Brave New Girl?
October 28th, 2008Lovely:
“Sometimes, when a political campaign has run out of ideas and senses that the prize is slipping through its fingers, it rolls up a sleeve and plunges an arm, shoulder deep, right down to the bottom of the barrel. The problem for John McCain, Sarah Palin, and the Republican Party is that the bottom was scraped clean long before it dropped out. Back when the polls were nip and tuck and the leaves had not yet begun to turn, Barack Obama had already been accused of betraying the troops, wanting to teach kindergartners all about sex, favoring infanticide, and being a friend of terrorists and terrorism. What was left? The anticlimactic answer came as the long Presidential march of 2008 staggered toward its final week: Senator Obama is a socialist.”
From:
Like, Socialism: Comment: The New Yorker
The last paragraph is most damning for Ms. Palin. I’ll let you savor that for yourself.
via: TPM
Nov. 4th can’t come soon enough. o
Tags: 2008 presidential election, hypocrisy, Palin, politics
Jon,
Can’t hardly wait for Election Day! I’ve already early voted (encourage you to do the same), and it was a great experience for me. I appreciate your blog and the diverse political opinions but I am convinced that Barack Obama is our guy. Sara the socialist will run again another day and poor McCain can finally take a break from the B12 shots.
In the meantime, it would be great to see some posts that inspire folks to get behind Barack Obama without mentioning his opponents. Ted Sorenson’s speech at the DNC should provide some inspiration if needed. Barack Obama for President.
You quote an avowed socialist who says that Obama’s not a socialist and Palin is. I subscribe to the New Yorker and I’m very familiar with Herzberg’s work. He’s a brilliant writer and every bit of his writing has the purpose to persuade for causes of the left. He often uses techniques that are logically fallacious, and often outright deceptive.
Alaska is a bit of a unique situation. The government owned it first. As a libertarian, I think the government should sell much of that land to private interests where it can be used more efficiently. I don’t, however, think that if the government is going to own it that there’s something wrong with charging oil companies to lease it. And then what should they do with the money? They choose to give it back to Alaskans rather than spend it. There’s nothing socialist about that, in fact, it’s anti-socialist. There’s also nothing wrong with a community owning something collectively. The socialist part of that is when someone else owned it first, and government took it by force, and then let everyone own it collectively. Herzberg is using his brilliance to deceive.
I don’t consider the term “socialist” to be a buzzword or a meaningless insult. I don’t think that just raising the top income tax rates a few percentage points is socialist in itself. Socialism is a continuum. Raising taxes, adding more regulation, taking more of the private sector under government control moves us further down the road. It’s not a matter of “he’s a socialist, and he’s not.” McCain is more socialist than I like. Obama is off the scale of what I like. I agreed with Ron Paul on most things other than the war, but he’s not one of my choices, so I’ll vote the slightly lesser of two evils.
(Before I’m attacked, “evil” is a figurative description in this context.”
@dross, avowed socialist?
Proof, please.
p.s. Nice gymnastics.
His parents were prominent socialists (which of course doesn’t make him one necessarily) and he’s a continuing member of the Young People’s Socialist League, the youth affiliate of the Socialist Party USA. I don’t think he advertises his current position as socialist, but few prominent socialists do, as it doesn’t serve their cause.
To what gymnastics are you referring? You constantly toss off these little barbs and then when I ask you about them you don’t reply back to my questions. Now this is your blog, of course, so you get to make the rules, but I don’t think I went through any gymnastics so I’d like to know what you’re talking about.
Jon,
When you refer to things like this I am just flabbergasted. I seriously am in awe of what this country is coming to. I don’t live in Europe. I live here and NO socialist principles being talked about are what this country was founded on. If this “movement” takes hold, it will be the death of the last great free Republic of the world. And I will be personally devastated by that because that is beyond what I want for our nation. I will grieve it for the rest of my life. The idea that my children will never know an America that is free of government interference and control, is too sad to even fathom.
Anyway, this paragraph absolutely appalls me:
“As a buzzword, “socialism” had mostly good connotations in most of the world for most of the twentieth century. That’s why the Nazis called themselves national socialists. That’s why the Bolsheviks called their regime the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, obliging the socialist and social democratic parties of Europe (and America, for what it was worth) to make rescuing the “good name” of socialism one of their central missions.”
A buzzword? Hardly.
And then to give those examples as to why people were OK with the word? These were HORRIBLE movements/regimes that killed and repressed MILLIONS. Why in the world would anyone remotelyl imply a level of respect, even sarcastically, for such things?
It has not even been 70 years since the entire world was hanging by a thread due to socialist and communist movements. I can’t believe for the life of me that people think that was ok…or that it couldn’t happen again. We, as the human race, are inevitable to repeat our mistakes. History shows that. I, for one, feel we should fight it as much as we can.
and this…
“…the gentle social democracies across the Atlantic, where, in return for higher taxes and without any diminution of civil liberty, people buy themselves excellent public education, anxiety-free health care, and decent public transportation.”
Gentle democracies? Are you kidding me? Europe has been at the center of TWO World Wars in the last century!!!!!!!!! This gentle (sleeping tiger) scenario is what is just scary as hell. The idea that socialized government, ironically fought against in both wars, is just allowing people “freedom” is so amazingly laughable I can’t even think where to begin commenting.
They are rats in a maze controlled by a power they now have no chance at all of fighting!!! Just because they run in the maze high on pot, free to enjoy prostitution, get their surgery for free, enjoy the tan of their weeks of vacation and ride their trolleys…doesn’t mean they aren’t rats. They are being lulled into a false sense of utopia. At any time, it only takes one person who has his OWN agenda, to come and make that idealic world HIS. In one fell swoop, anyone with a less than stellar vision, will have those rats dancing like ballerinas at his command. THAT is why socialism is dangerous.
I do not believe, for one instant, that European socialists don’t have diminuition of their civil liberties. I know that what they have is what the government tells them they have…and as long as they like it then they feel they are free. What happens if that changes? Well, watch the movie “1984″ for that answer.
Western civilization as we’ve known it (though our poor grandparents know firsthand the horrors of what those things nearly did to the entire world…and unfortunately no one in today’s world even considers them any longer) is dying.
And if you feel this article is substantive, then you have only confirmed what I suspected to begin with…that many Americans want to become rats.
@dross, are you familiar with the notion of ad hominem.
I’m referring to your gymnastics of picking and choosing how you define socialism and socialist ideals, e.g., it’s only socialist if it comes from the left.
I’m going to need more than your word on Hertzberg’s socialism. Links please.
@faydean, I’m just flabbergasted as well. I love how conservatives, now that Jesus has lost traction in the dialogue (neither candidate appears to make religion central, which is a nice change this cycle) has suddenly become McCarthy, Jr., warning us of the coming “chaos” and “socialism”. Give me a break.
I lived in England in the mid-1980s. My experience with their health care system and their multi-party government which was far more liberal (even under Thatcher) than Obama could ever be, wasn’t close to the fear-based language describing what is going to happen if Obama gets elected.
faydean, I’m not sure what to make of your “rats” comment. I certainly have no rodent-curiousity or desire to become rodent-like. How will you be less free under Obama?
Faydean,
To add to what you’ve said, I lived in Germany for four years during the eighties. My politics were very similar to the folks who post here a lot – decidedly left of center. Yet, when people asked me to describe what it was like living in Germany in a political sense, the answer I gave was:
“In the U.S., if there’s no sign posted saying you may not do a particular thing, you can assume you may do it. In Germany, if there’s no sign posted saying you may do a particular thing, you can assume you may not.”
With every power, and with every cent we give the government, we give up a piece of our freedom, and we don’t ever get it back.
I know the left hates it when we invoke the founding fathers, but do their words and ideals and the way they set up this government mean anything anymore? Or do you think we should just throw out all those notions? I’m not hurling that out, I’m truly asking.
blurb,
Yes, I know what ad hominem means. From what you’re saying, it doesn’t appear that you know. Argumentum ad hominem is replying to an opponent’s argument by attacking him personally. So if you had said, “Obama’s plan doesn’t raise your taxes,” and I replied, “Yes it does, because he’s a socialist,” that’s an ad hominem argument, because I didn’t address the truth of the argument, I just attacked Obama the man. Whereas if I say, Obama is a socialist, because he wants to raise taxes on the more wealthy, increase regulation, and take over more of the private sector, I haven’t engaged in an ad hominem, I’ve given an argument with supporting premises.
I’m not picking and choosing anything. Socialism is a complex political philosophy. Various socialist organizations have split over the definition. I don’t think either of us owns the “correct” definition. I explained in this and other posts my view of socialism. It is a left of center philosophy, so it can’t “come from the right.” There are politicians who are considered conservative who believe in some socialist tenets, to include Palin, McCain, and Bush.
I explained why I thought Obama is more socialist than McCain, and I explained why I don’t think the way the government runs in Alaska is any more socialist than any other government just based on the distribution of oil taxes.
There was nothing ad hominem in any of that, you’re misusing the term.
As to links to Herzberg’s socialism, I don’t play that anymore. The information is out there, I found it easily, but I don’t want to play “challenge the source,” so you’re on your own. If you’re even mildly interested, you can find it.
Obama is on television right now speaking to another huge crowd and he just said that when McCain finds out he shared his toys with other kids in kindergarten, he’ll once again say he has proof that Obama is a socialist. It’s just such a stupid charge, it’s laughable.
The McCain/Palin campaign is desperate because they know they have lost this election. So they are going to shotgun slime Obama as much as they can until Election Day in the hopes that some of it will stick. The American people are too smart to buy that swill and McCain/Palin are going to find that out on Election Day.
I never thought I would see anyone in the US use Joe McCarthy tactics ever again, but McCain/Palin have proved me wrong. They are so sad. Stephen Colbert had a great piece on his show last night discussing the “Obama is a socialist” smear and he said, “McCain/Palin are targeting their most important voter, Joe the McCarthy.” LOL!
I hope you and Heather saw The Daily show last night. Samantha Bee did a great piece on McCain slamming the “health of the mother” when discussing abortion.
@dross, I’m referring to attacking Hertzberg instead of the point of this post: the ultra-conservative Palin raising the spectre of a supposed socialism under Obama when in fact, Alaska practices a form of socialism today.
You described Hertzberg as an “avowed” socialist. Which is a blatant mischaracterization. As for your “I can’t be bothered to prove my point” argument about your ad hominem use against Hertzberg, I couldn’t find “the information” that is “out there” where he takes up “avowed” socialist stands. Now that I’ve done your work for you, here’s something you might like to read.
So you are claiming that the state of Alaska practices a form of redistribution that is not socialism or socialist in any way? How is Alaska’s redistribution of taxes different than what Obama practices? And how EXACTLY is Obama a socialist?
I have yet to read anything convincing me that Obama is a socialist. Not a single article or comment to convince me that Obama is a socialist.
You dismiss your own argument as well when you say:
“I explained why I thought Obama is more socialist than McCain”
90% of faydean’s arguments are based purely on ad hominem: See also.
There have been those making the same arguments from the liberal point, to be sure.
I would argue that anybody calling anybody else a socialist in this campaign is practicing an ad hominem argument.
“I know the left hates it when we invoke the founding fathers,”
dross, LOL! How do you _know_ this????
I invoke the FF’s all the time. When the Republicans were passing the Patriot Act, I invoked Ben Franklin: “Any people that would give up liberty for a little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.”
When Bush & Co kept deregulating the banking industry until they brought about the current global economic crisis, I invoked Thomas Jefferson: “”If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered.”
When the McCain/Palin campaign slimes Obama with lies, I invoke john Adams: “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclination, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
And when I’m getting ready to party on Nov 4 to celebrate Obama’s win, I will once again invoke Ben: “Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy. “
Ah, the peace-loving, respectful McCain rally crowds:
“John McCain just concluded his “Joe the Plumber” rally at Everglades Lumber. After the rally, we witnessed a near-street riot involving the exiting McCain crowd and two Cuban-American Obama supporters. Tony Garcia, 63, and Raul Sorando, 31, were suddenly surrounded by an angry mob. There is a moment in a crowd when something goes from mere yelling to a feeling of danger, and that’s what we witnessed. As photographers and police raced to the scene, the crowd elevated from stable to fast-moving scrum, and the two men were surrounded on all sides as we raced to the circle.
The event maybe lasted a minute, two at the most, before police competently managed to hustle the two away from the scene and out of the danger zone.
“People were screaming ‘Terrorist!’ ‘Communist!’ ‘Socialist!’” Sorando said. “I had a guy tell me he was gonna kill me.”
Asked what had precipitated the event, “We were just chanting ‘Obama!’ and holding our signs. That was it. And the crowd suddenly got crazy.”
@southerngirl, love the quotes!
And it’s sad that the irresponsible language of the McCain/Palin campaign is bearing ill fruit. Conservatives need a reality-check and a gut check. I’m hoping a landslide for Obama will wake conservatives up. It’s not about anger at the fring. It’s about the middle.
Personally, I don’t find being a “socialist” to be an attack and find it rather amusing. Still, the U.S. seems to have a very skewed idea about it.
I cannot wait for November 4th as I hope to be celebrating, sans alcohol, Obama being elected President for when my baby is born in February!
Personally, I actually wish Obama were an actual socialist. I don’t know why so many Americans think that socialism is some huge red bear out to eat their children, but European and Canadian style socialism, has seemed to work a hell of a lot better than what America has been trying over the past 100 years or so.
America’s policies, economy, politics and society is breaking, if not already broken, and I don’t comprehend why “now is not the time for dangerous social experiments” if sticking to what hasn’t worked and likely never will is the alternative. The unchecked capitalism and free market ideology doesn’t work, just as communism doesn’t. Moderation, people, moderation.
In keeping with extolling that of those that I firmly agree with, I’d have you read this Jon as part of my response to your article, your response to my comment and what others have said regarding this issue:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZWY3ZDkyNWJiMThmNjNlN2RjOTczYTc1MWI5ZmEzOWU=&w=MA==
I would Dross agrees with my summation that it’s a brilliantly written piece (sorry to assume for you Dross, perhaps you don’t), and unfortunately very accurate in it’s account (as much as prediction can be).
I would disagree with the assessment that Europeans only do what the government tells them they can do. I’ve lived in Europe just 5 years ago, and am studying International Business and completed a seminar specifically on European politics and economy. I have a lot to learn still, but I think Americans can learn something from Europe.
Depending on the country some Europeans have far more power to make political decisions than in America – in Switzerland there are multiple referendums a week, with 80% voter turn out! Lobbyists are included in the political process which makes all their dealings with politicians public. Everyone can have a say. The ability to have more than two political parties creates a far more dynamic discussion and makes laws that represent all groups.
Additionally Europeans live longer, are healthier, less stressed and work fewer hours. I think Americans hear “socialism” and they think of the extreme – which we all know is not the solution – but I think Europe may have some things right, and we should examine their model with an open mind.
for whatever it’s worth, the attack on obama as a socialist due to his plan to tax higher income brackets is the ONLY play against him that has made any sense to me at all. his church, ayers, experience have all been shallow and pointless.
going after obama because of a fundamentally different economic philosophy is where he should have fighting. at least it opens the door for what could be important political discourse and a dialog about which economic model is best for the economy and the people. more importantly, it’s an argument that SHOULD appeal to the fiscal conservatives in the middle that might swing his way. obviously, the “socialist” rhetoric is ridiculously strong, but at least its more relevant than a guy obama met on a reform committee once.
mccain pandered to right in his campaign, trying to play on fear and emotion and ended up with a disjointed campaign that always seemed on the ropes. i will never understand this. the far right in the party was never going to vote obama, so why not reach out for the middle. embrace the fiscal conservative, social liberal voter who was leaning for hillary. maybe that’s where he’s going now.
regardless, obama has my vote.
For those interested in a European look at socialism, this is a very interesting and telling article. Please note these few paragraphs in the beginning of the paper:
“In the mid-19th century Sweden, like many other European countries, went through a period of rapid institutional change. Within a few decades the economy was deregulated, taxes were lowered and tariffs were abolished. Moreover, modern institutions such as limited liability corporations and patent laws were introduced. In addition, the political system was changed into a two chamber parliamentary system with successively increased suffrage.
As a consequence a period of high growth and social change occurred. From 1890 to 1950 Sweden was the fastest growing country in the world (Krantz 2004). Several major industries, e.g. in mining, forestry, paper, high-current electric equipment, telecommunications, chemicals, car manufacturing etc., were founded around the turn of the century. Over the coming decades many of the leading companies in these industries developed into large international corporations. Parallel to this economic development a dynamic civil society evolved with numerous voluntary organizations and clubs. Sweden was transformed from a poor rural country into one of the wealthy modern society.
During this period Sweden was in fact a low-tax country, a fact that is not even well known in Sweden.”
I point these paragraphs out because I think they are strikingly similiar to the American situation of the past decade. What’s spooky is what happened after this boom period. Read for yourself to see what I mean.
Here’s the link:
http://www.mega.nu:8080/ampp/communism2.html
The Swedish Model is a fascinating one – I can’t see anything when I click on the link, however I know that they then pursued both Capitalism and extensive redistribution – so extensive that it genuinely sought to bring all people to the same economic standing. I don’t think this is at all what Americans or Obama are interested in.
What made the Swedish Model work was the attitude of their citizens: they genuinely believe that the focus in life should be on family, and not on work. For them, their values lie with being able to be at home, and not on their ability to make more money. Additionally the Swedes believe that their fellow countrymen are truly their “brothers” and seek to help them in all ways possible. Hmm….
Jon…
A quick response, in brief to your comment on my comment, LOL.
1) Not that you were addressing this to me directly, but Jesus is not in my dialogue in any way. As I’ve stated time and again, I’m an atheist.
2)McCarthy Jr.? Very cute. So now anyone in society who is concerned with socialism or communism being infilitrated into our free republic is on a witch hunt? History might repeat itself Jon, but that doesn’t automatically disregard people’s concerns. So, on that, give ME a break. It is my right as a citizen of this nation, as of now at least, to be concerned that the next leader of our country might be of the ilk to undermine what it stands for, in my eyes at least. I’m a firm believer of our Constitution. Millions of Americans have fought and died for the document. I for one think they did not die in vein.
3) You lived in England as a visitor, not a citizen. You took advantage of their welfare programs as someone who did not pay taxes. Yes, I’m sure you enjoyed them immensely. Now try living there and giving the government 60 percent of your income and see how you feel about it.
4) This race will be so close…not the landslide you imagine. So, really, only about little more than half of American voters will choose Obama. If he raises taxes and institutes a bunch of socialist mandates in this country, then, in my view, he’s enacting taxation without representation for half of us in this nation. That, if I remember my history correctly, is what the Revolutionary War was fought over. So while you’d like to dismiss the Right’s concerns as desperate or whatever, I’d argue that we’re at least half this nation and have a good reason to be concerned. Our country was born out of such an issue. It is not slight.
5) The rat reference is simply this…
You could use goldfish in a bowl or monkey at the zoo. Just because the rat, goldfish or monkey appears to be happy and well cared for…have everything they need to survive and exist, they are not free…they are in a cage (bowl). You can make a rat run a maze just by giving it what it needs…food. And it will run as long as you give him what he needs. But he’s still running in a maze.
That’s what the Europeans you keep referring to are in, some apparent utopia as you see. But it is not that. It’s a false reality. As long as they get what they want/need, they feel free. They are not. They get what the government (that they gave all the power) allows them to have, living with the complete ignorance it seems, that at any moment, what is giveth can be taken away. Yet, once it is taken away who would they complain to? Hmm, no government on their side because they’ve given them so much power.
Just like the monkey in a cage…one day he has nice plump bananas…for years he eats like a king, never having to worry about gathering his own food, fearing being prey or even having to exert himself in order just to sustain himself.
Then one day the keeper brings him molded fruit. Day after day, the same molded fruit. The monkey doesn’t like it and complains. The keeper says, “Oh, you don’t like it do you? Well, it’s free…and it’s what we have. If you’d like better, I suggest you find a way to get it yourself.” But, he can’t…he’s locked inside a cage.
There ya go…socialim/facism/communism spelled out with zoo animals.
6) Lastly, Europe has some of the highest costs of living in the free world. London and the surrounding area is among the most expensive places in the world to live. Costs for goods and services are much higher in general in socialized countries. It doesn’t take an economic Ph.d to figure out why…the burden of the taxes on businesses is so great, they must offset the cost to the CONSUMER. Tax cost will always find a way to hit the common man. ALWAYS.
In a separate comment, I linked to a very interesting research paper from Sweden on socialism. I think if you researched some, you’d find that there is definitely a group of people (a large group) that do not support or are happy with socialism in Europe.
And, as I stated the other day, Europe is waiting with baited breath to see how this will all unfold…if we emerge with more socialist mandate than we’ve ever had, because they depend on our free market system to help them economically. The French have been very concerned…as well as Canada. This is all available via the net for research also. I could list all the links, but I’m like Dross, I don’t think you even read the stuff we do link to in the first place, so I won’t waste any more time linking other things you’ll simply disregard or not even read to begin with.
Oh, and this (though I hate to share it since it really pro socialist), but it sounds VERY familiar in it’s rhetoric. Note from who and to who this speech was given and on what day (just interesting, not saying it’s indicative).
http://www.european-left.org/english/news/news_archive/news_archive/artikel/socialism-in-europe-experiences-and-lessons-from-the-20th-century-and-prospects-for-the-21st-centur/
(sorry Jon, not sure how to shorten the link…you might give me a tutorial on that…I never can figure out how)
The reason I share it is this excerpt:
“Let us now take a look at the starting conditions of the attempt at making a real socialist society. There, where its development was first attempted with the victory of the Bolshevik Revolution – in Russia and the countries that later became the Soviet Union – the conditions for developing a socialist society were, as you can imagine, poor. In large part, the territory of the Soviet Union was undeveloped by comparison to the capitalist countries. Feudal relationships were also still powerful. The country had also been weakened by the war. In addition, the Civil War and the attack by the Entente powers directly followed the victory in the Revolution, so that the need to consolidate power shaped the policies of the Communists. The consolidation of power, as it was theoretically grounded by Marx and Engels and then clearly emphasised by Lenin, would remain the guiding principle of the socialist/communist parties in the state socialist countries till their collapse.
From this starting point, the Soviet Union – and later the other socialist states, under various conditions – succeeded in stimulating significant economic growth after the consolidation of the socialist system in society. This was the basis for achievements in science, technology and culture and was accompanied by a clear improvement in living standards. Not for no reason do many people in Eastern Europe now look back on the era of socialism as a time of comparatively high material living standards, and in some respects of cultural flowering. The certain social homogeneity despite different ways of living, in the towns, in the country, among workers or intellectuals, was understood as an expression of social equality.
However, it must be borne in mind that the struggle to consolidate power and the force needed for this – for example the forced collectivisation of agriculture – both secured the new social system’s existence and limited its development even at the start.
As long as the successes – economic, scientific, technical and cultural – justified the ruling powers, the majority of the population continued to support the new social system, even if they had perhaps not decided for it personally themselves. However, as patronising policies and state intervention began to impede the development of society, as living standards stagnated and became a blight on intellectual and cultural life, it became increasingly clear that the façade of the system could only be upheld by overexploitation of the economy and, perhaps even worse, at the cost of the environment. People began to turn away from the state and the parties leading it, and went over to the clearly more effective social model in the conflict between systems.
A social order that is based fundamentally on the cooperation of, if not all people, at least the overwhelming majority, can only use force to compensate for such a situation for a certain length of time. By the time this insight filtered into the leaders of the national parties, it was too late. What had been conceived as a cautious opening of valves could not direct the pressure of necessary reform into constructive channels, but became instead an opening of the floodgates, which partly surprised even the Western Cold War powers.”
Ok, I do have a serious question for you Obama supporters.
I’m totally confused…
I was reading the AP fact check on his prime time special…um, ad, lol, and it said this, as a quote from him (now, I did NOT watch it, so this is why I’m asking ya’ll):
“Here’s what I’ll do. Cut taxes for every working family making less than $200,000 a year.”
This is their quote now (here’s the link http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/29/ap-fact-check-obama-ad-avoids-budget-realities/)…but on Obama’s website it says THREE times the amount of income is $250,000.
Did I miss something in the past 24 hours? Since when did it drop, because now I’m not just arguing about the immorality of the other guy getting a tax increase…now he’s snared us too! Did he lower this amount like today or something?
Not wanting a debate here, I’m thinking I missed something huge and I’ve listened to news all day, LOL.
Can we please stop the “If Obama is elected on November 4th, we will be a socialist nation on November 5th” rhetoric?? It is so absurd and ridiculous! There is no one perfect system for this country. Moderation, people. Moderation.
faydean, I hope you aren’t really serious about the whole “taxation without representation for half of us in this nation” thing. I think I get the point you’re trying to make, but you do realize that you are, in fact, represented, right? You know, by your State Representatives? People tend to get so wrapped up in the national scene and don’t pay much attention to the state and local scene. Obama is not going to be able to push through any agenda without a vote from Congress. So if people don’t like the way they are being represented by their Congressional Representatives, then they have a responsibility to make that known. A vote at election time isn’t really going to cut it. We do all have a voice in this country, but if you don’t choose to make it heard to the right people, you don’t really have the right to whine when things don’t go your way.
Carrie,
No, we won’t be socialist by the day after election…I’d give it a year at best.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s rhetoric at all. Since you support Obama you may think it is, but from this side it’s definitely not.
I was being partly sarcastic on the taxation w/o representation thing. I say partly because, though I know how our system is supposed to work, ie state senators and representatives, the problem for me is that if Obama raises taxes and it passes with a Democratic majority (which will basically cancel out my poor ole Republican state representation…nope, I we have a Dem in office for that, who I didn’t vote for…great), then it is indeed taxation w/o representation because I do not support it. When I must pay taxes I don’t agree with, then sadly enough I am not represented. That’s just the way it is for us all.
Incremently it’s hopefully not a big deal over time. But if the taxation fundamentally changes the foundation of how government works, then that’s a huge deal. This time in history, with what is happening to our economy, that very well may be what is happening. It’s already started with this whole bailout crap. Now all it needs is a lovely Obama cherry on top to make it the ultimate banana shit…I mean split, lol.