Let’s face the facts, the most socialist thing proposed this entire campaign was John McCain’s plan to nationalize bad mortgages. The government would literally held the title to your house. Other than the bailout itself, probably one of the biggest economic intervention proposals since the New Deal.
But no one calls McCain a socialist. Hell, no one even suggests McCain likes big government. He’s treated like he’s Barry Goldwater reincarnated.

These labels stick on Barack for the same reasons they were used against MLK. It’s easy to label someone that doesn’t look like you as being different from you in other ways. Add the fact that Barack has a funny name, and you have the walking contradiction that is McCain supporters.

The insistence on using poor minorities as a primary example to prove your own point, however, is a indicative of a certain degree of ignorance when it comes to minorities, as studies have shown that there are more middle class minority professionals than those who are poor. To trivialize experiences (I think of them more as defining moments rather than instanes of getting my feelings hurt) I’ve had that, according to the GOP’s core principles, would seem un-American, is indicative of a lack of awareness of racism outside of what has been read in history books. If you’re aware of these experiences and think before you type, you can get the same point across in a manner that is inviting of discussion that can help all Americans.

There seems to be a rush to call the proposed tax plan socialist, and the people so calling seem to be those who’ve done more reading about socialism than living in a socialist system like I did. When we’re paying 51% or more of our salaries in taxes, maybe then the country will have taken a greater turn towards socialism. Until then, the proposal to lift a disproportionate burden from the middle class’ shoulder seems more fair than socialist.

And people seem to get that both candidates will say what is needed to become elected. The plans proposed are not carved in stone.

It was within that context that I read your comment (#20). Thus, it was entirely reasonable for me to interpret your statements the way I did: (1) that conservatives have no right to cry “socialism” if they support the public funding of medical and other benefits for active military, veterans and their dependents; (2) that you agreed that the GOP’s use of the term “socialism” was “culturally insensitive;” (3) that the GOP is out of touch because it doesn’t understand the “unique experiences” of poor minorities who really need and deserve the handouts that Joe the Plumber should gleefully pay for; and (4) that by expressing objections to Obama’s plan, conservatives were engaging in some kind of racist, mean-spirited campaign to make poor minorities “assimilate” by working hard so they can pay their own way through life without demanding handouts from other taxpayers like Joe the Plumber.

So, J, based on YOUR COMMENT and the context in which this blog post appeared, where did I get it wrong? Do you agree that the use of the term “socialism” by the GOP was racist? Culturally insensitive? If so, you don’t just get to slink away after slapping that card down. I want to hear your opinion of how the GOP could have avoided this attack for being “racist.” And what about those “unique experiences” you’ve given so many examples of? Are you saying that if the GOP knew (or assumed) that you had gotten your feelings hurt at a birthday party because of your race they wouldn’t have used the term “socialism” to describe the tax plan of a black candidate? And who were you referring to when saying that minorities are required to “assimilate” instead of being coddled with “dialog?” I interpreted that as you saying Joe the Plumber should not dare to question the need some poor minority might have for the money that he earned because it imposes “assimilationism” on the poor, unlucky soul who wants to take the handout in peace. If that’s not what you were arguing, then I have no idea what you’re trying to say. And judging from your more recent comments, I’m not sure you know what you’re trying to argue either.

If you want to be understood and be a part of the discussion, you’re going to have to be A LOT clearer with the point(s) you’re trying to make.

I would argue that it is the bottom line that has driven companies to move American jobs overseas, not socialism (unless you’re talking about the .08% companies are obligated to pay for Federal Unemployment Taxes on the first $8,000 of an employee wages during the year, unless there is an outstanding loan to the state that impacts the credit the business would otherwise receive for that tax).

I don’t think total socialization is the answer, and I do think the policies Obama has suggested are only mildly socialist compared to what I experienced in Europe growing up. However, I do think a country is judged by how it treats the least fortunate of its citizens, and it is highly judgemental to use codewords such as “personal responsibility” to allow for a growing caste system.

It’s support of a web-based accounting interface application that I do, not community organizing.

I thought the KKK had drawn paraellels between communism and the acts of oppoents to segregation in the South. I recently saw an ad by the KKK that supporters of Goldwater created but which Goldwater refused to have aired. Communism was used repeatedly in the ad. The National Guard was present for the Little Rock 9, as well as for James M. who sought to attend law school at Ole Miss. If not socialism, then communisim was definitely used to appeal to segregation proponents which some historians might say led to the GOP winning southern Dixiecrats before the Reagan years.

I would say that American jobs are being shipped overseas not by socialism…unless you’re talking about the .08% employers pay in FUTA taxes for the first $8,000 of an employee’s taxable wages (and only if the SUI taxes are paid timely and there is no outstanding loan balance on the state’s end). I feel confident that if you asked non-executives at Delta Airlines, they’d say they were missing some of the wealth that would have “trickled down.”

I suppose that whites a non-whites would have differing views on assimilationism. In my view, it means that if you ignore the experiences I’ve had, you’re ignoring me altogether.

You, yourself, seem to be uncomfortable with the topic unless it is to use the same sad stereotype one sees in the news.

1) Having your parents explain to you what a the “n-word” means because you were just called it the night before by a classmate at your 9th birthday party and you never knew what it meant.

2) Calling in response to an ad for a car and being told it is great because the car has been “n* rigged,” an expression I’d also not heard until that call.

3) Seeing the look of surprise on a recruiter’s face when showing up for a job interview at a firm that required an associate fluent in German.

4) Having a student at music camp say, “I don’t mean to sound racist, but I didn’t know black people lived in Germany.” I just told the guy that we’re allowed to apply for passports, too.

I haven’t let these things get in the way of me working hard and developing my career. They’ve both helped fuel a drive in me to fight against stereotypes, in addition to giving me that unique experience as an American which I refer to.

And no, torrentslime, I am not terrified of you. I find you annoying–just as I do every other intellectually dishonest, mealy-mouthed, equivocating, leftoid dim-wit that I encounter here or anywhere else that politics is discussed.

And as for props, you’ll get no praise from me unless you rise to the challenge I proposed re HITLER. Are you capable of simply condemning Hitler’s genocidal tyranny and hellish atrocities and then shutting the fu*k up? Or, are you afraid that if you start typing, by the time you’re done, you will have instinctually equated his Final Solution to…I dunno…Abu Ghraib? Yeah, you should probably stay away from that one.

F’n’ right!

And I just gotta say, anyone who says, “I’m a true conservative, so I’m voting for the most radical socialist to run for president since Eugene Debs and Gus Hall…” is either lying, stupid, or quite possibly both.

Oddly enough, torrentprime, you also forgot her service on the state oil and gas commission, which is a rather high position in Alaska.

Probably because, while on it, she complained about ethics violations by her fellow Republicans, resigned from said commission, and blew the whistle on said violations, ultimately resulting in the resignation and fining for ethics violations of the state Republican Party chair.

In short, Palin has demonstrated more activism, more courage, and more capability in her time in office than have Obama and Biden in their entire time combined. One would THINK that you would be supportive of a Republican who had so clearly demonstrated that she doesn’t tolerate guff, chicanery, or wastefulness even in her own party.

But then again, why would we expect you to value any of that, when, as you make obvious that you consider it an ethics violation to demand the firing of a wife-abusing, child-abusing cop who gets drunk in his squad car on duty, and say nothing about Obama’s endorsement of corrupt racists like Kwame Kilpatrick, William Jefferson, and Charles Rangel?

Because bad cops must be protected, but a plumber who asks a question that embarrasses The One must be destroyed.

Honestly, I couldn’t live with myself if those were my ethics.

Yes, ND30, because an executive of a state for 18 months (complete with ethics violations) and a mayor of 6k person town (left in debt) is so much less experienced than a US senator and 8 year state senator representing about as many people as entire said state. But if the only thing that will make you feel better about the fact that 20% of Republicans are voting for Obama is to tell yourself that they are voting for him based on his skin color, then by all means, do so.

People seem to forget that socialism already exists in America. It’s called the Department of Defense (”free” health care and education for for active duty miltary and their depdendents).

1.) We have had a “mixed economy” since Saint Franklin of Roosevelt foisted “social” “security” on the little people. This opened the flood gates to rent subsidies, food stamps, WIC, Section 8, Medicare, Medicaid, Prescription Drugs for Seniors, Pell grants, FHA, TVA, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, government bailouts and Native American casinos and tobacco stores. Socialism all.

2.) When you turn yourself over to the military, they own your life. They have the power to send you to be killed. In exchange for this, they pay you, keep you healthy and patch you up if you survive. You are treated no differently than any sound industry treats its production components. If you stay the course you get a generous retirement package and a general release from your obligations.

Also, in America, socialism seems to be synonymous with communism.

You can not take socialism out of communism. You can have crippling socialism without the formality of communism. Socialism is a creeping cancer. St. Franklin of Roosevelt opened a door that has only opened wider.

Look at all of the failures of capitalism that are now begging for tax payer relief. Look at all the socialist laws and regulations that drove them to that point.

American jobs are being driven out of this country by socialism. The pet food scare last year is a great example. There are no producers of wheat gluten left in the USA because of the high costs that wage and production laws and multi-levels of taxation have placed on the industry. So, wheat gluten (and many other non-glamorous key ingredients to our diets and pharmaceuticals) are produced in China. The socialist answer to this is to force China, which is socialist, to act more like “responsible” socialists.

This is where people like “J” are forced to talk in tongues. It is the maddening idiocy poor Alice met when she encountered the Queen of Hearts.

Given that proponents of segregationism during the Civil Rights Era linked blacks to both forms of government, the GOP’s lack of care in the language used to criticize Obama’s proposed policies can be and is seen by some to be culturally insensitive.

The Communist Party was very strong in the US in the 1930’s and many historians believe that Roosevelt enacted socialist legislation in part to dampen their appeal. The efforts by the Communist Party during the civil right era were real and documented. They played as great a role as the KKK.

I know the “segregation” era well, having lived through it. If “socialism” was being bandied about in any “code word” fashion, it failed to make the newspapers or the general reporting. HUAC, the House UnAmerican Activities Committee was in it prime in the 50’s and it was looking for the “card carrying communists” among us. A popular TV show was “I Led Three Lives” about an FBI mole in the Communist Party. But there was no general concern over “socialism.”

When Eisenhower got the Civil Rights Act of 1957 moving and sent the National Guard into Little Rock, there was no general concern over “socialism” or “communism” involved.

This attempt to create “socialism” as a racist code word is almost laughable, except people like “J” with a true Brownshirt thought process will stop at nothing to make the world of Orwell a reality.