McCain refutes Dartagnan/Droopy etc. with one word:

[_Tarski]

Just now, Larry King asks McCain if Obama is a socialist.

McCain answers: "no."

Oh snap!!

Why vote for someone that hasn't the judgment so see what Droopy and AntiShock, Dartagnan and the mob have been asserting as fact?? LOL

Hmm, either McCain hasn't the vision to see it, or the courage to say it, or.......

or...drum role....the board McCarthyites are wrong.
,
,
,,
,

[_bcspace]

Just now, Larry King asks McCain if Obama is a socialist.

McCain answers: "no."

If true, this would simply illustrate why most conservatives think the GOP made a mistake in nominating McCain. Obama is a socialist/marxist by his own stated philosphy (posted on this board) in addition to by association (also posted on this board).

Hmm, either McCain hasn't the vision to see it, or the courage to say it, or.......

or...drum role....the board McCarthyites are wrong.

Since PBS, relatively recently, essentially exonerated McCarthy during a show about the scientists involved in the development of the atom bomb, there is a 5th more likely option. McCain is wrong.

But wait!

McCain suggests Obama tax policies are socialist

CONCORD, N.C. – Republican presidential candidate John McCain on Saturday accused Democratic rival Barack Obama of favoring a socialistic economic approach by supporting tax cuts and tax credits McCain says would merely shuffle wealth rather than creating it.

[_dartagnan]

Is Tarski really so stupid as to think that by anyone supporting a candidate, that it is therefore binding on him/her to agree without question, every little thing he/she says? This is scary if this is how he thinks.

By this kind of twisted logic Obama "refuted" Tarski's appeal to racism when he admitted that he didn't know for sure if he got into Harvard because of affirmative action.

Notice that Tarski cannot engage the argument on any fundamental level. He cannot argue the points about Obama's inclination towards Marxism. He cannot defend it nor can he defend Biden's ignoramus response to the legitimate question regarding that.

All he can do is call me a racist and then say McCain doesn't think so.

So what? I do. Many others do as well. There is legitimate reason for pause once Obama's economic philosophy has some light shed on it. Tarski and thegang are not interested in arguing these points, pro or con. All they can do is accuse people of racism. How sad.

[_Tarski]

Is Tarski really so stupid as to think that by anyone supporting a candidate, that it is therefore binding on him/her to agree without question, every little thing he/she says? .

Ah ha! You just said it and you don't even realize it. LOL

Go ponder grasshopper.

[_dartagnan]

But whether you agree with Obama's socialism is irrelevant to the fact that he is a socialist. It isn't going to somehow make his proposed economic policies less socilistic, just because you don't have to agree with them.

[_Tarski]

But whether you agree with Obama's socialism is irrelevant to the fact that he is a socialist. It isn't going to somehow make his proposed economic policies less socilistic, just because you don't have to agree with them.

Oh but I agree with his (and Buffett's) ideas over those of anyone on the right.
"Socialism" is another word to scare people with like "liberal". Progressive taxation and the simple avoidence of granting yet more tax breaks to the super wealthy is fine by me. And, if it somehow means that some poor families will get an extra couple hundred bucks next year then great. Let it be so!

[_dartagnan]

"Socialism" is another word to scare people with like "liberal".

Are you so stupid that you don't realize that socialism is a tried and failed system of government? It isn't a concoction by the republicans to "scare" people. It is taught to those in Middle-School. Maybe you fell asleep during those classes.

Progressive taxation and the simple avoidence of granting yet more tax breaks to the super wealthy is fine by me.

Because that makes it more "fair" right? Nevermind the fact that your government leaders will have less money to give to the poor. Just the fact that a billionaire only makes 60 million instead of 65 million in one year, that makes you feel better inside right? Its "fairness" right?

Buffet has not justified this reasoning other than to say he doesn't like that some people are born millionaires. So it is the government's job to make sure a father cannot give his son whatever he owns. The government has to take it away, not because it is interested in seizing the assets for itself, but rather, it is only interested in doing the honorable thing by teaching this young silver spoon-fed baby how to earn his own way in life.

Riiiiiiiiiiiight!!!!!! I wonder how many bridges Buffet has sold lately.

This kinda flies in the face of the fact that the same government is willing to dish out hundreds of millions to people who never earned it either.

And, if it somehow means that some poor families will get an extra couple hundred bucks next year then great. Let it be so!

Yes! Let's teach them to be self insufficient! Let's encourage them to believe they're doomed from birth, without opportunity, incapable of making their own honorable living without the white man's charity. Yes, that's the answer to racism!!!! Tarski nailed it. What a genius.

I mean a few hundred extra bucks a years is certainly going to be invested in their children's education, mutual funds, or paying off a debt, or back child support, or some other kind of repsonsible investment. I mean its not like their local businesses (Liquor stores, Gun shops, Dentist (Gold caps), Chrome rims, etc) are going to get that money.

No. Not at all. Because poor people are generally responsible people. They're just oppressed. If given more money, they know how to spend it respnsibly.

It seems I'm more in touch with reality here. Have any of you actually lived among the poor? Throwing money at the problem has never been the solution, and it never will be. I think you guys just like doing it because you've actually deluded yourselves into thinking it works. Maybe on some other planet, but not this one.

[_ludwigm]

I am sorry for You, americans.
Really.

You use words (socialism, democracy) without knowing the meaning. This is simple ignorance, which is in itself forgivable.
Everybody have the right to be stupid.

To build a thinking system, an ideology to that ignorance, to that stupidity, is a sin against humanity.
I am sorry.

.

.

.

.

I am sorry.

(ps. Tarski knows that words. )

[_antishock8]

1) There is no set definition for Socialism as an ideology that everyone would or could agree on. It is not a static system that is easily defined.

2) B.O. has pretty much defined the kind of Socialism he believes in through his associations with Marxist professors, hate preachers, and statements. "Spread the wealth" is the same thing as the Marxist tenet of "Redistribution of wealth."

3) American is already Socialist in that we have public schools, roads, megaprojects, civil and national defense, and a myriad of social services.

4) That doesn't mean that as Americans we like the degree to which we're obligated to contribute toward the above-stated Socialism. We all disagree as to what and as to how much we should be contributing toward our Socialist projects.

5) B.O. has made it very clear that he intends to increase, vastly, the amount of money he takes from Americans using the state apartus to pay for "social" projects and "social" services, which will most likely benefit people who don't produce much of anything anyway, because if they did, they'd be gainfully employed instead of looking to the government to create a social service sinacure in which they provide very little in relation to the money they receive, wrested away from people who are producers.

6) I don't have a problem with socialism (small 's') when it comes to infrastructure, public schools, and caring for the indigent... But using it as a means to raise the standard of living by "creating jobs" is ridiculous. Or paying for groups like ACORN to ensure your own political survival. Or paying for programs that infantalize people. NOPE. Don't like it.

[_Tarski]

1) There is no set definition for Socialism as an ideology that everyone would or could agree on. It is not a static system that is easily defined.

Not easily defined? OK,...
And yet you shout in absolute terms that Obama is a socialist.
BCSpace compares him to Stalin (WTF?).