Again, I ask, What is it about an Obama presidency that energizes these people? What is it about the "progressive" movement that gives them so much 'hope'? Why do they see Democrat majorities and a Democrat President as a win for their side?

"Revolution and Communism?"

You can have one or the other, but not both. If they had to choose, guess which one it would be.

That sign is not pro-Obama. They're accusing Obama of being a "better" imperialist. Did you actually go to their website?

I watched the slideshow, all he had were a couple stupid T-shirts, some piles of trash (shocking that an event with 250,000 people and no trash cans could result in litter), and pictures of a TV from outside a bar.

This might actually be weaker than the video yesterday..

Oyster

It's pretty simple. They're tired of the failures of Mr Bush and the Republicans who have been in control for 6 of the last 8 years. You'd think you'd be too.

With capitalism man takes advantage of man.
With communism, it is the other way around.

Obama's win is another example of Imperialism. The one theme I couldn't help but notice in the slide-show was the same attitude by most of the people there, and that is "someone else" should clean up the mess. Obama's purchased presidency will bring little change and benefit to America. It is up to Americans to look out for themselves now.

Ok, Kim. So what does this all mean to you?

Ok, RA. So what does this all mean to you?

RA, do you have a problem reading something something someone wrote and trying to figure out what something means to them? It should be obvious to you.

Don't worry, your government will soon spoon feed everything you need to know to you.

And furthermore. Something.

C'mon, folks. Give RA a break and plug yourselves into the program. It's all about being spoon-fed everything from here on out. Thinking for yourself is last week. Utopia is now.

Didn't history prove socialism and communism (big government for that matter, too) fails everything and caused such misery...what are these people thinking? Totally evil as far as I concern. I never thought we won the cold war, these people who think like this are like a virus that goes into remission and then comes out again when they think the time is right.

Is it jealousy, laziness to want to take from others, and have the gov't wipe your noise??

RA, do you have a problem reading something something someone wrote and trying to figure out what something means to them? It should be obvious to you.

Ya Tom, I have a real hard time understanding Kim's complicated ideas and logic. You got me there.

(that was sarcasm, just in case you didn't catch it)

What does it mean to me? It means that Kim, and folks like you, have apparently digested the thoughtless rhetoric about "socialism" that your party has been selling the past couple of months. You guys have taken it and run with it...without much critical thought at all.

I asked you what YOU mean when you use the word socialism yesterday, to try to get your perspective on the matter. That's all. Sure there are plenty of dictionary definitions of socialism, but I was asking you specifically what your rationale and understanding is. Of course, after you threw the term around and I asked you to elaborate, you had to run off because you didn't "feel" like discussing the subject. That's fine and all, but it sounds to me like you don't know what you're talking about. Sounds like you're just on here parroting Sean Hannity.

As for Kim, she posts this crap as if it actually means something. I don't know what. Are we supposed to be angry? Or scared? Who knows? So I asked her. Why not? It's an attempt to get beyond rhetoric, same thing I tried with you.

But that doesn't always work around here.

Don't worry, your government will soon spoon feed everything you need to know to you.

Very witty. It's only a matter of time before you have your own TV show.

Do you feel better now?

mag,

Liberals became liberals because they're losers in life and they want their country to lose too.

They're sick, sick people. Not all of them, but most.

"(that was sarcasm, just in case you didn't catch it)"

Awww...did I irritate you, you poor dear? Well, I'm happy to return the favor.

"What does it mean to me? It means that Kim, and folks like you, have apparently digested the thoughtless rhetoric about "socialism" that your party has been selling the past couple of months. You guys have taken it and run with it...without much critical thought at all."

Poppycock. Apparently, you've never heard of Saul Alinsky's methods, and you obviously don't know what you're talking about when it comes to socialism. Obama successfully sold it to the electorate in a non-threating way, and you're obviously one of the suckers. I recommend you get to a library and crack open quite a few history and economic books, and compare what you read to Obama's policies and campaign strategies. Stat. Although, I'm somehow sure you'll be incapable of making the connection...

"Very witty. It's only a matter of time before you have your own TV show."

Yep. I'm a blast at parties! I should probably try radio first, though, but thanks!

"Do you feel better now?"

Why, yes I do, thanks! Do you? Oh, and what does "feel better" mean to you?

Didn't history prove socialism and communism (big government for that matter, too) fails everything and caused such misery...what are these people thinking?

mag,

History proved that Marx's ideas were absolutely off base when it came to global economics. He predicted that capitalism would crash and burn, and, as the USSR proved, the opposite happened. Turns out that an economy that is all centrally planned is pretty damn uncompetitive and inefficient.

At the same time, history has also shown that the strongest economies are somewhat mixed...meaning that they have a mix of capitalist traits and centrally-planned traits. The main ideological battles today revolve around how much of each is ideal. In Europe they lean much more to the centrally-planned (read socialism) side, while in the US we lean more to the capitalist side (less regulation by the govt).

But make no mistake, we definitely have a mixed market economy. As the current financial crisis shows, a certain measure of regulation is definitely a good thing. The key is find out how to do it effectively and fairly.

One more thing, RA. My last comment was dripping with sarcasm, just in case you didn't catch it. ;-)

I recommend you get to a library and crack open quite a few history and economic books, and compare what you read to Obama's policies and campaign strategies.

Ya, I know where Obama tends to lean. But resorting to the scare tactic of shouting "socialist" is ridiculous. This is all a matter of degrees and you know it. The big debate here btw repubs and dems is how much of a role the government should play. But you know full well that we do not have a pure capitalist economy...and we did not under the conservative hero Reagan either. The differences between these guys is often a matter of rhetoric and slight changes to policies, IMO.

OMG!! I missed this little gem, everything else was so funny I skipped right over it...

"Sounds like you're just on here parroting Sean Hannity."

I can't stand Sean Hannity. Keep right on flailing, pal. I know you'd like to think you have ESP, but you don't. Like it or not and believe it or not, I can think for myself.

And RA, I didn't feel like discussing socialism with you because I knew you were only interested in picking a fight that would never end. You're just mad because I didn't take the bait and talk about the topic on your terms. Tough.

One more thing, RA. My last comment was dripping with sarcasm, just in case you didn't catch it. ;-)

Really?

Sorry, I still have not received the centrally-planned information transmission that helps me understand these kinds of things. It'll be here any minute. The information bureau told me to just keep waiting.

"But resorting to the scare tactic of shouting "socialist" is ridiculous."

Reciting a fact is not a scare tactic. It's who he is and you know it.

"But you know full well that we do not have a pure capitalist economy...and we did not under the conservative hero Reagan either."

Yeah, no kidding. But you're missing a few vital pieces of the puzzle. Capitalism is based on private ownership; socialism on public ownership. Capitalism thrives on small government and taxes; socialism on large government and taxes, typically progressive income-tax rates and estate taxes. Both advocated explicitly by...Karl Marx.

That's it in a nutshell. And it's as far as I'm going with that conversation.

Here's just one picture of Communists for Obama carrying their banner:

They're not communists for Obama. They're against Obama. Nice mindless fake talking points you got going today. FAIL.

"Sorry, I still have not received the centrally-planned information transmission that helps me understand these kinds of things. It'll be here any minute. The information bureau told me to just keep waiting."

ROTFLMAO! All snarkiness and sarcasm aside, that's pretty funny. I tip my cap to you on that one, sir. (:-D)

I can't stand Sean Hannity. Keep right on flailing, pal. I know you'd like to think you have ESP, but you don't. Like it or not and believe it or not, I can think for myself.

ESP? You mean I DON'T have ESP? Sorry if the Hannity thing was offensive, but I was just guessing since you didn't want to elaborate.

And RA, I didn't feel like discussing socialism with you because I knew you were only interested in picking a fight that would never end. You're just mad because I didn't take the bait and talk about the topic on your terms. Tough.

Ah, now YOU have ESP?

Actually, you seemed like a pretty smart guy, so I figured I would ask you what you think about the matter. But you said you didn't want to talk about it, which was fine. I wasn't picking a fight...I actually like to hear how people come to their conclusions.

But then today you came on here acting like a dick when I asked Kim what this scary communist stuff means to her. So what? Why not ask people what they think? Should we just all sit around passing bullshit rhetoric around the internet? Ya, that's interesting.

I still don't see why my question to you was such a problem.

holy crap. watch the tags!!!!

sorry about that one.

"Ah, now YOU have ESP?"

There's a big difference between claiming someone sounds like they're spewing Hannity talking points (which implies I like Hannity), and asking such a vague question about a topic as broad as socialism. As I said, socialists don't even agree with each other about what socialism is. And you accepted my answer to you, which was that I used the word in its general context to make the point of my comment.

Asking someone a vague question about how they feel about broad topics not only produces endless arguments and gotcha talking points, it tends to spiral way off topic.

And I'm betting you know it.

And I'm still laughing over the "...centrally-planned information transmission..." comment...

Capitalism is based on private ownership; socialism on public ownership. Capitalism thrives on small government and taxes; socialism on large government and taxes, typically progressive income-tax rates and estate taxes. Both advocated explicitly by...Karl Marx.

Indeed. But you acknowledge the fact that McCain was in no way going to get rid of the progressive tax...he was just tweaking it in another direction... but it's still a progressive income-tax plan Why isn't he being slapped with the "socialist" moniker by the right?

"Indeed. But you acknowledge the fact that McCain was in no way going to get rid of the progressive tax...he was just tweaking it in another direction... but it's still a progressive income-tax plan Why isn't he being slapped with the "socialist" moniker by the right?"

Exactly. Absolutely. Nail hit squarely on the head. Folks around here will vouch for the fact that I've been calling McCain "socialist-lite" here since he was nominated. I've said so on my blog as well. He was going to switch from a Republican to a Democrat before Jumpin' Jim Jeffords changed to an Independent.

These two clowns were the worst two candidates for POTUS in my lifetime, from my point-of-view. I didn't vote for McCain. I voted against Obama, whom I viewed as the lesser of two evils.

That's the first time in my life I've voted against someone and not for someone. You have to understand, I'm not a Republican. I'm a Conservative. With a capital C.

Asking someone a vague question about how they feel about broad topics not only produces endless arguments and gotcha talking points, it tends to spiral way off topic.

It can, you're right. But that's not what I was looking to do. Sometimes people use these HUGE terms...liberal, conservative, capitalist, socialist...in very different ways. People sometimes have very different personal understandings of such terms, and its actually interesting to ask them directly how they perceive them. At least for me.

And I'm still laughing over the "...centrally-planned information transmission..." comment...

Ya, well I'm still waiting for the bureau to clue me in as to what I think today...;)

That's the first time in my life I've voted against someone and not for someone. You have to understand, I'm not a Republican. I'm a Conservative. With a capital C.

Ya, having to do that is pretty bad.

Would that be a mainly fiscal capital C? Sounds like to me.

So are you in the Greenspan/Ryn camp? What economist(s) from the 20th century do you think had the right ideas? This stuff is pretty interesting to me.

These two clowns were the worst two candidates for POTUS in my lifetime, from my point-of-view. I didn't vote for McCain. I voted against Obama, whom I viewed as the lesser of two evils.

Holy shit! What about Dukakis!!?? ;)

...that was supposed to say Greenspan/Rynd.

My spelling is getting worse, that means it's time to go get lunch.

Nice talking to you Tom, sorry for coming across like a baiting, fight-picking, communist prick.

ha.

seeya.

"So are you in the Greenspan/Ryn camp? What economist(s) from the 20th century do you think had the right ideas? This stuff is pretty interesting to me."

Friedman.

"Holy shit! What about Dukakis!!?? ;)"

Allow me revise my statement by saying, these two clowns were the worst two candidates for POTUS at the same time in my lifetime, from my point-of-view.

I lost confidence in Greenspan when he claimed the markets failed. That's not true. Regulation of Freddie Mac/Fanny Mae failed.

Were you referring to Ayn Rand? She wasn't an economist, but I like her philosophies.

Ya, AYN RAND. I always want to put the y in her last name for some reason. Strange setup, that name. And ya, I knew she wasn't an economist...but her philosophies did have a strong economic current running through them. Greenspan, according to his book, was big into her.

And it seems like a lot of people have lost faith in him these days...

"And it seems like a lot of people have lost faith in him these days..."

Perhaps he misspoke, but I sincerely doubt it. It doesn't look good on an economist who believes in free markets to suddenly pull a 180 and mistakenly blame the markets. Ugh.

RA, it seems to me you're more like mantis (regular commenter here) than I originally thought. That's a compliment, by the way. I can respectfully disagree with mantis and still consider him an online friend.

Thanks Tom. Sorry about the initial confusion. It happens.

See you around on here. Time for me to study the GRE some more...the test is next Wednesday, damnit. Not my favorite of all time.

We'll have to talk econ more in the near future...it's something that I have a lot of interest in, but could be a lot more well-versed in. I study anthropology (finishing my MA in cultural anth right now), which definitely gets into economics, but often from a very different perspective. Anth is more about looking from the bottom up, while macro-economic theory is the reverse, as you well know.

So I have been doing a lot more reading on econ theory/history lately. Not enough though. There is always SO much more to learn.

It's all super interesting stuff. Sometimes very contradictory, but life would be boring if everything agreed, right?

Seeya.

Capitalism is based on private ownership; socialism on public ownership.

So the politicians who supported the $700 billion bail-out are socialists, right? (I would honestly say so; and I would take this as evidence that things that are 'socialist' are necessary features of a functioning free market society.)

Tom is right, McCain saw clearly the mileage Obama was getting out of the "tax the rich" policy and simply smoothed it out a little. I don't blame him though. McCain was just McCain; a weak candidate who few of us ever liked much. I blame the American electorate for the instant case of the drools they got at the prospect of punishing "the rich". McCain's idea of lowering everyone's taxes a bit rather than that abomination Obama came up with that fed the "evil-rich" mentality was certainly more palatable.

The fact is, too many people are feeding at the government trough. We are doomed for just more of the same. The dependency is too far entrenched and too deep to ever get out of it. Conservatism isn't dead, but it's been beaten to a bloody pulp.

And I love it when people suggest the virtuousness of European economics and their terrific social programs. We should be more like them. Never mind that every single one of them have lower corporate tax rates than the US, which is about the only reason they stay afloat under the burden, aside from their economy being so closely tied to ours; when we do well, they do well. It's no accident that the Europeans are implementing 'bail-out' packages too right now.

Why I even had some European jerk cuss me out on line the other day because our economy was "dragging them down".

No, conservatism isn't dead. It's just that no one seems to understand it anymore in their drug induced state.

Wow, did this ever get off topic. I even forgot what post I was commenting under.

So the politicians who supported the $700 billion bail-out are socialists, right?

The worst kind.

Dow down 10% in the two years since the wingnuts elected the lightbringer. Guess if it is the ibestor class or the communists that have confidence in what the Obama will bring us.

We should all thank God for the opportunity that Obama will give us. In two years we can look forward to a collapsed economy, make work jobs, a budget that is busted, and the dhimmies taxing the air.

All hail the annointed one. All hail the man that will solve each and every problem. All hail Obama.

Lets see him explain the disaster he will create two years hence.

Any comparison to mantis is not a compliment. Would you rather be a stupid fool or an ignorant one?

Ever read The Great Gatsby? This entire post reminds me of the book (and the character).

Here's just ONE picture of communists supporting Obama that I happen to be carrying around with me today... and never mind that these particular communists are actually protesting AGAINST Obama...

Zelsdorf!

Such horrible choices...

"Most of the people going to the event were young or middle aged adults."

That's because many of them were shuttled in from Northwestern University. I teach on campus, and the place was a ghost-town by 4pm.

No, better to be a reactionary who signs his/her blog comments with a Dungeons & Dragons handle.

Trogdor!!!! I mean... Zelsdorf!!!!