Explain how Obama doesn't have socialistic tendancies?  Obama believes that money should be taken from one individual and be given to another for no other reason than his belief that one person needs it less than another.

If that isn't socialism in action, how do you define it?

to which hoover do you refer? 

vladimar hoover?  karl hoover? 

certainly not herbert c hoover who castigated his opponent, al smith, in a speech during the 1928 campaign as follows:

 "There has been revived in this campaign, however, a series of proposals which, if adopted, would be a long step towards the abandonment of our American system and a surrender to the destructive operation of governmental conduct of commercial business. Because the country is faced with difficulty and doubt over certain national problems — that is prohibition, farm relief and electrical power — our opponents propose that we must thrust government a long way into the businesses which give rise to these problems. In effect they abandon the tenets of their own party and turn to State socialism."

and...

"We are confronted with a huge program of government in business . . . based on principles destructive of its [the "American system's"] very foundations." 

compared to al smith, fdr was a commisar who also opposed prohibition, favored public utilities (like the tva) and had no problem helping farmers back when farmers weren't corporate agribiz execs collecting subsidies. 

luckily hoover lost the 1932 election to fdr who imposed all those unfair regulations that hadda be dismantled in order to permit wall street enough freedom to bankrupt the country again a lil less than 80 years afterwards.

That's idoitic. No I Wouldn't. If I think his policies hurt this country horrible, why would I vote for some whome agrees with him 95% of the time? Besides I bet Castro and Bush hate freedom equally. They probably have more in common the Bush and Obama.  I vote on Issues. Which policy is best for working towards the fairytale America I was taught growing up.

I assume your only talking about economics and not things like Americans tortured, and one case of which being on American soil.  How about appointing either inpet or foxes in the hen house to posts like the Epa for example. I will say I agree,  and apolgise for generalising most probelms on Bush's inept Leadership. It also the fault of His admistration, and the congress.  The democrats aren't blame free, but Republicans have hurt us much more in the past 30 years. To be clear, I am also not a fan of either of the Clintons. Or my home states Kerry either for that matter.

Hey thats fine if you take it that way. The devil's advocate is republicans are the same as a facist party from Germany, Italy, or Spain. They Torture, Declare endless wars, Fear monger, Spy on its own citizens. Unprecedently called for the military to be used on home soil  permanatly, They have given the government away to corporations. Beginning with Nixon they have been a win at all costs party, no matter who the hurt.

The principle of Democracy is the ability to change into any ship and defy labels like Socialism and Facism. It can take from any idea put out there with out truly being that philosophy.

Socialism is how Cuba, The USSR, and Venezula govern for example. Our Tax system is progressive and not flat, becuase we are all contributing to our society. To the well being of our country. If Republican's don't believe in that, they can start lobbying against they want, Like the insane amount of bases we have around the world, our large standing army pre-9/11, The Rich and Corporations can start actually paying taxes, considering most of them do not and are rich enough to get away with it. Hell I am fairly sure if the just paid taxes they would see the go down.  If we had a flat tax, then the poor would pay most of their income so we can continue to have a base in germany, while a corporation  and some rich guy still wouldn't be paying their taxes because they can get away with it,  while the poor guy is paying for the rich guys policies.

I could swear it was Obama who said he wanted to do exactly this - create a national police force, the domestic equivalent of the US Military.

And apparently you're another of the folks suckered into the myth that corporations pay taxes - they absolutely don't, they simply collect them from you and me in the form of higher prices & pass them on to the IRS.

I was refering to the Army brigade being assigned to NorthCOM, and the legal justification for said brigade to quell civil unrest. Nevermind The Mercenaries hired after hurricanes now a days.

For almost my entire life, that has been the only choice - the lesser of 2 evils.  This year is not new in that respect.

See you on the 3rd party slate.

So you are equating socialists with Facists?  Interesting.  I would not go so far, but whatever floats your boat.

The Hoover I push around my house. 

Hoover wasn't a bad guy.  In fact, he was all about personal responsibility until the great depression, then he made it impossible for Americans to live up to his personal responsibility standards.

I should have been more specific in comparing Hoover to Obama.  Hoover wasn't an Obama socialist, but he certainly taxed like one.

Specifically Hoover economic policies like the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930, tax increases in 1932.   The Revenue Act, the estate tax, he raised the income tax, estate taxes were doubled, corporate taxes went up 15% and the list goes on and on.

Who does that sound like?  Give me an O!

Hoover's single mindedness with raising taxes DESPITE the slowing economy.  Does that sound familiar?  He also did bone headed things (hindsight is 20/20 I know) like stop war reparations to us from our allies....money we NEEDED.  That smacks of something Obama would do to make us "better liked" in the world.

One of the things I remember best from studying Hoover?  How even after all these tax increases he said people shouldn't suffer from hunger and the elements, BUT caring for them is a "local and voluntary responsibility." 

I can get behind that idea as long as the fed gov isn't putting its hand in my pocket promising "change" but at the end of the day the money it took may as well never existed as far as making my life better.  The idea of self reliance is what the founding fathers intended..for states to take care of their own.  But Hoover said that kind of thing before AND AFTER he taxed people into the poor house.

Obama is the same kind of guy.  He is gonna tax us silly and when things don't go well, and history has shown taxing when the economy is slowing leads to things not going well, he is gonna say.."WHAT?"

Except that real-life socialists and communists in Europe actually SUPPORT Obama, whereas real-life fascists, like the German neo-Nazis and American white supremacists (and Aab nationalists) hate and despise Bush and McCain.

So calling Bush a "fascist" is stretching the term "fascist" to include not only fascists but also people with views opposed to fascism and hated by fascists.

However, calling Obama a "socialist", a term that I personally don't recognise as an insult, doesn't require a change of the definition of "socialist".

(Why is it that liberals want to use the word "fascist" for anyone they oppose, even if they share such opposition with white supremacists, nationalists, and neo-Nazis?)

Republicans torture?

I seam to remember that the Republicans are those whose presidential candidate is an actual victim of torture (and I don't mean the kind of "torture" a lawyer complains about).

Fear monger? I am arguably a "Republican" when it comes to the "war" issues and I know what to fear and what not to fear. As you can see in this blog entry of mine (which is the first of series to come), I was actually in Iraq two weeks ago:

http://citizenleauki.joeuser.com/article/326214/A_Fistful_of_Dollars

A Peshmerga lieutenant told me that there hadn't been a Jew in the region (Suleimaniya at the Iranian border) since the 1930s or 1940s.

I believed more or less everything Bush's supporters told me about Iraq and Islam. Plus I was a student in Haifa when Hizbullah attacked in 2006. Want to know the result of the "fear mongering"? I had absolutely no doubt that I was safe in Kurdish cities in the north of Iraq (and somewhat further south).

But I did manage to see one of Saddam's secret police headquarters of old, and the cells and torture chambers (they were in use before the arrival of the Republicans in Iraq). I saw a genocide memorial in that building and pictures of Saddam's gas attacks. I have seen evil and it is not Republicans.

I have never been in an army (although I have the greatest respect for those who fight), but I have been in two wars. In both cases I had enemies who would have happily killed me for what I am, but they tried and couldn't.

I took pictures. I just didn't have time to upload them.

Today, since yesterday evening, I am fasting (it is Yom Kippur), but since I am not religious I use the Internet. Maybe I'll find time to upload some pictures later today.

"JackDaniels", my friend, I don't think you know what you are talking about...

Here you go: pictures of torture chambers.

http://gallery.me.com/ajbrehm#100025

Republicans torture?

I seam to remember that the Republicans are those whose presidential candidate is an actual victim of torture (and I don't mean the kind of "torture" a lawyer complains about).

Yeah and McCain voted for the torture bill. McCain voted to Torture POW's, if you consider imprisioned Journalists as POW's.(Not that journalists can not be terrorists, but plenty have been held with out charge, liberal ones I might add whom are more likely to dissent). And I believe he did for little other reason than to pander to the right base.

Fear monger? I am arguably a "Republican" when it comes to the "war" issues and I know what to fear and what not to fear. As you can see in this blog entry of mine (which is the first of series to come), I was actually in Iraq two weeks ago:

When A President comes out and says "The enemy wants to kill you and your familes", When the president goes around to a prime minister and together they attempt to decide the best way to  "Sell" the Iraq War and WMD's are chosen, When the president comes out and says we've saved these buildings, even if they don't exist. Not to mention the constant insinuation from the right that if you vote democrat you'll die.  I would consider that fear mongering yes.

A Peshmerga lieutenant told me that there hadn't been a Jew in the region (Suleimaniya at the Iranian border) since the 1930s or 1940s.

I believed more or less everything Bush's supporters told me about Iraq and Islam. Plus I was a student in Haifa when Hizbullah attacked in 2006. Want to know the result of the "fear mongering"? I had absolutely no doubt that I was safe in Kurdish cities in the north of Iraq (and somewhat further south).

But I did manage to see one of Saddam's secret police headquarters of old, and the cells and torture chambers (they were in use before the arrival of the Republicans in Iraq). I saw a genocide memorial in that building and pictures of Saddam's gas attacks. I have seen evil and it is not Republicans.

I have never been in an army (although I have the greatest respect for those who fight), but I have been in two wars. In both cases I had enemies who would have happily killed me for what I am, but they tried and couldn't.

I took pictures. I just didn't have time to upload them.

Today, since yesterday evening, I am fasting (it is Yom Kippur), but since I am not religious I use the Internet. Maybe I'll find time to upload some pictures later today.

"JackDaniels", my friend, I don't think you know what you are talking about...

Are you trying to prove to me we don't torture as bad or what? I'm not trying to agrue that Saddam was greatest guy in the world. Excuse me if I didn't believe that the Shia and Sunni and the Kurds would just be all happy to live with each other in an arbitrary set lines drawn up after WW2. Sectarian violence is an issue still not resolved, we are just bribing every not to fight each and us. Yeah I believe Saddam was Ahole who had no place on this planet, but becuase of that I have no place to critize Republicans? I believe many are better off than they were and many arent. Like the million dead Iraqi citizens, or the 4 million that tried to leave had no were to go and came to back nothing. What infrastructure was there was destroyed by heaving bombing runs in 2002 by US and Brits. It's too bad we couldn't take time out of the busy Project For A New American Century schedule to actually finish the job in Afganistan in the first place, we had to go get those Al Quieda Iraq who weren't there untill we showed up.

Oh so the whole guilt by assosciation thing to, on your post above. The Socialist and Facist thing. So If the KKK supports McCain over Obama should I infer McCain is not facist just racist and anti-semitic? Also I played devil's advocate to rediculous calls of Obama as a Socialist, the opposite is McCain as Facist. Why is it Republicans always try use the word Socialist for that they oppose?(in reply to your claim). If you wanted to make the agrument Libertarians aren't Facists you would have something there. Republican's aren't as economically devout as Libertarians though. Republican's want to impose their veiws on everyone else, Un like libertarians who still believe in freedom. Again  I am not trying  actually say Republican's are facists, I am trying to show how idiotic it is to attempt to pidgeon hole a candidate or ideology in a democracy. Hell Democrats aren't even true Progressives, and the true version of Republicanism is Libertarianism, look what happend to the one true Republican candidate though, Ron Paul.

On a side note, thank you for sharing the pictures. I'll see if I can get some of my brothers pictures from when he served in Iraq.

I am trying to demonstrate that you don't know what you are talking about. Many Europeans and Americans believe that the bad things the media tell them are really humanity's low points. Unfortunately, they aren't.

The really bad things happen where journalists are not allowed to talk about them, in places where a lawyer cannot get you out.

Screaming at Gitmo is useless. They are worse problems affecting innocent people. Similarly screaming at Republicans is useless. They are at least trying to do something against the evil in the world. To proclaim that they are part of that evil is not only stupid but also exactly what the real bad guys want.

If the KKK supports someone, I tend to reconsider my support for that someone. The KKK happens to hate both George Bush and John McCain, and anyone who supports Bush's policies and knows about the KKK's positions knows why.

Obama is a socialist. And I don't understand why you are so upset about that. I also don't understand your equation that socialist and fascist are the same type of exageration. Calling someone a socialist is not, in my opinion, an insult. Calling someone a fascist, especially someone who is hated by (real) fascists on the other hand, is not only arrogant but also ignorant.

Obama proposes what constitute socialist policies. Whether they are good or bad is another matter. But the fact is that this is what he does. McCain on the other hand does not propose fascist policies and is hated by fascists. Calling him a "fascist" (a term that anyone with some knowledge of history understands to be an insult) is not the same honesty.

Conservatives call Obama a socialist because he is and won't vote for him because they don't like socialism.

Liberals call McCain a fascist because they don't like him and won't vote for him because they (these days anyway) SPECIFICALLY disagree with McCain on the very subjects that (real) fascists also disagree with him.

Brigitte Bardot has only recently condemned Sarah Palin. The article in question (on a German news Web site) referred to her as an "animal protection advocate", which is a code word for "racist". Brigitte Bardot was on the news over the last few years because of her anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, and general negative attitude towards immigrants. However, whenever one of those neo-Nazis criticises American Republicans, they become "animal rights advocates" instead. (And there are no links back to older articles decrying her racism.)

The connection between neo-Nazis and animal rights is the following, btw. Neo-Nazi parties in Europe have few votes and are trying to become more mainstream. Looking for something positive to say in their platform, they included animal rights, hoping to gain votes that way. Since they never get enough votes to become part of a government (except in Austria, apparently), they can demand all the animal rights they want and never have to figure out whether those make sense (for the economy and the animals). The connection between neo-Nazis and animal rights is entirely bogus, but it makes for nicer-sounding credentials whenever a neo-Nazis speaks up against his favourite enemy number 3, American neo-cons. (First two are Jews and foreigners in general.)

It's simply because Republicans oppose socialist.

Obama promotes socialist policies (public healthcare as a "right" and things like that) which Republicans are opposed to. Hence they call Obama a "socialist" and oppose him. Note that I am generalising.

But Democrats, even though they now agree with fascists about Iraq (and even Israel), call everyone they oppose a "fascist". However, there is no particular rational reason for that. Republicans do not actually promote fascist policies. In fact Republicans currently promote policies that fascists all over the world decry and oppose.

Ask socialists and fascists around the world who they support as president of the US, Obama or McCain.

Do you think a German socialist supports McCain? Do you think the head of Hamas or the dictator of Syria (who is an actual fascist from an actual fascist party founded in actual Vichy France) does not want you to vote for Obama?

And then take a look at Obama's local racist friends. I wouldn't call Obama a fascist, but he HAS fascist supporters (in contrast to McCain), IS a racist, and DOES promote socialist policies.

I have joined many discussions and it is never Republicans who are really upset when I disagree with them. Democrats, on the other hand, scream censorship whenever someone disagrees with them. Remember the discussion about radio talk shows?

I disagree with Republicans about public healthcare (_I_ am in favour of it), with capitalists about property rights (I believe natural resources should be owned only in exchange for taxes), and with American Christians (some of them) about evolution. But never ever has one of those, and most of them are Republicans, called me ignorant for opposing them or proposed a mechanism to make my voice unheard.

I cannot say that my experience of Democrats was the same one.

Your right I am ignorant or stupid or what ever. I don't understnad why not being Republican makes you into an automatic socialist. I am stupid because I though it was an exageration. I thought America could belong to more than just devout Republicanism. I see now America should only be for Republicans and Policys, abolish the tax code, privitise the police, Let corporations do what they want. Don't worry about animals, an animal activvist just may turn out to be a neo-nazi(those damn nazis also discovered the dangers of smoking while corporation in America ran wild). I am an idiot becuase I thought the abortion issue is "censorship". It does make me laugh you they don't call you ignorant, something you guys can't stop doing to me. Hell I don't think you guys are ignorant, and would less be able to judge that over a posts on a message board. But hey hey since I am supposedly the ignorant one, I guess that would make us all ignorant then. Hey we're all equals! I won't even touch the idea that random people decide how you vote goes(KKK argument). IN A DEMOCRACY IT IS POSSIBLE TO HAVE SOME "SOCIALIST POLICIES" WITHOUT BEING SOCIALIST. By the way, Obama doesn't want to nationalize every industry which socialism is, which is why I call the arguement that have any other belief than republicans is socialism. Facism on the otherhand is neither Libertarian Capitalism nor European"Socialism". It is in the middle with limited gov, intervention. Usually goverened in totalitarian way. It is easy to make the same rediculous assertions that having some Socialist ideas makes you a full blown communst is the same as having some facist ideas on the republican side making a  nazi. Both are rediculous, and are used to slander there otherside. Like I said before I was never calling Republicans Facists, I was drawing the same conculsions ill-advised republicans made to me about socialism. the reason I became a progressive is of all the atrocities, in my opinion, that occur, and how closely connected the republicans are. Democrats are not innocent by far. Republican policies help to further probelms in all respects in my opinion. Note I am not talking about a centerist, I am taking about your Far Right Ultra Neo-Con Republicans.

Also what is the difference between Libertarians and Republicans if freedom is not the issue? AS far I know they agree economically, they agree on gun rights(hey ak and grenades and rpg's for everyone!), they disagree on torturing people, civil rights abuses, like spying on the military calling home from battlegrounds, and christian issues like abortion and gay marriage.

If McCain won the second debate can you tell me why he is running behind in the polls after the debate?

If you believe the polls, he was behind before the debate as well.  Just because he may have won doesn't mean anyone is going to change their mind.  I walked away from that last debate feeling that nothing was going to change.  No major revelations, no major "gotchas"  and nothing really all that exciting came out of it. 

I don't necessarily think McCain won the debate, but then again, I'd say it's pretty subjective for the most part anyhow.  I'd call it a draw myself, although I do believe McCain was more forthright with his answers than Obama was. 

He had to have a KO because of the economy, but only got a win on points.  Winning debates only shows up in poll numbers when all else is equal (like 2000).

Boy, you are such an idiot.

Can you read?

I said Obama can be called a socialist because he proposes and promoted _socialist policies_. Is that so difficult to understand? What's the problem? What is the difficult part? What's the part you don't get?

Again you say it's liberals who call every one ignorant and stupid, but you argue over semantics and frustrated exagerations.  I'll admit it's my fault for bringing frustrations that have nothing do with the conversation in as a way of releasing. That was my mistake. Look at what you just said. Look, for all your high and mighty talk about fairness. I tried to make obvious that having a few policies that can be considered socialist by defination, does not make you a socialist. Thats what america is about, different beliefs, or atleast thats what I was raised to believe. Obama does not say we should have the government take over every single buisness, he does nt say the government should nationalize the oil industry. I have heard no cry from democrats to nationalize the coca cola or the soft drink industry. Socialism is teh government controlling all industries. Obama does not propse that. Hell he doesn't even propose that for the healthcare industry, he proposes making sure big buisness allows healthcare to employees, and small buisness at half the cost. Thats not universal mandated health care. Thats making sure everyone is able to get it. For the record I also supported John Edwards far more than Obama, his health care plan ws much better, taking insurance companies out as the middle man. Hillary Clinton is the only canididate to my knowledge that proposed full scale punishment on citizens that did not have healthcare(similiar to RomneyCare in Mass.,which failed horribly , that state where I lived for the past 19 and half years, now one and half months in fl.).  I came to this board to find intelligent arguments that would cause me to rethink my beliefs, and consider others. Your responce gave me neither.

I thought straight after the debate (before hearing any commentary about it or any other opinions) that mccain won quite significantly...not enough to change the game, but well enough to put doubt into obama supporters minds. McCain, I thought had obama on the defensive the whole way.. this can be seen with obama complaining and then insisting to have a chance to react to mccain statement, but then just repeated what he had said before.

I dont think mccain can win!, honestly, i just don't think the majority of americans like him, he is not refined enough because I thought he put up a good case to vote for him but the polls say obama won so i dunno!

In the last three elections the person the media said would win, the polls said would win, were wrong.

Polls are not reliable when things are this close.  Most of them are done by telephone and there are a lot of reliability issues with that. 

Don't be discouraged.  Vote and let the chips fall where they may.

No. I argue over you misrepresenting what I (and everybody else) said.

Plus, while liberals call people ignorant over disagreements, I called you an idiot not for your opinion but for your inability to understand simple concepts. Our political disagreements, if there are any, do not even come into it.

While Obama is a socialist, I did not say that I disagreed with his socialist positions. In fact I mentioned that I was in favour of some of them. This has nothing to do with a non-liberal calling a liberal an idiot for his politics. I was referring SOLELY and ONLY to you, not your opinions.

I think you are an idiot because after being told that Obama is a socialist because of his socialist policies you continued to claim that the issue was that him not being a Republican makes him an automatic socialist in the eyes of Republicans. I told you that that was not true, and you didn't understand. That's why you are an idiot. It has nothing to do with your possible liberal opinions.

Plus you don't seem to understand why calling a socialist a socialist is not an insult while calling an anti-fascist a fascist is.

Maybe a summary will help you:

Obama

- supports socialist policies

- is supported by foreign and domestic socialist politicians (and fascist politicians)

- can be called a socialist because of his support for socialist policies

- "socialist" is not an insult

McCain (and Bush)

- does NOT support fascist policies

- is being CONDEMNED by foreign and domestic fascist politicians (and socialist politicians)

- hence CANNOT be called a fascist

- "fascit" is an insult

Do you get it now why calling a socialist a "socialist" is NOT comparable to calling a man fascists hate a "fascist"?