Here's a longer-form articulation of a similar thought.

Are you trying to justify these comments - that the word "socialist" is equatable to the n-word in its use by conservatives? The term in itself carries no implications of race. I can understand the points made in that article, and a few by the broadcaster but I think this is mainly just more liberal propaganda (yes it does exist), painting every one in opposition on this issue with a broad brush, as a racist.

A more accurate title would be "..Host: Socialist is becoming the code word for the N-Word".

Course this will help point out who payed attention to the video.

And I could definitely see all the "negative qualities" that some feel this president possesses getting wrapped into a single term that has more political significance then some of the other words that could be used (not excluding the white man's fear of a black man in powah).

Probably would be a good idea to ask Hillary what her husband thinks about this.

As a former socialist party usa member, i think it's quite flattering to be called a socialist. Einstein and Dr. King would not mind :-) Both were in the running for Person of the Century awards from numerous magazines, with the former winning quite a few of them..

>> ^EndAll:
Are you trying to justify these comments - that the word "socialist" is equatable to the n-word in its use by conservatives? The term in itself carries no implications of race. I can understand the points made in that article, and a few by the broadcaster but I think this is mainly just more liberal propaganda (yes it does exist), painting every one in opposition on this issue with a broad brush, as a racist.


I don't think it's 1 to 1, no. We don't think everyone calling Obama a socialist is a racist, but we think there are a healthy number of racists calling Obama a socialist who don't have a clue what a "socialist" is. I think they get more satisfaction out of calling him "Muslim", or better yet "Kenyan" anyways.

It's about trying to maximize the fear of Obama, and the dehumanization of liberals. Racial fear is just a convenient well to draw on. For anti-government militia types, it's a secret plan to take away their guns. For old people, it's a secret plan to euthanize them to cut costs. For others it's a plot to abort more babies. If they can layer multiple fears together, they will.

If you think that's not part of the playbook, and just some story liberals are making up, you seriously need to get out more.

What a bunch of pigshit. It's the "we" who are making the definitions. Just a variation that everything the "we" don't like is racism, anti-semetic, "politicaly incorrect"...

By the way, who are the "we" in THIS case? Care to expose yourself?

Crap, meant to downvote not upvote. I was going to leave a charged comment in which I threw the "N" word around but I can't even bring myself to type it. As misguided as a lot of conservatives are in throwing the term socialist around, to claim that they are using it as a racial epithet is a bridge too far. This is race baiting, plain and simple.

Liberals don't like to be called socialists, seeing how socialism has been very discredited, even though they borrow many of the socialist delusions about capitalism and the role of government.

Liberals do tend to push the envelope towards socialism though, like a socialist would, so it's very hard for others to make a more refined distinction between the two.

Frankly the right is just using whatever inflammatory words they can muster to try to make a cause where there isn't one: tyrant, socialist, communist, Nazi, etc. etc. etc.

the only similarity is the type of angry, no-argument, shout down, shutdown type speech that the words can be used.

what i mean is that in, for example, these "shout down" attempts by either side of the political spectrum on such issues now as medicare reform, before that the war on terror debate, or any argument between 2 people when at least one of those people just wants to spew hateful terms to frustrate their opponent.

that is where these terms come into play with similar usage. many people are so dim-witted and have such poor debate skills that when they begin to feel outmatched in an argument, they go to the most hateful and outrageous type of speech they can muster to turn their insecurity back on the other side.

now that Obama defenders have become so visibly agitated by the term "socialist" they have given the word power to the criticizers. coupled with hostile usage, this is how all words obtain their venom.

Socialist, what?

>> ^gtjwkq:
Liberals don't like to be called socialists, seeing how socialism has been very discredited, even though they borrow many of the socialist delusions about capitalism and the role of government.

You guys just want to make the definition of socialism into something like "anything the government spends money on", and then conflate it with the Soviet Union, and call it discredited.

So, yeah we push back against being called socialist because it has a negative connotation that isn't warranted by the conservatives' redefinition.

>> ^Rotty:
By the way, who are the "we" in THIS case? Care to expose yourself?

I took it upon myself to speak for liberals. Being one, I think I understand the concerns of other people like me. Maybe that's taking a bit too much license, but that's all I meant.

What did you think I meant?

Ponceleon,

I agree that there is unwarranted namecalling on both sides. However, (the left) changing the definitions of words to suit their purposes to incite their followers, is equally bad. This is the most recent accusation of the right creating a "code word". Perhaps this guy should have spent some time dispelling the "socialist" label instead of just screaming RACIST and punting? But this is how cheap fuel is created for all the media (and websites).

NetRunner,

I had no idea what you meant; was just curious. Thank you for responding.

Well, depending on what govt spends money on, its promoting public ownership at the expense of private property, something very much aligned with socialist ideals. So yeah, most often than not, socialist purposes are being served with increases in govt spending.

Most arguments I've seen liberals use against the free market are taken straight out of socialist theory. They acknowledge that the socialist ideal doesn't work, even though they act as if just tweaking it a bit might do the trick.

Liberal can't be truthfully associated anymore with the notion of reformist as opposed to conservative, because our society is already very much socially liberal. The same applies to the literal meaning of "conservative": Anyone willing to conserve the shit we have today is a liberal already.

I don't see how "liberal" can be associated with liberty either, willingly handing over more control and responsibility to govt seems very opposed to the usual notion of liberty.

I think calling oneself a liberal is a terrible way of identifying one's political standing. Besides, outside the US, liberal = libertarian. How confusing!

If I were a liberal, I would never call myself that, I'd look for a more defining label. Something like... Megarchist.

^ That was a lot of words to go through just to say "my wholly biased impression of you is right, Mr. Poopy-pants!"

Look, my general issue with this game of name calling and labeling when it comes to politics is it's usually just an attempt to attach some sort of positive or negative connotation to a person's beliefs without actually examining them.

The word socialism doesn't mean evil. Liberalism isn't socialism. Libertarians have no special claim to the word liberty, nor its definition.

If you want to make the case that there's a higher moral imperative for keeping a privatized health care system, warts and all, than the imperative to use what's been proven to work in many other countries, make that case.

Calling liberals socialists is just a cheap way to try to wiggle out from under having to make the choice between a) advocating some unproven strategy that's never been tried in any other country, ever, or b) declaring that letting people die due to lack of insurance is more moral than raising taxes to cover them.

^ Mr. Megarchist, stop looking at Europe and look at Asia, there are currently many countries there enjoying a lot more economic freedom than we do right now, and their prosperity can be directly linked to how unregulated their markets are, unless you're using special distorted vision liberal glasses and attributing all that economic growth to their spiffy governments.

Socialism does not mean evil. It's just that the theory is a convoluted mess of lies, and, as a social system, it's incredibly oppressive towards the inconvenient human nature of individuals. That's not evil at all.

Libertarians are much more about liberty than liberals, they win hands down, why go there? No one's got a knack for reducing a person's liberty more than the government. Libertarians want less govt and liberals want more of it. Do the math.

You're not "letting" people die when it's not your duty to take care of their health in the first place. That's like saying people are keeping me from being a millionaire because they won't give me a miserable dollar.

Before you rush to judge me callous, it's a lot worse to see govt stealing the life out of millions of productive taxpayers (remember, hard-earned money requires work and time out of people's lives) through taxes to support a wasteful healthcare system. Why isn't your heart bleeding out for *them*?

It's more resource-efficient to let people help each other out voluntarily and compete than letting govt step in and do it. Those led to believe otherwise are suckers who are not seeing those who rake in the most benefits out of socialized healthcare: government and those in bed with it.

Cool, just came up with a new name for liberals: Suckers.

I'm on fire.

<rant>
How to waste a dollar: let the government double-tax it and piss away the money. Sorry, I cannot justify giving hard earned income to the biggest den of theives and criminals in this country (that would be Congress, by the way). These people have no idea how to effectively spend money other than propagating their existance.

As far as taxes, I repeatedly hear "Oh, yeah, who maintains the roads you drive on", "Who are you gonna call when your house is on fire"... I can tell you this, if road service is any indication, I might as well call on my dead grandmother to put out a house fire. At least she would have some conviction.

And thank you for convincing everyone they have a "right" to everything except responsibility.

I would like to see some tort reform as part of any "improvements" in healthcare. That asshat Bush talked about it, but never did a damn thing (surprise!!!). Limit what the parasites can possibly get and that would ripple though the system with regard to liability coverage and CYA medical procedures.
</rant>

>> ^gtjwkq:
^ Mr. Megarchist, stop looking at Europe and look at Asia, there are currently many countries there enjoying a lot more economic freedom than we do right now

I too would encourage you to look at Asia.

China, Hong Kong, India, Taiwan, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and even places like Israel have publicly funded, compulsory health coverage (and in some, government-run health providers as well).

There's a lot of variation on coverage, privatization of health providers, and the specific policies within the government insurance programs vary quite a bit, but they all have national systems that provide care for everyone, regardless of means.

Don't believe me? Do some googling. I'd start with Wikipedia's page on Universal Health Care, the Asia section.

^ You still don't get it. Instead of learning from what they're doing right (less market regulation), you want the US to implement what they're doing wrong.

They are prosperous despite, not because, of their healthcare systems. Their relative economic freedom is what allows them to be rich enough to afford the high costs of government inefficiency.

What would you think of someone looking at China and associating their current prosperity with communism?

Yeah, see, you're confusing facts and opinions.

Facts: other countries pay less, and get more out of their health care system by using socialism.

Opinion: Government intervention in the economy is always bad.

Generally speaking, a simple working definition for reason is the trait of making sure that one's opinions match the facts.

Yours don't.