Fine, "handheld earth motivator"--but it's still a damned spade.

Various other people agree with you that the label "socialist" is not useful, if for entirely different reasons. Still, to automatically tune out of the conversation whenever you hear a word is like invoking Godwin's Law when discussing neo-Nazism--occasionally, a word fits.

(And please leave the straw man out of it--I never implied anywhere that I thought pure capitalism was either where we were nor where we should be.)

So let's define what Obama is, if not a socialist. He is in favor of the movement of wealth from those that make it to those that don't--but we can't call it "distribution of wealth." He wants to give "tax cuts" to people who don't pay income tax, such that these people actually make money from the federal government--but we can't call it "welfare." Despite having seen government regulation radically increase the burden and cost of health care in this country over the last few decades, he would like to compel coverage via government-administered programs--but we can't call it "socialized medicine." These are not small things, nor are they (as you stated previously) trying "to accomplish roughly the same goals."

Incidentally, I think both of their plans for mortgage and credit reform are idiotic. When the supposed conservative candidate proposes tossing out the whole concept of contract law to nullify "bad" mortgages and forcibly set new terms for repayment on a private financial agreement between two willing (if not overly wise) parties, it's time to break out the white lightning. I've written elsewhere, and linked even more, about the various other things in his platform (both stated and unstated) that bother me greatly, so I won't belabor the point here. I believe he wants to fundamentally rearrange this nation, and I believe it's a change that I can do without. If these changes are more in line with your vision for America, more power to you, and by all means vote for hope and change.

I see people who don't understand or respect that there are people who just plain don't agree with them.

Yes, I see quite a bit of that, myself. Seems like there are some civil rights issues to be resolved, all right.

I would love clarification on what the impact of the Presidential choice would be on civil rights--are you referring to nomination of Supreme Court Justices? That's the only link I can think of, and I can't imagine that an ultraconservative John McCain presidency (if such a thing were to exist) could somehow get enough Justices past the Senate to magically overturn the Civil Rights Act or something, so you must mean something else. Whether such a President can or would affect your civil rights in a negative manner is an interesting topic for speculation, but he will be the head of my chain of command.

I have a sneaking suspicion there isn't going to be a lot of common ground found in this conversation, though I trust we will avoid Godwin. I appreciate your civil responses. If the worst thing I've done is bore you, I can live with that--the Internet is big, and I haven't lured you here under false pretenses or anything.



The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <p>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options