Skip to main content

ok,  well I'm not to busy so Darla let's take just of few of your hyperbolic assertions and look at the truth.   

Obama is not a Socialist.  Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production and distribution are controlled by the state.  He is a liberal capitalist who is willing to use government to help soften some of the harsher effects of capitalism.   Any true Marxist would be appalled at the health care reform bill which simply gives middle class people TAX CREDITS to purchase private insurance, making coverage available to 30 million additional people and saving lives.  Yes, it does also expand medicaid which is a govt program for the poorest americans.  This was the REPUBLICAN alternative to the Clinton HCR proposal in the 1990's, but the Republicans of today have moved so far to the right, at this point Reagan looks like a flaming liberal.

Your constant invocations of Stalin as the pinnacle of the left are tiresome and ill informed.  Stalin was a horrible murderous dictator.  NO ONE LIKES HIM.   He was a Communist and espoused and ideology which has no resemblance to modern american progressive thought or european social democracy.   In face, Clement Atlee the SOCIALIST Brittish Prime Minister of post war england who instituted national health care was a strident anti communist and anti stalinist and a strong ally of the US against the USSR.  

The truth is, pure socialism and pure capitalism are unworkable.  Pure Socialism destroys individual freedom and initiative and leads to economic collapse.  Pure Capitalism allows brutal exploitation of working people and creates tremendous suffering.   What the west has embraced for over 60 years is Capitalism with some Socialist elements to ensure all people have a chance and that people are not left helpless without health care or old age pensions.   This is how the US has operated since the early 20th Century.   Europe has taken it a bit further and hence they have higher life expectancy and live lives with less of the uncertainty that Americans endure.  

As far as the ROTC comment and Islamic Fascism.   The ROTC will of course be welcomed back at Harvard, although reports have it that they do not see it as cost effective recruitment.    I find it funny that you fear "Islamic Fascism" which I also fear and oppose as I do any irrational doctrine and then in your next post you take a dig at atheists who are among the MOST VOCAL OPPONENTS of Islamic Fascism.  Just read Christopher Hitchens.
"Socialism is communism lite, and Stalin is who you eventually end up with. "

that's quite a statement and one that clearly betrays a complete lack of understanding of history.   Sweeden, the UK, France, Germany, and most of Western Europe have vibrant democratic systems and socialized medicine as well as generous public systems for over 60 years and not one of the countries has come anywhere close to Stalinism or anything resembling the Leninist type of Socialism that has been discredited for decades.    I don't know if you noticed, but Communism collapsed over 20 years ago.   China has a market economy.  The only "Communist" nations left include North Korea and Cuba.  There is just a handful.    European Social Democracy clearly won the debate between those who advocated a reformist democratic route to a more just society and the Leninists, Maoists and Stalinists who wanted a "dictatorship of the proletariat."  That ideology is pretty much dead.  

Show me the nation that has progressed from modern Social Democracy to Stalinism.  It doesn't exist.   The Communist nations all either experienced a violent revolution while under a feudal or other brutal regime or were occupied by the Soviet Union after WW2.  

Any assertion that Obama is leading us to Socialism and by implication Stalinism is insane.  It's as ridiculous as those on the left saying George Bush planned 9/11.  

The problem here is you are not engaging in honest discourse.  You throw around a quote here and there and assert it is a fact then make huge generalizations and hyperbolic statements about fact with no basis in reality or understanding of history.    It's weird.  But unfortunately it's what discourse in this country has deteriorated to.    

If you hate all things Socialist so much,  I'm assuming you never went to a pubic school, sent a letter through the post office or used mass transit.  I would hope you would also stay true to your beliefs and refuse your Social Security and Medicare when you retire.    

When Medicare was created in 1965, Ronald Reagan said it was the end of freedom and the beginning of totalitarianism.   That's what they said about Social Security in the 30's and what they say about Health Care Reform now.    It's irresponsible and ridiculous.  Before Social Security the poverty rate among the aged was staggering and before Medicare, older Americans lived in fear of medical catastrophe.   No one wants to go back to that.   In 20 years we will look back at the debate on HCR the same way.  People will marvel at the nuts who tried to stop it.  Why did they equate giving middle class people some peace of mind, saving lives and helping people afford to go to the doctor with totalitarianism?   It will seem as ridiculous as it is.

The problem with socialism

A quote attributed to Margaret Thatcher goes along the lines of

<dl><dd>"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money [to spend]."</dd></dl>


<dl><dd>"Eventually, Socialists run out of other peoples' money [to spend]."</dd></dl>

There are a number of similar almost-quotes to be found on the Web, but I haven't found any authoritative sources. She may, in fact, have made the statement in various forms at different times. QuicksilverT @ 15:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

 Update: Margaret Thatcher, in a TV interview for Thames TV This Week [[1]]on Feb. 5, 1976, Prime Minister Thatcher said, "...and Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They [socialists] always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them."

The popular version seems to be a reasonable contraction.


So Lily thinks the situation in Greece is vibrant? I suppose so, if you think  riots are vibrant because the citizens expected to retire at age 50.

I know the Thatcher quote.  I know most of the quotes you keep putting up as evidence of what I'm not sure.  

Thatcher was despised when she left office, thrown out by her own party.  She never once won close to a majority of the popular vote in the UK.   

You made two assertions you cannot back up.   One, that Obama is recycling a 150 year old failed philosophy (Marxism I presume since the manifesto was published in 1848).   And that all socialist systems degenerate into Stalinism.  You can't answer either because Obama is not a Marxist and not even a Socialist and you certainly cannot point to any Social Democratic state becoming Stalinist.  

As for Greece,  yes it's a basket case.  Bad management can happen in any type of economy.  Ireland has a much more free market economy and they are a basket case as well.  Furthermore, no one in the US is advocating age 50 as the retirement age.  In any case, you might have noticed I do not condemn Capitalism entirely as you do Socialism. I think elements of both are necessary for a functioning society.  Its that balancing act where the debate exists.   What I object to, and think is incredibly silly is the simplification of these issues into pithy quotes and ridiculous assertions that label Liberals in this country as Marxists and Stalinists.
The British threw out Churchill as well and see where they are today. I guess you get what you deserve.
Generally, being right does not win popularity contests.
One thing Lily leaves out is the fact that no matter how necessary one believes BIG GOVERNMENT social meddling programs are, there is no money to pay for them, (regardless of the fact that most are blatantly unconstitutional). We are 14 Trillion dollars in debt, but the progressive liberals still insist on expanding a bloated government and enslaving progeny with the bill.
Did you know that one half of the people in this country pay no income tax? Perhaps if they had some skin in the game they would think about things a little differently, n'est pas?
Now Lily, let's not get all wee weed up. I was merely pointing out similarities in governance philosophies between the different groups, nothing more. I doubt you could accuse any of them of being in favor of limited government, state's rights and low taxes. Obviously some have more efficient killing machines than others, and target different segments of the populace. Jews, Kulaks, unborn children, hey, that's diverse!

As for ad hominem attack, that is defined as an attempt to link the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. An example might be: "Thatcher was despised when she left office, thrown out by her own party.  She never once won close to a majority of the popular vote in the UK."

Bushitler anyone?
I have never called George Bush a Nazi and I think the people on the left who did were morons.  I also think that the Congressman's statements were reprehensible.  He apologized, but he shouldn't have said it.    You, however, do not condemn similar rhetoric on the right, you happily engage in it.  As for the Thatcher thing,  pointing out that a politician was unpopular at the end of her career is hardly the same as equating the President and progressive liberals with dictators and murderers.    I could have pointed out, that Margaret Thatcher was a huge supporter of Agusto Pinochet, the fascist dictator of Chile who had any critics of his regime "dissapeared" and buried alive in cement walls.  Hardly an example of small government.  

This is why it is difficult to have an intelligent conversation with you.   Instead of debating the merits of policy, you engage in hyperbolic attacks that have no basis in reality.
Lily Lily Silly Billy,

The statement that Socialism eventually runs out of money and is unsustainable, (ProgLibs LOVE that word!), whether or not that statement has any merit, has nothing to do with Thatcher's political popularity or her opinion of Pinochet. You are attempting to link the arguer's personal characteristics to how factual the subject's statement is. That is ad hominem.

I suppose if a ax murderer wrote that 1 plus 1 = 2, you would deny it based on their character.

Finally, if you take  Socialist or Communist philosophies and line them up and compare  them to Progressive Liberal philosophy, (I assume to be your camp), as well as Classical Liberal philosophy, (Me!), how do you really think they would match up? That's all I was saying, but you love to read more into things than are really there. Focus dear, focus.

Auntie Darla

God Bless Iowahawk!!! DD

Customer Relations Department

United Airlines
Elk Grove Village, IL

Dear Sir or Madam:

In the dark annals of human evil, history has recorded the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocides, and Stalin's mass starvation program. And now, United Airlines flight 671 from Reagan International to Memphis International on January 17th, 2011. I know, because I am a survivor of that dark exemplar of man's cruelty to man.

Perhaps I should have known what I was in for when your brutal gate agent refused to issue me an upgrade - despite being a Premier/1K member for over 10 years. Or when your flight crew Gestapo confiscated my carry on Roll Tote, even though I had nearly fit it into the overhead bin. But the true measure of the horror did not dawn on me until me and my fellow passengers were left taxiing on the tarmack for over twenty minutes in the Auschwitzian Airbus A320 cattlecar, in temperatures approaching 85 degrees, not knowing our fates or whether we would make it to our fundraising dinners.

Santayana once said, "those who forget history are doomed to repeat it." And I say to you and your fellow United criminals: "never again," unless you credit my account at least 2 flight segments for this travesty.


Representative Steven Cohen
Washington, DC

cc: Human Rights Watch
cc: Amnesty International

"At the heart of the difference between capitalism and socialism is a question about the calculation of economic value. In a free-market economy, economic values are established economically; that is, a product is worth what you can sell it for on the marketplace... Socialism breaks with capitalism on precisely this issue. It seeks to infuse the fundamental, deep processes of the economy - the setting of prices - with moral meaning. Indeed, normative, moralistic methods for calculating economic values have obsessed socialists and other utopian thinkers for over a century. It is one of history's great ironies that capitalists built decent and humane societies on the basis of an amoral approach to the economics of pricing, whereas socialists built exploitative and inhumane societies on the basis of a morally inflamed approach to economics."
-Kevin D. Williamson
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism

Homophobic Barbarians: 10 Reasons Every Gay American Needs to Support the War Against Islamofascism

by Megan Fox

For all the screaming about intolerance and bigotry against gays here in America — driven by many people’s objection to changing the definition of the centuries-old institution of marriage — many so-called liberals don’t seem to notice the actual intolerance and murder being meted out on gays in Muslim countries. Homosexuals living in Muslim countries suffer dire consequences for coming out including whipping, banishment, humiliation and even death by stoning, hanging or familial stabbing in accordance with Islamic law. Homosexuals in the Muslim culture are encouraged to commit suicide rather than bring shame on their families...

Add Reply

Link copied to your clipboard.