Obama a Socialist? Not According to Actual Socialists

• ts1227

  

  http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/14/Obama.socialist/index.html
  
  The head of one of the Socialist Parties in the US actually said the most Socialist leaning candidate in 2008 was Sarah Palin.
  
  They say Obama isn't even a liberal (that's quite a strong statement, and I would disagree with it).
  
  Now, I know everyone here well dismiss it as "well, the Socialists just don't want to claim him", but I didn't see them chomping at the bit to get behind what they consider the option closest to their ideals (Palin) either, so that argument can't really hold THAT much water.
  
  So, do you buy it? Will you accept it from socialists that he's not a socialist? If not, do you at least see where they are coming from?
  This is a rhetorical question around here, but what the hell.
• sjmvsfscs08

  Personally I don't think Obama's a socialist, and I don't fear Obama trying to turn the country into some socialist utopia, I fear him trying to turn the country towards a pseudo-socialist European way of life. Europe is slowly dying though, with each passing day their population growth becomes more stagnant and they become increasingly irrelevant. But we continue to march on that direction.
• jhay78

  

  The head of that particular Socialist party knows that as soon as someone on the left says the word "socialist" and "Obama" in the same sentence, red flags go up for most politically illiterate Americans and Obama stands little chance of being reelected in 2012. Dems and the mainstream media have done everything they can to avoid attaching that label to Obama, so if Socialist party members want a guy who agrees with them in the White House, they'll avoid attaching that label to him as well.
  
  That guy lost all credibility when he said Sarah Palin was the most socialist leaning candidate. Dislike her or disagree with her all you want, but that may be the dumbest thing I've ever heard. There's proof that they're attaching the label "Socialist" to make someone with whom they disagree look bad (Palin) and avoiding the label to make someone with whom they do agree not look so bad (Obama).
• fish82

  

  "Socialist" is the new "WMD," and I'm pretty burned out on both of them.
• Belly35

  

  To call someone a socialist is not conspiratorial, it is not fear mongering, it is simply the truth, and it is time for some in the conservative media to take a deep breath and admit it - America has a socialist leading the country.
  
  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/obamas_socialism_1.html
• QuakerOats

  Actually he may be a communist, but he is smart enough to know you can't get to point C without going from A to B first.
  
  Sad to have to say it.
• BCSbunk

  QuakerOats wrote: Actually he may be a communist, but he is smart enough to know you can't get to point C without going from A to B first.
  
  Sad to have to say it.

  
  Well Ron Paul would beg to differ with you. Obama is no socialist it is indeed laughable to suggest he is.
• ptown_trojans_1

  

  QuakerOats wrote: Actually he may be a communist, but he is smart enough to know you can't get to point C without going from A to B first.
  
  Sad to have to say it.

  lol. Yep. Cause we all know Obama goes to sleep as night reading Marx and kneeling before the hammer and sickle.
  
  I figured it out, Obama is going to secretly transport Lenin's body back to here, turn the Mall into Red Square, hold military parades down it, ship all R's out to Alaska, and then single handily put up a wall around the whole country.
  
  Yep, he is a damn red alright.
• cbus4life

  QuakerOats wrote: Actually he may be a communist, but he is smart enough to know you can't get to point C without going from A to B first.
  
  Sad to have to say it.

  Lol.
  
  And he's also a cheetah.
  
  Or a teleprompter that has taken on the guise of a human!
• QuakerOats

  Your defense of him is perhaps an indication of your true insecurity regarding him and who he really is/might be.
  
  Plus you are easy to toy with.
• cbus4life

  Fair enough.
  
  I just don't think he's a communist, not one bit. Nothing i've seen or read or heard indicates to me that he is an actual communist.
  
  Just can't help but laugh at the 2nd "red scare" that is taking place in the country right now.
• jhay78

  

  ptown_trojans_1 wrote:

  QuakerOats wrote: Actually he may be a communist, but he is smart enough to know you can't get to point C without going from A to B first.
  
  Sad to have to say it.

  lol. Yep. Cause we all know Obama goes to sleep as night reading Marx and kneeling before the hammer and sickle.
  
  I figured it out, Obama is going to secretly transport Lenin's body back to here, turn the Mall into Red Square, hold military parades down it, ship all R's out to Alaska, and then single handily put up a wall around the whole country.
  
  Yep, he is a damn red alright.

  You don't have to do any of those things to be a socialist or a communist.
• jhay78

  

  Belly35 wrote: To call someone a socialist is not conspiratorial, it is not fear mongering, it is simply the truth, and it is time for some in the conservative media to take a deep breath and admit it - America has a socialist leading the country.
  
  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/obamas_socialism_1.html

  Nice article from someone who's immersed in a socialist society.
  

  I have a lot of respect for Bill O'Reilly, but to a Brit who has seen his fair share of socialists, and lives in a socialist country, run by a self-described socialist party by a self-described socialist Prime Minister who has taken over from another self-described socialist Prime Minister, it is puzzling why self-described independents like Mr O'Reilly are doing back flips in an attempt to avoid the obvious fact -- President Obama is quite clearly a socialist.

• Footwedge

  The US is a mixture of socialism and capitalism. Been that way since the 30's. Obama is a little bit more socialist than GW Bush was. but not by all that much.
  
  Calling Obama a socialist is a misnomer.
• BoatShoes

  So what makes one a socialist under they guise we're talking here? Clearly we've not restricted it to a puritanical definition of the state owning the means of production but a more general idea that big government can solve a problem or two. So where's the boundary?
  
  For instance, If a person believes that say, Medicare is a justified social program wherein taxpayers should subsidize a health insurance program at the federal level for the elderly...in effect using the taxing power in the United States Constitution to collect a consumption tax in the form of a wage tax, to collect monies and redistribute them currently to old folks to pay for their medical care? Is this person a Socialist?
  
  If suddenly this person thinks it might be a good thing to extend this program to people of all ages, does she then become a socialist?
  
  What are the specific criterion?
• Writerbuckeye

  

  That American Thinker piece does a great job of summing up why Obama fits the socialist name.
  
  Too bad you'll never see him or his followers admit what they really are.
  
  Can't do that and hope to get re-elected.
• QuakerOats

  Belly35 wrote: To call someone a socialist is not conspiratorial, it is not fear mongering, it is simply the truth, and it is time for some in the conservative media to take a deep breath and admit it - America has a socialist leading the country.
  
  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/obamas_socialism_1.html

  Good article ........................... we know why the tiger (or cheetah) is trying to hide his stripes (spots).
• I Wear Pants

  jhay78 wrote:

  Belly35 wrote: To call someone a socialist is not conspiratorial, it is not fear mongering, it is simply the truth, and it is time for some in the conservative media to take a deep breath and admit it - America has a socialist leading the country.
  
  http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/obamas_socialism_1.html

  Nice article from someone who's immersed in a socialist society.
  

  I have a lot of respect for Bill O'Reilly, but to a Brit who has seen his fair share of socialists, and lives in a socialist country, run by a self-described socialist party by a self-described socialist Prime Minister who has taken over from another self-described socialist Prime Minister, it is puzzling why self-described independents like Mr O'Reilly are doing back flips in an attempt to avoid the obvious fact -- President Obama is quite clearly a socialist.

  LOL, Bill O'Reilly an independent.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  The U.S. is a mixture of socialism and fascism, and Obama is both, much like Bush and just about every president since Teddy Roosevelt.
• I Wear Pants

  Cleveland Buck wrote: The U.S. is a mixture of socialism and fascism, and Obama is both, much like Bush and just about every president since Teddy Roosevelt.

  Which is why I grow tired of people using "you're/he's a socialist/fascist" as an insult.
  
  There's nobody in our government that wants full on socialism or fascism like it has been in the past.
  
  Almost everyone in our government has some viewpoints that are based on socialist or fascist viewpoints though. Doesn't make them a socialist or a fascist.
• jhay78

  

  Bernie Sanders from Vermont has no problem calling himself a socialist, and he votes with the Democrats 98% of the time, according to Howard Dean.
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders
  
  See it's okay to use the label if you're from little old Vermont- you just can't ever let that label be attached to you if you want to be President of the United States- even though your policies and ideology are almost identical.
• QuakerOats

  Does the fact that we are even having to have these discussions give pause to any of the left-leaning posters?
  
  Or, have we slipped so far left on the political spectrum that its no big deal if the president is a socialist (or worse)?
  
  Wow.
• Cleveland Buck

  

  I Wear Pants wrote:

  Cleveland Buck wrote: The U.S. is a mixture of socialism and fascism, and Obama is both, much like Bush and just about every president since Teddy Roosevelt.

  Which is why I grow tired of people using "you're/he's a socialist/fascist" as an insult.
  
  There's nobody in our government that wants full on socialism or fascism like it has been in the past.
  
  Almost everyone in our government has some viewpoints that are based on socialist or fascist viewpoints though. Doesn't make them a socialist or a fascist.

  I don't know about using it as an insult. It is what it is. We have some government owned parts of the economy, some privately owned/government sponsored parts of the economy, and an ever dwindling private sector. If you want to know why the economy is in ruin, there is your answer.
  
  They don't consider themselves one thing or another. They want to make sure their pockets are lined with cash as long as they are in office and long after. It doesn't matter to them if they need to be socialist or fascist or communist or whatever, as long as they get theirs.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats wrote: Does the fact that we are even having to have these discussions give pause to any of the left-leaning posters?
  
  Or, have we slipped so far left on the political spectrum that its no big deal if the president is a socialist (or worse)?
  
  Wow.

  No, it makes me look on with astonishment as people on the right continue to move further and further away from the mainstream as they lambaste policies as "government takeovers" by socialist/marxists that were recently supported by mainstream conservative politicians 15 years ago.
• sjmvsfscs08

  From marxmail.org's frequently asked questions, "What's the difference between Communism and Socialism?"
  

  Are there, then, no differences between the Socialist and Communist parties? Yes, there are.
  
  The Communists believe that as soon as the working class and its allies are in a position to do so they must make a basic change in the character of the state; they must replace capitalist dictatorship over the working class with workers’ dictatorship over the capitalist class as the first step in the process by which the existence of capitalists as a class (but not as individuals) is ended and a classless society is eventually ushered in. Socialism cannot be built merely by taking over and using the old capitalist machinery of government; the workers must destroy the old and set up their own new state apparatus. The workers’ state must give the old ruling class no opportunity to organize a counter-revolution; it must use its armed strength to crush capitalist resistance when it arises.
  
  The Socialists, on the other hand, believe that it is possible to make the transition from capitalism to socialism without a basic change in the character of the state. They hold this view because they do not think of the capitalist state as essentially an institution for the dictatorship of the capitalist class, but rather as a perfectly good piece of machinery which can be used in the interest of whichever class gets command of it. No need, then, for the working class in power to smash the old capitalist state apparatus and set up its own—the march to socialism can be made step by step within the framework of the democratic forms of the capitalist state.

  That, to me, sounds a lot like what we've been doing in recent months.