- Sep 5, 2005
- 1,458
- 13
SMH @ The flagrancy...
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by wwsindicate,
- Start date
king beef
Banned
- Jul 31, 2009
- 2,078
- 14
més que un club
Sig check
We easily going to beat Almeria. Henry might get the nod to start today too. As for your thread, yea republicans suck. What are you doing tonight ma?
We easily going to beat Almeria. Henry might get the nod to start today too. As for your thread, yea republicans suck. What are you doing tonight ma?
- Aug 2, 2009
- 1,357
- 10
lmao but if he behaves in a socialist way (which he is), whats so bad about calling him that?
i mean, increased tax rates (both income and capital gains), move towards public healthcare, advocate of protectionist trade policies (see his state of the union address), reforming financial legislation to allow for the nationalization of companies if they pose a threat to the entire US economy, etc, etc. These are all socialist policies. Some people think that socialist policies are a bad thing, others think theyre a good way to bring the poor out of the bottom rung. Regardless of connotation, shouldnt you only be upset at it if it's a false statement?
Now, granted, hes not a COMPLETE socialist and he does in ways contrary to this label, but he still can be characterized as such in the same way that a woman that demands equal pay for other women can be referred to as a feminist based on her feminist traits. The point is that there is a spectrum to measure this stuff on.
With regard to the Republican scare intention behind this form of labeling, I think it should be ignored. So what if theyre trying to smear Obama's name. Its politics. It wasnt a problem when Bush would get ripped on for saying something dumb, why should it be with Obama when he does something socialist?
i mean, increased tax rates (both income and capital gains), move towards public healthcare, advocate of protectionist trade policies (see his state of the union address), reforming financial legislation to allow for the nationalization of companies if they pose a threat to the entire US economy, etc, etc. These are all socialist policies. Some people think that socialist policies are a bad thing, others think theyre a good way to bring the poor out of the bottom rung. Regardless of connotation, shouldnt you only be upset at it if it's a false statement?
Now, granted, hes not a COMPLETE socialist and he does in ways contrary to this label, but he still can be characterized as such in the same way that a woman that demands equal pay for other women can be referred to as a feminist based on her feminist traits. The point is that there is a spectrum to measure this stuff on.
With regard to the Republican scare intention behind this form of labeling, I think it should be ignored. So what if theyre trying to smear Obama's name. Its politics. It wasnt a problem when Bush would get ripped on for saying something dumb, why should it be with Obama when he does something socialist?
