If a business owner has a good year and he gives his employees a bonus, is that socialism? According to some people here, that would be.
How about if a governor collects high taxes from a certain industry and distributes that to the states citizens, is that socialism?
I'm always amused by those who come on this site and throw the term socialist in regard to Obama. Socialism is more than a drive by term, or that Obama is a socialist is more than a catch phrase. I really haven't seen any of those who claim this show any knowledge of economics and provide any explanations of policies that support socialism. If they truly believe this, then I'd like to see several paragraphs supporting that premise.
When you make statements like, "Things are better when we spread the wealth around" don't be surprised in the event that Socialism is mentioned.
Then there's the "you didn't build that" when he mocked business owners for thinking they were so "smart" they built a business up from nothing. No matter how smart an individual considers themselves to be and how much evidence backs them up, the government is always smarter. Their success wouldn't be possible without that road or bridge! Why then do many businesses at end of a road or adjacent to a bridge go belly up? He stopped short of explaining that part.
Obama is a central planner and believes that prosperity flows from government and he's got it exactly backwards. Government consumes prosperity.
Once again, the point flies way over your head. You are out of your depth in this debate.
X2...right on, keller.
Neither alloak's minimal & faint attempt at answering the original question cuts water. I will give him the credit in that he seems to have made a light attempt. On the other hand, the troll's use of cut & pastes as well as redundant, repeated, and regurgitated posts is nothing more than a complete failure to show any understanding of the topic or to be able to articulate an explanation.
Talk about redundant trolling.
His every response repeats this "over your head" garbage like a rubber stamp. No effort to refute, converse, or debate in any way. Just the same rubber stamp which adds nothing, nor has a thing to do with the thread topic.
Define socialism?
Careful son, your public school education (or lack of an education) is showing again.If you can't define the modern idiom of socialism explaining it to you would be a useless effort.
Of course that does explain why you can't see obama's socialist ideology.
Why don't you tell us which of Obama's Socialist ideologies have been implemented. You really are looking like less a mule and more of an ass.
I'm always amused by those who come on this site and throw the term socialist in regard to Obama. Socialism is more than a drive by term, or that Obama is a socialist is more than a catch phrase. I really haven't seen any of those who claim this show any knowledge of economics and provide any explanations of policies that support socialism. If they truly believe this, then I'd like to see several paragraphs supporting that premise.
When you make statements like, "Things are better when we spread the wealth around" don't be surprised in the event that Socialism is mentioned.
Then there's the "you didn't build that" when he mocked business owners for thinking they were so "smart" they built a business up from nothing. No matter how smart an individual considers themselves to be and how much evidence backs them up, the government is always smarter. Their success wouldn't be possible without that road or bridge! Why then do many businesses at end of a road or adjacent to a bridge go belly up? He stopped short of explaining that part.
Obama is a central planner and believes that prosperity flows from government and he's got it exactly backwards. Government consumes prosperity.
Once again, the point flies way over your head. You are out of your depth in this debate.
X2...right on, keller.
Neither alloak's minimal & faint attempt at answering the original question cuts water. I will give him the credit in that he seems to have made a light attempt. On the other hand, the troll's use of cut & pastes as well as redundant, repeated, and regurgitated posts is nothing more than a complete failure to show any understanding of the topic or to be able to articulate an explanation.
Talk about redundant trolling.
His every response repeats this "over your head" garbage like a rubber stamp. No effort to refute, converse, or debate in any way. Just the same rubber stamp which adds nothing, nor has a thing to do with the thread topic.
Then why don't you respond to questions without making snarky pointless comments? Why don't you answer questions instead of evading them?
People here have been calling Obama a socialist. Since I don't see it that way, I asked for folks definition of socialism. Then we can see where we differ. The responses I got were comments about my education, some guy coming in from nowhere with a comment tha I should define it, even though he had no previous comments in this thread, and you basically ignoring.
Now who is trying to debate this and who won't?
I'm always amused by those who come on this site and throw the term socialist in regard to Obama. Socialism is more than a drive by term, or that Obama is a socialist is more than a catch phrase. I really haven't seen any of those who claim this show any knowledge of economics and provide any explanations of policies that support socialism. If they truly believe this, then I'd like to see several paragraphs supporting that premise.
When you make statements like, "Things are better when we spread the wealth around" don't be surprised in the event that Socialism is mentioned.
Then there's the "you didn't build that" when he mocked business owners for thinking they were so "smart" they built a business up from nothing. No matter how smart an individual considers themselves to be and how much evidence backs them up, the government is always smarter. Their success wouldn't be possible without that road or bridge! Why then do many businesses at end of a road or adjacent to a bridge go belly up? He stopped short of explaining that part.
Obama is a central planner and believes that prosperity flows from government and he's got it exactly backwards. Government consumes prosperity.
Once again, the point flies way over your head. You are out of your depth in this debate.
X2...right on, keller.
Neither alloak's minimal & faint attempt at answering the original question cuts water. I will give him the credit in that he seems to have made a light attempt. On the other hand, the troll's use of cut & pastes as well as redundant, repeated, and regurgitated posts is nothing more than a complete failure to show any understanding of the topic or to be able to articulate an explanation.
Talk about redundant trolling.
His every response repeats this "over your head" garbage like a rubber stamp. No effort to refute, converse, or debate in any way. Just the same rubber stamp which adds nothing, nor has a thing to do with the thread topic.
Then why don't you respond to questions without making snarky pointless comments? Why don't you answer questions instead of evading them?
People here have been calling Obama a socialist. Since I don't see it that way, I asked for folks definition of socialism. Then we can see where we differ. The responses I got were comments about my education, some guy coming in from nowhere with a comment tha I should define it, even though he had no previous comments in this thread, and you basically ignoring.
Now who is trying to debate this and who won't?
You are correct. They make broad based statements with paint brush wording but when called out for it, there is little or no support forthcoming to refute their posts. If one cuts to the chase, their responses are nothing more than dogmatic statements. It is not worth asking anymore for detail support, because 1) it does not fit the policies and ideas of Obama from an economic model or standpoint and 2) they have shown no propensity to delve deeper other than to speak in terms of Republican bumper sticker terminology.
[Edited on 2/7/2015 by MartinD28]
Then why don't you respond to questions without making snarky pointless comments? Why don't you answer questions instead of evading them?
That's easy. I don't come here to answer questions. Is there a forum rule that mandates all questions get an answer? Please. Just like most everyone, I'll answer at times but any failure to do so doesn't mean a thing.
In addition, I was never in a formal debate setting where each side asked the opponent questions -- We made statements.
I make posts of all kinds.....Joking, serious, snarky and everything in between. I'm sure you're well aware that I'm FAR from the only poster who employs snarky comments in their posting style. One fact never waivers however, I VERY rarely if ever attack of degrade another poster personally. Surefire way to display the mentality of an immature loser who probably shouldn't be here.
Bottom line, I have fun here and that's the reason I sign on.
Then why don't you respond to questions without making snarky pointless comments? Why don't you answer questions instead of evading them?
That's easy. I don't come here to answer questions. Is there a forum rule that mandates all questions get an answer? Please. Just like most everyone, I'll answer at times but any failure to do so doesn't mean a thing.
In addition, I was never in a formal debate setting where each side asked the opponent questions -- We made statements.
I make posts of all kinds.....Joking, serious, snarky and everything in between. I'm sure you're well aware that I'm FAR from the only poster who employs snarky comments in their posting style. One fact never waivers however, I VERY rarely if ever attack of degrade another poster personally. Surefire way to display the mentality of an immature loser who probably shouldn't be here.
Bottom line, I have fun here and that's the reason I sign on.
Got it. You are the class clown. You aren't here for any reason. BTW, that was personal attack. Way to contradict yourself again.
