published Sunday, November 4th, 2012

A socialist either way

President Barack Obama is a socialist.

That’s not meant as a pejorative or a slur. It’s simply a reality. Judging by historical standards of what it means to practice socialism, there is no doubt that Obama is, in fact, a socialist.

But so is Mitt Romney.

In fact, almost every member of Congress, governor and major political figure in the United States today is a socialist, as well.

It seems crazy, but it’s true.

How did the America become a nation of socialists?

The modern Socialist Party of America was founded in 1901. By 1912, its presidential candidate, Eugene V. Debs, received 6 percent of the popular vote. That same year, the party developed its most thorough party platform to date.

That platform contained more than 30 demands, including:

• A minimum wage.

• A federal old-age pension.

• The adoption of a graduated income tax.

• An inheritance tax.

• A Department of Education.

• An independent Department of Labor.

• A federal Department of Health.

• Federally owned railroads.

• Government ownership of forests and water power.

• Federally managed land for conservation.

• The lending of money to states and municipalities, without interest, for the purpose of carrying on public works,

• Government-run unemployment bureaus.

• A collectively managed currency system.

None of those things were a reality in 1912. In fact, most of them were considered radical ideas, only supported by marginal candidates and fringe activists. Few mainstream Americans took the platform seriously. But now, only a century later, every single one of those policies proposed by the Socialist Party in 1912 is a fact of life in America.

The next year, in 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified, creating a federal income tax. By 1916, Congress had also instituted a death tax. That same year, the National Parks Service was born, ensuring the federal ownership of land for conservation purposes. The NPS would later expand, giving the government control over much of America’s forest lands.

In 1935, Congress passed a federal old-age pension, called Social Security. Four years later, a federal minimum wage was enacted.

Amtrak gave the government control over most of America’s long-distance commuter rail services. The Fed was created, then expanded, putting the nation’s currency in the hands of the government. The government-owned TVA manages dozens of dams. There are now federal Departments of Labor, Health and Education.

While modern Americans had little to with adopting an income tax or establishing the Department of Labor, not all of these planks of the Socialist Party platform were instituted decades ago. The idea to “lend money to states and municipalities, without interest, for the purpose of carrying on public works” was a big part of Obama’s stimulus package.


Any member of the Socialist Party from the early 20th century who saw America today, 100 years later, could claim victory. The United States is clearly a socialist nation.

More troubling still is how little America’s leaders — even those who claim to be champions of liberty, limited government and the free market — seem to care.

Attempts to overturn these socialist policies — such as efforts to abolish the federal minimum wage, privatize Social Security and eliminate the federal Department of Education — are often met with contempt, even among Republicans.

With America continuing to inch away from individual responsibility, free market economic policies and the constitutional limits on government, there’s no reason to believe the outlandish policy proposals that constitute the 2012 Socialist Party platform won’t be a reality 100 years from now. And that extremist platform includes government ownership of all financial and insurance institutions, the airline industry, large farms and fossil fuel reserves; a steeply graduated income and estate taxes; an income tax preventing anyone from making more than 10 times the minimum; lowering the retirement age to 55 and the voting age to 15; and taxpayer-funded auto insurance.

There is an apocryphal saying credited to six-time Socialist Party presidential candidate Norman Thomas that goes, “The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” (Most likely, the statement was actually invented for a radio commentary by Ronald Reagan, himself a socialist, but to a much lesser degree than most modern politicians.)

The statement, whoever its author, has proven unquestionably true.

As a result of the success of socialists in enacting their ideas — not by members of the Socialist Party, but by Democrats and, more and more, Republicans — it won’t matter whether Obama or Romney wins the election Tuesday. A socialist will be in the White House either way.

Comments do not represent the opinions of the Chattanooga Times Free Press, nor does it review every comment. Profanities, slurs and libelous remarks are prohibited. For more information you can view our Terms & Conditions and/or Ethics policy.

We get it, you think socialism is bad, that grouping together is bad, and that you have to be done kind of self-empowered rugged individualist to be worthwhile.

Here, let me give you another saying:

When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled "made in Germany"; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, "Americanism.

You can add "wrapped in a flag" and "carrying a cross" as you like.

E Plurbius unum.

November 4, 2012 at 12:51 a.m.
librul said...

And yet, we suffer the uber-rich capitalists in the 1% to live, to rule our government, to suck the life out of our economy with their endless wars, offshoring, union-busting and multi-nationalism; to abuse the poor and drag America back to the grand old days of the robber barons and their "free markets".

November 4, 2012 at 4:10 a.m.
aae1049 said...

Oh no, we are socialists.

November 4, 2012 at 8:17 a.m.
joneses said...


And you are so stupid you actually think Hussein Obama and his socialist friends want to eliminate the 1%. They want to make you slaves and pawns of the government just like they have accomplished with the majority of the black population. You are such a misinformed, gullible, liar. Amazing.

November 4, 2012 at 10:46 a.m.
Rickaroo said...

Damn Socialists! I'm with you, Mr. Editor. How I long for a return to those good ol' days of "individual freedom" - before child labor laws, womens' rights, civil rights, minimum wage, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, paid vacations, the 40-hour work week, OSHA, and EPA. Government - bah! Nothing but an intrusion. I can't tell you how much I've hated living in this nanny-state of socialistic wusses who have emasculated all of us with their needless protections and entitlements. I abhor being forced to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and eat food that has been inspected, supposedly for my benefit. Give me dirty, toxic air and water any day - it assures me that progress is being made and somebody somewhere is making money off their foundry or factory. And as for food inspection, what nonsense! If some industrious commercial food processor is turning out e.coli-laden food, then it just means it's time to kill off some of those at the low end of the food chain.

Ah yes, I so much want to go back to those gilded age days before pesky socialists came on the scene with their lame-brained ideas of "rights" and "social justice" for all. What hooey! I may never be rich myself but I'll gladly eat e.coli-laden food or get cancer from breathing toxic air, as long as it affords some noble Ayn Randian capitalist somewhere in America the opportunity to get richer and richer without those damn silly government rules and regulations getting in their way. Because we all know...getting rich is what it's all about, it's the American way, and if you're not rich you're nobody, right? Damn them socialists, their nanny state, and their talk of social justice. Wusses, everyone of 'em. Vive la capitalism!

November 4, 2012 at 1:44 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Atlas is shrugging and too few in numbers. In Socialism, the rich get poorer, and poor get poorer. People lose interest in working hard.

November 4, 2012 at 2:38 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Aae1049, the ad you link to is based on a completely false premise: the "socialist" Hungary that the man claims to have grown up in was not a socialist state, it was communist/totalitarian. We can never have a rational discussion as long as you knee-jerk reactionaries keep misrepresenting the truth and distorting reality. It would help if you know what you're talking about before you condemn something. Or if you do know what you're talking about, then stop spreading bald-faced lies and phony ads.

I don't know of any liberals who think that communism in any form would be a viable form of government here in America. And even with regards to socialism, nobody is calling for a complete socialistic state. We libs just think that there ought to be a reasonable balance between the free market system and government. The two not only CAN co-exist but MUST co-exist. Government is not going away. There is no way that we can be just a conglomeration of fifty independent states doing their own thing. A central government is necessary if we are to have any cohesion and identity as a nation. It's all a matter of what type of government you want to be in place - one that serves the interests of the people as a whole or one that serves the interests of the uber-wealthy and the monopolistic corporations. We pretty much have the latter in place now, and it is tilting more and more that way. You righties seem to be perfectly fine with that while we lefties are not. But nobody among us is calling for anything like communism, dispensing with property ownership, or installing some crazy brand of all-socialistic government. The only ones talking about such cockamamie things are you righties spreading your lies and your fears about what you THINK we're all about.

November 4, 2012 at 3:45 p.m.
hambone said...

Funny how the man from Hungary in the add is number 77 on the Forbes list of 500. Worth 6.4 billion !

November 4, 2012 at 5:01 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Rickaroo, of course you marginalize anyone that disagrees with you. Central Government, that ain't America, right or left Mister. If you favor Central Government, you are the problem.

You remind me of the vehicle plastered with "coexist" "peace" "love" "Obama/Bidin" that was willing to harm all to get ahead in the line of cars, most dangerous vehicles on the road, wink ;-)

Your proclamations of "my" untruths are not accompanied by any facts, just name calling, MO of nonsensical liberals. Atlas has had it with you people, hehe

November 4, 2012 at 5:26 p.m.
aae1049 said...

Move over Rickaroo is coming through.

November 4, 2012 at 5:46 p.m.
rick1 said...

aae1049, notice those who are for soclialism never mention how well socialsm has worked in Venezulela, Cuba and China.

Why is it that so many Haitian and Cuban refugees have risked their lives trying to get to Florida in homemade boats? Why are Haitians fleeing Haiti traveling almost 500 miles by ocean riskin their lives to get to our evil capitalist country when they were only 50 miles from the workers’ paradise and utopia country of Cuba? Why are the Cubans fleeing their utopia homeland and worker paradise by homemade boats risking their lives as well to come to this evil capitalist country if socialism is so great?

November 4, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.
hambone said...

Don't worry, if you want go back to say 1910 and get rid of all this socializm. Romney/Ryan will take you over half way, say about 1931.

November 4, 2012 at 8:58 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"...notice those who are for soclialism never mention how well socialsm has worked in Venezulela, Cuba and China." - rick1

Yet another case of someone opening mouth (or putting fingers to keyboard) before you know what you're talking about. FYI...Cuba is NOT socialistic. It is a totalitarian/communist government, under a dictatorship, and in no way resembles socialism. Neither is Venezuela truly socialistic. While Chavez certainly has strong socialistic leanings and has instituted some socialist changes that have actually improved the economy and overall well-being of Venezuelans, most of the businesses are still privately owned. Venezuela presently has a blended form of socialism and capitalism. And as for China, it calls itself communistic but it's pretty much in name only. The ruling party goes by the communist label but as we all know, China has opened itself up to capitalism to a large extent. At any rate, whatever China is, it is not "socialist."

It would help if you would do a little digging and learn a few basic facts before you spout your usual anti-socialist rhetoric.

November 4, 2012 at 10:45 p.m.
chrisbrooks said...

Just goes to show how deeply confused the political debate has become and how muddy and propagandized our political language is when state capitalists like Reagan and Obama and Romney are all decried as "socialist". Socialism, historically speaking, has NOT meant specific governmental programs that would make markets more efficient and provide some measure of humane treatment to the poor, the elderly, workers, and other marginalized and vulnerable constituencies. It is true that socialists often pursued these ends, especially in their formal political parties. Historically speaking, "socialism" was a term used to mean that workers own their labor, rather than being owned by a capitalist (chattel slavery) or having to rent ourselves to a capitalist (wage slavery) out of necessity. If we use this historically accurate definition of socialism, then we will quickly see that neither Obama, Romney, Reagan, nor even the USSR are "socialist". The US has state capitalism, whereby autocratic private interests are the primary architects of social policy and the state largely operates for and on behalf of their interests - or, as American progressive John Dewey once said, "as long as politics is the shadow cast on society by big business, the attenuation of the shadow will not change the substance."

This would be fairly obvious to most people had we be given something other than a highly propagandized education. I recommend that folks try to figure the matter out for themselves:

November 4, 2012 at 11:51 p.m.

I see none of the anti-Socialists have mentioned Norway, Finland or Sweden. Or Germany and France with their national health plans. Or Australia, the United Kingdom, Canada...

Socialism is all over the place.

And for everybody complaining about the USSR, China, Cuba, and others, they also claimed to be Democracies. Notice a pattern yet?

North Korea isn't even claiming to be Communist now, they have gone for a jingoistic nationalism with a military first emphasis.

Hey, who also wants huge amounts of military spending?

And Haiti? Haiti's refugee problem most recently showed up when it had a massive earthquake and hurricanes. Not circumstances that are relevant to its government per se, though they did have some severe refugee problems when it was under the control of a military junta. And economically, you know what? Their richest 1% control well over half of the country's wealth.

In what universe does that qualify as socialism?

Oh well, don't let the facts get in the way of your mistaken beliefs.

November 5, 2012 at 1:06 a.m.
nucanuck said...

While we are all throwing around labels and definitions, try this one on: savers who accumulate money to invest in business would be the true capitalists. By that definition, China and the Asian countries would be the leading capitalists in the world today.

Social democracies, not socialists, seem to be the most successful blend of what works well for all. The world contentment surveys are dominated by countries that practice capitalism with a blend of social programs and responsible governments that keep spending and taxation in resonable balance.

Interestingly, most of the high contentment countries seem to have relatively small populations: think Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Singapore. Some of the countries that broke away from the old Soviet Union may be moving close to the high contentment catagory. The new Balkan countries also seem to be doing well.

Smaller populations may be better when it comes to governance. China has to try to keep 1.2 billion people happy. Good luck with that. India, Indonesia, Malasia, Pakistan and even now, the US seem to have ongoing troubles with governance with so many regional/tribal groupings.

Maybe the lesson is that many more small countries would be healthier/more content than large unruly ones. Let's see... break China down to about ten countries...the US into three or four...and so on down the line.

But who really wants contentment?

November 5, 2012 at 2:04 a.m.
rolando said...

This article is NOT critical of socialism; it merely recognizes that we are, according to the Socialist Party's platform[s], indeed a socialist country. And will remain so regardless of who wins the election.

This flagrant recognition of that fact apparently disturbs our neo-Prog/Libs. They want it kept quiet. They are never satisfied -- and won't be until we meet the modern-day platform of the Socialist Party. But hang tough, guys, we are well on our way.

November 5, 2012 at 7:31 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

This flagrant recognition of that fact apparently disturbs our neo-Prog/Libs

I don't see any liberal here having a problem with this fact, rolando. They seem to agree and that it is a good thing. They also show that socialism does not equal communism, nor is socialism a step towards communism. It is the GOP that throws around the term socialism like it is a dirty word. Funny, if the corporations paid fair wages and benefits without unions, protected the environment and made safe products without regulations, as well as paid taxes to keep up the infrastructure we all use, we could be totally a capitalist nation.

November 5, 2012 at 7:51 a.m.
timbo said...

You are all pretty confused. Liberalism is a combination of fascism and socialism. It is the worst of both Worlds. They advocate a lukewarm version of economic Nazism. If Unchecked this movement will accelerate.

I think that most the writers on the site sincerely want to change this country for the good. Although this may be true, they are being used by the powers that be to push this country down the road of fascist/socialism. Getting more and more people depended on the government is just a first step.

The only thing that will slow this slide is voting for the best of the two bad choices and that is Romney. That will only slow things down.

November 5, 2012 at 9:17 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Liberalism is a combination of fascism and socialism

That is the most bizarre thing I have ever read.

November 5, 2012 at 10:42 a.m.
gooddog said...

Ikeithlu, if by " most bizarre" your mean "rather profound" i tend to agree.

November 5, 2012 at 11:15 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

Bizarre, yes, profound, no unless you say it's profoundly incorrect.

November 5, 2012 at 12:20 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

"Liberalism is a combination of fascism and socialism." - timbo

To which gooddog replies, "rather profound." I guess you'd have to be a conservative to see a statement like that as profound. Profound? It doesn't even make sense! But then, if you believe that Romney's plan to balance the budget by spending an additional 2 trillion on an already over-funded military while at the same time continuing the tax cuts for the already under-taxed wealthy makes sense, then I can see how you'd see "profound" in something so ridiculous.

Rolando, your comment that "this article is NOT critical of socialism" is just as absurd. Of course it's critical of socialism. Did you somehow ignore this portion of the editor's article? - "The United States is clearly a socialist nation. More troubling still is how little America's leaders — even those who claim to be champions of liberty, limited government and the free market — seem to care." I wouldn't call that a benign, non-critical satement.

November 5, 2012 at 12:34 p.m.
Leaf said...

Timbo said, "Liberalism is a combination of fascism and socialism."

Um, okaaaay. Then I guess purple is a combination of bacon and rocks.

November 5, 2012 at 3:15 p.m.
timbo said...

Ikeithlu, rickaroo...... You both said I was wrong but you don't give any reasons why I was wrong. Rickaroo gave the same old tired.line about what Romney has proposed. I was talking about socialism/fascism in general terms.

Obama is socialist for advocating more government "investment " to prop up crony capitalism, more taxation of success using his narrow opinion of "fairness," government takeover of health care, etc,etc

He is also fascist because he is also advocating a huge increase in centralizing government power by ignoring the constitution , appointing czars to usurp the will of congress, he has misused executive orders that ignored the will of congress.....should I go on?

November 5, 2012 at 3:20 p.m.
lkeithlu said...

I am having difficulty with blending the definitions of the two terms, frankly. Getting stuck on how fascism, by definition, opposes liberalism, socialism even conservatism. I don't buy your comparison of the current POTUS with a dictator (or any POTUS given the separation of powers) You will need to elaborate better than the two poorly described and inaccurate examples. Need I explain why I think your examples are inaccurate?

November 5, 2012 at 3:37 p.m.
Rickaroo said...

Timbo, it's really difficult to respond logically to illogic. I think Leaf said it pretty well, though: "Then I guess purple is a combination of bacon and rocks." That makes as much sense of what you said as anything.

Liberalism is an ideology that encompasses varying beliefs in what form of government we have. While most liberals favor some form of socialism or a blended socialism with capitalism, there are few I know of who are calling for an outright socialistic state. And there are NONE that I know of who who favor fascism in any form. In fact, no one in their right mind, other than fascists themselves, would ever advocate fascism. You are just throwing loose and frivolous terms around without even halfway thinking about their meaning.

You may call Obama a fascist but I can just as easily say that we have been living in a fascist state for some time, not because of Obama but because our government has been usurped by the monopolistic corporations and it is they who are pulling the strings of our elected representatives. We are no longer a democracy or even a republic. We are an oligarchy, pure and simple. There is no longer a goverment of, by, and for the people, but a government that serves the interests of big business. And you conservatives are perfectly okay with that. In fact you advocate giving even more power to them. That is your notion of "individual freedom."

I make the proposition that it is you teabagging conservatives who are the real radicals, and not us liberals. Because you want to do away with government completely, or at least shrink it down so small that you can "drown it in a bathtub" (Grover Norquist). We libs, on the other hand, are not calling for an eradication of capitalism but a reasonable balance of government and capitalism. They CAN co-exist. It has already been proven that they can (in the late 40s, 50s, 60s, and into the 70s). And the Gilded Age of the robber barons, with its complete lack of regulation or checks and balances, has shown us that businesses will not regulate themselves but constantly give in to their own selfish, profit-making interests. And there is nothing wrong with profits - in fact they are necessary for a business to prosper and even function. But profits MUST be weighed along with the common good. I know you hate that term "common good," but it is a fact of life that must be acknowledged when living in a civilized society.

I could go on but I do have a life to live. I have spent more than enough time on this forum today. Peace out, bro. (I don't usually talk like that but I know you must hate such hippie-like socialistic lingo. So I say that just for you...dude.)

November 5, 2012 at 4:18 p.m.
nck6 said...

Sorry folks, support for Amtrak does not a socialist make. What companies does the government own? (OK, there may be a couple due to the economic mess, but they are being sold back to the private sector at a reasonable pace.)

November 5, 2012 at 4:31 p.m.

lkeithlu, I've read a lot more bizarre things, some of them even from Timbo. Especially funny is that many of the things Fascism claims to support would be stuff loves.

nck6, well, that's a complicated question, but there are several:

You can think what you like about each individual entity, there are different circumstances with each.

November 5, 2012 at 9:49 p.m.
rolando said...

lkeithlu -- You are selectively blind. newbulbs started the rant objecting to [and mischaracterizing] the author's article. He was followed by librul's wandering off redherring post; shortly after, good ole Rickaroo got in there with his sarcasm [that failed]; then hambone made one of his famous inane remarks.

All of which attacked [in one form or another] the author's premise that all of the 1910 [or whenever] highly radical Socialist Party platform planks have been adopted. I stopped reading this thread after your first post when I recognized where the thread was going: the usual-suspect ProgLibs are, as always, blindly attacking anything and everything from the conservative side of the political ops page simply because it was conservative -- content had nothing to do with their wildly fanatical, knee-jerk [heavy accent on that last word] responses.

Oh, there were a few sane voices in there too...

November 5, 2012 at 9:53 p.m.

Actually, rolando, I just think the editorial is full of BS when claiming they don't mean it as a slur or pejoartive.

Sorry, but that's kinda obviously untrue when we get down to the final section of it.

Pardon me for pointing out the blind attacks of the Conservatives which lead to a hatred and contempt of anything that they can deride as "socialism" thus showing that a label can be used in any number of ways.

The same applies to Fascism, and any other -ism you care to name.

What is, and what is claimed to be, are often quite divergent, but how you call something can make way too much of a difference.

November 6, 2012 at 12:59 a.m.
rolando said...

That's your biased view showing, bulbs. Instead of seeing peace, you see danger lurking in the most pastoral scene. But that is your right, after all. Isn't it?

So you are now claiming we are NOT a socialist country and that we have NOT met the Socialist Party's 1912 platform?

As if the Liberals don't use labels...yeah, right.

November 6, 2012 at 5:57 a.m.
lkeithlu said...

You got something of substance to offer, besides assuming you know everything we "prog/libs" want, rolando?

November 6, 2012 at 7:13 a.m.
ceeweed said...

To have such disdain for government is hollow unless one is willing to give up their Medicare, Social Security, EEOC, OSHA, FDA, etc...You get the message. I hardly see droves of government haters flocking to disavow these programs.

November 6, 2012 at 9:55 a.m.
shen said...

So true, ceeweed. It's laughable in a tragic way, and you fi willnd, in that those very individuals who hate government the most also depend upon it the most. Romney talks of smaller government and being against government bailouts, but he didn't hesitate to accept millions in bailout money then is said to have hidden it all in his wife's name in offshore accounts.

November 6, 2012 at 11:42 a.m.
rolando said...

lkeithlu said, "You got something of substance to offer...rolando?"

Matter of fact, I do, lkeithlu. I cite the article above that lists the many ways we have become a socialist country as defined by the 1912 Socialist Party platform it quoted.

The transformation will be complete when we meet the latest, modern version of that Party's platform. [Also shown above.]

November 6, 2012 at 1:20 p.m.
rolando said...

ceeweed said, " I hardly see droves of government haters flocking to disavow these programs. "

Perhaps not, but there are a few government LOVERS who want to deny that we are a socialist country...for some confused reason.

November 6, 2012 at 1:23 p.m.
tipper said...

Rickeroo is right on the mark. Peterffy was a former architect in Hungary. He lived annd worked under Communist regimes, not Socialism. So he came to America and now owns and runs an online brokerage firm(s). So he went from actually creating and producinng something with his architectural expertise to using other peoples' money to make money. Not much job creation there. He is now estimated to be worth between $4.5-$9 billion. Good for him. It didn't take him long to grasp the Capitalistic system. Only under the Citizens United disaster caused by powerful and wealthy Republicans and the Supreme Court could a man like Peterffy spends hundreds of thousands of dollars to pay for primetime ads to obfuscate the truth about why he thinks Republicans are so much better for America. All those sad pictures of his homeland and his kindly rhetoric about "creeping socialism" is just another ruse. I wish I had the money to post TV ads to counter his positions, but alas, I'm just a middle-class person worried about how I can hold on to what I've struggled to earn, how I can put my child through college, and pay for healthcare. Still I do understand completely why someone who is in the financial industry fears regulation (or Socialism as he would wrongly prefer to call it) after the industry's capability to fleece Americans and redistribute middle-class wealth to that top 1%.

November 6, 2012 at 3:38 p.m.

rolando, I've noticed it's the conservatives who insist that they don't label anybody, that they don't see race, and who blindly insist that it's only liberals who do that.

Whereas myself? I don't make such pretentious claims.

Your side does.

Just like you're trying to claim that this article isn't about hating Socialism.

If it weren't for that last section, maybe you might be believed.

Too bad it's there for everybody to see.

Ceeweed, oh they won't do that. They use and consume, but never want to pay the price. Then they turn around and complain about others lacking in personal responsibility.

November 6, 2012 at 4:51 p.m.
rolando said...

So, tipper, are you saying the U.S. is NOT a socialist country as defined by the 1912 Socialist Party platform? We DO meet all those planks, you know.

It has little to do with communism except that form of government first passes through socialism.

Are you saying someone who lived under communism is not intimately familiar with socialism and you would deny him Free Speech based on your opinion?

November 6, 2012 at 4:52 p.m.
rolando said...

Yeah, yeah, yeah, bulbs. Blah, blah, blah. Now it is "the last section" at fault? Just a ways up there, you claimed it was the last sentence. So which is it?

You are so full of yourself [and "it"].

November 6, 2012 at 4:54 p.m.

Ah Rolando, making such easily refuted claims.

Nowhere did I say "last sentence" at all. Let's see what the posts say:

"Sorry, but that's kinda obviously untrue when we get down to the final section of it."

"If it weren't for that last section, maybe you might be believed."

Strangely, that's there for everybody to see too.

C'mon, are you deliberately trying to discredit yourself? You really have been learning too much from Mitt Romney.

November 6, 2012 at 6:18 p.m.
tipper said...

I'm saying that communism is a top-down form of government where the government is in totalitarian control, and the the people work for the state. Socialism comes from the lower to middle classes--the workers. What that means is that Peterffy labored under oppression, and not socialism which you find in Europe and yes as the Free Press stated in some of our programs in the U.S. Believe it or not rolando, we have a hybrid of democracy and socialism; and no doubt you have benefited from both at some time or another in your life. All those who scream "SOCIALISM" and that it can't or shouldn't happen here don't understand this country. You can dig up 1912 or FDR, or whatever, but this country uses whatever form of government that is needed to support our people regardless of who they are, how much money they have, whether they believe in God or not, etc. Whatever it takes.

November 6, 2012 at 11:20 p.m.

Actually, tipper, that's NOT what communism is.

That's what the USSR was, certainly but if you notice the word "Soviet" in the name, and know what it is referring to, namely the small local councils of direct democracy, it's not at all top-down.

Sure, the rulers of the USSR were lying about being communist, but they were lying about being a democracy too. If this surprises anybody, I better not tell them about North Korea.

November 7, 2012 at 12:21 a.m.
chet123 said...

YOU RIGHT-WING NUTS ARE FASCIST AND DESTROYING THE COUNTRY......NOTICE THE US MAP....The whole deep south beleive in the same twisted doctrine it did 1863......that to the south crooked preachers and Pastors

November 23, 2012 at 12:56 p.m.
please login to post a comment

videos »         

photos »         

e-edition »


Find a Business

400 East 11th St., Chattanooga, TN 37403
General Information (423) 756-6900
Copyright, Permissions, Terms & Conditions, Privacy Policy, Ethics policy - Copyright ©2014, Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc. All rights reserved.
This document may not be reprinted without the express written permission of Chattanooga Publishing Company, Inc.