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

Sydney wrote:

If you think Obama is a socialist, you should check out some of the European governments.

usmarine wrote:

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.

bail outs?

you can get past that and look at the stimululz bill.....plus the "socialized" health care........

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Hugo Chav is gay on Obama because:

A.  Hugo is for " Change "
B.  Hugo thinks " Yes We Can "
C.  Hugo is a better judge of character than Americans.
D.  Hugo knows Obama is a mental midget that he can manipulate.
E.  C and D
F.  A and B

Mitch wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Mitch wrote:

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.

An owner can run his company however the hell he wants. If he wants to fire every single employee and sell trash the company, he can do that. He owns it. He runs it. He funded it, he put in countless hours of work. He deserves the power to do such things.

If you think the owner of your company is unstable, dont work for that company, others will certainly fill your spot.

If a owner wants to give himself a raise, guess what! HE CAN. He makes the rules. If you don't like it, work for someone else.

Now im a bottom feeding, minimum wage worker, and i believe these things.

A company is something you take pride in. Its your property. Its your investment. The government has no right to control that.

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

Mitch wrote:

An owner can run his company however the hell he wants. If he wants to fire every single employee and sell trash the company, he can do that. He owns it. He runs it. He funded it, he put in countless hours of work. He deserves the power to do such things.

If you think the owner of your company is unstable, dont work for that company, others will certainly fill your spot.

If a owner wants to give himself a raise, guess what! HE CAN. He makes the rules. If you don't like it, work for someone else.

Now im a bottom feeding, minimum wage worker, and i believe these things.

A company is something you take pride in. Its your property. Its your investment. The government has no right to control that.

Ok it's the CEO's property. Lets say he owns an acre of land with a factory. It's his land, you think he can dump whatever the hell he wants onto that land? Remember its his land. Lets dump all the toxic and radioactive chemicals in there. Hey it's my company, I'm gonna be so sucessful and make a monopoly. Hey, I'm getting better, lets own everything, jack the prices up and fuck people over. Is that what you want?

Socialism is not lets all be lazy, its more about helping everyone out. I thought community service in your high school taught you enough.

can't argue with that..lol...
can't understand it so it's hard to argue with it?   
Socialism doesn't work... it has been tried many times... same result

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

So where would you rather live... Taiwan or in the US?

DrunkFace wrote:

[TUF]Catbox wrote:

So where would you rather live... Taiwan or in the US?

Taiwan.

Poseidon wrote:

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.

Poseidon wrote:

Partisan politics are killing this country.

FEOS wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

FEOS wrote:

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.

You seem to forget that he was running against someone. Compared to either Gore or Kerry, he was the better choice...even in hindsight. That should piss you off more than his policies. Most Republicans (even those that voted for him) hated his spending and regularly argued against it. Most Republicans hated his government expansion and regularly argued against it. So, given the choice between a social conservative/fiscal liberal and a social liberal/fiscal liberal, the Republicans took the social conservative...1 out of 2 is better than 0 out of 2.

FEOS wrote:

No doubt. And they are just as strongly perpetuated by the Dems now as they were by the Republicans then.

Poseidon wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Poseidon wrote:

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.

You seem to forget that he was running against someone. Compared to either Gore or Kerry, he was the better choice...even in hindsight. That should piss you off more than his policies. Most Republicans (even those that voted for him) hated his spending and regularly argued against it. Most Republicans hated his government expansion and regularly argued against it. So, given the choice between a social conservative/fiscal liberal and a social liberal/fiscal liberal, the Republicans took the social conservative...1 out of 2 is better than 0 out of 2.

Yes, but what I'm saying is to criticize Obama so heavily for his spending and proclaiming he's the champion of big government after supporting Bush for 8 years is a bit...hypocritical.

And I realize he was the "lesser of two evils" for some people, but then why not just not vote or go third party? If enough republicans took a stand against Bush in his campaign against Kerry and voted for a third party libertarian, who knows what could happen..

Poseidon wrote:

FEOS wrote:

No doubt. And they are just as strongly perpetuated by the Dems now as they were by the Republicans then.

Well of course. Both sides are guilty of it. I was specifically talking however about the hypocrisy over not criticizing Bush for being a liberal yet doing the same to Obama - who actually acknowledges he is one.

DrunkFace wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Compared to either Gore or Kerry, he was the better choice...even in hindsight.

Really? You truly believe that?

Because I don't know anyone who thought he was a good choice in either election and in hindsight we couldn't have been more right. In fact I believe after the 2004 election the rest of the world was in utter shock Bush got elected again.