Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Palin: "This is no time to be experimenting with socialism." Bush Administration, Congress, Entire Financial System Whistle Innocently   (politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

1340 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Oct 2008 at 1:02 AM (8 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



264 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2008-10-20 02:40:05 AM  

desertshadowz: Besides that...have you ever tried to play the piano with just the white keys?

Doesn't sound so good.


Does that mean I'm racist if I prefer A minor?

I suppose that makes me a pedophile too
 
2008-10-20 02:40:12 AM  

spamdog: Alien Robot: You were the one accusing Palin of something Obama is far more guilty of where it matters most -- in actual votes on the legislative floor, rather than offhand remarks to a journalist.

You wanna link Palin's voting record?


I actually laughed, out loud, pretty hard. Nice.
 
2008-10-20 02:40:59 AM  

TwistedFark: Mrbogey: burndtdan: in all honesty...

if someone has a problem with keynesian economics, i have no problem with that. it's their opinion and i respect it.

but every time i hear someone describe keynesian economics (hint: that's roughly what most democrats actually follow) as socialism, i just facepalm.

read a farking book, people.

What does Keynes have to say about defecit spending in a recessionary environment while simultaneously raising taxes?

You're a moron, a simple glance at the Obama tax plan will reveal that over all taxes will go down approximately 0.2%.

This may not seem like a lot, and truthfully it's not, but the goal here is to target the tax rebates to the people that are going to use it to prop up the economy while simultaneously not raping the federal budget so that we can afford to spend our way out of the recession.

Taxes are all entirely a numbers game anyway. It's very, very, very farking rare that the overall tax revenue appropriation ever changes at all, and if it does we're talking small 1-2% shifts. All that ever happens is that some people get more and other people get less.

We've lived through many years now of the people at the top getting the better end of that deal than the people at the bottom and it hasn't worked out all that well for us (not that this should surprise anyone with half a brain).

So in closing, fark Milton Friedman and fark you.


well, to be perfectly frank, it seemed to work well for a while and then went to shiat after the government decided not to give a damn anymore about the direction businesses and individuals were going. we've had economic recessions before and not all of them are caused by the generic farktard response of "omg ronald reagan is your messiah and look what hes responsible for 20 years after leaving office!!!"

any economy will have ups and downs and its moronic to blame standard fluctuations, especially ones caused the by the market itself(ie: the credit mess, the dotcom bubble burst) on any one president. there are issues, like controlling inflation, that you can blame on an administration, but we arent really suffering from terrible(dare i say, johnson induced?) inflation other than energy, which has since subsided as we are now back to reasonable prices for oil and other energy related commodities. good thing the government didnt step in and make a gray davis(gov d-ca) error locking us in at the highest level of prices through longterm contacts at those highlevels while financing the deal with 30 year public bonds.

and all of this doesnt even take into account that, while the president has veto power, the legislature still has the power of the purse. people seem to neglect that point when they blame x or y president for the nations fiscal problems. its as much, if not more, the legislatures fault for any self-induced problem we have.
 
2008-10-20 02:42:04 AM  

zeph`: Aarontology: America socialism seems to be limited to progressive taxation and a belief that people shouldn't be allowed to suffer and die because they don't have a lot of money.

The funny (read: disgusting) thing is, that there would still be millions of Americans that would decry socialism even if that were how it was defined.


The Russians are coming! The Russians are coming!

Meanwhile,
img.timeinc.net
France has good reason to be about 50 times more arrogant than usual when considering the nomination of Sarah Palin...
 
2008-10-20 02:42:04 AM  

murrdy: desertshadowz: Besides that...have you ever tried to play the piano with just the white keys?

Doesn't sound so good.

Does that mean I'm racist if I prefer A minor?


You're definitely elitist if you enjoy D Dorian.
 
2008-10-20 02:42:22 AM  

spamdog: You wanna link Palin's voting record?


Executives vote? She was a mayor and a governor. As an executive they either sign the legislation or they don't. There's no way to vote "present" or to not show up at all like a legislator can. It's either sign the bill, outright veto it, or "pocket veto" it by not signing it.
 
2008-10-20 02:43:29 AM  

namegoeshere: Is the rest of the world just laughing at us at this point?


We laugh because we don't want to cry. I never thought I'd live to see any country as pathetic as the US is today. That it's America? I feel like I'm dreaming half the time.
 
2008-10-20 02:44:58 AM  

Alien Robot: bobbette: Damn, I didn't realize you were a troll. I thought you were serious.

Now you can't recognize sarcasm. What, do I need an animated gif to go along with it to make it obvious or something?


In my defense, it's very difficult to tell a parody of someone defending Sarah Palin from someone actually defending Sarah Palin.
 
2008-10-20 02:45:14 AM  

Aarontology: Indeed. If you're not a Self Made, One Man Island, Rugged IndividualistTM you deserve what you get.


Amazing how that viewpoint is never espoused by the disadvantaged.
 
2008-10-20 02:46:57 AM  

Alien Robot: There's no way to vote "present" or to not show up at all like a legislator can. It's either sign the bill, outright veto it, or "pocket veto" it by not signing it.


So should we go over that record or not?
 
2008-10-20 02:50:52 AM  

bobbette: France has good reason to be about 50 times more arrogant than usual when considering the nomination of Sarah Palin...


I'm ashamed to admit it, but I had to Wikipedia your picture.

The day a female Presidential candidate running on the Socialist Party's ballot garners nearly 47% of the vote in America is the day I'll take back every mean thing I've ever said about the country or its population.
 
2008-10-20 02:51:23 AM  

bobbette: In my defense, it's very difficult to tell a parody of someone defending Sarah Palin from someone actually defending Sarah Palin.


he's actually defending Sarah Palin.
 
2008-10-20 02:53:04 AM  

spamdog: So should we go over that record or not?


Knock yourself out. All you would do is list stuff she supported and stuff she didn't support. There's no middle ground for either a mayor or a governor. She either signed the bills or she didn't sign them. She never voted "present" or deferred a bill to someone else to sign because "it's above her pay grade" because executives can't do that. That have to come down on one side or the other.
 
2008-10-20 02:53:14 AM  
No words strike more fear into my heart than "Vice President Palin".

Seriously.

Not even "beer no longer exists".
 
2008-10-20 02:55:44 AM  

Alien Robot: or deferred a bill to someone else to sign because "it's above her pay grade"


The only thing above her pay grade is "what newspapers do you read?"


TPS Reports: No words strike more fear into my heart than "Vice President Palin".


President Palin?
 
2008-10-20 02:57:39 AM  

Alien Robot: She never voted "present" or deferred a bill to someone else to sign because "it's above her pay grade" because executives can't do that. That have to come down on one side or the other.


So what you're saying is that Obama did what he was perfectly entitled to do and Palin isn't even a legislator.

Good job.
 
2008-10-20 02:57:53 AM  
God DAMN this woman is farking stupid. What does she think the Bush administration did with our financial and banking industries? Did she read this in one of the many newspapers she reads daily?
 
2008-10-20 02:58:40 AM  

log_jammin: he's actually defending Sarah Palin.


For some reason I read that to the tune of Sarah Silverman's Matt Damon song.

he's actually defending Sarah Palin

♫ I'm defending Sarah Palin ♫

♫ I'm sorry, but it's true ♫

...
 
2008-10-20 02:59:41 AM  

TPS Reports: No words strike more fear into my heart than "Vice President Palin".

Seriously.

Not even "beer no longer exists".


How about "President McCain appoints Phil Gramm as Secretary of the Treasury"?

log_jammin: bobbette: In my defense, it's very difficult to tell a parody of someone defending Sarah Palin from someone actually defending Sarah Palin.

he's actually defending Sarah Palin.


Quite. :D
 
2008-10-20 03:00:30 AM  

log_jammin: The only thing above her pay grade is "what newspapers do you read?"


She answered that. "All of them" (essentially true of online content).
 
2008-10-20 03:02:01 AM  
McCain's main economic plan is to spend 300 BILLION in tax payer money to buy homes for those people who got mortgages they can't pay.

This is 100x more socialistic than anything Obama has ever proposed.
 
2008-10-20 03:02:03 AM  

Alien Robot: log_jammin: The only thing above her pay grade is "what newspapers do you read?"

She answered that. "All of them" (essentially true of online content).


She sure is uninformed for someone who reads ALL the papers.
 
2008-10-20 03:02:55 AM  

Coco LaFemme: What does she think the Bush administration did with our financial and banking industries?


She probably doesn't think much about that kind of thing. Even if she did think about that kind of thing and she thought what you obviously think about it, she'd be wrong. That's not exactly surprising, however, as Americans are notoriously ignorant when it comes to socialism.
 
2008-10-20 03:04:03 AM  

zeph`: Coco LaFemme: What does she think the Bush administration did with our financial and banking industries?

She probably doesn't think much about that kind of thing. Even if she did think about that kind of thing and she thought what you obviously think about it, she'd be wrong. That's not exactly surprising, however, as Americans are notoriously ignorant when it comes to socialism.


Even more reason why she doesn't need to step foot into any halls of real power. Not only is she uneducated about this, but she's blind to major issues going on underneath her nose. Kinda like the loser we have in charge now.
 
2008-10-20 03:04:35 AM  

Corvus: This is 100x more socialistic than anything Obama has ever proposed.


No it's not. It's exactly zero times more socialistic, in that neither of them have proposed any policies approaching socialistic.

/I'm just going to keep repeating this in hopes that someone will actually try to do some learning about what socialism is and isn't.
 
2008-10-20 03:05:20 AM  

Alien Robot: (essentially true of online content).


no. thats not "essentially true". and she never once mentioned "online content".
 
2008-10-20 03:05:49 AM  

spamdog: So what you're saying is that Obama did what he was perfectly entitled to do and Palin isn't even a legislator.


That's exactly what I said. Duh. [Don Rickles voice] You win a cookie. [/Don Rickles voice]
 
2008-10-20 03:05:54 AM  

Guntram Shatterhand: Not only is she uneducated about this, but she's blind to major issues going on underneath her nose. Kinda like the loser we have in charge now.


My advice: elect the guy educated at Harvard.
 
2008-10-20 03:06:49 AM  

zeph`: /I'm just going to keep repeating this in hopes that someone will actually try to do some learning about what socialism is and isn't.


Educate me.

I'm thinking about it, and I honestly don't know the definition.

So can you give me a short and sweet definition that will give me the right general idea in the next ten minutes, before I have to goback into the classroom to teach the damn heathens?

/Not snark, really want to know.
 
2008-10-20 03:07:08 AM  

Corvus: McCain's main economic plan is to spend 300 BILLION in tax payer money to buy homes for those people who got mortgages they can't pay.

This is 100x more socialistic than anything Obama has ever proposed.


I agree. It's a supremely bad idea.
 
2008-10-20 03:08:12 AM  

Alien Robot: log_jammin: he's actually defending Sarah Palin.

For some reason I read that to the tune of Sarah Silverman's Matt Damon song.

♫ he's actually defending Sarah Palin ♫

♫ I'm defending Sarah Palin ♫

♫ I'm sorry, but it's true ♫

...


something, something...towel on the floor.
 
2008-10-20 03:11:47 AM  

T.M.S.: AntiNorm: taxation of the wealthy.

My taxes are going up and I am not wealthy.


Compared to most of us, you'd be considered quite well off. However, you live in what's probably the most expensive area in the country. You're an aberration to the concept rather than a standard specimen.
 
2008-10-20 03:12:29 AM  

namegoeshere: Is the rest of the world just laughing at us at this point?


We wouldn't know, Americans don't see much of what the rest of the world is doing.
 
2008-10-20 03:17:10 AM  

Nobodyn0se: So can you give me a short and sweet definition that will give me the right general idea in the next ten minutes, before I have to goback into the classroom to teach the damn heathens?


Socialism has three general parts, like any political philosophy - basic tenets, a practical aspect (those implementable policies), and desired ends.

Basic Tenets:
1. Belief in a labour theory of value.
2. Belief that all human beings have an intrinsic and identical moral worth or value.

Desired Ends:
1. An egalitarian society in which the means of production are owned collectively.

Socialist policies are those which would lead to an egalitarian society, characterized by collectively owned and administered means of production, as is jointly justified by a labour theory of value and a belief in human moral equality.

Neither candidate's policies have, as avowed ends, collectivizing the means of production, nor are they justified or motivated by a belief in a labour theory of value or human moral equivalence, therefore they simply cannot be socialist.

/Yes, labour has a u.
 
2008-10-20 03:20:46 AM  

Alien Robot: log_jammin: The only thing above her pay grade is "what newspapers do you read?"

She answered that. "All of them" (essentially true of online content).


she gave no hint of referring to online content, she had no clue because she doesn't read. That is the only logical conclusion. The interviewer was katie Couric no less, that's the equivalent of being interviewed by the lady that runs the Cat Salon down my high street.

/watch obama on o'reilly to see a candidate putting himself in the firing line. with much WIN goodness.
 
2008-10-20 03:22:37 AM  

zeph`: Nobodyn0se: So can you give me a short and sweet definition that will give me the right general idea in the next ten minutes, before I have to goback into the classroom to teach the damn heathens?

Socialism has three general parts, like any political philosophy - basic tenets, a practical aspect (those implementable policies), and desired ends.

Basic Tenets:
1. Belief in a labour theory of value.
2. Belief that all human beings have an intrinsic and identical moral worth or value.

Desired Ends:
1. An egalitarian society in which the means of production are owned collectively.

Socialist policies are those which would lead to an egalitarian society, characterized by collectively owned and administered means of production, as is jointly justified by a labour theory of value and a belief in human moral equality.

Neither candidate's policies have, as avowed ends, collectivizing the means of production, nor are they justified or motivated by a belief in a labour theory of value or human moral equivalence, therefore they simply cannot be socialist.

/Yes, labour has a u.


Ok, so how is the "collectivisation" (is that even a word?) of the banking/mortgage industry NOT socialism. It seems to met your criteria.

Also, what are the differences between socialism and communism?

/I'm really glad I didn't choose political science as a major.
 
2008-10-20 03:27:47 AM  
A bit off topic . . .

Odd, I get all of my news from either a couple of aggregate pages I've set up on my iGoogle home page or NPR.

Papers here are pretty painful to read (Orange County Register, LA Times, Long Beach Press-Telegram).

The news is tagged with the organization that publishes it. I regularly end up reading pieces from the New York Times, CNN, Bloomberg, AP, Forbes, Reuters, the BBC, and the Christian Science Monitor. Sometimes I'll even break down and read the Orange County Register or the LA Times.

If you don't know where your news comes from, then you don't know what bias is inherent in the information.

I find the best way of getting a reasonable picture of important events is to read the New York Times (or Washington Post), followed by the LA Times (or Orange County Register), followed by NPR, BBC, or the Christian Science Monitor. I average the information and can usually come up with a fairly balanced view of the situation.

It's a lot of work, and I don't have the time to follow as many major events as I would like.

I hope that major candidates have experts in various fields who do this type of research, and then present summaries plus references as information sources.

I'll get around to writing that code sooner or later (Lisp, Stanford's Protege system (new window), plus techniques out of "Programming Collective Intelligence" (new window)).

Until then, I'll do it by hand.

/ thinking - it's not just for breakfast anymore
// yeah, I'm a geek - and just as much fun at parties
 
2008-10-20 03:48:37 AM  
700 BILLION

Bush took 700 BILLION from every American and gave it to the richest 1% "for the good of everybody".

And now you accuse Obama of being The Socialist Threat. Seriously. That's the GOP's current #1 attack against Obama. The GOP. Who's leader is RIGHT NOW THIS VERY MOMENT George W. Bush.

www.users.on.net
 
2008-10-20 03:50:38 AM  

sacrileg: Obama wants universal health care, right? Thats socialism.
McCain wants to finally tax health care premiums and treat medicine like a business.


That's dehumanizing.
 
2008-10-20 03:51:15 AM  
She's a retard. Who cares what she says. She clearly knows nothing about the subjects of her own statements.
 
2008-10-20 03:52:13 AM  

Whoatherebabie: namegoeshere: Is the rest of the world just laughing at us at this point?

Yeah... pretty much.


Yep. We laugh, but there is a lot of pity for you too. And some of us are angry as well - we know you're smarter than the Republicans think you are.

Someone should ask Caribou Barbie what socialism means in her next interview.
 
2008-10-20 03:54:32 AM  

Nickers: Whoatherebabie: namegoeshere: Is the rest of the world just laughing at us at this point?

Yeah... pretty much.

Yep. We laugh, but there is a lot of pity for you too. And some of us are angry as well - we know you're smarter than the Republicans think you are.

Someone should ask Caribou Barbie what socialism means in her next interview.


You liberal elitists and your "gotcha" questions gosh darnit.
 
2008-10-20 03:58:40 AM  

Alien Robot: T.M.S.: You really think that was what she was saying by "all of them"?

That's what she was saying. It's not hard to understand. Do you really think Biden thinks FDR came on TV to reassure the nation after the stock market crash of '29 or do you think he was actually referring to the fireside radio chats of the 30s?


No, that's NOT what she was saying. Just how stupid do you think we are?
 
2008-10-20 04:03:59 AM  

bobbette: The financial services sector is one of the greatest producers of wealth in the world.


Not anymore!
 
2008-10-20 04:11:33 AM  
Mainstream America obviously does not understand the concept of socialism. Higher taxes is not socialism. We can still have a fully capitalistic economy with a 100% tax rate. The government does not own the means of production; they simply take any profit you make and throw it in their cave.

A fully socialist economy could have a tax rate of 0%. A socialist economy is capable of thriving and providing well for its citizens. A fifth-grader can understand that the Soviet Union did not suck because of its economic system (communism); it sucked because of the political system (totalitarian).

In the real world, of course, human nature makes both capitalism and socialism into slogans. But as a culture, we Americans are still witch-burners at heart. I find the extreme left's idiocy to be pathetic and annoying; but the extreme right's lunacy is depressing and dangerous. Labeling something such as the concept of universal health coverage as socialism clearly indicates ignorance of the terms and an irrational fear of any kind of change. Yes, in a socialist society, you can have universal health care. You can also have it in our (thankfully) capitalistic society.

/do socialists float because they're made of wood?
//kooky 'ibertarian
 
2008-10-20 04:38:04 AM  
tabula_rasta [TotalFark]In the real world, of course, human nature makes both capitalism and socialism into slogans. But as a culture, we Americans are still witch-burners at heart. I find the extreme left's idiocy to be pathetic and annoying; but the extreme right's lunacy is depressing and dangerous.

The depressing thing is that the United States has not moved past a tribal society. Us and Them.
 
2008-10-20 04:44:07 AM  

tabula_rasta: A fifth-grader can understand that the Soviet Union did not suck because of its economic system (communism); it sucked because of the political system (totalitarian).


Its sucked because of both.
 
2008-10-20 05:18:29 AM  

tabula_rasta: the Soviet Union did not suck because of its economic system (communism); it sucked because of the political system (totalitarian).


They failed due many factors, external and internal, economical and political and such...

Too slow economic growth vs. the West (heavy industry, development of natural
resources).
The underground economy was growing too fast (consumption goods).
The internal bureaucracy, corruption, bribery contributed to the ineffectiveness of the society as a whole. Nothing happened unless "gifts" and "favors" were offered.
The new class of corrupt officials, with special privileges, all of them despised by the working people.
The military industrial complex grew too fast.
Nobody believed in the system, the party and it's officials.

They had free education, healthcare and daycare for children.
Had the "right" to work, had a place they could call home and had food (most of the time)...

In spite of all this it totally sucked though....
 
2008-10-20 06:32:39 AM  

zeph`: My advice: elect the guy educated at Harvard.


We just spent eight years where we are because our two choices in 2000 were guys educated at Harvard. My uncle graduated near the top of his class in Harvard's MBA program (back when that might have meant something) but it didn't stop him from running the family business into the ground. I know a woman who took her profits running an internet business to get her masters in education from Harvard, and the best she's done so far is become a freelance private tutor.

It's a brand name for making business connections. Nothing more.
 
2008-10-20 06:33:15 AM  
Its more sickening than funny to listen to this woman. What's worst is there are still people who take her seriously.
 
Displayed 50 of 264 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report