideologies, they just want to defeat him by any means possible. Socialists, etc. are the bogeymen in today's America where most of the population is still stuck in the cold war.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by redled
Oxford English Defintition (Socialism was invented in UK):

socialism

• noun a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.



Wow... that sounds a lot like government for the people by the people, but instead it's economy for the people by the people.

Seems like the democratization of the economy to me.

Yep.. I'm for it based on that definition.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
Obama came right out in his interview with Rachel Maddow last night and stated he was a capitalist, not a socialist, in very clear terms.


He also said he strongly supports the free market. They talked about Afghanistan and other "real" subjects. It was a great interview.

Obama Interview

It starts at 3:11 on the first video
Part 2 starts at about 1:45 on the second video

[edit on 31-10-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 01:53 PM
link   
still strange to me how they demonize obama for wanting to change taxes so the rich are taxed more and the poor are taxed less, and they are so upset about it that they are willing to go to rallies and march in the streets.
But then earlier this month when 850billion was taken from the poor and middle class who need it, and given to the rich who dont, the streets and rallies were strangely silent on the issue. Is it ok to take from the poor and give to the rich, but not the other way around? hmmmm....



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lucid Lunacy

Originally posted by Hugues de Payens
And you shouldn't be replying to a post if you do not understand English punctuation. I did not say Marxist anarchist.




You are implying that Obama has been influenced by the ideologies of these alleged "marxist" and "anarchist" associations.

Therefore if he has been influenced by both he would have both Marxist and anarchist ideologies himself.

I stand by what I said. Because it is what you said.


You are either missing or ignoring the point...but whatever....it aint worth it.



posted on Oct, 31 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Keep in mind that my original post was not me labeling him one way or another.
It was a question, wondering why with all the accusation, he has not addressed it directly.

I hear the term used to describe him in many places.


Ah, I just saw B H's link to video..I'll watch, and post again..



[edit on 31-10-2008 by spacedoubt]





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join