These are showing up in LA!..

Looks like more all over the Place?...

http://images.google.com/images?q=obama%20joker&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wi 

Why so serious?! you could let me run all aspects of your life instead!

Love it, though only because I doubt 50% of the people who think it is true can even define "Socialism" (or even one branch of it for that matter).

That's OK, 99% of Idi Amin Jr.'s supporters think that the Soviet Union was actually a people's paradise.

Just ignore those pesky gulags...

^6

Not really. The ones who identify as "Socialist" will tell you that the Soviet Union was not Socialist and was not remotely close to ideal. The Animal Farm scenario played out fairly well over there and they recognize that.

See this is the problem - both sides get so caught up in assigning labels and stereotypes to the opposition that they don't realize their candidates regularly screw us all (supporters and opposition alike) and reneg on their promises. The labels and stereotypes might provide for some humor and a few jabs here and there, but in the end when we're electing Presidents they're all out to get theirs and to help their friends. Thats it, no matter what party affiliation they have. The only difference between the two parties is what small cadre they decide to direct all the $ to.

7. Author: Chilly9321 Date: 08/05/2009 10:24 PM Reply

^6

Not really. The ones who identify as "Socialist" will tell you that the Soviet Union was not Socialist and was not remotely close to ideal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regardless, it still ends up the same. Orwell was a devotee to the notion of Democratic Socialism, and he was the one who wrote 1984 - about a Democratic Socialist government gone wrong (echoing the downfall of the Soviet Union).

You can play games with name, or deal with degrees of wrongheadedness, the result is still the same. Socialism and Communism in all its forms deals with one basic fact: all things derive from government. Wealth is distributed by the government, and so on, and so on.

This is in start contrast to the Founding Fathers - and John Locke, who was their main inspiration - that wealth was property, and all Men have the inalienable right to their property. Ergo, government is not the source for wealth, but individuals are.

That's why when Europe took to Socialism post-WWII, they ended up being second-rate economic and military powers.

So, you can argue what degree of stupid is stupid all day long, and try to define failures until the cows come home. A turd is a turd no matter what kind of name you give it.

^

Not debating that at all, just correcting the point about what Socialism is/ the SU was.

The two economic systems have different goals; a supporter of one is almost certainly going to be opposed to the other and view it as flawed. And to a degree, both require an element of honesty and predictability to run according to theory. And that is basically a fantasy, which is why both systems have a tendency to benefit those who can manipulate them. It isn't as if we're a pure Capitalist society - we have hundreds of thousands of restrictions on the market, subsidies, etc.