PDA

View Full Version : Glenn Beck on Socialism. Sarah Palin was the most Socialist of the 2008 candidates??



Wei Wu Wei
10-02-2010, 11:54 PM
Hahaha this is fantastic.

Well everyone loves to talk about socialism as if it's something that's well known, and this video featuring Glenn Beck demonstrates the problem with this.

As you can see, Glenn Beck is very, very loose with the term "Socialist", to which he applies to many programs and even countries that the Actual Socialist Vising The Program states outright are not socialist things.

Beck emphasizes how important it is to talk to real socialists if this is something America is dealing with today, and this socialist seems to disagree fundamentally on what socialism is. Beck of course scoffs it off with clownish behavior, funny faces and jokes, but the guest is very accurate.

The best point:

Of the 4 candidates on the ballot for the 2008 Presidential /Vice Presidential election, Sarah Palin was the most socialist.

Why? Because as Governor, she decided that oil profits would be collectively owned by the people of Alaska, and passed legislation that took money from oil companies and distributed it among the masses.

Holy shit that's a slam dunk. Beck is literally speechless so he makes funny faces.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gSqy3BmMBGs


The problem I see here is that not only are the two sides of debate not seeing things differently, they are using the same words to signify extremely different things, so when a Tea Party person talks about Socialism and an actual Socialist talks about Socialism, they are talking about VERY different things.

Zathras
10-02-2010, 11:59 PM
http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2010/9/13/d2a250b3-fa38-4c74-a021-47f1b2aa46a9.gif

Fixed to reflect the truth, not the drug addled ramblings of a waste of skin loser.

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 12:00 AM
Case in point -

Tea Party:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4ixTwAu_jSE/0.jpg

Socialists:

http://libertycentral.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/socialists4.jpg



Tea Party people seem to think Obama is a Socialist or is "the most socialist" of recent history, while self-described socialists don't consider Obama socialistic at all. Why this disconnect? Is it fair for socialists to define what "conservative" means?

Zathras
10-03-2010, 12:01 AM
more meaningless bullshit

as usual.

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 12:28 AM
You'll notice the guest brings up an interesting point, again to which is only met by laughter - the United States is ruled by the two most capitalist political parties on the planet.

This can be verified, examine other countries and find any party holding significant power (not just a single seat in a packed legislature) that's more pro-capitalism than the Republicans or the Democrats.

Tea Party folk love to make Democrats look far left, borderning on Socialism, while in reality they are also far right, just not as extremely far right as Republicans. Someone must be wrong, it seems there's a big disconnect between perception and reality. As my other thread suggests, the American public doesn't seem to be aware of our own state as a society.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=32351

Rockntractor
10-03-2010, 12:37 AM
You'll notice the guest brings up an interesting point, again to which is only met by laughter - the United States is ruled by the two most capitalist political parties on the planet.

This can be verified, examine other countries and find any party holding significant power (not just a single seat in a packed legislature) that's more pro-capitalism than the Republicans or the Democrats.

Tea Party folk love to make Democrats look far left, borderning on Socialism, while in reality they are also far right, just not as extremely far right as Republicans. Someone must be wrong, it seems there's a big disconnect between perception and reality. As my other thread suggests, the American public doesn't seem to be aware of our own state as a society.

http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/showthread.php?t=32351

Chavez would welcome you with open arms, go to him Wei, you know you want too!

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 12:46 AM
Glenn Beck's entire shtick is based on a few things:

1. America is on the road to Socialism.
2. Socialism is evil and means taking your freedoms or your stuff away.
3. Democrats lean far far left,and are helping push America towards Socialism.

This actual self-described Socialist undermines each of these points. That wouldn't be such a big deal but Glenn Beck and the right-wing echo chamber that includes Fox News, talk radio, and publications such as National Review are the ideological kindling for the Tea Party rage. The entire Tea Party shtick is based on the exact same misconceptions, and Beck was always very present with the Tea Party and promoted them often.

The actual socialists are trying to tell you that these are all misconceptions about socialism. It undermines the entire movement.

Rockntractor
10-03-2010, 12:54 AM
Glenn Beck's entire shtick is based on a few things:

1. America is on the road to Socialism.
2. Socialism is evil and means taking your freedoms or your stuff away.
3. Democrats lean far far left,and are helping push America towards Socialism.

This actual self-described Socialist undermines each of these points. That wouldn't be such a big deal but Glenn Beck and the right-wing echo chamber that includes Fox News, talk radio, and publications such as National Review are the ideological kindling for the Tea Party rage. The entire Tea Party shtick is based on the exact same misconceptions, and Beck was always very present with the Tea Party and promoted them often.

The actual socialists are trying to tell you that these are all misconceptions about socialism. It undermines the entire movement.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/fart4.jpg?t=1286081565

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 01:04 AM
I really think people don't even understand what socialism is or where we are as a country today. Another example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQk91rlldKk

Cavuto doesn't even know what to call it, and incorrectly calls it a type of government. The liberal dude calls out that we are WAY off to the right, not even close to Socialism and everyone starts yelling.

The lady totally gets it wrong claiming that socialists want to take away your house or car.

There's no examples of conservatives speaking about socialism in a real way rather than just laughing it off or arguing against straw men.

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 01:08 AM
Another example: A conservative commentator is asked directly and very simply: what's wrong with a little socialism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd-7wwUgmUg

He has NO ANSWER! He stumbles over his words, says the constitution and democracy, which is ridiculous. Socialism is MORE democratic, it's the democratization of the workplace! Conservatives are unable to talk about this in a sensible way, totally incapable.

After stumbling over his words he says "I can't believe you even asked that question!" as if we aren't supposed to ask the basic questions about what socialism is or why it's bad, but we are supposed to use it as a boogyman for every single argument that's out there. Silly.

Rockntractor
10-03-2010, 01:14 AM
Another example: A conservative commentator is asked directly and very simply: what's wrong with a little socialism?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd-7wwUgmUg

He has NO ANSWER! He stumbles over his words, says the constitution and democracy, which is ridiculous. Socialism is MORE democratic, it's the democratization of the workplace! Conservatives are unable to talk about this in a sensible way, totally incapable.

After stumbling over his words he says "I can't believe you even asked that question!" as if we aren't supposed to ask the basic questions about what socialism is or why it's bad, but we are supposed to use it as a boogyman for every single argument that's out there. Silly.
Another example
http://www.thecaptainsmemos.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/fart.jpg

Zathras
10-03-2010, 02:26 AM
nothing anyone here thinks is relevant or intelligent

As usual.

m00
10-03-2010, 09:26 AM
Why? Because as Governor, she decided that oil profits would be collectively owned by the people of Alaska, and passed legislation that took money from oil companies and distributed it among the masses.

This isn't socialism. The state of Alaska created a precondition for Oil Companies wanting to operate there, to compensate residents for using Alaskan land. Instead of money going to the state, it goes to the people... note that everyone in Alaska gets a check for the same amount. If this were Socialism, only some people would get the check, or it would go into some sort of welfare program.

asdf2231
10-03-2010, 11:35 AM
Case in point -

Tea Party:

http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4ixTwAu_jSE/0.jpg

Socialists:

http://libertycentral.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/socialists4.jpg



Tea Party people seem to think Obama is a Socialist or is "the most socialist" of recent history, while self-described socialists don't consider Obama socialistic at all. Why this disconnect? Is it fair for socialists to define what "conservative" means?

Case in point:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/199/496/15_Photos_From_the_OneNation_Rally_Youll_Never_See _In_Legacy_Media.html

Your logic sucks. Laughably so.

(On Edit)

Also you people are fucking slobs.

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 01:23 PM
Why? Because as Governor, she decided that oil profits would be collectively owned by the people of Alaska, and passed legislation that took money from oil companies and distributed it among the masses.

This isn't socialism. The state of Alaska created a precondition for Oil Companies wanting to operate there, to compensate residents for using Alaskan land. Instead of money going to the state,

Lol finally we are getting more nuanced definitions of socialism.


it goes to the people... note that everyone in Alaska gets a check for the same amount. If this were Socialism, only some people would get the check, or it would go into some sort of welfare program.

No that's entirely socialistic actually. Welfare programs are not socialism. public ownership of profits and assets redistributed to the masses who demand some partial claim over the means of oil production (including land). This is socialism.

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 01:26 PM
Case in point:
http://beforeitsnews.com/story/199/496/15_Photos_From_the_OneNation_Rally_Youll_Never_See _In_Legacy_Media.html

Your logic sucks. Laughably so.

(On Edit)

Also you people are fucking slobs.

I don't see what's wrong with my logic, your link illustrates exactly what I mean.

There ARE actual socialists, plenty of them who are very outspoken and politically active.

Rather than just talking about them, we can tlak TO them, and see how they feel.

From the links I've posted you can see that right-wing commentators are totally disconnected and arne't even tlaking about the same thing when talking about socialism.

Rockntractor
10-03-2010, 01:29 PM
we can tlak TO them, and see how they feel.

From the links I've posted you can see that right-wing commentators are totally disconnected and arne't even tlaking about the same thing when talking about socialism.
Your crap is not even readable today, what are you on?

Apache
10-03-2010, 01:30 PM
I don't see what's wrong with my logic, your link illustrates exactly what I mean.

There ARE actual socialists, plenty of them who are very outspoken and politically active.

Rather than just talking about them, we can tlak TO them, and see how they feel.

From the links I've posted you can see that right-wing commentators are totally disconnected and arne't even tlaking about the same thing when talking about socialism.

Go sell stupid somewhere else.....

m00
10-03-2010, 07:53 PM
No that's entirely socialistic actually. Welfare programs are not socialism. public ownership of profits and assets redistributed to the masses who demand some partial claim over the means of oil production (including land). This is socialism.

No, socialism is government ownership of profits and assets, which are supposedly held in a trust for the people, and then "distributed fairly" by government to the people. Collective ownership isn't inherently socialism by itself. If it were, then one could simply say "Democracy is Socialism, because the People collectively own the government." To consider socialism to mean that renders the definition meaningless. So clearly there is a bit more going on with socialism than collective ownership.

I guess your little gotcha game didn't work, eh?

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 08:44 PM
No, socialism is government ownership of profits and assets, which are supposedly held in a trust for the people, and then "distributed fairly" by government to the people. Collective ownership isn't inherently socialism by itself.

Actually it sort of is. What are you describing is more specific ways this has been implimented. Collective ownership doesn't necessarily mean the government has to be the owner, there are such a thing as business cooperatives.


If it were, then one could simply say "Democracy is Socialism, because the People collectively own the government."

Yes this is precisely what it means. Socialism is to the economy was Democracy is to the government.

In our current system, small businesses are run like dictatorships, with one person dictating how it is run, claiming ownership over all production, and dealing out pay to workers who run the production. Large businesses are run similarly, but with a more complex management structure so it's more similar to an oligarchy.

Socialism is the Democratization of the Workplace. Giving the people who work the land and run the machines and perform the labor a means of self-actualization in their own workplace.


To consider socialism to mean that renders the definition meaningless. So clearly there is a bit more going on with socialism than collective ownership.

Sarah Palin's move with the oil in Alaska is very similar to what has been done in Venezuela. Like it or not, with that move, she became a pretty hard advocate for socialism.

PoliCon
10-03-2010, 09:00 PM
Business cooperatives are not socialist. They cannot be because socialism is an economic SYSTEM. Get it? If two people share expenses - that's a far cry from the government coming in and using the threat of force to take money from one person to pay the bills of another person. THAT is socialism. PLEASE get perspective. :rolleyes:

Rockntractor
10-03-2010, 09:18 PM
Business cooperatives are not socialist. They cannot be because socialism is an economic SYSTEM. Get it? If two people share expenses - that's a far cry from the government coming in and using the threat of force to take money from one person to pay the bills of another person. THAT is socialism. PLEASE get perspective. :rolleyes:
Polican?:confused:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/puzzled.jpg?t=1286154880

PoliCon
10-03-2010, 09:23 PM
Polican?:confused:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/puzzled.jpg?t=1286154880

just peeking in. :)

Wei Wu Wei
10-03-2010, 10:02 PM
Business cooperatives are not socialist. They cannot be because socialism is an economic SYSTEM. Get it?

It's socialist in the sense that the workers collectively own the company.


If two people share expenses - that's a far cry from the government coming in and using the threat of force to take money from one person to pay the bills of another person. THAT is socialism. PLEASE get perspective. :rolleyes:

The Government....taking money from one private entity....and "spreads the wealth around" to all the other people? You...mean....like....Sarah....Palin...?

Oil Profits buddy.

m00
10-03-2010, 10:31 PM
Actually it sort of is. What are you describing is more specific ways this has been implimented. Collective ownership doesn't necessarily mean the government has to be the owner, there are such a thing as business cooperatives.

A co-op is not necessarily a socialist entity. It *can* be, but that's like saying a car can be painted red, therefore all things painted red are cars. This is essentially your argument.


Yes this is precisely what it means. Socialism is to the economy was Democracy is to the government.

lol, so your definition of "socialism" is the form of government written in the constitution in the 18th century. Because "democracy" = socialism. That's your argument.


In our current system, small businesses are run like dictatorships, with one person dictating how it is run, claiming ownership over all production, and dealing out pay to workers who run the production. Large businesses are run similarly, but with a more complex management structure so it's more similar to an oligarchy.

Do you...have a job? Seriously, this is what you think?

Constitutionally Speaking
10-04-2010, 05:49 AM
Wei,


Your statement about private property is flat out wrong.

You cannot have a business, I could not have MY business in your socialist system.


We tried this system here in the Colonies when we first landed in America. It nearly led to starvation. Only when the concepts of private property and individual industry was allowed did we begin to thrive.

PoliCon
10-17-2010, 09:24 PM
It's socialist in the sense that the workers collectively own the company.

DUMBASS - when you have multiple people as owners of a company - it's called a PARTNERSHIP. Do all of the employee's collect the exact same wage no matter who job they do? :rolleyes: