There are other examples where societies simply drifted toward socialism. There was no socialist revolution in the UK, but Margaret Thatcher still found entire industries to privatize. With an economy as big and productive as ours, an incremental approach to socialism seems much more likely than a sudden, violent revolution.

 

How and why were those industries nationalized? Was it incremental until Thatcher, or rather during the ruin of Reconstruction Europe? And I disagree again, with an economy as capitalist as ours the only way a socialist system will ever replace the market system would be through a frenzied, overnight change due to a political climate created by a massive economic collapse.

 

To argue that a socialist must advocate an immediate nationalization of industries, as some have, is simply wrong.

 

Would you then say "to argue that a capitalist must advocate a complete laissez-faire system is wrong?"

 

And the crux of socialism is a centrally planned, national economy with the even distribution of wealth, which would include private property. So it is kind of essential for a socialist to advocate sweeping nationalization and elimination of markets rather than propose a government healthcare program.

 

I think you're wrong no matter how you twist the logic; it's the definition you have to twist.

How and why were those industries nationalized? Was it incremental until Thatcher, or rather during the ruin of Reconstruction Europe? And I disagree again, with an economy as capitalist as ours the only way a socialist system will ever replace the market system would be through a frenzied, overnight change due to a political climate created by a massive economic collapse.

Hugo Chavez is a socialist, do you not agree? Did he immediately nationalize every industry in Venezuela? Socialists can and do participate in governments having economies that are mostly based on capitalism. Does Venezuela own all means of production today? It is not unusual for certain industries to be owned by a government and others to be operated privately and it is not unusual for socialists to work within political limits of the possible.

Would you then say "to argue that a capitalist must advocate a complete laissez-faire system is wrong?"

Of course not. If I did, then I would also be denying reality. Undoubtedly there are elements in the Chinese government who would like to incorporate more capitalism into their economy but must be carefull because of the political realities in that country.

 

And the crux of socialism is a centrally planned, national economy with the even distribution of wealth, which would include private property. So it is kind of essential for a socialist to advocate sweeping nationalization and elimination of markets rather than propose a government healthcare program.

 

I think you're wrong no matter how you twist the logic; it's the definition you have to twist.

If you believe that it is impossible to socialists to employ some stealth tactics to achieve incremental goals in a democratic society with a capitalist economy, then that is your right. However, many of us believe that our our government includes many closet socialists who recognize that they must, for the time being, work to transform our economy incrementally.

 

There is a reason that Maxine Waters choked on the word "socialize" during the recent grilling of oil industry executives and the proposed nationalization of hurricane (re)insurance is the latest proposed incremental move toward socialism. You may believe that socialists must operate in the open but that does not make you right or those who believe Barack Obama is a closet socialist wrong.

Obama does have the tendency to put his foot in his mouth but John McCain has had some trouble as well, remember when John McCain confused Shiites and Sunnis on multiple occasions among other goofs. The 100 year war bit will hurt McCain as well. Remember I am a undicided voter at this point although I do lean Obama, I just think to many people are wearing rose colared glasses when it comes to McCain and this election.

 

If you are really an undecided voter, then take the time to research McCain's 100 year comment and find out what he really said and meant. No doubt there are rose colored glasses being worn, but its by people on both sides of the aisle.

Just for the record, has there EVER been a BGP P & R poll thread that has seen 27 of 28 people agree? This guy has to be a staunch liberal to get this much agreement on BGP.

:thumb:

 

Obama describes himself as a "Progressive." I am not saying that is a bad or good thing... but if Obama were asked this same question with these options, he would select liberal, imo. And that is perfectly fine.

Who do you think those dumb Democrats should have nominated, Prof?

If there's any such thing as a Conservative Democrat out there, then that's the answer. Other than that, John McCain is about as close as you can get, if he had been talked into switching parties. As it is now, he will be representing the Republican Party.

Why are some of you all so scared of him? Four of the seven threads that were active in P/R today are about the "evils" of Obama.

We think he's wrong for America. Has nothing to do with fear for me, I just totally disagree with his view of what this country should be. As others have said, he's too close to a socialist, that's not a path this country should follow.

We think he's wrong for America. Has nothing to do with fear for me, I just totally disagree with his view of what this country should be. As others have said, he's too close to a socialist, that's not a path this country should follow.

 

I agree.

He may win the election, but I will never call Obama President.

He may win the election, but I will never call Obama President.

 

And that is wrong.

He wins, he deserves respect for being the President of the US.

And that is wrong.

He wins, he deserves respect for being the President of the US.

Well, GW certainly hasn't seen that respect from the left since day one.

Well, GW certainly hasn't seen that respect from the left since day one.

You mean the ones that didn't move to Canada or France?

You mean the ones that didn't move to Canada or France?

:lol: :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

Well, GW certainly hasn't seen that respect from the left since day one.

 

How much respect did the right give Clinton? It pretty much cuts both ways.

How much respect did the right give Clinton? It pretty much cuts both ways.

Disagree, I don't recall anyone crying they would move out of the country if Clinton was elected.

Disagree, I don't recall anyone crying they would move out of the country if Clinton was elected.

 

Let's see, immediately after the inaugauration in '93, Rush began every show with "the first day of captivity in Amerca." (or something like a countdown to how many days were left before the next election and America would be free of Clinton.)

 

I knew and heard from some servicemen that refused to acknowledge Clinton as Commander in Chief and went to great pains to avoid saluting him.

 

You can disrespect a person's office without having to say your leaving the country.