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.

(UPI)   "Socialist" replaces "liberal" as the conservative epithet of choice, although "suck it, socialists" doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Suck it, socialists   (upi.com) divider line 389
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

1037 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Mar 2009 at 4:06 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



389 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2009-03-02 12:20:09 PM
I'm just going to start referring to all Conservatives as "child molesters." It's about as accurate as calling liberals "socialists."
 
2009-03-02 12:22:01 PM
i149.photobucket.com
I've always been partial to `filthy hippies'.
 
2009-03-02 12:26:47 PM
Seems like any time you want to know what sort of guilt and self loathing "conservatives" are feeling you just have to look at what title they are using for their enemies.
 
2009-03-02 12:27:52 PM
Considering the recent setbacks of the world's capitalistic systems, maybe people think a little bit of socialism isn't such a bad thing right now. In other words, the authoritarian fascists Repubs are shooting themselves in the foot.
 
2009-03-02 12:40:00 PM
"Suck it, soshis"...
"Suck it, socs"...
"Suck it, socis"...

Meh.
 
2009-03-02 12:41:30 PM
I've always heard the fuzzy designation of socialist, socialism. Wasn't real sure so I looked it up on Merriam Webster Online

Definition 1 seems to be the closest. 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Our US gov seems to be getting government control over some banks and insurance. The only such for production is automobiles.

All in all, not many folks, and certainly not the collective "liberals" seem to be advocating the above definition.

Ward
 
2009-03-02 12:42:33 PM
It's the basic Jonah Goldberg argument - take something which had a certain meaning 100 years ago, find people who use the same word nowadays in a different way, and paint them with the old meaning.
 
2009-03-02 12:42:47 PM
The single greatest moment in Pelosi's "Right America, Feeling Wronged" documentary was the McCain supporter wearing the "Say No To Socilism" t-shirt who, when questioned, could not even offer the most basic definition of what "socilism" (or socialism, for that matter) means.
 
2009-03-02 12:42:53 PM
Whamdangler: I'm just going to start referring to all Conservatives as "child molesters."

img187.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-02 12:46:12 PM
Republicans are the most petulant political party in the history of mankind. I don't think anybody can argue with me there

/also, that dude with the glasses in oldfarthenry's picture is way ahead of his time; kid is rocking it
 
2009-03-02 12:48:52 PM
Sad and demented, but socialist.
 
2009-03-02 12:49:34 PM
I hear pundits lamenting about "socialism" over the government becoming co-owner of failing financial institutions. Well, there's always been socialism in America - tax breaks for companies that export jobs; taxpayer-paid subsidies for greedy oil companies and others; free health care for Congress - but it's always been socialism for the rich. The rest of us get free enterprise.

Albert Vetere Lannon
Tucson
 
2009-03-02 12:49:44 PM
Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: "Suck it, socs"

Well put, Ponyboy.
 
2009-03-02 12:50:43 PM
Wardish: I've always heard the fuzzy designation of socialist, socialism. Wasn't real sure so I looked it up on Merriam Webster Online

Definition 1 seems to be the closest. 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.

Our US gov seems to be getting government control over some banks and insurance. The only such for production is automobiles.

All in all, not many folks, and certainly not the collective "liberals" seem to be advocating the above definition.

Ward


The conservatives also don't want The Base to know that the banks essentially had the government over a barrel--it was either bail them out, or lose the ability to do short-term lending to huge businesses, thereby shutting production down and creating a depression.

As always, there's way more to these things than the reductive, simplistic vision that the Liberal Bashing Industry peddles.

.
 
2009-03-02 12:55:19 PM
Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: "Suck it, soshis"...
"Suck it, socs"...
"Suck it, socis"...

Meh.


That's the best one. Plus, it sounds stinky.
 
2009-03-02 12:59:28 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2009-03-02 01:05:06 PM
That would have maybe been news a few years ago. You're at least two buzzwords behind.

First they used "liberal," but eventually it stopped scaring people, especially when they started to embrace it. Then they used "socialist," but that began to lose its power, too. Then they tried "communist," but since this isn't the Cold War anymore, it's just not scary. The new buzzword used to slur liberals is "collectivist." They're directly trying to draw parallels between Obama and the economic policies of Stalin and Mao, and "collectivist" is the most concise word to describe and highlight both the communist policies and specifically why they failed.

Basically, it seems that over time the GOP and conservative pundits are making their rhetoric more and more historically menacing, but less and less accurate.
 
2009-03-02 01:05:27 PM
Burn_The_Plows: Well put, Ponyboy.

That's Mr. Ponyboy to you.
 
2009-03-02 01:06:14 PM
pwhp_67
I hear pundits lamenting about "socialism" over the government becoming co-owner of failing financial institutions. Well, there's always been socialism in America - tax breaks for companies that export jobs; taxpayer-paid subsidies for greedy oil companies and others; free health care for Congress - but it's always been socialism for the rich. The rest of us get free enterprise.


Socialize the risks. Privatize the rewards. America, fark yeah!
 
2009-03-02 01:07:13 PM
Snarfangel: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: "Suck it, soshis"...
"Suck it, socs"...
"Suck it, socis"...

Meh.

That's the best one. Plus, it sounds stinky.


Yup! Clinton claimed he named his cat "Socks," but it was really "Socs," as in "Socialist!"

That prooves it! Their hiding in plane site, you sheeple!!
 
2009-03-02 01:08:04 PM
Bloody William: collectivist

It's hard to say that word quickly with appropriate disdain while sneering. Besides, it's a "K" word and "K" words are funny.
 
2009-03-02 01:09:58 PM
img98.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-02 01:15:25 PM
www.io.com
You keep using that word, socialist. I do not think it means what you think it means.
 
2009-03-02 01:15:29 PM
I'm waiting til both "socialist" and "collectivist" both lose their shine, in much the same way that "liberal" did when the Democrats re-embraced it. Can't wait to see what he next one will be.

My money's on either "Nazi" or "doo-doo head".
 
2009-03-02 01:16:23 PM
patrick767: pwhp_67
I hear pundits lamenting about "socialism" over the government becoming co-owner of failing financial institutions. Well, there's always been socialism in America - tax breaks for companies that export jobs; taxpayer-paid subsidies for greedy oil companies and others; free health care for Congress - but it's always been socialism for the rich. The rest of us get free enterprise.

Socialize the risks. Privatize the rewards. America, fark yeah!



Yes, somehow old-fashioned kleptocratic statism gets recast as "socialism".
 
2009-03-02 01:17:42 PM
Social
Community

Liberal
Democracy

Conserve
Republic

Antisocial, non-communal, to save the republic from freedom and democracy. Unless conservative is supposed to mean non-progressive.

/Snark
 
2009-03-02 01:21:20 PM
I'm a "liberal", and I'm WAY further left than any party in the US.
 
2009-03-02 01:21:58 PM
Bloody William: The new buzzword used to slur liberals is "collectivist." They're directly trying to draw parallels between Obama and the economic policies of Stalin and Mao, and "collectivist" is the most concise word to describe and highlight both the communist policies and specifically why they failed.

They may want to rethink that one. Because collectivism is a very broad term, and most corporations fall into the definition of a collective entity.
 
2009-03-02 01:22:24 PM
Pocket Ninja: The single greatest moment in Pelosi's "Right America, Feeling Wronged" documentary was the McCain supporter wearing the "Say No To Socilism" t-shirt who, when questioned, could not even offer the most basic definition of what "socilism" (or socialism, for that matter) means.

That WAS pretty awesome.
 
2009-03-02 01:23:44 PM
Spit Take: That WAS pretty awesome.


I love retires who are on Social Security and Medicare who rant against socialism.

Makes me all warm inside...
 
2009-03-02 01:24:21 PM
Socialism is the system whereby everybody attempts to live at everybody else's expense. Where unequal prosperity is replaced by equal poverty. Where those riding in the wagon are valued above those pulling the wagon. Call it what you like, America is on The Road to Serfdom (new window)
 
2009-03-02 01:24:26 PM
farm2.static.flickr.com
 
2009-03-02 01:26:38 PM
Code_Archeologist: Bloody William: The new buzzword used to slur liberals is "collectivist." They're directly trying to draw parallels between Obama and the economic policies of Stalin and Mao, and "collectivist" is the most concise word to describe and highlight both the communist policies and specifically why they failed.

They may want to rethink that one. Because collectivism is a very broad term, and most corporations fall into the definition of a collective entity.


The thing is, I've yet to get any satisfactory explanation how Obama's policies are at all "collectivist." It's just a scary word they heard on a documentary about Stalin and Mao.
 
2009-03-02 01:27:24 PM
Il Douchey: Socialism is the system whereby everybody attempts to live at everybody else's expense.

That's two threads now where you have exposed your ignorance. Bravo.
 
2009-03-02 01:28:57 PM
Code_Archeologist: They may want to rethink that one. Because collectivism is a very broad term, and most corporations fall into the definition of a collective entity.

You're inferring intellectual honesty where none exists. Just as their definition of socialism only applies to the behavior of others and not themselves, so will their definition of collectivism tar their opponents while simultaneously exempting the megacorps who hold their leashes.
 
2009-03-02 01:28:57 PM
I've yet to hear a Republican give a coherent, rational explanation backed up with facts on why introducing socialist elements into a democracy is a bad thing.
 
2009-03-02 01:30:06 PM
Il Douchey: Where unequal prosperity is replaced by equal poverty. Where those riding in the wagon are valued above those pulling the wagon.


My gut feeling, and really this is just me, is that it's probably not a good bet to take advice about economic strategies from people who can't even go for two sentences without contradicting themselves.
 
2009-03-02 01:31:28 PM
GAT_00: I've yet to hear a Republican give a coherent, rational explanation backed up with facts on why introducing socialist elements into a democracy is a bad thing.

Minor adjustment for accuracy.
 
2009-03-02 01:32:58 PM
Makh: Antisocial, non-communal, to save the republic from freedom and democracy. Unless conservative is supposed to mean non-progressive.

There is the paradox. Republicans are not conservative, not by any stretch of the imagination. Conservatism is a political philosophy that wishes to conserve what is already established. But the current status quo of the nation (social safety nets, corporate oversight, and unobtrusive police presence) are the very things that the Republicans are trying to destroy.

The Republicans of today are more a plutocratic party, pushing policies that are geared towards preserving the wealth of a minority at the expense of the financial stability of the majority.
 
2009-03-02 01:33:17 PM
GAT_00: I've yet to hear a Republican give a coherent, rational explanation backed up with facts on why introducing socialist elements into a democracy is a bad thing.

That's the really sad thing. I'd love to have a decent argument about socialism vs. capitalism, the sliding scale of the free market, and the individual merits of Keynes and Chicago schools. Unfortunately, whenever I try to get a discussion like that, I usually find nothing but insults and ignorance.

Yesterday I got into a discussion with a Randianish guy after pointing out how stupid these "tea parties" are. He said it was good people are protesting Obama's collectivist policies. I asked him to explain these things, tell me why they were wrong, tell me just how the New Deal was damaging when history (specifically, the GDP and employment numbers from 1929 to 1940) say otherwise. All I got was the usual smarm. "Go read a newspaper." Then it became dickwaving: "Well, I live in a big house and I have money, so I clearly know more about capitalism."

I just can't get a farking discussion about the actual merits or facts.
 
2009-03-02 01:33:25 PM
Former head of mortgage derivatives trading at Lehman Brothers approves.

img217.imageshack.us
 
2009-03-02 01:35:52 PM
veedeevadeevoodee: ghetto sponge bob

oh look, more funny pictures from StormFront.
 
2009-03-02 01:35:55 PM
Il Douchey: Where those riding in the wagon are valued above those pulling the wagon.

I hate to tell you this, but (what I assume to be your views) capitalism, or rather the current economic structure and attitude, doesn't give a shiat about those pulling the wagon, and lavishes ridiculous amounts of praise on those with their hands on the reins.

Your metaphor falls apart when you realize how the horses (actual workers, the people who produce the goods and offer most of the services in the market) are being fed just enough grain to keep going, while the coachmen are getting paid in gold bricks.
 
2009-03-02 01:36:50 PM
Code_Archeologist: veetruncated: ghetto sponge bob

oh look, more funny pictures from StormFront.


Just ignore him. He doesn't post shiat except those pictures, and he'll get bored and leave soon enough.
 
2009-03-02 01:37:14 PM
Glasgowsdimmest:That's two threads now where you have exposed your ignorance. Bravo.

Shouldn't you be busy retrieving your global warming satellite from the bottom of the ocean pal? In any event, my "ignorance" imposes nothing on anybody; yours is massively intrusive on others and sticks them with the bill to boot.
 
2009-03-02 01:38:15 PM
The Republican Party: Because working together to solve mutual problems is for pussies.
 
2009-03-02 01:42:39 PM
Il Douchey: yours is massively intrusive on others and sticks them with the bill to boot.


You're from the South, aren't you?
 
2009-03-02 01:43:36 PM
Bloody William: Just ignore him. He doesn't post shiat except those pictures, and he'll get bored and leave soon enough.

Oh :( I was hoping for a hobo thread.

You have to give the GOP credit, they can say one word over and over and make it stick.

How they made "liberal" into an epithet is amazing.
 
2009-03-02 01:45:32 PM
FloydA: My gut feeling, and really this is just me, is that it's probably not a good bet to take advice about economic strategies from people who can't even go for two sentences without contradicting themselves.

What contradiction? In collectivist societies everyone is miserable, the parasites get more than they should, the contributors get less than they should, but the misery is universal, everyone will get plenty of that.
 
2009-03-02 01:47:07 PM
Il Douchey: Shouldn't you be busy retrieving your global warming satellite from the bottom of the ocean pal? In any event, my "ignorance" imposes nothing on anybody; yours is massively intrusive on others and sticks them with the bill to boot.

Many thanks for your reply. You are, however, not exactly redeeming yourself. You have no idea about global warming, and also seem to have no idea what Socialism actually is.

I have asked my colleagues here what a "global warming satellite" is but I just got blank looks from everyone except one guy who wanted to know "what idiot wrote that?"

Our Earth Observation satellites however, are fine.

Thanks for asking :)
 
Displayed 50 of 389 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report