Oh, he had people. Lots of people. He owned them, too.
Actually, someone who declares that there is no room for further cuts in federal spending has given more compelling evidence of a socialist mindset than Sen. Obama…
You seem to be making my point for me.
You might not want to see this movie then…
Good. Saves you the bother.
See, sugar subsidies are not socialism, since sugar companies are privately owned. And they are not redistribution of wealth, since those private individuals are already fantastically wealthy. I guess we have to call that sort of government action Republicanism
Tris
Huh. I always thought that when folks talked about redistribution of wealth, they were talking about taking from the (generally) rich to give to the poor, no matter how much the rich had left in the end.
Was I mistaken?
Yeah, but he doesn’t let anyone know it!
I see now that the aforementioned Bill Cunningham was hired by the McCain campaign to whip up the crowd before Saint John’s appearance in Cincinnati. I am a little disappointed that he seems to have dropped the Muhammad part of Obama’s name. I mean, it’s on the birth certificate, isn’t it? :rolleyes:
Probably not. You might have been whooshed, though.
Princhester, you might be getting into “no true Scotsman” territory, in post #57. At least for some observers.
At least some observers of any given debate are going to be pig ignorant of the subject matter. So what?
If you want to advance an argument as to why my comments were a “no true scotsman” you go ahead.
If it involves suggesting that I am distorting the definition of socialism by denying that “community ownership/control of the means of production” encompasses a nation where the means of production is subject to the absolute control of a dictator who receives (to quote the person I was debating) “the vast majority” of wealth produced, you go right ahead. Try not to distort the meanings of the words “community” and “ownership” as you do it.
I could do with a good laugh.
If I read this right, I agree, without community ownership and common empowerment, this sort of oligarchy has no resemblance to socialism. If JP Morgan had bought all the means of production, it wouldn’t be socialism.
Actually, his birth certificate reads Barack Muhammad Hussein Bin Laden Qaddafi JohnWilkesBooth Obama. A friend of mine told me that.
Female dogs, of coure. Nothin’ queer about Ol’ Tom.
Tom Delay reminds me vaguely of Uncle Rico. How long until he stops living his glory days do you think?
If he’s a Marxist but very quiet about it, does that make him a Harpo Marxist?
I am sure there are plenty of trees in Illinois, but a lampost will do in a pinch.
Nah, I’m not really that committed to the notion that the Ba’ath Party was actually socialist.
Some people, however, seem to think that reality is, in large part, a matter of self-description. So, if a church congregation, f’rinstance, describes itself as Christian, it’s considered impolite when outsiders attempt to arbitrarily deprive them of the label. And if a political party (particularly one that controls the government), wishes to refer to itself as “Socialist” (note the capitalization, please), lots of people who are opposed to socialism on general principle are going to take them at their word, using the same etiquette-based logic.
I’m good with your argument that the Ba’athists weren’t, though.
It certainly convinced itself that it was. From The Syrian Encyclopedia:
Baath Party, formally the Baath Arab Socialist Party: Political party and movement influential among Arab communities in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Iraq. The Baath Party was from the beginning a secular Arab nationalist party. Socialism (not Marxism) was quickly adopted as the party’s economic dogma: “Unity [Arab], Freedom [from colonialism], and Socialism” are still the watchwords.
See also this review of *The Arab Ba’th Socialist Party: History, Ideology, and Organization * by Kamel S. Abu Jaber. Specifially, the section titled “Arab Socialism”.
Your friend is wrong. He left out “Lenin Stalin Mussolini Hitler”