|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
04-10-2010, 01:32 AM
I'm confused.
Is Obama a socialist or isn't he? According to Tswabuki, a proclaimed socialist, he agrees in the above responses that the president and the administration is working toward socialism and that is why he votes the way he does. When I asked "Which ideologies of socialism do you think the president and most of the administration is: democratic socialism or Marxist-Leninist socialism?" And it was answered. Why isn't he a socialist then? If not, Tsuwabuki, do you believe the President is still a socialist after your previous posts I highlighted above? What I'm reading is he has socialist agendas, but he isn't a socialist. ---------------- Now with this being said MMM: "Socialism is the new Red Scare. "S" is the new Scarlet Letter. Being associated with socialism is the new beginning to the end of a political career." Yes I agree American fear this. Why are Americans afraid of this? Do you believe that Americans dis-taste for socialism only lies in relating it to Marxist-Socialism and other -isms? MMM, to be fair Obama had only been in office 3 months when that article was written; well before this rolla coaster took off. 
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
04-10-2010, 01:37 AM
I think Obama is personally not a socialist. But that isn't what I thought you were previously asking.
I think his policies are as far as he can go to not alienate people like me who are and yet not risk losing votes of independents, or more conservative members of our own party. I do think some of the policies, such as healthcare, are headed that direction, and that the Obama administration as a whole, just as previous Democratic adminstrations, has a progressive and socialist "taste" to it.  <- AnimeMusicVideos.Org
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
04-10-2010, 01:42 AM
Quote:
So it tastes like it, but isn't quite a socialistic agenda. When does it become a socialistic agenda? I'm missing the line where he could be called a socialist and a progressive. It seems to me that the media and the adminsitration itself refuses to call themselves that only because they know that they haven't got a chance to run in the U.S.
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||
|
04-10-2010, 03:16 PM
Quote:
Quote:
But when you listen to enough entertainers like Glenn Beck that will scream Obama is a socialist until he cries things become...confusing. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Either Obama is a "do-nothing president" or he is carrying America to a "socialist utopia". It can't be both. But I understand why you are confused, Clint. Because these conflicting messages that the right wing talking heads toss out simply don't add up. ---------------- Quote:
I don't listen to Right Wing radio or watch Right Wing TV any more than I have to, but I do know that in the simplest terms this equation is pounded out again and again: Obama = Socialism = Bad Say it enough times and it starts to become true in people's minds. Again, your confusion is understood, because this equation doesn't add up. Quote:
You got hooked.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
04-10-2010, 11:11 PM
Quote:
Clint, Obama has to throw us a few bones. That's why we voted for him. If he doesn't, he will lose our support. That doesn't make him a socialist, it just makes him accountable to those who elected him. His public position as President, and his personal, internal beliefs as Barack Obama, will, and should be, sometimes at odds. LBJ voted against integration as Senator because the people of Texas who voted him into that position were against integration. As President, he realised it was the liberal wing who had elected JFK, and thus himself, and so he pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1964, again, doing the will of the people who put him into office. I like to think it was his views as Senator that were not his personal views, but it could have been the other way around. It doesn't matter. If you're elected, you work for the people who elected you. As President, you try to work for everyone, but you tend to side with the agendas of the people who voted you in over the agendas of those who did not. Obama is not a socialist. He knows I am. He knows I was a delegate. He knows I represented hundreds or thousands of other voters who elected me as a delegate and hold views similar to mine. If he wishes to avoid a primary challenge like Carter got from Teddy Kennedy, then he needs to make sure we damn well get those bones. Nothing says a party must back the sitting president. Carter nearly lost, and it weakened him, that it was a pretty large reason he lost a second term. Understand? <- AnimeMusicVideos.Org
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
04-11-2010, 05:52 AM
Quote:
<Harp sound of begin flash back sequence> clintjm:"Socialism: Do you think it could work in the states? Is the president and the current administration working toward this?" Tsuwabuki:"Yes, and yes. This is why I vote the way I do." <So here we establish you believe the president and current administration are working toward socialism. This is why you vote the way you do.> clintjm: "Which ideologies of socialism do you think the president and most of the administration is: democratic socialism or Marxist-Leninist socialism?" Tsuwabuki: " would say the former, but the former encompasses several competing definitions". . . . "If Obama ran on common sense capitalism compatible democratic socialism, all many of his opponents would hear is "socialism" and dialogue would cease." clintjm: "I'm confused. Is Obama a socialist or isn't he? According to Tswabuki, a proclaimed socialist, he agrees in the above responses that the president and the administration is working toward socialism and that is why he votes the way he does. When I asked "Which ideologies of socialism do you think the president and most of the administration is: democratic socialism or Marxist-Leninist socialism?" And it was answered. Why isn't he a socialist then? If not, Tsuwabuki, do you believe the President is still a socialist after your previous posts I highlighted above? What I'm reading is he has socialist agendas, but he isn't a socialist." Tsuwabuki: "I think Obama is personally not a socialist. But that isn't what I thought you were previously asking. I think his policies are as far as he can go to not alienate people like me who are and yet not risk losing votes of independents, or more conservative members of our own party. I do think some of the policies, such as healthcare, are headed that direction, and that the Obama administration as a whole, just as previous Democratic adminstrations, has a progressive and socialist "taste" to it. <Here we establish that you don't think he is personally a full blown Socialist. But you think his policies are as far as he can (meaning he would like to go all the way), without alienating independents and democrats.> clintjm: "Interesting. So it tastes like it, but isn't quite a socialistic agenda. When does it become a socialistic agenda? I'm missing the line where he could be called a socialist and a progressive. It seems to me that the media and the adminsitration itself refuses to call themselves that only because they know that they haven't got a chance to run in the U.S. <Harp sound ending flash back sequence> My question still stands. *Where is the line drawn of being a socialist or not? There seems to be some unwritten line that me and people like me are missing that distinguishes him from being a socialist. You said this is why you vote the way you do when asked if the president and this administration is moving towards socialism. As you are a proclaimed socialist who believes in socialism, I thought there would be no one better to get this information from. Like many, MMM is frothing at the mouth at everyone someone calls this administation and president a socialist, yet you are here saying his policies, that are socialist enough to vote for him, but you don't think he is a socialist. You speak to the seperation of personal beliefs and his view as Senator. Also siding with those as much as possible to serve those who elected him. Tsuwabuki: "His public position as President, and his personal, internal beliefs as Barack Obama, will, and should be, sometimes at odds." So which side is which? Is his personal beliefs socialistic, or his public position? You said "I think Obama is personally not a socialist." When does it become a socialistic agenda? I'm missing the line where he and many parts of the administration could be called a socialist I hear you on WHY he doesn't run in office on it, but if socialism/socialist is not an evil word or bad (I don't think you are evil or bad), then why wouldn't you call him a socialist, or why can't I call him a socalist. What has he not done policy/agenda wise or when stating his personal beliefs to not carry that title. This is very interesting to me as I rarely find anyone from the U.S./ American who believes in the socialsm (I assume you believe in democrartic socialism vs Marxist socialism) that doesn't find the current sway in Obama and politics Socialistic. They only say it isn't socialist agenda because it would not get the votes or support the majority of the American public. You got the bones, but what is missing that would satisfy? As quoted you admit he and the adminstration is moving toward a democratic socialism. Thus I'm looking for that line. If I missed quoted you or you would like to retract or change anything, please include it. VAT tax. There I said it. I'm on topic.
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
04-11-2010, 11:04 AM
It's simple really. I am a socialist. It doesn't matter if Obama is or not (and he's not). What matters is the policies are closer to what I want than John McCain's policies would be. Even the Republicans have some policies that are socialistic- National Defense being the big one.
Yes, the Obama administration is headed more in a socialistic direction than the alternative administration would be. That doesn't mean the administration is "socialist." What exactly is your point? <- AnimeMusicVideos.Org
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
04-11-2010, 05:18 PM
Quote:
A meaningless and distracting exercise which I will no longer participate in. Nice work, Clint. Mission accomplished?
|
|
|
||||
|
||||
|
04-11-2010, 06:54 PM
Quote:
According to you, I guess there isn't that one policy or agenda that isn't strong enough or that doesn't allow Obama and the adminsitration to be labeled a socialist. Dispite the "taste" of their agenda. I suppose I'll never know what that line is that prevents me from calling him a socialist. Maybe that line doesn't exists. I see a lot of history about the parties being written and how they don't run on socialism because they would never get the votes (enough to take power). I accept that. What I don't accept is not being to call him and his administation what it is, socialists. You vote for him because he is moving towards socialism, yet refuse to label him that without being able to draw me that line. clintjm:"Socialism: Do you think it could work in the states? Is the president and the current administration working toward this?" Tsuwabuki:"Yes, and yes. This is why I vote the way I do." Yet we can't label him a socialist because he isn't socialist enough by some measurement or some political line that can't be drawn or labeled? Can he be labeled a socialist if he got the U.S. a healthcare public option? Does there need to be more wealth distribution? Caps on how much wealth one can obtain? What is it. We seem to have come to an impass. And that is fine. Of course we will never see him and the administration labled as so blatenly in the media other than commentary shows because we can agree that would be death for this administration. Thats fine. I know not to expect that. But if I walk out the door now and walk down the street and ask the average person if they could define socialism, and if they could, would they call Obama and his adminsitration Socialists? They would say yes and could tell me why. You admit in this thread the president and his adminsitration are moving toward this. Yet that doesn't make him a socialist? Sorry... that is hypocrisy.
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
|
|
