02/25/2010 6:48:45 AM PST
· 29 of 33 Tolik
to Scanian; Lando Lincoln; neverdem; SJackson; dennisw; NonValueAdded; Alouette; .cnI redruM; Valin; ..
Adam Shaw:
... There are as many exact definitions of socialism as there are socialists. Yet they do have
common characteristics. Love of big government, nationalization of industry, massive
taxation, wealth redistribution, etc. all point towards socialism. Someone like the president
would not even have to say he was a socialist in Western Europe; it would be assumed quite
normally, without any fuss or conspiracy.
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 for another self-described socialist prime minister, it is
puzzling why self-described independents like Mr O'Reilly are doing backflips in an attempt
to avoid the obvious fact -- President Obama is quite clearly a socialist.
All these verbal gymnastics that are used to avoid stating the obvious may be rather humorous for
someone watching from over the Atlantic, but for Americans, such delusion is a very serious matter.
It is important, not just for the American right, but for the American people as a whole, to realise just
exactly who it is they have elected to office. With the approval numbers dropping almost daily for
the president, it appears that it is sinking in for the generally center-right American public.
However, when people on the right start being "concerned" about describing Obama as what he clearly
is, in part due to the hysteria that both sides of the political spectrum exhibit when the word "socialist"
is used, then it damages the effectiveness of opposition to him. Instead of being able to define what
Obama's aims are in his presidency, those on the left and on the right keep pushing Obama into a slightly
left-of-center, non-ideological fog. Such a political move is deceitful, and it does not allow the American
public to get a clear perception of just what they have voted into the White House.
Those of us across the pond who analyze American politics know exactly who it is you have in the White
House. Obama is not some new post-political entity.Nor is he some form of Stalinist that will set up a
USSA. He is a normal, well-spoken, charismatic socialist who in Britain would sit quite happily towards
the left of the Labour Party alongside figures such as Tony Benn, Aneurin Bevan, Harold Wilson, and Ed
Balls. To call someone a socialist is not conspiratorial, and 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.
Welcome to the club: It stinks!
Nailed It!
This ping list is not author-specific for articles I'd like to share. Some for the perfect moral clarity, some for provocative thoughts; or simply interesting articles I'd hate to miss myself. (I don't have to agree with the author all 100% to feel the need to share an article.)
I will try not to abuse the ping list and not to annoy you too much, but on some days there is more of the good stuff that is worthy of attention.
02/25/2010 4:56:51 AM PST
· 7 of 14 Tolik
to Kaslin; neverdem; Lando Lincoln; SJackson; dennisw; kellynla; monkeyshine; Alouette; nopardons; ...
Hanson:
... Pundits of both parties now fault Obamas style of governance. Public protests express disapproval over out-of-control federal spending and borrowing, and the idea of state-run health care.
So fairly or not, it seems like a panicked President Obama is abruptly scrambling to do what he should have done over a year ago.
But the problem is that a now jaded public believes that Obama is changing both course and tone not because he wants to for the country, but because he is forced to for his own survival.
In other words, the hope and change of last years messiah has devolved into this years whatever it takes of a cynic.
I don't think Obama embraced triangulation, at least not yet. It's more like a slight of hand to take the attention away from his real goal of "Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America" . He still might become a Clinton style pragmatist, but I don't see it.
02/16/2010 5:13:07 AM PST
· 6 of 22 Tolik
to ClearCase_guy
Yes. It was remarkable to hear one of the Dems congressional leaders to say that success of the surge in Iraq won’t be good for them. Them meaning Dems. At least he was honest.
Dems are quick to point out that Rush and conservatives were calling for Obama’s failure as well. But it does not match on so many levels. Wishing for failure of the internal policies geared to fundamentally changing the country is not the same as a party positioning itself that a military defeat abroad would benefit it. The human and monetary cost of war would’ve been much smaller if our enemies did not see us divided and were not motivated by it.