The discussion revolves around the characterization of Barack Obama as either a socialist or a capitalist. Participants explore various perspectives on political labels, the implications of socialism in the context of U.S. politics, and the reactions of the public to these labels. The conversation touches on political philosophy, public perception, and the irony of social program beneficiaries criticizing socialism.
Participants do not reach a consensus on whether Obama is a socialist or a capitalist. Multiple competing views remain, with some asserting he is liberal, others questioning the validity of the socialist label, and some pointing out the irony in public perceptions of socialism.
Participants express various assumptions about the definitions of socialism and liberalism, and the discussion reflects a range of perspectives on political ideology without resolving the complexities involved.
I didn't say they were synonomous, but they certainly are on the same side of the spectrum.GeorginaS said:One more edit: "liberal" is not a synonym for "socialist"
Obama has a filibuster-proof majority (for another year, anyway) and W never did. If Obama can't get the legislation he wants passed with a filibuster proof majority, it 'ain't the GOP's fault: Obama has a serious leadership problem with his own party!turbo-1 said:The truth is that without some cooperation from Congress, he cannot fix ANY problem that requires legislative action, and the GOP in Congress is in lock-step trying to stop any initiatives that he might favor, in order to hand him losses. The GOP pretty much had free rein during W's administration, and they could have reformed banking, monetary policy, health-care, etc, and chose not to do any of that.
Please. With a filibuster proof majority, what reason does the democratic majority have for listening to the GOP? All politicians like to talk about bi-partisanship, but none really mean it. And when the party in power can't get what they want passed, they "throw a tantrum" and whine about lack of cooperation from the other party.Now that hard choices have to be made, instead of coming up with new ideas, negotiations, and compromise, they throw tantrums instead of cooperating and crafting legislation.
Me? That's you creating the false dichotomy, Ivan. You putting words in peoples' mouths, claiming there are people (none here...) labeling Obama a socialist. You're creating a strawman.Ivan Seeking said:No, and no. You see, Russ, you are trying to put everyone into little boxes again.
Since you consider yourself to be in the center, that is unsurprising.He has been President for a year, and I see someone who has governed from the middle.
...then why are you creating them, Ivan?Try understanding the point before passing judgment. Little boxes, Russ, little boxes - they don't exist.
No, I'm not familiar with any particular claim. Perhaps you could cite your claim, then we can analyze the particular citation. Otherwise, you've just created a purposely argumentative thread.Many here are surely familiar with the claims that Obama is a closet socialist.