Login is disabled. This forum is read-only.
Imperial Forum → Politics → The History of OBAMA.... A good read.
The Soviets had nothing to do with socialism either. Thanks for proving my point 
Yes the soviet union was totalitarian...
socialists support large personal freedoms and civil liberties, but also state control of the economy and such
"Americans don't know what socialism is"
yes they know.. someone teach them that it was EVIL (see i also know how to use capital letters!)
There's a lot of historical debate around this subject, and most of the historians agree that the reason why americans don't have any real socialist movement worthy of the name is because it's been a protestant country ever since it existed. Protestants take a different approach towards poverty and economy, wich over the years have become internalised and almost invisible motives. Protestants, pronounced the best in calvinism see wealth and succes as the grace of God, wich makes them subconciously less tolerant towards poor and unsuccesful people.
"SHippy....issssss"
Wow, BW, you're scaring me lol 
in short:
Obama is NOT:
1) a Muslim
and/or
2) a Christian
He is a new-ager though.
(a new-ager is someone who mixes beliefs they like from different sources)
> paul valter pihlo wrote:
> Yes the soviet union was totalitarian...
socialists support large personal freedoms and civil liberties, but also state control of the economy and such
My response:
So in your opinion, is China socialist?
Gee more liberty and state control of the economy
And I favor 24 hour home delivery, and cheaper prices
> Alan Statham wrote:
> "OBAMA is a socialist in Democrat clothing. ...... anyone....anyone one of you leftists....care to combat that statement ?"
Americans don't know what socialism is.
_______________________________________
The first statement is TRUE.
By the way, I'm a flexible centrist, neither stuck on the left-wing, nor stuck on the right-wing, nor stuck in the centre.
> Alan Statham wrote:
> There's a lot of historical debate around this subject, and most of the historians agree that the reason why americans don't have any real socialist movement worthy of the name is because it's been a protestant country ever since it existed. Protestants take a different approach towards poverty and economy, wich over the years have become internalised and almost invisible motives. Protestants, pronounced the best in calvinism see wealth and succes as the grace of God, wich makes them subconciously less tolerant towards poor and unsuccesful people.>>
Did you know that most Americans have a very weak commitment to their religion, and see their wealth as a result of their hard work? Did you also know that we really, really do not appreciate willful parasitic members of society? That's why we don't like poor people, because we tend to consider that they are people who make foolish decisions and become parasitic to our economy, and well, like any human being we don't like it when our hard earned money is going to support them. Now, to people who are parasitic but not because of their own incompetent or criminal decision making, such as someone born with a defect, we believe in social programs and taking care of them.
As Yell pointed out sarcastically.
In the American POV, freedom and a planned economy are a contradiction.
> Alan Statham wrote:
> There's a lot of historical debate around this subject, and most of the historians agree that the reason why americans don't have any real socialist movement worthy of the name is because it's been a protestant country ever since it existed. Protestants take a different approach towards poverty and economy, wich over the years have become internalised and almost invisible motives. Protestants, pronounced the best in calvinism see wealth and succes as the grace of God, wich makes them subconciously less tolerant towards poor and unsuccesful people.<
Max Weber - The Protestant Ethic and Spirit of Capitalism.
=o
How about loosely controlled capitalism?
> Newb wrote:
> How about loosely controlled capitalism?
Nobody's talking about laissez faire, except for maybe Acolyte.
> Justinian I wrote:
> > Newb wrote:
> How about loosely controlled capitalism?
---------------------------------------------------
Nobody's talking about laissez faire, except for maybe Acolyte.
_____________________________________________________
Thanks for teaching me a French word:
Main Entry:
lais
I was frivoliously serious.
At least you know Socialism.
I live in a socialist country.
Not everything is perfect here.
Do you want me to mention my complaints? 
Sure!
NO no....
Alan wishes to fall back to the simplest of 200 level Society teachings.
Yea....America is built on the Religious based actually Quaker/Puritan movement of early America colonization.
The "Calling" that you are attracted to (your career/trade) is brought to you by GOD.
ALSO, you may change your calling, mid life because that happens at times.
As a young man, you embrace your calling, putting every ounce of effort you have into it, the more successful you are, the more in touch w/GOD and your calling....the more you can Tithe to the church, to be administered back to the community by the Pastore.
Yea. Sure. A neat anti-God, anti-Capitalist Mantra rolled up into a Uni-Professors Leftist/Atheist beliefs.
Then, packed into a book to sell to Uni-Students, and hopefully enroll them into the ranks of socialism.
At least, ALAN, you graduated to a 200 Level course material reference.
What YOU EURO-SOCIALIST leftist weenies dont understand is that AMERICANS dont want a Govt. to administer and take care of us. We can do so all by ourselves......and as JUSTINIAN put it, we find the losers and dregs of society, like Uni professors, WEAK and QUITTERS.
I like Caps. Its for you girls that admire me so much...... you know who you are .
Behavior Science course study bullshit.
PLEASSSseeeeee
By the Way, just scrolled back.
Good Reference Arfeh......
Max Weber also wrote:
BW,
I actually do not mind university professors in principle, on the condition that their work and discipline is backed by evidence or experience. That is why I have a lot of esteem for the hard scientists - their study is supported and more importantly useful. But when we enter disciplines like Psychology, it becomes more difficult to say yes or no. Behaviorism, as first practiced by Skinner, was backed by evidence and it managed to develop solutions to behavioral problems like excessive fears (phobias) or in understanding our learning. On the other hand, detractors to Behaviorist Psychology do not bother to use evidence, or it's weak, and they moreover really aren't that helpful. A few good examples are the Humanists and Neo-Freudians.
Then there are the liberal arts. On personal bias, I like some philosophy such as Analytic Philosophy and have a very negative view of Continental Philosophy (continental as in Western Europe with the exclusion of Great Britain where Analytic Philosophy is popular and owes its origins). AP holds that truth can be discovered, aims to write clearly so people can understand, and AP moreover carefully uses logic and evidence to test and support its philosophical conclusions. CP, on the other hand, will write without evidence, use inappropriately advanced and obscure language to sound profound, and labels AP arrogant for giving less than deserved tribute to past great thinkers by testing the truth of what they say instead. Lol, silly Europeans. As for the other disciplines part of the Liberal Arts curriculum in the US (not to bash the classical definition of Liberal Arts), like multicultural studies, post-modernism, women studies, and political science, the focus is really on the normative (what ought to be) rather than how things are and using evidence to support those conclusions. However, there is one school of thought in political science that is both practical and supported by evidence, and that is real politik. But then, most academic circles in the US and Europe bash real politik by calling it immoral and giving it undeserved criticism. Anyhow bw, you should check out real politik, you might like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_politik
BW is a conservative, Realpolitik is an anathema to us. Bargains with the devil just do not suite us... because the devil never keeps his word.
"So in your opinion, is China socialist?"
It's not because it doesn't have large personal freedoms or civil liberties. I'd say china is authoritarian because it's not as bad as the CCCP(pronounced SSSR) was.
Imperial Forum → Politics → The History of OBAMA.... A good read.
Powered by PunBB, supported by Informer Technologies, Inc.