Latest McCain Lie: Obama is a Socialist

[No_Pressure]

Winner: The-Rock :1stplace:

Q: What do I get?

A: To be right about something horrible.

Yay.

[Koolblue13]

You seem like an intelligent dude, so for all of our sake - I hope you're dead wrong about your opinion of Obama.

Thanks bro. I do too. I really hope is cleans out the corruption and fixes our infrastructures, brings jobs home, corrects the tax codes and most important, stops the violence over seas and at home.

[TuckahoeSkin]

It will be rough for the first year after Obama gets elected. There are going to be alot of Republicans who refuse to accept an Obama presidency.

Much like Gore supporters reacted to Bush.

It would have been much better for the country if Gore would have done what Nixon did in the 1960 race with Kennedy -- concede. Nixon could have raised issues and challenged the vote in Chicago, but he didn't. Had Gore conceded defeat, perhaps all of the vitriol of the last eight years would have been avoided. Perhaps not.

We've got what we've got now. If 9/11 wasn't enough to bring us together, I don't know what the hell will.

[Special K]

Exactly. Except you got it backwards. McCain is only slightly less socialist than Obama. Ditto for the GOP and Dems in general.

Gotta stop the socialist bleeding somewhere. Just because our country has socialist-like programs doesn't mean American citizens automatically approve of those programs.

I also suspect that when someone calls another person a socialist, they are meaning that person approves of more socialist programs than himself. So the whole socialist issue is really an insignificant point.

[cpnasty]

pay attention at the end of this video, it's a clip of john McCain back in 2000. guess 2008 is another era...

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=189119&title=McCain-Says-the-S-Word

[The Sisko]

With that said (and my only involvement in a political thread in a while) both Omaba and McCain support socialist ideals and you're right it has unfortunately been a part of this country since the 30's en masse. The only real division between republicans and democrats today are whether you want a group that leans more towards eventual communism or eventual fascism. I'll let everybody figure out which one is which, but while the public squabbles over complete bull**** battle lines such as which candidate "looks less like a president", "has more experience", "is really old", "is too young", "doesn't like abortion or gays", "does like abortion or gays" our personal freedoms are being whittled away no matter what.

In the end it's all the same, the real america these candidates talk about has been dead for over 100 years and it's never coming back. It was voted away by idiots who don't understand the difference between soclialism at the state level vs. the federal level, and those votes were eagerly taken by politicians who are good at fooling the public but really just want more power and more control over the American people.

Good post Rock. I can't argue with the definitions you posted as they're factually accurate. However, I'll point out a couple of things. First, the definitions you posted did not explicitly mention income redistribution. However, it's an implicit part of their discussion. So for example, they mention the "imperfect implementation of collectivist principles." The "imperfect" meaning that income is made more equal under socialism (i.e. via redistribution) whereas communism achieves full equality of income.

Second, it seems that you personally are more concerned with the loss of individual liberty than economic principles per se. However, I'll point out that there are socialist countries, e.g. Sweden, Denmark etc. that are actually more free with regard to individual liberties than we are here in the U.S. My reasoning in pointing that out is that IMHO, other than at the far end of the spectrum where the state seeks to fully control the economy and political thought (i.e. communism and fascism) individual liberties and economic systems can be mostly separate issues.

[brandymac27]

Gotta stop the socialist bleeding somewhere. Just because our country has socialist-like programs doesn't mean American citizens automatically approve of those programs.

I also suspect that when someone calls another person a socialist, they are meaning that person approves of more socialist programs than himself. So the whole socialist issue is really an insignificant point.

I agree. We should all just stop complaining about it and accusing people/candidates of being socialist when, technically, they're all socialist if you really think about it.

[The Sisko]

Gotta stop the socialist bleeding somewhere. Just because our country has socialist-like programs doesn't mean American citizens automatically approve of those programs.

I also suspect that when someone calls another person a socialist, they are meaning that person approves of more socialist programs than himself. So the whole socialist issue is really an insignificant point.

You're splitting hairs. To use McCain's oft cited example of Joe the (wannabe) plumber, Obama pointed out to Joe that the difference between his tax plan and McCain's would cost him about $600 IIRC. So, in other words, for someone making greater than $250K per year, Obama is about $600 more socialist than McCain.

So if we look at the definition of it, sure Obama is a socialist. However, for McCain to use this line of reasoning to sell himself as the capitalist solution, at best amounts to distortion of the facts and more likely is a lie of omission.

As I pointed out, there's a whole lot more egregious income redistribution going on. If McCain were truly Mr. anti-socialist, he'd be campaigning against all those other socialist programs as well. However, please feel free to tell us if you honestly believe that McCain's support for making the Bush tax cuts permanent is just the beginning of a crusade on his part to roll back social security, medicare, earned income tax credits and all the other socialist stuff we take for granted.

To put it bluntly, McCain is assuming we're gullible chumps...yet again. I choose not to fall for it. You however, are welcome to do so if it makes you feel better. Just promise me you won't go out and stiff a waitress out of her tip.

[Koolblue13]

So if we look at the definition of it, sure Obama is a socialist.

:applause:

[The Sisko]

:applause:

If you're gonna do that, you'd be better off moving it to the "quoted out of context" thread.

[Koolblue13]

If you're gonna do that, you'd be better off moving it to the "quoted out of context" thread.

It wasn't. I just wanted to get that one down. That's all.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Socialism is not defined by a redistribution of wealth. That's what every single tax ever is. Socialism is defined by the nation or government having a property interest or right in private property.

For example, welfare is not socialism. It is a redistribution of wealth but not socialism. The government buying the investment banks IS socialism though. The government bought interest in the investor banks, meaning the government has a property interest in a private organization.

[PeterMP]

Socialism is not defined by a redistribution of wealth. That's what every single tax ever is. Socialism is defined by the nation or government having a property interest or right in private property.

For example, welfare is not socialism. It is a redistribution of wealth but not socialism. The government buying the investment banks IS socialism though. The government bought interest in the investor banks, meaning the government has a property interest in a private organization.

Socialism is defined as an intermediate stage between communism and capitialism. Many of our "social" programs are not capitialist in nature, and certainly wouldn't have been considered so at the time of the real development of communist theory, and would be construed as a step towards communism and therefore socialist.

[PeterMP]

You're splitting hairs. To use McCain's oft cited example of Joe the (wannabe) plumber, Obama pointed out to Joe that the difference between his tax plan and McCain's would cost him about $600 IIRC. So, in other words, for someone making greater than $250K per year, Obama is about $600 more socialist than McCain.

So if we look at the definition of it, sure Obama is a socialist. However, for McCain to use this line of reasoning to sell himself as the capitalist solution, at best amounts to distortion of the facts and more likely is a lie of omission.

As I pointed out, there's a whole lot more egregious income redistribution going on. If McCain were truly Mr. anti-socialist, he'd be campaigning against all those other socialist programs as well. However, please feel free to tell us if you honestly believe that McCain's support for making the Bush tax cuts permanent is just the beginning of a crusade on his part to roll back social security, medicare, earned income tax credits and all the other socialist stuff we take for granted.

To put it bluntly, McCain is assuming we're gullible chumps...yet again. I choose not to fall for it. You however, are welcome to do so if it makes you feel better. Just promise me you won't go out and stiff a waitress out of her tip.

Have you seem Obama's same ad? Is it really any different?

Lies by ommision are common in politics. McCain's real statement is, 'Obama is more of a socialist than me.' The point of Obama's same as is really, 'He's more like Bush than me.'

[The Sisko]

I don't disagree with you about the Govt. ownership of businesses Tulane. However from what I've learned about it, redistribution of wealth absolutely is a tenet of socialism. However I think it's important to keep in mind that there's no single monolithic socialist orthodoxy. Rather, there are a bunch of different types of socialism that have differing concepts of labor, income redistribution, centralized Govt ownership of business, etc.

[IHateStalinism]

He is a socialist.

Don't rely on me to tell you that, all one has to do is listen to the words that come out of o's mouth and pay attention to the policies that he wishes to enact.

Your argument that he is not a socialist because some of our Country's policies are socialistic is shortsighted and ineffective.

From wiki:

... Karl Marx posited that socialism would be achieved via class struggle and a proletarian revolution which represents the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital, and creates an unequal society. All socialists advocate the creation of an egalitarian society, in which wealth and power are distributed more evenly, although there is considerable disagreement among socialists over how, and to what extent this could be achieved.

1. Class struggle.......check

2. Transition, change.....check

3. Wealth distributed more evenly.....check

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

[IHateStalinism]

You're splitting hairs. To use McCain's oft cited example of Joe the (wannabe) plumber, Obama pointed out to Joe that the difference between his tax plan and McCain's would cost him about $600 IIRC. So, in other words, for someone making greater than $250K per year, Obama is about $600 more socialist than McCain.

First of all, if you believe that Obama will stick to his tax plan and won't raise taxes on mostly all taxpayers then I urge you to go back in time and see what Clinton did. There is no way that obama can enact all of his planned policies and not raise taxes.

Second, you are only telling a minute portion of the story. obama will raise taxes on capital gains, dividends, and corporate taxes as well. Corporations are the lifeblood of our economy and raising their taxes will at a minimum move them to enact cost savings like the elimination of jobs and a slowdown in purchasing goods and services from other companies who also will be crippled. Translation; a spiraling economic downturn.

How does taking money away from businesses and giving it to a wasteful and fat government help the economy? Also, how effective will those taxes be when companies begin to move out of the USA in an effort to better compete in the global market?

[The Sisko]

Interesting argument Ihate. However you skirted the central point of my argument, namely that if McCain isn't planning on doing away with our fundamentally socialist policies and programs and hence he's only ever so slightly less a socialist himself.

As for all the class struggle stuff you brought up, that's basically a distractor. Why? Because it assumes that Obama is a communist bent on socialism as a means to an ultimate communist end. I don't see Obama as a proponent of class warfare at all, however I readily admit that's a matter of opinion. What I will say again though is that the GOP has done zilch to get rid of any of the trappings of socialism we've had for years in this country. In other words, all the components of socialism you described apply equally to them as well.

Again though, i've saved the best for last. In spite of your moniker, you're as much a socialist as the rest of us. How so? Because I'd daresay even you wouldn't support pure capitalism. How can I be so sure of that? Because that would mean feudalism which would mean Elimination of the middle class which in turn would mean elimination of the United States as we know it. I suspect even someone who professes to hate Stalinism wouldn't want that. Therefore you have no choice but to accept some small degree of socialism.

[NoCalMike]

Here is what I don't get, what about Obama's tax policy is different then any other democrats over the course of modern history?

We have a progressive tax system, the more you make, the more you pay in taxes.

How does this make Obama socialist?

If you don't like our tax system, then that is fine, but that is a completely different issue then whether or not a candidate's tax policy is "socialist"

[The Sisko]

Well NoCal, I'd argue that a progressive tax system is in and of itself socialist. However it's unfortunately a necessary evil because as I pointed out earlier, it's either that or a tax system that transfers wealth upwards.

What I don't support is soaking the rich. However I don't think returning to the tax rates after the Reagan tax cuts is soaking the rich.

[Special K]

You're splitting hairs. To use McCain's oft cited example of Joe the (wannabe) plumber, Obama pointed out to Joe that the difference between his tax plan and McCain's would cost him about $600 IIRC. So, in other words, for someone making greater than $250K per year, Obama is about $600 more socialist than McCain.

So if we look at the definition of it, sure Obama is a socialist. However, for McCain to use this line of reasoning to sell himself as the capitalist solution, at best amounts to distortion of the facts and more likely is a lie of omission.

As I pointed out, there's a whole lot more egregious income redistribution going on. If McCain were truly Mr. anti-socialist, he'd be campaigning against all those other socialist programs as well. However, please feel free to tell us if you honestly believe that McCain's support for making the Bush tax cuts permanent is just the beginning of a crusade on his part to roll back social security, medicare, earned income tax credits and all the other socialist stuff we take for granted.

To put it bluntly, McCain is assuming we're gullible chumps...yet again. I choose not to fall for it. You however, are welcome to do so if it makes you feel better. Just promise me you won't go out and stiff a waitress out of her tip.

Well, I presume you are old enough to realize that all candidates campaign in a manner that assumes we are "gullible chumps." All candidates twist and distort the opposition viewpoint. That is certainly nothing new in the political world.

Thing is, I do believe that Obama is closer to the "socialist" terminology than McCain. How close to that definition of socialism people can debate, but I definitely believe McCain is less so than Obama.

As for Medicare, Social Security, etc., no, I doubt McCain is going to roll those back. But in reality, it doesn't even matter as those programs are going to have to be scaled down significantly as the baby boomer generation continues to shift into retirement...or else the funds will be totally depleted, then it's certainly rolled-back. Either of these candidates are going to be confronted with this reality while in office and I do think McCain would work toward my privatized solutions, whereas Obama will probably just raise taxes to solve the problem....

Oh, and as for waitresses, I don't stiff them unless they really suck

[McD5]

So many libs......this place is going into depression when McCain wins the election.

[Toe Jam]

So many libs......this place is going into depression when McCain wins the election.

:rotflmao:

Keep telling yourself that, pal.

[zoony]

Oh, and as for waitresses, I don't stiff them unless they really suck

That might be the greatest gift to the Out Of Context thread in the history of the internet. :applause:

[Special K]

That might be the greatest gift to the Out Of Context thread in the history of the internet. :applause:

Well ****...I wasn't even thinking about how that could have been interpretted. LOL