TIO-Re: A new low for Rush Limbaugh (if that's not redundant)...

[Talk_Dude]

A badge of honor!
Like getting-sent-to the Principal's office in junior high school.

Not sure WHY it's worth making-the-conversation harder-to-follow by putting-pieces-of-it-in-different-places.

This was a useful thread.

I agree.  Better to move the whole thing than chop it up with parts here and there.  Alternatively, if a thread "hits a new low," then just lock it down.  Almost always the original topic has run its course way before then anyway.

Read the posts that were moved. Then scratch your head in puzzlement as to why they were moved.

[Talk_Dude]

Comparing socialists and fascists in that manner indicates one doesn't understand what socialists or fascists are.

My mistake.  I should have known better than to try to use metaphors or analogies. 

You provided a nice text book definition of socialism.  So how does the word apply to Obama.  The guy is many things but (by the definition you provided) he is not a socialist.  Not even close.  He even falls short to qualify as a social democrat.

Obama's ultimate goal is for the government to have control over the means of production. Whether that is accomplished by the government assuming ownership or by the government seizing legal control even though the ownership remains in private hands, it's still a socialist outcome.

[landtuna]

Obama's ultimate goal is for the government to have control over the means of production.

I'm constantly amazed by all the people who seem to know for certain what is inside Obama's head and exactly what he intends to do (when obviously he himself doesn't seem to know).

Whether that is accomplished by the government assuming ownership or by the government seizing legal control even though the ownership remains in private hands, it's still a socialist outcome.

Actually, government control of the means of production is the textbook definition of communism.

[Silkie]

I still remember heading out on a call, and  tuning in to full-service 50,000 watt WBAP in Fort Worth on January 20, 2009, expecting to hear the rest of Obama's inauguration coverage that I was watching on TV.  Instead, they were carrying Limbaugh's regular program, and Limbaugh was saying "I hope he fails."  How can any American say that?  I was raised that whether your side won or lost an election, you always support..or at least work with...the winner. 

Look how Fox also started on Day 1 branding Obama a socialst...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35eRxxZ-Ar0

If you believe he wants to do lead America into socialism [or even if you only want to portray that to other people], and you're against socialism, would you want Obama to succeed?

If that's what he wants [and with universal healthcare, global warming tax initiatives, and providing-everything-for-everybody it seems like that's the lean], I hope he fails too.
America's had much worse said about plenty of people, politicians or otherwise. That's part of why they are only in office for four years, and we don't have kings.
If he fails, he'll be voted out, he'll just go back to Chicago and write a book. America will [hopefully] go on. No big alarm.

I would rather he succeed wildly by doing what's in the best interests of the nation, but I don't know if that's going to happen, or be an option.

The good news that if it originates in the Senate and goes to the House it will get bounced back as un-Constitutional, seein' as how it's un-Constitutional to originate goodies galore in the Senate.

[Talk_Dude]

Obama's ultimate goal is for the government to have control over the means of production.

I'm constantly amazed by all the people who seem to know for certain what is inside Obama's head and exactly what he intends to do (when obviously he himself doesn't seem to know).

If someone says in a speech, "The world would be better if we did this", then it doesn't take one of Dionne Warwick's friends to gather from that statement that the speaker wants to see this happen.

Whether that is accomplished by the government assuming ownership or by the government seizing legal control even though the ownership remains in private hands, it's still a socialist outcome.

Actually, government control of the means of production is the textbook definition of communism.

There are many different forms of socialism. Communism is one specific form of socialism.

[landtuna]

There are many different forms of socialism. Communism is one specific form of socialism.

According to Limbaugh maybe but not my old political science professor.

[Silkie]

According to the political "spectrum" that we learned in civics class, when there was such a thing, communism is to the left of socialism, which is left of center, while anarchy is to the right of our constitutional republic, which is to the right of center.  In the center is what is called fabian - or creeping - socialism, where the people are pulled farther and farther away from constitutional principles, most often without realizing they are being drawn in by larger, all encompassing government. 

All manner of tyranny exists all the way to the left - even stuff that many have never heard of.  Pharaoism is among those.  Nazism is on the left end of the spectrum, as is facism.

Thus, on the basic, elementary political spectrum we go from anarchy on the extreme right, which is no government to a constitutional republic which is a strong central government with limited power, and sliding along the spectrum to a wide center which pulls us along to the left until government is extremely large with more and more power until we are pulled all the way to total government in the far left end of the spectrum.

But those were lessons taught in civics class, and that was a long time ago when children got grounded - not drugged - if they didn't learn.  We learned.

[quadraphonic]

All the political -isms clearly occur on a spectrum and some -isms have similar components of other -isms. It's foolish to wait until there's proof of all the components of a certain -ism being met [because not all textbooks and dictionaries say the same thing anyway] to call it by that particular -ism, especially when there is so much evidence pointing to that -ism being a prevailing part of a leadership's agenda in the first place.

[quadraphonic]

It's like some folks are not aware of what Obama's said in the past about what he would do as president, and what he's done as president. They'd rather ignore what he's said and done and pretend like other people are making things up.

If he said to Katie Couric "I want America to be socialist or communist, and am willing to take violent means to make this a reality," then some folks would argue about the textbook definitions of socialism and communism and reality, and the nuances of "want vs. will work for" and whether or not one man can make such a difference, and other nonsense, and convince themselves "What he meant to say was thus and such, Katie Couric just never gave him a chance..."

[MattParker]

Since we've "gone outside," I gotta ask: Why is it radio attracts so many wing-nuts?  Radio people get lousy pay and often are screwed by their employers.  But they support management's right to give bad treatment and engage in questionable business practices.  Radio types constantly argue against and vote against their own self-interest, while parroting the corporate line.  At least Rush gets paid well for doing it.  Most people in radio don't. 

Besides, the "socialism" you argue against seems to work pretty well in the European Community.  By most measures, they are much better off than we.  Their taxes go to provide real benefits: health care, education, pensions, unemployment and disability insurance.  Ours go to support the military and their contractors.  The more I listen to some of you (and the more Obama sells out to the corporate fat cats), the better "socialism" sounds.