Time magazine's Mark Halperin called Barack Obama a dick on MSNBC this morning. The video clip is posted all over the web today, and Halperin and MSNBC have both apologized.
Forget about that for a second, and ponder why Halperin said it. The media line on Obama's press conference is that he was unusually feisty, partisan and/or populist. These are qualities the media tend to abhor in Democratic politicians, who are constantly counseled to work with Republicans or stay in the media-defined "center" in order to succeed (and remember that their "center" is often off to the right, politically speaking).
It would seem that Halperin's outburst came in that context– see this transcript from Mediaite:
Joe Scarborough: Mark Halperin, what was the president's strategy? We are coming up on a deadline and the president decided to please his base, push back against the Republicans. I guess the question is, we know a deal has to be done. Is this showmanship? A lot of times you go up there and both sides and they act tough so their base will be appeased, then they quietly work the deal behind the scenes.
Mark Halperin: Are we on the seven second delay?
Mika Brzezinski: Lordy.
Halperin: I wanted to characterize how the president behaved.
Scarborough: We have it. We can use it. Go for it. Let's see what happens.
Brzezinski: We're behind you, you fall down and we catch you.
Halperin: I thought he was a dick yesterday.
Scarborough: Delay that. delay that. what are you doing? I can't believe — I was joking. Don't do that. Did we delay that?
Halperin: I said it. I hope it worked.
About Peter Hart
I think it is interesting that the Democrats are not allowed to "play to their base' when that is all the Republicans ever do ( and that is wel-accepted by the press). Obama's past attempts to compromise with the Republicans have only been met with a closed fist and his attempts to compromise seem to quickly disenfranchise the fickle Democrats (of which I am one, so don't get me wrong)–he is never going to get compromise from the Right as their mission (in Mitch McConnell's own words), is to make him a "one term president", so he SHOULD play to his base (and we should stick together and support him). The current partisanship, lack of analysis and disrespect on the part of the press results in a less informed public– which in turn leaves us with people like Michelle Bachman and Sarah Palin being touted as "viable" candidates for the presidency–Lord, save us from ourselves…
I agree with the President. I stopped reading Time long ago. As for the gross language of the so called reporter, he is another adult? that is displaying why so many young people and children are rude and disrespectful. Ask any school teacher how they are treated by many students these days. He is a role model for how not to act and speak. What has happened to our society that makes people behave in this way? I can give you many examples but I feel that is not necessary as I am sure most of you are well aware. The big question is – how do we get back in balance? I have felt like speaking a derogatory word to someone but let it stay put in my mind – not spit it out to deliver negativity. Come back civility I miss you!
You all need to get a life and quit wasting your time on these soap operas. It's seems that the more intelligent and well spoken the comments, the farther the writer's head is up his ass. However, I do admit it is fun getting in on the drama, it is really distracting to the real issues of critical importance.
The only decent guest Joe ever has on that show is Mika's daddy. And he wouldn't be there if Mika wasn't. And MSNMC still tried to short change her. It's all a big circle jerk.
I agree with Marie M and many of the rest of you.
Did anyone else here think that "Jay K" sounds suspiciously like our old micheal e.? A new nom de plume, you think?
"Jay K" wrote:
"As a senior citizen on Social Security Obama is the only president in history who has not cared a damn about given us an increase saying their is no inflation when everthing has gone up in price."
This is wrong two ways.
One: A Nixon era law, not the President, determines cost of living increases. Since 1975, Social Security's general benefit increases have been based on increases in the cost of living, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
Two: Everyone on SS got an extra $250 payment in 2009 as part of the stimulus package. It was proposed again for 2011, but Congress turned it down. Republicans largely opposed the plan.
Halperin has been a D-Word for a long, long time. His free-fall comes at last.
I think Joe and blonde should be shut down as well as they sat there and laughed about it. What a bunch of anti-americans.
DLIAA: DOUG LATIMER IS AN ASS!
I find most everything that Doug Latimer writes to be fair and accurate. It seems he is true to his principles rather than aligned to personalities, as so many people are. Because he's not invested in supporting or smearing Obama, I think his view of his is accurate.
I also find name calling tiresome though. Calling anyone names, however tempting, never helped anyone's argument.
I certainly can't be sure that anyone has read alll the way through this comment thread to get to this one, but just in case:
We seem to have lost track of the original post. Hart's point was that Halperin thought Obama had been "something of a dick" at his press conference because Obama was "unusually feisty" – that is, he *actively defended his position*, and that is behavior that the media respects when done by an R but rejects as improper when done by a D.
Halperin's comment reflected that thinking that sticking to your guns makes you a "dick" – if you're a D. That's why it was worth noting; that was the point.
At the same time, I have to agree with Doug Latimer that I don't see a need for an apology. Barack Obama is all grown up, folks; he has been called much worse (with much less associated furor) and he's no delicate flower that needs to be protected against a little rough language. He knows damn well that such comes with the territory and I find it a little unsettling that our political discourse is supposed to be so effete, so bloodless, that we're getting the vapors over a random vulgarity.
To Jay K- you are actually super ignorant and ill informed. I strongly encourage you to Get Some Real Facts! Obama and the Democrats are the ones fighting FOR your social security, medicare/medicaid, and other "entitlements." Not to mention pell grants, health care and unemployment benefits for those who have been laid off through no fault of their own.
The Republican's have demonstrated they do not care about protecting the poor, elderly or disinfranchised. If you do vote Republican based on your reasoning noted, that will be one very foolish decision.
It's about damn time Obama caters to his base and stands up for what is progressive and just. I've been wanting and waiting to see "dick" for quite some time. In fact I want to see more "dick." I'm attempting to end on a light note here folks ie a joke!
Here comes a tea party member standing up for the worst president in my lifetime(oh boy)….Obama may not have a qualification for the job he holds.But he does hold it.He is the president elected by the people.Calling him a dick was disrespectful of the office he holds.It was thoroughly unprofessional. Stupid.And by the way a terrible descriptive word for what took place.Obama dropped that screen of civility so carefully built about him by his people.GOOD. Sounded more honest to me.
Soon all these comments will be buried way down where only compulsive spelunkers will ever look, but despite the general overreaction to a junior high school naughty word, there are some observations here well worth consideration. What is emerging in these and other FAIR comments recently is the realization by republicans and democrats alike that Barack Obama is a very bad president indeed, and given his impact on the country and the world, arguably the worst President in American history. With Bush II, at least, we all knew what we were getting.
My viewpoint is left wing, but I would rather see one of the seven right-wing corporate water carriers bungling economic policy next time than have another four years of non-leadership. With a Republican confidently making a fiscal disaster worse, the electorate might get wise to the dangers of a corporate oligarchy. Than can never happen with Obama in charge.
Interesting take, RB. Didn't we already see what happens when the right wing has carte blanche? I think Obama, as disappointing as he is, has probably done about as much as any electable Democrat could do to slow down the destruction of our country. I think he has been ineffective only because the oligarchy still has most of the power. Including a great deal of sway over our perceptions of how effective he is. The "blame Obama" drums beat just as loudly now as the "blame Clinton" drums while W. was in office. That will certainly continue long after he's been replaced by the next water-carrier, don't you think? So, in spite of his inability to herd those fat cats, I'm willing to still cut him a little slack. Given the powers that be, I don't know that anyone could have done better. He inherited an incredible mess and he is trying to work with an impossible situation.
We have a smaller version of the same situation here in Minnesota. Our exiting Republican governor tanked the economy with his tax cuts, and now a Republican Legislature has shut down the government rather than agree to tax the rich. Their only solution is to cut vital programs, and the Democratic governor looks ineffective because he can't get a deal done. I'm glad he's standing up to them though, as no Republican would.
Just one spelunker's thoughts, for anyone still reading here.
Doug I cant disagree with you more.You call an end to massive deficit spending "destruction of our country"You say taxing the rich more and more and more is anything more than a feel good moment(which is all it is).You never point to the simple fact that this is not a fiduciary problem….it is a spending problem.The idea of pushing spending back to Bush, or gasp to Clinton(your holy time)sends you libs into apoplexy.We tea party members must be firm with everyone.We mean to turn off the spigot.Obama is simply the biggest spender in history.Every problem has been magnified a thousand fold under his hand.There are quite a few good books out now explaining the downfall.Read them.You need to shake this liberal talking point nonsense.We have one job as a people. Remove government restrictions to full blooded free market capitalism. Become thee most business friendly nation on earth.Town by town,state by state. Recreation of wealth is the goal.We will fill the coffers with money that will flow from the success of expansion,thereby funding this governments needs.The idea of rising taxation upon an economy the government is striving to destroy must be thrown down.Obama is a job killer.A business killer.His only understanding is confiscatory tax and spend ideals.A literal nightmare for this country
@ D. Westendorp: Well reasoned and well composed. While I insist that Obama could have done a whole lot better by explaining the issues to the American people and taking a firm stand on them (as FDR did in his fireside chats), your argument for cutting him some slack is very convincing.
@ michael e: Your comments are uninformed, vague, vitriolic, and not worth discussing.
I knew I should not have given my son the same name. Oh well! I just want to say to Mike e., We have given the rich tax cuts and allowed them to destroy two thirds of union jobs already. Jobs will continue to migrate to low wage countries, and eventually, people like you, despite being armed tothe teeth, will be afraid to walk down the street for fear of being robbed. So, then you will impose martial law I guess. We did not begin free trade in this country until after Bretton Woods in 1945. Washington and Lincoln despised it, and because of them and people who believed as they did, America became the richest and most powerful country in the world. These historical facts provide the intellectual capital needed to destroy your kinds hold on America. A whole new system is needed, and I assure it will be put into place. Not by the two parties, but by a new movement which will come to power despite the media monopoly and the rest of the establishment. FYI, I willnot be backto read your reply if any. I've heard it all before.
As somebody who spends plenty of time watching Stewart and Colbert, where the depth of discourse is a whole lot better than what you get on the Sunday shows, PBS, and basic cable, what I'm seeing is a corporate media lackey trying to attract a younger demographic. The epithets will eventually cross into mainstream usage, but the analysis will still be circumscribed by what advertisers will tolerate.
I love that oft heard ridiculous mantra " if only BAM explained it to the uninformed better".You cant understand that we read him like a cheap book.As far as the freedom of commerce and market….everything this country has comes from that spring.Government has created little to nothing.They have only one job.To interfere or not with our freedoms.It is clear where you stand.
Michael e -
The more you write, the harder it is to take you seriously.
But tell you what: I'll listen to you rant about "pushing spending back to … Clinton" levels if you'll meet just four conditions:
1. This applies to all federal spending, including the military and "security" spending and most particularly to any spending by which you personally benefit, directly or indirectly.
2. Spending levels on all social and domestic programs are adjusted for inflation in the intervening years; that is, the programs have the same spending power they did then.
3. Those programs are also adjusted for the change in the size of the affected population; for example, unemployment programs are expanded to allow for the greater number of unemployed now. Note this is #2 AND #3, not either/or.
4. You must also argue for restoring tax rates to what they were during *your* "holy time," the administration of Ronald Reagan, when the top marginal rate was 15 percentage points higher than it is now (50% vs. 35%).
Do that, and I'll listen. Fail to, and you're just another selfish twit merely looking for ways to avoid having to care about the welfare of your fellow human beings and I will respond to your blathering no longer.
First off, I just want to thank Doug W. for his comments on my behalf. I'll continue to try to live up to them.
Secondly, as I promised, I'll try to clarify my points, not for those who have no interest in respectful debate, but for those who might, for whatever reason, truly not understand where I'm coming from.
I'm not advocating name-calling for its own sake. Dear Misleader is a mass murderer, abroad and at home. All presidents are. They serve an elite who, in their pursuit of profit at any price, destroy and end the lives of untold numbers of human beings.
If that isn't deserving of our bile, what would be? That there are those who are relatively more vicious is no comfort to the victims of his policies, is it?
The lesser of two evils is, by definition, evil, and why such a person should be treated with "courtesy" defies any logic that I'm familiar with.
But were he the antithesis of that, he should be accorded no respect by dint of his position in government, but rather due to his efforts to benefit the public to whom he swore an oath of service.
I hope that makes plain my views to those who honestly wish to suss them, and who've refrained from rather ironic ad hominem attacks.
Very good, Larry E, though I don't expect our good friend micheal e can or will rise to the occasion. He affects not even to know that his government makes and maintains his roads and bridges, funds schools, monitors his air or water quality (sort of), inspects his food, maintains his firehouses, parks and wetlands, or anything else he may benefit from. Or maybe he thinks we would all be more "free" without such "interventions," I don't know. It's hard to predict which wall he will bounce off of next. It's kind of you to give him the chance to say something intelligent, though, I guess. Another last chance. Personally, I'm on board with what I recently learned here of the DFTT philosophy, difficult as it is to adhere to…
Doug L., I too am tired of the lesser of two evils. Did you say once that you have your own blog? I can't find it. They haven't shut you down, have they?
This blog deals exclusively with the mistakes, misrepresentations, outright lies and increasingly unprofessional reporting of the major media, and thus provides a needed service to the citizens of what once was but no longer is a democracy. There are some articulate, well informed people commenting here who genuinely care about their plight of their country and their fellow man, and their efforts to enlighten others may indeed serve eventually to improve conditions in America.
Regardless of the topic at hand, however, one barely articulate and laughably ill-informed contributor rants on here about what he or she seems to perceive as an evil government that should not levy taxes. DFTT (don't feed the trolls) is certainly appropriate in this case. Responding to such blather is a failure to stay on point.
What amazes me is the polarization here. If you are for Obama you are an idiot. Conservatives are being mistreated. Being against Obama gives license to any language. No criticism of Republicans in congress. Obama is responsible for all the failures of congress.
It is just amazing. It is as if the constitution disappeared. Obama used troops in Libya, okay. Why didn't congress just stop the funding? No guts. Since when does the president propose a budget and institute it without congressional approval? The budget needs to be passed by congress and signed by the president. Who is in charge of the congress? I guess the Republicans want to shut down the USA just like the Republicans did in Minnesota. Okay, I guess we'll just have to let the little guys have their tantrum. I, for one, am tired of hearing the republicans blame everybody but themselves.
Jay K: I am sorry to have to disabuse you of your clueless notion that President Obama has not given senior citizens a raise in social security benefits. Even someone operating with only double digits should know THAT THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES DOES NOT GIVE SENIOR CITIZENT SOCIAL SECURITY RAISES.
If you have a complaint about not receiving a raise in your social security benefits, I suggest you contact the Social Security Administration which actually decides to increase or not increase social securiy benefits.
As too "the media attacking repubicans and consertatives:, have you been locked in a dark room for the past 12 years? Or living on Mars? Maybe in a dark cave?
Perhaps you should ask someone to teach you how to use "the google" before spouting such claptrap.
Doug W., folks with sites have their adds embedded here in their handles at the beginning of each comment, so just click on my name and it will take you to my dinky little blog.
For the record, though, it's Questionable Content at http://fromanunlikelysource.wordpress.com. I just got back from the Socialism 2011 conference in Chicago, so I haven't had a chance to post anything since last Thursday. I should be back up to speed in the next few days.
Any thoughts are welcome. I don't do the comment thing there, but my email's in the intro.
Thanks, Doug. I will check it out. I had no idea there was such a thing as a socialism conference. I mean, aside from in the imagination of people who think that limiting capitalism in any way amounts to the same thing. Thanks for telling me how to find people's sites. I look forward to seeing yours.
Doug socialist conference?Is that a national socialist or some other type?
Larry
Military spending is one of the few the gov is charged with ubder our constitution.. That said it will be cut,we are broke.But please dont compare it to the save the turtle fund or social programs.
Gov causes inflation and the collapse.You want us to adjust our tax rates and fund the criminals.?Reagan…….Under Rsvlt top rate was 94%.Carter 70% Reagan 50% Clinton 36% and Bush 32%.I would say we are now reaching a fairer situation.Under Rsvlt taxes may of been 94% for the top rate.But all other things in life now taxed were far lower or non existent..Everything today and for some time have been gateway taxes- always growing.Only a flat tax would be truly fair.
Doug……..You tell me all the wonderful things the gov does for me and i laugh.Everything you mention they do badly with the key word being waste.I am sure they would like to wipe my ass too for the right inflated cost and sorry job.You are truly a believer that the government uses our wealth better than you and i.Sorry thats bull dung.
TZ
Tea party youngsters will be cutting funding.As far as shutting down the gov.GREAT……Save a hell of a lot of money.And anyway we don't mean to shut anything down.We mean to move forward.Without any talk of tax raises of course.We are interested in stopping the spending party.Period!
Halperin's "dick" comment is yet another example of the Confederate conservative-invented
Great Myth of the 'Liberal' Media…
Another addition to that of examples list can be found in the NYT's Jeremy Peters "review" on liberal witch hunter Andrew Breitbart…the blog article on which appears in this same installment of FAIR…it's definitely worth checking it out!
Sorry about the typos in the above comment…
Doug W., socialism is a very fluid term, and the 1300 or so persons at the conference (a marked increase over last year) amply illustrate that. Present were folks who are searching for an effective alternative outside the two-in-one party system and full-on Marxists, and everyone in between.
What we all share is a realization that the shit is heftily hitting the fan, and that liberal reform, which has always consigned a huge proportion of the earth's population to misery and death while keeping a lid on revolt by providing a relative modicum of benefit for the rest, is as much of dead end as a bike marathon in rush hour traffic on Michigan Avenue.
And while I may not know my ass from second base when it comes to theory, I do think socialism, as I define it, is copasetic with my core values – that we should treat others as we'd wish to be treated, and that we should each contribute to the commons according to our talents, and receive from the commons according to our needs.
Neither an original insight, stating the bleeding obvious.
Whether a world based in that ethos will come to fruition is uncertain.
That it won't without struggle and sacrifice is not. I hope I have the cojones to do my part.
And while it won't make a rat's ass to the person in question, for others here who might not be aware, there were socialists fighting against "national socialism" and fascism in other forms in the Warsaw ghetto, in the French resistance, in the Spanish Civil War and on many other fronts, and many paid with their lives. Today socialists stand against fascism whether it wears a brown shirt or Brooks Brothers.
You could look it up.
Excellent, Doug. Thanks for that report. I don't know if I am technically a socialist, so I am glad to hear that the term is not being very narrowly defined. Also glad to hear that you are not talking about national socialism and fascism, though some will insist on conflating the concepts. It is encouraging to hear that people are getting together to talk about the "bleeding obvious." I wish it were more obvious to all, as it is a vital piece of a basic definition of the word "human." (Every major religion embraces some form of the "golden rule.") Some might need only to be reminded of what once was self-evident, while others may never get it, but it's got to help that people are talking.
I'm sure they are talking about action too. I agree that "liberal reform" is as much of the problem as anything anymore, if only because it's neither liberal nor reforming at this point. I am curious to hear what sort of actions were discussed. I have bookmarked your blog in hopes of more on that.
I like your use of the word "commons." Not heard much in the mainstream (along with the once self defining phrase "common good"). To honor any sort of commons may mean merely realistic and humane limits to capitalism, such as we once enjoyed at some level, or it may mean something more extreme. What is clear is that unchecked capitalism is now extreme, and the socialists need a seat at the table — (step one, a common table!) — in order to at least help leverage the conversation towards sanity. "The commons," incidentally, has a long and honorable history in this country, going back to our roots in England. If anyone would like to read that history I recommend Common as Air by Lewis Hyde.
Doug L
So we commonplace Americans who believe in this country and its values have been wrong from day one?You believe that created equal means "must finnish equal as imposed by government.You believe that sooner or later you DONT run out of other folks money.And you believe that giving this government or any government that kind of power will not result in Rulers as opposed to any other likelihood?Your talk of the coming struggle and hoping you have the balls for the revolt is the soft words of an educated brown shirt.
Doug L
One thing I hope you will do.Go back and listen to Hitlers speeches early in his rise.His talk against the rich..the bankers….jewish dominance as the secret power rotting from within.The need for the poor and the middle class to have a SHARE in the spoils of those few who control all the money.The snake hissing sweet nothings promising an imposed equality.Doug…..We have heard this all before.I will stick with the founders of this country.They knew freedom has its flaws.But what they created has spread freedom in all its forms and flaws across the world.What you are talking about is a return to the oft re visited dark ages.
Doug W
This country is not common ….it is exceptional.Every one of us.We must stop believing in a smaller and a less America.We are the bigger and better ideal.We can not accept a life of everybody squeaking by(barely) -supported by someone else until we have all been reduced to the lowest COMMON denominator.That will not create the best world for everyone.It will simply force and enforce mediocrity.Just use one example.Just one(always good to see the larger picture is encompassed in one story.Bill Gates.As Obama said when is enough…enough?Lets say your socialist ideals could take a step back in time and stop Bill at his first million.Take his money from him to support 20 families,and leave him with enough to allow him to live.ALL HE CREATED ENDS.All his good works.All his philanthropy.A world transformed.He is actually the poster boy for what exceptional people in this country can and do accomplish everyday.You would be happy with 20 families plus one being supported for a year.
Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day.Teach a man to fish………This is the core of liberalism today.The rot.The quest to drag each man down one at a time -till we all are belly to the ground.You may have a good heart and a be a good man,but you are wrong to think this is the best road to a better world.Look at Bill Gates.Your way would of destroyed him long before he could of created a better world.
I said I would not return, but I was motivated by a desire to ward offa reply by Michael e., in the unlikely event I did return. I simply cannot stand Reaganesque blither blather about deregulation and free markets. We have deregulation to blame for the financial crises of 2008, plus a whole lot more. The being said, some of you may recall I said that neither party will bring the needed change. However, the comments about socialism force me to now to defend Michael e.
Socialism is slavery to the state. States are run by corrupt, self serving politicians, and slavery to even a benign dictator is an unendurable hell.
Freedom is the only way people can be happy. Freedom requires you tothink and plan, and to suffer foryour mistakes enough to reinvent yourself and move on. We have many reforms and social legislation to help out, but you have to be responsible. You have to use your brain. There is an ocean of money around, but you have to cut the chains you have placed on your mind and contribute something valuable to get it. Nobodyis going to build a throne for you to sit on, and socialism would destroy you very quickly. It hasnever worked. It cannot work. Forget it.
It's against my better judgment, but when someone accuses me of being a "brown shirt", I feel compelled to respond.
I grew up in apartheid Mississippi in the '60s. My daddy was a member of the White Citizens Council. I witnessed firsthand the effects of that vicious racism, and that, more than anything else in my experience, has impelled me to try to do what my conscience demands and my courage allows, and never be satisfied with the limits of either.
The "brownshirts" of my state may have worn white hoods, but it was merely a fashion choice.
So Michael, I'd just like you to know that if we were ever to meet, and you had the guts to say that to my face …
I would try my damnedest to rip you a new one.
Let me go to say that historically in America, the government did play a role to encourage an economy which produced both employment and ever higher wages. The average tariff on foreign manufactured goods between 1830 and 1945 was a whopping 46 percent. Abe Lincoln hated free trade, and during his tenure as President, the northern economy grew ten times larger because of industrialization. Protectionism is the reason America used to have the highest wages on Earth. Protectionism is how America won two world wars. But, protectionism was just too successful for the ever conniving rich to endure. By 1945, over one third of workers were unionized, and a home and a good looking wife were easy to obtain. This was a threat to the old rich guys who wanted to keep America's women away from marriage, and get them into their beds, so they wrecked the economy. Now, the rich have created a living hell on Earth for millions, destroyed our culture with gutter music, gambling, and a drive by shooting which kills a kid every five minutes.
Its not evolution, its evilution, brought to us by the free trade policies thathave exported our jobs to Asia and Mexico, etc. They also allow 5000 illegal immigrants in to America every day to help keepwages low. Freedom is not the enemy, free trade is the enemy. Economics is a myth making religion, not a science. Google "myth of free trade," and you will discover many excellent books which expose what the rich have done.
Ive read them all, along with the ones that defend free trade. Dont somebody mention Smoot Hawley. That was oneill advised tariff during a depression caused by poor banking regulations. Smoot Hawley does not erase the previous 140 years of protectionism that built America.
Your minds are controlledby a media monopoly that is controlled by an economic oligopoly. That's why you don't know your own history and are spouting socialist rhetoric. Now, I've gone and spoke some truth, so I hope my post survives on here.
Doug W., my blog is really more of a platform for passing along material I think folks might find useful, along with whatever comments I might have about it and related matters. Again, I welcome any thoughts on it from you or others, provided they're not of the variety expressed by some here.
If you're keen, I can skinny you on where you can find useful intel on socialism via email. My add's in the blog intro.
Obviously, there's much ignorance on the subject. Given where most people get their ideas on it, that's to be expected.
I'll just end on this: Socialism, like Christianity or any ideology, can be perverted by those who have no fealty to its precepts. Stalin, Mao and others were and are guilty of this from one perspective, and so-called "socialist" parties in Greece, Spain and elsewhere are guilty of it from another. One becomes tyrannical from within, and another serves tyrants from without, in the form of the rapacious elites.
I reject both. I embrace socialism, broadly defined, as a concept that conforms to my sense of humanity. I don't conform my beliefs to fit some dogmatic and doctrinaire definition of it.
And with that, I'll exit, stage left, and let the dogs bay as they will.
Socialism is whatever you want it to be, It does not need a definition. That's good for a laugh. Socialism has a definition. Look it up. It means the state owns all the wealth. I have a degree in political science plus alot more letters behind my name. I posted my comments here because I've been studying economics and history. I know that America is in trouble, and the two parties are part of the problem. We must study our own past to learn, as I have already learned, what must be done.
Blind faith in so called "American values," as trumpheted by Ronald Reagan and Bush, is in fact blind, since America's greatness came about because of protectionism. The media monopoly and the myth making religion of economists has misrepresented historical fact for decades. Find out for your self, and don't place your faith in the sound bytes of some pied piper like Obama, or his republican counterparts. Take the time to learn the true past, learn the myths of free trade by reading five books on the subject. It takes some thought. Learn what Washington did. Learn what Lincoln did. Learn how FDR fell into the intellectual trap, and doomed the American future on the eve of it's greatest victory. Learn how the republicans and democrats became the fawning lapdogs of the rich, serving them, and impoverishing the many more and more over time. Then you will know what changes must come.
Doug L
You take great exception to being called a brown shirt . They embue violence. You then threaten phyisical violence if ever called one. Kinda funny you must admit. But I love you good ol southern boys ready to mix it up at the drop of the hat.My kinda guy.But if I spoke out of place I do apologize.As you should apologize for even a smigen of socialistic banter upon theses shores.
Dick are you really trying to put the jeanie back in the bottle for the sake of the good ol days?Well good luck to you i suppose.I dont know how long it would Take lincoln to sell some Bit of something in china.Me…it takes seconds.
Dick deregulation was only one domino.Some great books just out all agreeing with what led to the downfall.They lay it heavily on the left
I'm not interested in a socialism where the "state owns all the wealth," Dick, and I don't know anyone in this country who is. That's a pretty narrow definition, isn't it? And extremist? Just like other extremists, think that capitalism can only be "free market" with no governmental controls at all? But aren't there degrees of socialism just like there are degrees of capitalism? Isn't there a continuum where all countries tend to slide back and forth at least a little bit? Isn't Sweden usually considered socialist? They don't fit your definition, do they?
I don't know too much about protectionism, but what you say about it is interesting. I'll try to get myself educated.
You can't call the president a Dick. He deserves respect because he hold the highest ELECTED office. I don't care how mad you are that a black man is president or to what extent you disagree with him or his agenda. It's very childish. And can people please research the meaning of these buzz words like "socialism" every time I hear idiots talking about it, I see that they understand very little about it.
I applaud Elizabeth Sholes for her comment, "The President was calling out the insipid, thoughtless strategies of the GOP â┚¬“ save the rich, stick it to the poor and middle class. And he's a "dick" for saying what the majority of Americans believe and know to be true?" How sad an experienced journalist can not express his feelings with more proper langauage as opposed to locker-style cliches. Halperin deserves a permanent suspension.
[...] Brzezinski, and frequent guests, Time magazine's senior political analyst Mark Halperin (who once called President Obama a "dick" on the show) and Mike Barnicle(an "award [...]
facebook game cheats|facebook game hacks|FacebookCheats|facebookgamehacks|fb game hacks|fbgamehacks|fb game hack|fbgamehack|fb game cheats|fbgamecheats…
[...]FAIR Blog » Blog Archive » Why Did Mark Halperin Call Obama a Dick?[...]…