So apparently, there's been a series of posters around California decrying the Obama administration's approach to health care, the economy, and just about everything else domestic with a simple message:
(Some place said they've had signs like this since November saying "Why So Socialist?")Anyway, apparently there are now outcries from people on the left that it's "racism" and "all that's missing is a noose". Of course, considering the obvious message and the obvious takeoff on Heath Ledger's makeup as The Joker in The Dark Knight, that seems ridiculous even on its own merit. But more importantly, this isn't even a new takeoff to not realize something like this:
...just sayin'.
Why don't you criticize the signs for being idiotic, inflammatory, and misleading rather than the criticism of the signs as racist? People on your side of this debate are treading on dangerous ground with their rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteThe Bush=Hitler nuts were fringe at best. The Obama=socialist nuts are Senators and Congressmen.
If you know the slightest thing about Obama's health care plan and the meaning of the word socialist, you know that there's absolutely no connection. But it's convenient to smear him, isn't it?
"Bush Lied" was an idiotic, inflammatory, and actually false rhetoric that made a clear claim. This is obvious rhetoric about a series of policies that harkens back to socialistic policies, even if it's obviously never going to be "true" socialism in the sense of the definition of the word itself. It is, however, reminiscent of what people here in the US typically consider "socialism", which is government-run and/or government-managed economics and health care.
ReplyDeleteAnd yes, that is what we're talking about here. Anytime government would have a major stake in how policies in a particular field will be defined, that would qualify as what people here typically consider "socialist" as opposed to "freedom of choice".
"Bush Lied" was an idiotic, inflammatory, and actually false rhetoric that made a clear claim.
ReplyDeleteAt worst, it's "unproven," not "actually false." It's pretty clear that the Bush administration did not provide an honest assessment of the intelligence at the time. Whether that was due to bias, incompetence, or outright lying is open for interpretation.
This is obvious rhetoric about a series of policies that harkens back to socialistic policies, even if it's obviously never going to be "true" socialism in the sense of the definition of the word itself.
What is this BS? "Harkens back." Talk about a weasel phrase.
It is, however, reminiscent of what people here in the US typically consider "socialism", which is government-run and/or government-managed economics and health care.
No it's not. Obama's plan is vastly less "socialist" than existing government programs like public schools, the VA, Medicare, Medicaid, etc.
Government will be neither running nor managing health care under this plan. That's not a small detail, it's key to understanding the whole idea. And Republicans are *deliberately* muddying the issue with this "socialism" garbage.
And yes, that is what we're talking about here. Anytime government would have a major stake in how policies in a particular field will be defined, that would qualify as what people here typically consider "socialist" as opposed to "freedom of choice".
People where? In the remaining 30% Republican bubble? Polls consistently show that a majority and even super-majority of Americans support universal health care coverage.
The Bush=Hitler nuts were fringe at best. The Obama=socialist nuts are Senators and Congressmen.
ReplyDeleteThere is a huge difference here. Being socialist is not some murderous monster. Israel is partly a socialist country. Is that somehow dangerous rhetoric? Obama=socialist is a description of his policies. I don't see why the left is so angry with this description. Don't people on the left always use Europe as examples? Well......is anyone going to deny that Europe has pretty left leaning socialist policies?
This is irrelevant if people LIKE the policies or whether they will work or not. Certain policies are socialist leaning. Thats all.
There is a huge difference here. Being socialist is not some murderous monster.
ReplyDeleteThen why do the posters have the word "socialism" under the picture of SOME MURDEROUS MONSTER?? LOL. That's obviously the connotation they're going for.
Israel is partly a socialist country. Is that somehow dangerous rhetoric?
Not in Israel. But I bet a lot of people in the Republican base would have their heads explode if they knew that.
Obama=socialist is a description of his policies. I don't see why the left is so angry with this description.
BECAUSE IT'S A LIE. The right is making it impossible to have an honest debate because they've convinced 30% of the country that Obama's position is completely different than it is in reality!
There is such a thing generally referred to as "socialized medicine." Obama does not support it. Obama is not proposing it. The Democrats are not supporting or proposing it. And yet the right insists on attacking THAT, as if THAT is what they are fighting against. It's pure straw-manning, and it's totally poisoned the debate and made it less likely that we'll get good reforms passed.
Don't people on the left always use Europe as examples? Well......is anyone going to deny that Europe has pretty left leaning socialist policies?
Could you be more vague?
This is irrelevant if people LIKE the policies or whether they will work or not.
THAT is what we should be debating. But Republicans don't want the debate on those terms, because they'll lose that debate 10 times out of 10. Health Care Reform is just too damn popular among American voters. So they lie and twist and mislead and namecall and do anything they can to muddy the waters and confuse the voters. It's just dirty pool.
Certain policies are socialist leaning. Thats all.
Certain policies are. The ones in question are not. THAT is all.
>Then why do the posters have the word "socialism" under the picture of SOME MURDEROUS MONSTER?? LOL. That's obviously the connotation they're going for.
ReplyDeleteHey, the poster is in bad taste with the Joker. To tell you the truth, I don't see the connection of what they were trying to say.
>Not in Israel. But I bet a lot of people in the Republican base would have their heads explode if they knew that.
Huh? Everyone knows that.
BECAUSE IT'S A LIE. The right is making it impossible to have an honest debate because they've convinced 30% of the country that Obama's position is completely different than it is in reality!
There is such a thing generally referred to as "socialized medicine." Obama does not support it. Obama is not proposing it. The Democrats are not supporting or proposing it. And yet the right insists on attacking THAT, as if THAT is what they are fighting against. It's pure straw-manning, and it's totally poisoned the debate and made it less likely that we'll get good reforms passed.
JA
What can I say. You are the very first, even from lefties in my group that is saying what you just said. Even Obamas latest video from his past spoke of what he "desires." I don't know how you can somehow kvetch that he doesn't want socialized medicine (nor the big shots in capital hill and you know this) and to eventually have the private sector in this are to disappear. Every pundit I have heard doesn't give a rats ass about the private insurance sector. I mean, this is normal leftiest ideals. This is not some nasty comment against them. Its just the ideals.
>Could you be more vague?
Vague about what? Europe is heavily socialist in public welfare. Again, this is not an insult. This is just policy of left. The same thing the Left desires in the US. California is totally F$%$ed up in large part for social spending.
>THAT is what we should be debating. But Republicans don't want the debate on those terms, because they'll lose that debate 10 times out of 10. Health Care Reform is just too damn popular among American voters. So they lie and twist and mislead and namecall and do anything they can to muddy the waters and confuse the voters. It's just dirty pool.
How is this relevant to what I am talking about? I am saying, EVEN IF its popular with the American people its still a socialist policy. Thats all. Even if the right was to propose it.
I think the use of the Joker isn't some deep political commentary. It's just the name "joker" as in "Obama is a joker, not to be taken seriously"
ReplyDeleteAnyone who says that the attacks on Obama are any different in substance than the attacks on Bush is either a liar, has bad memory, or is an idiot.
ReplyDeleteObjections to the label socialist come mainly from socialists who feel the label repels voters.
ReplyDeleteTo consider Obama to be other than a type of socialist requires mind-boggling powers of ignorance (about Obama or socialism) or denial.
Obama will often propose a plan that is only partially socialist in the hope of getting closer to the goal later on. He now wants to do everything possible to stampede his Congress quickly into permanently expanding government power over citizens. Total domination has to wait.
Much of general relevance can be learned from Jonah Goldberg's recent paperback edition of Liberal Fascism.
Obama supporters will be able to squawk about other people's propaganda when their own propaganda gets a whole lot closer to truth and civility.
HH:
ReplyDeleteI think the common thread here is that you vastly overestimate the Republican base.
Hey, the poster is in bad taste with the Joker. To tell you the truth, I don't see the connection of what they were trying to say.
See here you are expecting them to be rational, so you are curious as to why there seems to be no rational explanation. The answer is that they are irrational. They really think Obama == socialist == monster.
Huh? Everyone knows that.
Haha. Again, Jewish intellectuals know this. Non-Jewish intellectuals know this. The Republican base, not so much. To them Israel is just a beacon of democracy and "Judeo-Christian values" in the middle east. I guarantee they'd be shocked by the levels of both secularism and social spending in Israel if they knew about it.
What can I say. You are the very first, even from lefties in my group that is saying what you just said. Even Obamas latest video from his past spoke of what he "desires." I don't know how you can somehow kvetch that he doesn't want socialized medicine (nor the big shots in capital hill and you know this) and to eventually have the private sector in this are to disappear.
What's the kvetch? I'm just taking him at his word. You're the one kvetching a secret agenda that you know about because you're some kind of psychic.
Every pundit I have heard doesn't give a rats ass about the private insurance sector. I mean, this is normal leftiest ideals. This is not some nasty comment against them. Its just the ideals.
Well I agree that most people don't have fuzzy warm feelings about the insurance industry, but that doesn't mean we want to utterly destroy them, either. We just want everybody who can't afford coverage or who they won't give coverage to to be able to be covered -- and we want the ins. companies to stop abusing their power when they do it.
Vague about what? Europe is heavily socialist in public welfare. Again, this is not an insult. This is just policy of left. The same thing the Left desires in the US.
The American left is equivalent to the European center-center-right. There is no real "left" in America.
California is totally F$%$ed up in large part for social spending.
Uh, no. They're messed up because it takes 2/3s to increase taxes but only 1/2 to increase spending. Taxing and spending isn't a problem. Spending without taxing is a problem.
How is this relevant to what I am talking about? I am saying, EVEN IF its popular with the American people its still a socialist policy. Thats all. Even if the right was to propose it.
That's true only if the definition of "socialist" is so broad as to include Medicare, medicaid, welfare, public schools, public highways, the VA, hell, the military itself. True capitalists would just have voluntary militias, not some damn socialist standing army paid for with tax money!
Are you trying to tell me that by calling Obama's health care proposal "socialist" they're not trying to paint it as more extreme than all those other examples which are MORE "socialist" by any reasonable definition of the word?
>Uh, no. They're messed up because it takes 2/3s to increase taxes but only 1/2 to increase spending. Taxing and spending isn't a problem. Spending without taxing is a problem.
ReplyDeleteI find it interesting that this is where we differ. That you would lower the vote to 1/2 to increase taxes. I think BOTH should be 2/3. Too much spending for every social cause has hurt this state. When they raise taxes it hurts our state. I work for a TV company. I talk to co workers who worked for studios that have bailed out to Canada due to tax increases.
http://jimtreacher.com/archives/002100.html
ReplyDelete