« Remember Memento? | Main | A week of liberal amusement »

Monday, July 19, 2010


which "news on television" was he watching? he might not have been able to afford basic cable, so it might have been "the news hour." lehrer makes me want to go on a shooting spree. "let's liven this up a bit, shall we jim?"

anywho, maybe it's time to retire the traditional terms used to describe political orientation? if obama is a socialist, what do the terms left/right, progressive/conservative, even liberal, what do these terms even mean?

nothing, so let's stop using them.

"anemonous", irrespective of whether one actually approves of his policies, no educated person seriously thinks of Obama as a socialist.

as far as national TV news goes, it's pretty uniformly awful, but national fox news reports sometimes appear on local fox affiliates' broadcasts.

Actually, "some guy," Obama is a socialist who wants to socialize the costs of corporate business, and privatize the profits.

Mussolini and Hitler called that type of socialism "fascism" and "national socialism" respectively.

They're both socialized systems. The question that you seem to consider is what aspect is socialized.

I think what you mean to say is, Obama is most definitely not a Marxist-Leninist Socialist. He is not socializing public benefits, which is the bureaucratic bozoland of M-L Socialism.

No matter how you slice it, socialism is a bad idea because it depends on a leviathan government that is inefficient -- therefore no matter whose benefits ultimately are targeted, they are achieved in a spendthrift, wasteful manner.

versus the pure efficiency of Teh Market, Mr. Oxtrot? governments are not the only leviathans out there in the world today. I'm sure BP is "efficient" but I doubt the people of Louisiana appreciate the results of said efficiency very much right now.

The comments to this entry are closed.