BF2S Forums Hugo Chav doesn't think Obama is a Socialist

Obama isn't a socialist.  These bailouts are corporatist.  If we started nationalizing banks, that would be socialism.

In all honesty, socialism beats corporatism.

Turquoise wrote:

Obama isn't a socialist.  These bailouts are corporatist.

When you look at where the money is coming from and going to your 100% correct.

Chavez.... pffffft...  He will be overthrown in less than 2 years...my prediction... Without big oil revenues to finance his stupidity he can't last.... i hope...lol

Both parties have socialist tendencies. Both parties love big government, but in different ways.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090 … hy/3182084

For people (see: lowing) to shitsling and act like the Republicans are the heroes of small government and capitalism is beyond laughable. So is the fact that he wasn't even entitled a socialist until John McCain threw the term out, and now a bunch of people sit around in circle jerks thinking about how awesome the word is to use against the left.

Last edited by Poseidon (2009-03-07 22:56:07)

Turquoise wrote:

Obama isn't a socialist.  These bailouts are corporatist.  If we started nationalizing banks, that would be socialism.

In all honesty, socialism beats corporatism.

The whole reason citibank is worth 5 cents a share is because the market expects him to nationalize banks, he wants to nationalize banks, thus making him a socialist.

I prefer Spain's approach to dealing with Chavez tbh

For those who don't know what I'm talking about

Mitch wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Mitch wrote:

The whole reason citibank is worth 5 cents a share is because the market expects him to nationalize banks, he wants to nationalize banks, thus making him a socialist.

Obama isn't a socialists compared to othershit. He's a corporatist.

You can call piss wine but its still piss.
He's influencing people to let the government take care of them.
As Rush said, he has amazing speaking talent, if only he would use that to encourage people to better themselves. Encourage them to start businesses, remind them that equal opportunity is not equal outcome.
Yet he spends more money then every single president before him, combined, within the first... month? of his administration.

It's not about a working country. It's about control.
Any economist in America can tell you when you lower taxes it stimulates economic growth. Obama is not stupid, he knows what he's doing will not breed self-confidence, -self-reliance.

It WILL breed government dependence.

This is what I don't get about Americans like you mitch, what in the world is so bad about socialism. You may claim that people will start becoming lazy and depend on the government. Generally, in countries that are socialist have a much much lower unemployment rating and a closer gap between the rich and the poor, a much more equal distribution of wealth. If someone is going from cradle to grave being lazy, it is generally frowned upon and they will eventually have no value in society. Just because there is welfare doesn't mean everyone is going to become lazy. People are self motivated to be sucessful, unless it is much more different in America

FEOS wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

Both parties have socialist tendencies. Both parties love big government, but in different ways.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090 … hy/3182084

For people (see: lowing) to shitsling and act like the Republicans are the heroes of small government and capitalism is beyond laughable. So is the fact that he wasn't even entitled a socialist until John McCain threw the term out, and now a bunch of people sit around in circle jerks thinking about how awesome the word is to use against the left.

While I agree that the neo-cons diverged well away from Republican/conservative principles, I think you need to be careful not to confuse the bulk of the Republican party with those knuckleheads. There is a difference.

And Obama was being called a socialist for his policies long before McCain threw the term out.

If that were true, most Republicans wouldn't have supported Bush. Yet they did. Bush was as fiscally liberal as they come. Socially conservative, yes...but fiscally liberal. So for these same republicans to start throwing the socialist term at Obama after all these years is...well, like I said, it's just laughable.

Partisan politics are killing this country.

And Mitch, you are nothing more than lowing's lapdog. Formulate your own opinion, don't regurgitate the hypocritcal BS he spews.

Mitch wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Mitch wrote:

You can call piss wine but its still piss.
He's influencing people to let the government take care of them.
As Rush said, he has amazing speaking talent, if only he would use that to encourage people to better themselves. Encourage them to start businesses, remind them that equal opportunity is not equal outcome.
Yet he spends more money then every single president before him, combined, within the first... month? of his administration.

It's not about a working country. It's about control.
Any economist in America can tell you when you lower taxes it stimulates economic growth. Obama is not stupid, he knows what he's doing will not breed self-confidence, -self-reliance.

It WILL breed government dependence.

This is what I don't get about Americans like you mitch, what in the world is so bad about socialism. You may claim that people will start becoming lazy and depend on the government. Generally, in countries that are socialist have a much much lower unemployment rating and a closer gap between the rich and the poor, a much more equal distribution of wealth. If someone is going from cradle to grave being lazy, it is generally frowned upon and they will eventually have no value in society. Just because there is welfare doesn't mean everyone is going to become lazy. People are self motivated to be sucessful, unless it is much more different in America

Personal responsibility
Self confidence
Self improvement

These are all things America was built on.

Money is a privilage, NOT A RIGHT.
Wealth is a privilage, NOT A RIGHT.

You should not be born into this country and expect free shit.

You work, the harder you work, the more you think, the better your chances of a higher outcome.

Do you think Shaniqua in the ghetto wants to be the next Ford? Exxon? Microsoft? Of coarse not. Because it's much easier to have the government pay you for your mistakes and lazyness.

Wealth is earned with hard work, intellegence, creativity, and luck.

People sit and complain "oh bill gates doesnt need all that money, the government should take it from him"

Are you kidding? He earned every cent of his money and nobody has the right to tell him he has too much money.

Its jealousy, its lazyness.

Instead of promising people free shit, why doesn't obama encourage people to better themselves? oh yeah, because socialists like government dependence


-------

edit:
also, if you want socialism, be my guest to leave america and go to a socialist country.
however this country was based around everything that socialism is not.

I live in Taiwan if you can't read the profile clearly. Yes we are a socialist country, healthcare is free, aint that a bitch, everyone is crying to the gov about money. The idea of socialism is not getting free shit. It is the idea of everyone working hard for the benefit of the community, or the people of the country. You really think that America is all fair? Corportism has fucked America badly in the ass. Laize-faire economics does not work at all, remember Rockerfeller? JP Morgan? Andrew Carnegie? Yeah they all got rich through work and brains, but it fucks everybody over. There is a need for a balance. I'm not saying the government should take millions away from sucessful entrepaneurs, but there should be limitation to what they earn. Especially when it comes to bonuses and having a vacation spa when their company is going to the ground. America is not exporting shit at all, is it that hard to predict why the economy is so shit when you import nearly everything. Corporatism is worst than a controlling government, hell at least you can revolt and set up a new one. With corporations, they own so much shit everywhere, it's almost impossible to undo the damage.

Cybargs wrote:

Mitch wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

This is what I don't get about Americans like you mitch, what in the world is so bad about socialism. You may claim that people will start becoming lazy and depend on the government. Generally, in countries that are socialist have a much much lower unemployment rating and a closer gap between the rich and the poor, a much more equal distribution of wealth. If someone is going from cradle to grave being lazy, it is generally frowned upon and they will eventually have no value in society. Just because there is welfare doesn't mean everyone is going to become lazy. People are self motivated to be sucessful, unless it is much more different in America

Personal responsibility
Self confidence
Self improvement

These are all things America was built on.

Money is a privilage, NOT A RIGHT.
Wealth is a privilage, NOT A RIGHT.

You should not be born into this country and expect free shit.

You work, the harder you work, the more you think, the better your chances of a higher outcome.

Do you think Shaniqua in the ghetto wants to be the next Ford? Exxon? Microsoft? Of coarse not. Because it's much easier to have the government pay you for your mistakes and lazyness.

Wealth is earned with hard work, intellegence, creativity, and luck.

People sit and complain "oh bill gates doesnt need all that money, the government should take it from him"

Are you kidding? He earned every cent of his money and nobody has the right to tell him he has too much money.

Its jealousy, its lazyness.

Instead of promising people free shit, why doesn't obama encourage people to better themselves? oh yeah, because socialists like government dependence


-------

edit:
also, if you want socialism, be my guest to leave america and go to a socialist country.
however this country was based around everything that socialism is not.

I live in Taiwan if you can't read the profile clearly. Yes we are a socialist country, healthcare is free, aint that a bitch, everyone is crying to the gov about money. The idea of socialism is not getting free shit. It is the idea of everyone working hard for the benefit of the community, or the people of the country. You really think that America is all fair? Corportism has fucked America badly in the ass. Laize-faire economics does not work at all, remember Rockerfeller? JP Morgan? Andrew Carnegie? Yeah they all got rich through work and brains, but it fucks everybody over. There is a need for a balance. I'm not saying the government should take millions away from sucessful entrepaneurs, but there should be limitation to what they earn. Especially when it comes to bonuses and having a vacation spa when their company is going to the ground. America is not exporting shit at all, is it that hard to predict why the economy is so shit when you import nearly everything. Corporatism is worst than a controlling government, hell at least you can revolt and set up a new one. With corporations, they own so much shit everywhere, it's almost impossible to undo the damage.

Well said Robot.
There has to be sane limits to capitalism.

While the economy didn't crash in the first three years of bush, everything bubbled to the point of popping under his watch and barely a word or thing was done to stop.

That's epic failure.

owner>CEO so no, he can't do anything he wants

.Sup wrote:

owner>CEO so no, he can't do anything he wants

By CEO i meant Owner. My mistake

nonetheless however it is the responsibility of the owner to direct the CEO (assuming they are two different people)

Last edited by Mitch (2009-03-08 11:54:32)