Post Reply
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
1 year ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 2:01PM #1
hopebringer
Posts: 1,872
news.yahoo.com/capitalism-socialism-wed-...





Either people didn't learn these words and their meanings in school or they were looking for clairification due to all the pundit and media twisting.      
Challenge is a dragon with a gift in its mouth. Tame the dragon and the gift is yours. ~ Noela Evans
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 2:09PM #2
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,760

"Socialism" and "socialist" became quite popular after Obama was elected. 


I think, in many cases, people resorted to using those terms, because one can no longer in polite company use the colloquial slur to describe a person of dark skin pigmentation. Wink

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 2:35PM #3
TemplarS
Posts: 6,235

In American  politics, "socialism" is mostly used by individuals who (1) do not understand what it actually is,  (2) have no interest in understanding what it actually is,  (3) have no expectation that their target audience understands what it actually is, and yet (4) expect their audience to react to its use in describing an opponent in exactly the same way they would if that opponent were labeled a wife-beater or a pedophile. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 2:51PM #4
farragut
Posts: 3,910

Perhaps the term "social democracy" is a more apt descriptive of what many feel that we are observing. But its evolution into socialism, or, perhaps, economic fascism, is what is feared and expected.

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 3:02PM #5
mountain_man
Posts: 38,031

Dec 5, 2012 -- 2:51PM, farragut wrote:

Perhaps the term "social democracy" is a more apt descriptive of what many feel that we are observing. But its evolution into socialism, or, perhaps, economic fascism, is what is feared and expected.


Too late. The Regressives have already devolved our society and economy into fascism. The government is in bed with the rich. That means the middle class is getting screwed. Just look around and you can see the effects; the rich continue to get richer since corporate profits have been rising steadily for the past 10 years. During that time wages have gone down. The Regressives have the nerve to claim they need to make MORE profits. They won't be satisfied until we have a completely stratified dystopia where one is either rich or poor. Nothing in the middle. They are too ignorant, and arrogant, to realize that once they have all the money there won't be any more profits. There will be no one to buy their products. They won the Monopoly game, but only at the ruin of everyone else. "Supply side" economics doesn't make sense, never has, and we now have undeniable proof it doesn't work.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

I am a Humanist. I believe in a rational philosophy of life, informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by a desire to do good for its own sake and not by an expectation of a reward or fear of punishment in an afterlife.
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 3:14PM #6
d_p_m
Posts: 9,011

I don't think that's too likely. We have one federal socialist party here, and it has never formed the government, and is not likely to, even though our right wing parties are somewhat to the left of the US Democrats. Actual socialism requires enough change that it is not really accepted, except in some limited areas, like electric power production, postal service, and some broadcasting, which is sometime handled by companies, and some times by Crown corporations - but even those are more or less arm's length from the government of the day.

PHARAOH IRY-HOR, FROM THE 3100s BC, IS THE FIRST HUMAN WHOSE NAME WE KNOW.

-- cool facts from xkcd


"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

-- Albert Einstein
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 3:58PM #7
TPaine
Posts: 9,032

Dec 5, 2012 -- 2:09PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


"Socialism" and "socialist" became quite popular after Obama was elected. 


I think, in many cases, people resorted to using those terms, because one can no longer in polite company use the colloquial slur to describe a person of dark skin pigmentation.



The use of the word "socialist" as a pejorative has been used by Republicons to attempt to smear Democratic presidential candidates goes back at least to the 1988 Bush v. Dukakis contest. It was used twice against Clinton unsuccessfully (as were the other smear campaigns against Clinton), successfully against Gore and Kerry, and unsuccessfully against Obama.


What I find interesting is that the original members of the Progressive movement during the late 19th and early 20th centuries were Republicans such as Senator John Sherman (R OH) who wrote the Sherman Antitrust Act (signed by Republican President Benjamin Harrison), and Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft.

"When it shall be said in any country in the world, my poor are happy; neither ignorance nor distress is to be found among them; my jails are empty of prisoners, my streets of beggars; the aged are not in want, the taxes are not oppressive; the rational world is my friend, because I am a friend of its happiness: When these things can be said, then may the country boast its constitution and its government." -- Thomas Paine: The Rights Of Man (1791)
Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 4:15PM #8
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,760

Dec 5, 2012 -- 3:58PM, TPaine wrote:


Dec 5, 2012 -- 2:09PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


"Socialism" and "socialist" became quite popular after Obama was elected. 


I think, in many cases, people resorted to using those terms, because one can no longer in polite company use the colloquial slur to describe a person of dark skin pigmentation.



The use of the word "socialist" as a pejorative has been used by Republicons to attempt to smear Democratic presidential candidates goes back at least to the 1988 Bush v. Dukakis contest. It was used twice against Clinton unsuccessfully (as were the other smear campaigns against Clinton), successfully against Gore and Kerry, and unsuccessfully against Obama.


What I find interesting is that the original members of the Progressive movement during the late 19th and early 20th centuries were Republicans such as Senator John Sherman (R OH) who wrote the Sherman Antitrust Act (signed by Republican President Benjamin Harrison), and Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft.




"Socialism" is a popular pejorative here in my state of Wyoming.


Which always amuses me, seeing how Wyoming gets more federal aid and subsidies than just about any other state. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Dec 05, 2012 - 4:30PM #9
TemplarS
Posts: 6,235

Dec 5, 2012 -- 3:58PM, TPaine wrote:


What I find interesting is that the original members of the Progressive movement during the late 19th and early 20th centuries were Republicans such as Senator John Sherman (R OH) who wrote the Sherman Antitrust Act (signed by Republican President Benjamin Harrison), and Presidents Theodore Roosevelt and William Howard Taft.





And back in the 50s and early 60s, more Republicans were behind the Civil Rights movement than Democrats.  A greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted in favor of the Civil Rights Bill inthe 60s.


So what the hell happened?


Oh, yeah, I know.  All those  southern Democrats became Republicans after about 1968.

Quick Reply
Cancel
1 year ago  ::  Dec 13, 2012 - 7:43AM #10
rangerken
Posts: 15,782

This thread was moved from the Hot Topics Zone

Conservative, Libertarian, Life member of the NRA and VFW
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 1 of 2  •  1 2 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook