Creating animosity works against conveying a point. Hrmwrm erred on the side of creating animosity. If he wanted to convey a point, any point that could have been conveyed by that would have been conveyed better by an image that didn't have the sexual crudeness in his image.
You really have a problem admitting the truth, don't you. all you are doing is talking in circles. You are assuming he is even trying to convey a point. I am sure he will retroactively try and claim to be conveying some point he will make up on the spot. But the avatar was clearly posted to insult. All you have to do is look to his past in this forum to see that. But, as usual, you only look at facts convenient to your position and ignore any others.
The article basically is saying that Obama isn't a socialist because he isn't an extreme, traditional socialist like us. It mischaracterizes the argument that Obama is a socialist and misrepresents things to do so. The author is defining socialism very narrowly and only looking at the most extreme form of it. Obama is not that, so he is not as socialist according to the author. The author fails to acknowledge the type of socialist Obama is. Obama is a social democrat which, as even the left leaning wikipedia points out, "is a political ideology of the left or centre-left that emerged in the late 19th century from the
socialist movement and continues to exert influence worldwide." As that link points out...
In general, contemporary social democrats support:
- A mixed economy consisting of both private enterprise and government-owned or subsidized programs of education, health care, child care and related social services for all citizens.
- An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by socialists), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
- Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers and consumers by ensuring labor rights (i.e. supporting worker access to trade unions), consumer protections, and fair market competition.
- Environmentalism and environmental protection laws; for example, funding for alternative energy resources and laws designed to combat global warming.
- A value-added/progressive taxation system to fund government expenditures.
- A secular and a socially progressive policy, although this varies markedly in degree.
- Immigration and multiculturalism.
- Fair trade over free trade.
- A foreign policy supporting the promotion of democracy, the protection of human rights and where possible, effective multilateralism.
- Advocacy of social justice, human rights, social rights, civil rights and civil liberties.
Your article also bases it's claim on a lot of speculation aimed at spinning;
Nationalization is simply not in the playbook of Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and his team. They favor costly, temporary measures that can easily be dismantled should the economy stabilize. Socialists support nationalization and see it as a means of creating a banking system that acts like a highly regulated public utility. The banks would then cease to be sinkholes for public funds or financial versions of casinos and would become essential to reenergizing productive sectors of the economy.
Obama
is nationalizing, just not as fast as the author would seem to like. As
this Dick Morris article spells out;
President Obama’s vision of the future is, apparently, an economy guided, steered and — when the occasion demands — commanded by the federal government. Some of the companies will remain private. Washington will take others over. But all will look to the White House, as to an orchestra conductor, for signals as to how and when and where to proceed.
This summary is the vision that emerges from the Chrysler bailout.
Basically, the author is claiming that Obama isn't a socialist because the pragmatic and political concerns Obama is having to take into account here (necessitating incrementalism) don't line up directly with the author's narrowly defined traditional ideology. Ideologies are always modified to some degree when they meet political reality.
The author is also ignoring Obama's blatant two-faced nature; instead acting naively ignorant of it as if Obama is being completely above board when he has shown himself to be anything but. They know that Obama is a more modern post Marx socialist, and is the best chance they have of ever getting their agenda realized in American. However, socialism is a four letter word in American politics so they need cannot say that he is a socialist. Hence the disingenuous "acceptance" of Obama at his word and ignoring of actions that counter his claims.
There are two definitions of socialist at play here (definitions are very important and often confused when it comes to ideology). The socialism that the author is referring to is a narrow definition that is the traditional Marxist socialism. The socialism being referred to with regards to Obama is the broad, all encompassing definition of socialism which would include both the traditional socialism that the author is talking about and the more modern "post-Marx" socialism (social democracy) that is popular in Europe. So, the author is (likely intentionally) equivocating. And lest you think that I am simply making up the stuff about definitions,
here is the definition of socialism:
- Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
- The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.
social democracy (which Obama subscribes to) meets the first definition. The author is talking about the second definition. Basically, the author is a kind of socialist "purist". If it is not Marxism/Leninism the it is not "real" socialism.
And does your avatar hurt your credibility when you argue that Obama is a socialist (which according to many socialists he isn’t)?
Not except to people like you who disregard what I say out of hand if you don't like it and then try and rationalize it, usually using fallacious arguments to do so.
But, of course, going with that angle, you are effectively redirecting the conversation away from hrmwrm's avatar, which has been your goal all along.
As I have shown, there is legitimacy to the point my avatar is conveying. Hrmwrm's avatar is crude and crudeness is not something used to convey a point. It is only used to elicit a response of some kind and/or to insult. As such, any comparison between my avatar and his is a false analogy because the purpose behind the two is clearly different.
What is your purpose behind your avatar? Is it to continue the fallacy that Obama is a socialist?
More misuse of the term "fallacy". We already went over what a fallacy is and is not in another thread. Apparently your little female brain prevents you from learning.*
You almost exclusively post Obama is a socialist because... type of threads – over and over and over again. This is very indicative of someone who needs constant reaffirmation that his viewpoint is correct. If I can find enough support material, I must be right, seems to be your mantra Shag.
No, I actually know what socialism is and how it has developed throughout history. No need to "reaffirm" anything. Unlike you I don't take a position and then try to rationalize it. I actually try and have as much info as possible before I draw a conclusion.
However, I know that for people not so well informed on the ideological history of socialism, the fact that Obama is a socialist is a hard pill to swallow, especially considering the cult of personality surrounding him. So, examples of Obama's socialism are provided as well as little conversations like these where I can explain what exactly is meant by the claim that Obama is a socialist.
And odd, that my little female brain has no trouble keeping up with that big, manly brain of yours, Shag.
If it is so capable of keeping up, then why do you mischaracterize me so much? If you clearly understand what I am saying then the
only conclusion is that you are
intentionally mischarcterizing my arguments in order to deceptively marginalize and discredit them.
A Yale School of Medicine study shows for the first time that a high level of testosterone… can lead to a catastrophic loss of brain cells.
If that study wasn't conducted by a woman, it was probably overseen by a woman. Or the men had to put up with a constantly nagging woman at home. Either way, I have no doubt that somewhere down the line, there was a woman on her knees or on her back that lead to the results coming out the way they did.*
Some other points to consider; a large amount of
anything is bad. Are we talking realistic levels of testosterone? Or abnormally high amounts? If it is abnormally high, then this study is worthless except as a piece of feminist propaganda. Also, has the study been repeated? One study does not prove
anything. If your little female brain was able to grasp the concept of science (or critical thinking for that matter), you might understand that.*
*
the author of this post realizes that all the comments denoted are generally considered "offensive"
