Socialists: "Obama's no socialsit"

micwalt said:
No surprise there.
:wink:
Click to expand...

What is surprising is how widespread this ignorance is. If you turn on Fox news for 30 minutes, you'll probably hear 3 or 4 professional news people regurgitate this nonsense. Even on this very forum I've seen it.
 
r0g3r said:
Yeah, I frequently see communism and socialism used interchangeably by people who have no clue what either is.

Books are like kryptonite to a lot of our fellow americans .
Click to expand...

I also see the term "socialism" applied towards so called liberal policies like gun control or welfare or gay marriage etc.
 
Interesting source. I mean the Washington Post? Come on, guys. It's a Dem rag. That is well established, is it not? Plus, the author has a circulation of 3,000? My band almost produces that many emails and text msgs to promote our weekly shows, for fuck's sake. :facepalm:

Of course Obama can't reform our system of government single handedly, but he'd like to, and his programs and ideas are SOCIAL ones. Where do you guys think that term comes from? Hmmmmm? We're gonna have the highest earning 10% of our population funding programs for the other 90%. I could give a tl/dr type response if I had the ambition but I'm not. Call it what you want, but it's a fucked deal for those who succeed.

The article is sophmoric and reaching. -10 for those who lick that garbage up.
 
Last edited:
LennyWaiting.gif
 
derivicus said:
Interesting source. I mean the Washington Post? Come on, guys. It's a Dem rag. That is well established, is it not? Plus, the author has a circulation of 3,000? My band almost produces that many emails and text msgs to promote our weekly shows, for fuck's sake. :facepalm:

Of course Obama can't reform our system of government single handedly, but he'd like to, and his programs and ideas are SOCIAL ones. Where do you guys think that term comes from? Hmmmmm? We're gonna have the highest earning 10% of our population funding programs for the other 90%. I could give a tl/dr type response if I had the ambition but I'm not. Call it what you want, but it's a fucked deal for those who succeed.

The article is sophmoric and reaching. -10 for those who lick that garbage up.
Click to expand...

derivicus said:
I am a democrat
Click to expand...

:embarrassed:
 
Flamencology said:
I can't help but suspect that any similarly respected news source would be dismissed as a "Dem rag".

Never mind that the Post has garnered a dozen Pulitzers in the past 5 years...
Click to expand...

Precious few news sources run without party affiliations, to my dismay. I wish there was a mainstream source for the people that could be relied on for the unbiased truth.

The award means absolutely nothing.
 
Flamencology said:
I can't help but suspect that any similarly respected news source would be dismissed as a "Dem rag".

Never mind that the Post has garnered a dozen Pulitzers in the past 5 years...
Click to expand...

If the Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune etc are such liberal mouthpieces for the Democrats then what publication actually tells it like it is?

All I see is whining along the lines of "the NY Times sucks etc" but never any mention of the "unbiased media."
 
Dew Knot Hump said:
If the Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune etc are such liberal mouthpieces for the Democrats then what publication actually tells it like it is?

All I see is whining along the lines of "the NY Times sucks etc" but never any mention of the "unbiased media."
Click to expand...

Please see post #13. Thank you. :)
 
derivicus said:
Precious few news sources run without party affiliations, to my dismay. I wish there was a mainstream source for the people that could be relied on for the unbiased truth.

The award means absolutely nothing.
Click to expand...

Such is the history of American journalism.

But, on the other hand, just about any respected publication smeared as a "dem rag" is still a hell of a lot more objective and clear-headed than any American television news program I've ever seen - take your pick of the Post, the NY and LA Times, the Wall Street Journal, or even things like The New Yorker.

And, to be completely honest, the past 8 years have rendered "objective" and "left-leaning" practically synonymous.

As for the Pulitzers... such things are always flawed to some degree, but your describing them as "meaningless" does not make this so.
 
Dew Knot Hump said:
If the Washington Post, New York Times, Chicago Tribune etc are such liberal mouthpieces for the Democrats then what publication actually tells it like it is?

All I see is whining along the lines of "the NY Times sucks etc" but never any mention of the "unbiased media."
Click to expand...

i'm not sure which came first, but at some point both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal decided to pick hard left and right stances and stopped actually providing thoughtful editorials. they both do a decent job of reporting the news. but their opinions aren't any better than the tripe in the National Enquirer.
 
derivicus said:
I am a Democrat. I do not, however subscribe to Socialist policy, other than temporary help for unfortunate citizens.

Try again.
Click to expand...

if your party has been taken over by liberals who you disagree with, then you have to re-brand yourself to avoid confusion.

i currently have no party affiliation. it will most likely change as the NYC mayoral race starts up so that i can vote in a primary. though i don't think any candidate has a chance against Bloomberg. though i am currently a registered Democrat, i only registered to vote against Hillary in the primary last year. i had been a registered Republican for the 12 years prior.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top