61% of Liberals have positive view of Socialism

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 6:07 pm

What a surprise.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/125645/socia ... icans.aspx

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:07 pm

J Michaels · Post by **J Michaels** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 9:50 pm

Do you even know what socialism is and what it's about? I mean, other than the boogeyman of Limbaugh and Glen Beck's scare-fests.

Do you know what "liberal" means? Other than the attempts at slander and marginalization of Michael Savage and Fox News.

People are so easily manipulated, especially when they lack a true understanding of a concept and somebody is willing to manipulate both their ignorance and their need for an "us" and a "them."

JackANSI · Post by **JackANSI** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 10:22 pm

Ok you win... All your points have been instantly validated by this poll...

f.sciarrillo · Post by **f.sciarrillo** » Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:12 pm

How did I know that Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh were going to come up with this.

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:01 am

I believe those figures are probably right.

It begs for the question: What do you think socialism is ?

The federal highway system is socialism. I have a positive view.
The military is socialism. I have a positive view.
Medicare is socialism. I have a positive view.
The police force is socialism. I have a positive view.
National parks are socialism.
I have a positive view of several social projects.

On the other hand.

Marxist socialism sucks.

Every Republican likely thinks socialism = a dictatorship and relates it to Communism and Hitler and Nazism.

I would say most Democrats are capitalists who see a need for social projects. Which is where I fit in.

There are also conservatives who think every person who can work should be forced to work. As in, "I'm okay with paying him (welfare) if he'll work for it". If you fall in this category, you are a communist steeped in socialism. With pure socialism, everyone works (for the government) and slackers have no choice but to work. Unemployment is at 0%.

Of course, you don't own anything (like land) either.
I don't know of any liberal or Democrat who is against capitalism or allowing people to own land.

The US is at it's best with a strong capitalistic system and some social programs. Just my opinion.

Given that so many companies have left the US for cheap labor, our capitalism is in dire straits.

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:22 am

J Michaels wrote:Do you even know what socialism is and what it's about? I mean, other than the boogeyman of Limbaugh and Glen Beck's scare-fests.

Do you know what "liberal" means? Other than the attempts at slander and marginalization of Michael Savage and Fox News.

People are so easily manipulated, especially when they lack a true understanding of a concept and somebody is willing to manipulate both their ignorance and their need for an "us" and a "them."

I post a poll. You go bananas and attack right wing media for no known reason. Are you drinking too much coffee?

Get mad at the people who answered the poll. Your politics are showing.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:58 am

I think some people don't have a clue what socialism is.

It is state-owned, state-run industry. Period. Anything else is not socialism. I'm willing to bet 80% of the people in that poll didn't realize that.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Banned · Post by **Banned** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 1:27 am

lonewolf wrote:I think some people don't have a clue what socialism is.

It is state-owned, state-run industry. Period. Anything else is not socialism. I'm willing to bet 80% of the people in that poll didn't realize that.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

With this federal government being part of banking, mortgage industry and now auto industry, would you say it is socialistic? If not, then what?

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 12:49 pm

undercoverjoe wrote:
lonewolf wrote:I think some people don't have a clue what socialism is.

It is state-owned, state-run industry. Period. Anything else is not socialism. I'm willing to bet 80% of the people in that poll didn't realize that.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
With this federal government being part of banking, mortgage industry and now auto industry, would you say it is socialistic? If not, then what?

Look at number 3 in the definition. According to Karl Marx, the DC Douchebags are slowly moving us to communism in the economic sense.

Its important to note that socialism is NOT a form of government. It is a type of economy. Depending on the usage, communism can be both.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:08 pm

What's it called when corporations run the govt? You know, via former govt office-holders who now lobby for corporations for big $$$? What's it called when the vice-president's corporation gets a no-bid contract for billions in Iraqi oil rebuilds? Or when Blackwater/Xe gets a no-bid as Bush/Cheney's private army, and sits above the law? In fact, overall, what is the term we use for a war for no reason other than self-enrichment and political gain? I would say "wagging the dog," but that label was already taken when Clinton tried to eliminate Al Qaeda in Somalia.
And what's it called when Scalia and Roberts give foreign and domestic corporations the "right" to spend billions on political campaigns, for the people they already have in their pocket? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all CORPORATIONS are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of obscene profit. Everyone else is f**ked."
Maybe the point here isn't that people are embracing socialism. Perhaps it's more a case that people are turning their backs on the extremist view that the have-nots are all nothing more than an exploitable resource for the haves, and the only way to success is to shut the f**k up and create more wealth for them.
Maybe the pollsters asked a leading question whose wording allowed only two answers, " I like the rightwing agenda," or, "I support socialism." Kinda like asking, "Do you still beat your wife." Any answer would expose you as someone who either beats his wife, or used to.
Or maybe, somebody saw a poll that revealed that Obama enjoys more public support than the Repubs (and that people still blame Bush conservatism), and had to post something he thought was damaging. It isn't. Socialism, as I have stated previously, is just a catch-word now. It's a term of derision, a sort of smear, and according to the posted poll, IT'S NOT WORKING.--->JMS

JackANSI · Post by **JackANSI** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:09 pm

If you feather the throttle on a car that has improperly set timing or a distributor cap that is on the way out, you sometimes get a backfire.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:34 pm

songsmith wrote:What's it called when corporations run the govt? --->JMS

Corporatism

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/corporatism

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:51 pm

songsmith wrote:What's it called when the vice-president's corporation gets a no-bid contract for billions in Iraqi oil rebuilds? --->JMS

Its called "the only company in the US qualified and pre-approved to drop into a war zone at a moment's notice to put out hundreds of oil fires".

Major government contract bids require a minimum 90 days process and evaluation time...many require more. Because of this, there are many companies that are pre-approved for specific tasks in case of emergency.

The oil fires in Iraq were not going to wait for the government bidding process.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:52 pm

songsmith wrote:Or when Blackwater/Xe gets a no-bid as Bush/Cheney's private army, and sits above the law? --->JMS

A turkey shoot in the desert.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:54 pm

songsmith wrote:In fact, overall, what is the term we use for a war for no reason other than self-enrichment and political gain?--->JMS

Political gain? I'd call that "failed intent."

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:56 pm

songsmith wrote:And what's it called when Scalia and Roberts give foreign and domestic corporations the "right" to spend billions on political campaigns, for the people they already have in their pocket?--->JMS

Free speech. Those who live by the activist court will die by the activist court.

I'd also call that wasteful redundant corporate spending.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:57 pm

Exactly! I recently called McGinnis a corporatist, and he had the unmitigated gall to say he's against corporatism, despite his extremist rants that business always trumps govt, and that corporations do indeed have constitutional rights same as people. Of course, he's a middle-aged virgin Walter Mitty suffering from debilitating patholgical confirmation biases, so he's not the best illustration, but you get the idea. It seems that corporatism is kind of like senile dementia... the main symptom of the condition is denial of the diagnosis.

--->JMS

Oops. You posted before I did. I was referring to the definition fo corporatism.--->jms

Hawk · Post by **Hawk** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:57 pm

lonewolf wrote:
songsmith wrote:In fact, overall, what is the term we use for a war for no reason other than self-enrichment and political gain?--->JMS
Political gain? I'd call that "failed intent."

It didn't "fail" for Haliburton. They made out very well and one might call it "mission accomplished" ...for them.

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 3:58 pm

songsmith wrote:What's it called when corporations run the govt? You know, via former govt office-holders who now lobby for corporations for big $$$? What's it called when the vice-president's corporation gets a no-bid contract for billions in Iraqi oil rebuilds? Or when Blackwater/Xe gets a no-bid as Bush/Cheney's private army, and sits above the law? In fact, overall, what is the term we use for a war for no reason other than self-enrichment and political gain? I would say "wagging the dog," but that label was already taken when Clinton tried to eliminate Al Qaeda in Somalia.
And what's it called when Scalia and Roberts give foreign and domestic corporations the "right" to spend billions on political campaigns, for the people they already have in their pocket? "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all CORPORATIONS are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of obscene profit. Everyone else is f**ked."
Maybe the point here isn't that people are embracing socialism. Perhaps it's more a case that people are turning their backs on the extremist view that the have-nots are all nothing more than an exploitable resource for the haves, and the only way to success is to shut the f**k up and create more wealth for them.
Maybe the pollsters asked a leading question whose wording allowed only two answers, " I like the rightwing agenda," or, "I support socialism." Kinda like asking, "Do you still beat your wife." Any answer would expose you as someone who either beats his wife, or used to.
Or maybe, somebody saw a poll that revealed that Obama enjoys more public support than the Repubs (and that people still blame Bush conservatism), and had to post something he thought was damaging. It isn't. Socialism, as I have stated previously, is just a catch-word now. It's a term of derision, a sort of smear, and according to the posted poll, IT'S NOT WORKING.--->JMS

You left out Wal-Mart.

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:00 pm

lonewolf wrote:
songsmith wrote:What's it called when the vice-president's corporation gets a no-bid contract for billions in Iraqi oil rebuilds? --->JMS
Its called "the only company in the US qualified and pre-approved to drop into a war zone at a moment's notice to put out hundreds of oil fires".

.

Qualified according to whom? Dick Cheney?--->JMS

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:02 pm

lonewolf wrote:You left out Wal-Mart.

I did that in deferrence to all my friends whose jobs got outsourced during the Great Conservative Reign, who now have to work at WalMart.--->JMS

lonewolf · Post by **lonewolf** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:02 pm

songsmith wrote:
lonewolf wrote:
songsmith wrote:What's it called when the vice-president's corporation gets a no-bid contract for billions in Iraqi oil rebuilds? --->JMS
Its called "the only company in the US qualified and pre-approved to drop into a war zone at a moment's notice to put out hundreds of oil fires".

.
Qualified according to whom? Dick Cheney?--->JMS

The US Army Corps of Engineers. (btw Johnny, the "ps" is silent)

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:06 pm

lonewolf wrote:
songsmith wrote:What's it called when the vice-president's corporation gets a no-bid contract for billions in Iraqi oil rebuilds? --->JMS
Its called "the only company in the US qualified and pre-approved to drop into a war zone at a moment's notice to put out hundreds of oil fires".

Major government contract bids require a minimum 90 days process and evaluation time...many require more. Because of this, there are many companies that are pre-approved for specific tasks in case of emergency.

The oil fires in Iraq were not going to wait for the government bidding process.

So why were they still there until recently, when Iraq threw Xe out? 7 years is a long time for a temporary contract.--->JMS

songsmith · Post by **songsmith** » Sat Feb 13, 2010 4:08 pm

lonewolf wrote:
songsmith wrote:And what's it called when Scalia and Roberts give foreign and domestic corporations the "right" to spend billions on political campaigns, for the people they already have in their pocket?--->JMS
Free speech.

So a corporation, which is a collection of assets, now has free speech? Awesome, ehn people complain about my dogs barking, I'll tell them my dogs have constitutional rights, too.--->JMS