« The First Amendment as Sword | Main | We Report; You Decide »

October 12, 2008

Comments

as a professional artist, i'm offended by the bad Photoshopping. what, Ruffini, it was HARD finding pics of Obama?

oh, and if "President Barack Obama with 60 votes in the Senate means a socialist America"--i'll take that America over the one we have now.

President Barack Obama with 60 votes in the Senate means a socialist America.

Which any other nation on earth will recognize as a modern developed nation with a mixed economy.

Hey, we tried it the cowboy way, and look where that got us. Maybe it's time to let the pointy-heads have a turn.

What are they going to do, nationalize the financial sector?

Thanks -

C'mon, everyone! Let's party like its 1992!

One only has to look at the horrors already underway in the Socialist Republic of Vermont under the leadership of the Great Helmsman Bernie Sanders to understand that our entire way of life is at stake.

I'm going to make a wild prediction and suggest that Obama's first act of revolutionary terror on Jan 22 will be to nationalize the banks, thereby seizing the commanding heights of the capitalist economy. He is telegraphing this move by the way he constantly refers (both on the campaign trail and in debates) to the "greed and corruption on Wall St".

as a professional artist, i'm offended by the bad Photoshopping. what, Ruffini, it was HARD finding pics of Obama?

Hopefully, he'll have a lot of time to practice over the coming 8 years.

60 Democrats in the Senate? A socialist America? We should be so lucky.

Hopefully, he'll have a lot of time to practice over the coming 8 years.

I'm pretty sure that graphic arts and the use of common commerical software packages will be taught in the re-education camps. We can't have millions of rehabilitated citizens being released from the Alaskan gulags with no job skillz - mass unemployment would make The One look bad.

in his defense, he didn't do that picture -- i added that (with link attribution).

still an absurd post though

he didn't do that picture

shorter publius:

"Well, we did do the nose."

"And the hat."

"She's got a wart!"

"A witch! Burn her!"

Sigh. Do these people even know what Socialism is?

There may be problems with European social democracies like in Scandinavia, or social market type economies like in Germany and France. But those differences are of the sort that ought, for any actually intelligent person, to inspire reasoned debate, not absurd fearmongering.

Do these people really think that Germany in 2008=Stalin's Russia, as they often imply, or are they being disingenuous? The extent to which the right seems to fear a system similar to that in the vast majority of the rest of the developed world is truly bizarre to behold.

Off topic, but I find it noteworthy that nearly nobody found it noteworthy that Connecticut's accepting gay marriage. The L.A. Times put it on page 16.

Socialism's scarier than sodomy? Interesting if true. Perhaps I'll dress as Marx for Halloween.

Do these people even know what Socialism is?

The problem is that both sides are hanging on to the word. The so-called "left" continues to use it because it's part of their historical roots, the right loves it because it makes for a great boogeyman.

Ruffini used to be reasonable? I guess I missed it.

Similarly, smallship points out that:

the government may have bought some assets, but calling that socialism is like calling it Christian worship when a man stubs his toe and shouts "JESUS!!!" Socialism is when the government owns and administers the means of production and distribution for the benefit of the people and as the normal state of affairs. Buying up a bunch of dodgy loans to save your venture-capitalist friends from having to face the consequences of their greed may be many things, including but not limited to unconstitutional, impractical, hypocritical, desperate and just plain stupid, but socialism in any meaningful sense it ain't, and calling it such is simple scaremongering, because for some reason Americans are more terrified of socialism than of, oh say, theocratic despotism.

Anyone else think there might be a boy-crying-wolf problem with this kind of stupid rhetoric? If any deviation from the neoliberalism program is called 'socialism' a la Che, what happens to real policy debates later on? We are surely entering a tumultuous time, and it seems like Ruffini et al are degrading their own argument.

Anybody want to bet that, as in the 30s, it will be a 'socialist' president who saves/preserves capitalism?

I am so tired of these idiots...

Here's a simple solution that should make Ruffini feel better.

We will let the government secure any investments except his.

Thanks -

Why is it that I feel so much more inclined to vote for the conservative caricature of Obama than the ACTUAL Obama? I mean, a socialist, radical hippy bent on Maoism and 'street activism' seems pretty neat.

"I mean, a socialist, radical hippy bent on Maoism and 'street activism' seems pretty neat."

Not so much the Maoism, actually.

We'll have to demand a little self-criticism from you on that, running dog.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad