[Robert Davidson]

Obama says he wants to spread the wealth... to a plumber. watch this video and discuss. forget the fact that its from Fox News (for those of you who hate fox news because its the evil empire of the media) and disregard the intro and pop up messages and watch Obama say this to the man.
http://www.youtube.c...ok.com/home.php?

discuss... does this suggest his true colors?

This post has been edited by Robert Davidson: 14 October 2008 - 04:01 PM

[Sunake]

Oh I knew he was socialist from the fact he's a leftist, but I don't necessarily think "spreading the wealth" constitute a socialist comment. Unless everyone will be making the same wages (which, consequentially, have to be low) then I think he simply means raising wages for workers.

[Robert Davidson]

here is the same video, without the obnoxious pop up intro and messages.

http://www.youtube.c...feature=related

[Delta1212]

"spread the wealth" isn't socialist.

[Charles VI]

The redistribution of wealth is one of the goals of taxation, yes. And judging by his tax proposal, that heavily increases taxes on the top 1% of the American population, but bring in significant reductions for around 60% of Americans, I'm surprised you didn't figure this out by yourself already.

Also, calling any American candidate ''socialist'' effectively bastardizes the term. Come on.

This post has been edited by Charles V: 14 October 2008 - 04:08 PM

[Dan123123]

Wealth redistribution by means of the state has little to do with socialist or communist theory. It is a socio-economic system which compasses the entire world population, and the proletariat owns the means of production. It is the decaying and absence of a state altogether.

Sen. Obama is not proposing a global, classless, stateless, democratic socio-economic system in which the proletariat owns the means of production. He is far from a communist or socialist.

This post has been edited by Dan123123: 14 October 2008 - 04:08 PM

[Audeamus]

When Obama starts advocating the collective ownership of the means of production, that will be evidence that he is a socialist.

[Sunake]

Audeamus, on Oct 14 2008, 10:09 PM, said:

When Obama starts advocating the collective ownership of the means of production, that will be evidence that he is a socialist.

Indeed, but I must admit, some industries need regulation. My father worked in the truck transport industry, and he told me the whole industry suffered after Clinton deregulated it. I don't advocate every industry being under government scrutiny, just some.

And to stay on topic, Obama is not yet a socialist.

To break up the monotony, boingo boingo whoopsy knickers.

[Renolds]

he could just mean higher taxes for the wealthy and less for the poor, I don't see whats wrong with that.

also the people in the youtube link are either idiots or paid to be idiots.

[Kenadian_2006]

You gotta love how the second someone mentions "spread" and "wealth" in the same sentences they're immediately branded a leftist and a socialist. ZOMG! He believes it's fairer and that it creates far more opportunities for success in our individualist society if he advocates raising the taxes of the very rich! COMMIE!

That, my friends. is one of the reasons I'm glad I don't live in a country where politics are like that of American politics.

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 14 October 2008 - 04:13 PM

[Audeamus]

Sunake, on Oct 14 2008, 10:11 PM, said:

To break up the monotony, boingo boingo whoopsy knickers.

Yhatzee much?

[Robert Davidson]

Dan123123, on Oct 14 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

Wealth redistribution by means of the state has little to do with socialist or communist theory. It is a socio-economic system which compasses the entire world population, and the proletariat owns the means of production. It is the decaying and absence of a state altogether.

Sen. Obama is not proposing a global, classless, stateless, democratic socio-economic system in which the proletariat owns the means of production. He is far from a communist or socialist.

he may not be PUBLICLY, but many of his cronies are.

[Dan123123]

Sunake, on Oct 14 2008, 06:11 PM, said:

Indeed, but I must admit, some industries need regulation. My father worked in the truck transport industry, and he told me the whole industry suffered after Clinton deregulated it. I don't advocate every industry being under government scrutiny, just some.

And to stay on topic, Obama is not yet a socialist.

To break up the monotony, boingo boingo whoopsy knickers.

Regulation has nothing to do with socialist theory. There is no such thing as a "communist state." It is an oxymoron.

[Robert Davidson]

Kenadian_2006, on Oct 14 2008, 06:12 PM, said:

You gotta love how the second someone mentions "spread" and "wealth" in the same sentences they're immediately branded a leftist and a socialist. ZOMG! He believes it's fairer and that it creates far more opportunities for success in our individualist society if he advocates raising the taxes of the very rich! COMMIE!

That, my friends. is one of the reasons I'm glad I don't live in a country where politics are like that of American politics.

Canadians know the art of politics?

[Kenadian_2006]

Robert Davidson, on Oct 14 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

he may not be PUBLICLY, but many of his cronies are.

Oh yea, the dreaded closet-commie. Just like the dreaded closet-homosexual that is any Christian conservative!

Come on guys.

Robert Davidson, on Oct 14 2008, 06:14 PM, said:

Canadians know the art of politics?

He's a liberal. A liberal to the bone. He's probably more pragmatist than most, but he's a liberal. He is diametrically opposed to socialism.

Also, you're damn right. *just got back from voting*

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 14 October 2008 - 04:16 PM

[Ned the Great]

Robert Davidson, on Oct 14 2008, 06:00 PM, said:

Obama says he wants to spread the wealth... to a plumber. watch this video and discuss. forget the fact that its from Fox News (for those of you who hate fox news because its the evil empire of the media) and disregard the intro and pop up messages and watch Obama say this to the man.
http://www.youtube.c...ok.com/home.php?

discuss... does this suggest his true colors?

Dan123123, on Oct 14 2008, 06:08 PM, said:

Wealth redistribution by means of the state has little to do with socialist or communist theory. It is a socio-economic system which compasses the entire world population, and the proletariat owns the means of production. It is the decaying and absence of a state altogether.

Sen. Obama is not proposing a global, classless, stateless, democratic socio-economic system in which the proletariat owns the means of production. He is far from a communist or socialist.

This pretty much sums it up. However, if Obama were a Socialist or Communist, I'd still prefer him to McCain (although I'd probably support Nader if that were the case).

[ChairmanHal]

Sorry Obama supporters, but:

1. your man will not be giving the middle class tax tax cut he's promising, for much the same reason that Bill Clinton didn't give it to you as promised in 1992

2. most all the programs he wants will never get through Congress for various reasons (lack of funds, Congressional opposition)

3. he won't be bringing the troops home as you wish, instead he'll be shifting them elsewhere

In short, he's not what you think you're buying. Vote for him at your own risk.

Voting for McCain is not also without risk. However, the risks are fewer.

This post has been edited by ChairmanHal: 14 October 2008 - 04:17 PM

[Dan123123]

Robert Davidson, on Oct 14 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

he may not be PUBLICLY, but many of his cronies are.

Communism would require the elimination of government. Are you seriously arguing that Obama's cronies are advocating a proletarian revolution and the elimination of the state? Source please?

[Charles VI]

Robert Davidson, on Oct 14 2008, 06:13 PM, said:

he may not be PUBLICLY, but many of his cronies are.

Oh, come on...

This reminds me of the Republican ''division of rhetorical labour'' strategy. Political pundits and other supporters will call for rightist extremism (e.g. calling homosexuals aberrations of nature, suggesting that Obama is a secret Muslim terrorist, etc.), while the main person, be it Bush, McCain, or whomever, will talk with relative moderation. The attacking points are made, but they cannot be directly associated with the main politician.

[Sunake]

Dan123123, on Oct 14 2008, 10:14 PM, said:

Regulation has nothing to do with socialist theory. There is no such thing as a "communist state." It is an oxymoron.

I am aware. I, unlike most of my peers, have read Karl Marx, if only to know my enemy. He basically advocates cooperative anarchy, which is still a lofty dream but here is not the place for it. (he does however, have some interesting ideas)

But for reference, I will call absolute state control the USSR Method. Partial regulation of key industries I'll call the UK Method. We need something like the UK Method, but a little smaller.