I misread it completely, then. I thought you were some sort of zombie with an eating disorder.
And just to add- (Not post padding mods, I could care less. In any case, I will never catch up to the Brain Glutton) on the way back to the ferry, the discussion ensued in our family rental car that it was at least possible that we had a deliberate murderer in high office and at the very least a drunk who used his power to ameliorate his culpability for manslaughter.
Call it the end of my political innocence and the beginning of my cynicism.
I’ve wrassled with this “liberalism = socialism” canard many times on this Board, particularly and recently in this thread, and nothing to date presented there or anywhere else moves my to doubt the validity of the absolute statement, “It is always bullshit.”
That, too. 
Well she certainly espouses socialist ideas. Perhaps she is one of those socialists who realize where their bread is buttered, I.E., the fruits of capitalism. Perhaps we need a new term for socialists who rely on capitalism for their schemes. How about “parasites”?
:rolleyes: She does not even espouse liberal ideas very much. She’s a fucking DLC DINO. Obama ain’t much better but at least he’s not tainted that way.
And here’s the thing Brain Glutton, even if Hillary may not espouse socialism in her stump speeches, that does not mean that she is not a socialist at heart. But as any good commie knows, if you let on what your ultimate goal is, you will never receive the support needed to make it a reality. She knows very well that the road to socialism is a series of gentle nudges in that direction over time, while never admitting the final goal.
Dump a frog into hot water and he will jump out. Raise the temperature slowly and you’ve got the frog boiled before he knows it.
I thinks they had a term for it once, let’s see if I can remember, oh yeah. Fabian Socialism. Look it up. Or perhaps you are Fabian himself?
See my post above. Don’t worry BG, Hillary is as big a socialist as you are. She is just savvy enough to mask it.
I’m familiar with Fabianism and while it involves gradualism, it does not involve any dissimulation.
For my part, I simply take a half-a-loaf-is-better-than-none approach. Let’s just look at those countries where things are going better than they are here – e.g., the “socialist” countries of Europe – and take what lessons we can. Like most of the self-identified socialists of Europe nowadays, I don’t think of socialism as something that is to come after capitalism (the “theology of the final goal”), I think of a vigorous socialist political movement as something capitalism needs to keep it civilized – as it is, in Europe, and is not, in the U.S.
The pitfalls of eurosocialism are many and prominent. The fact that conservatives are finding more favor over in the EU is a backlash should disabuse you of these notions. France makes a good example. Even the French have realized that all the programs have screwed them competitively.
Franklin Roosevelt, Ted Kennedy, Bill and Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama are not Socialists. Eugene Debs was a Socialist. George Bush, Ronald Reagan, Richard Nixon, and John McCain are not Fascists. William Pelley was a Fascist.
Americans don’t go for political movements like Socialism or Fascism. We like our politics to be safe and boring.
I’m familiar with all of that, but you’ll find these conservatives, when they’re done, still leave their countries “socialist” countries by your standards, and it remains the case that, for all arguable failures, things still go better there than here. I can cite relevant statistics if asked regarding relative rates of poverty, homelessness, and even productivity. Or, see this article, “The American Paradox,” by Ted Halstead; excerpted in relevant part here.
Indeed. Any definition of socialism that is so broad as to capture Clinton and Obama would also snare Bush and Reagan.
That evil commie bastard! 
except for affirmative action how is the EPA and OSHA lumped into socialism?
I dunno, but Happy Wanderer’s definition of socialism seems to be broad enough to encompass anything that isn’t unambiguous economic-libertarianism.
Yep.
No, not actually. Anyone that doubts the importance of vehicle emissions standards should take a trip down to TJ. Every car down there is belching out oily acrid blue smoke. It hangs over the city. Of course, these are externalities that effect other people, so it violates the libertarian principle of your right to swing your fist stops at my face. Or lungs as the case may be. Here, a libertarian case can be made for regulation.
Social Security? AFDC? Medicare? Public Education? WIC? Ag Subsidies? Corporate welfare? It’s all redistribution, and in my view, Socialism. All of it should go on the ash heap at the federal level, all of it is extraconstitutional, and the founders are rolling in their graves at such a rate that their rotational velocity is reaching relativistic speeds such that they threaten to create some kind of black hole or quasar that will swallow us all. Either that or the multi trillion dollar federal budget will do the job. It really doesn’t matter as the outcome is the same.
How about Obama’s statement that he didn’t care if raising taxes would lower revenue as history has shown. He was satisfied that at least it was “fair”. Soak the rich, destroy prosperity, and give the money away to destroy incentive as well.
As long as it is fair…
And Social Security is particularly onerous. A regressive tax linked to a regressive benefit. Poor pay proportionally more than rich, yet rich receive benefits greater than the poor. Blacks lose out particularly because of their shorter lifespan. Why are liberals for this?