Obama 'Joker' posters: Chicagoan's art

Perfect, just perfect. Wonder which legislator got him in.

I completely agree with the "no substance" assessment. But I didn't not vote, though I completely concurred with the notion Obama would win the state no matter what I did.

So I wrote in Hillary.

And of course this article very conveniently fails to mention that Alkhateeb is a Democrat from the Dennis Kucinich camp. I guess that would mean all those libs who assumed this poster came from a racist Republican would then have to eat some crow, and that would never do. Go figure.

Excellent artist, no Change Socialist for sure.

I guess that would mean all those libs who assumed this poster came from a racist Republican would then have to eat some crow, and that would never do. Go figure.

Posted by: The guy who hides behind false names (so sayeth Don) | August 18, 2009 12:20 PM

They may say that it is funny how the republicans view that a good Muslum is a dead Muslum.....unless he is an artist that depicts Obama like this. Strange bedfellows for sure.

How about that - a Dennis Kucinich supporter! God bless.

Still, the artist who slapped the word 'socialism' on the bottom and spread it around was from the Lyndon Larouche camp. And old Lyndon is a racist without any doubt. So, there you go!

Well, Obimbo is a socialist. And Obimbo is a joker.
If it walks like a duck, it must be a duck.
Quack Quack

Don sayeth: Stupidity knows no party. It just so happens that, at the moment, the Republican/Libertarian Party are proving to have a monopoly on it !! The moronic creation of President Obama's image, what ever it may depict, was stupid and reprehensible. I hope the illustrator finds a new like of work, for his talents for drawing celebrities are wanting, at least for us, Democrats !
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Crazy white conservative responsible for "racist" Obama poster neither white nor conservative.

Oh awesomeness of awesome!

When does Obama start healing the nation?

"And of course this article very conveniently fails to mention that Alkhateeb is a Democrat from the Dennis Kucinich camp. The guy..."

"guy", the author of the article didn't "fail to mention" Alkhateeb's being a Kucinich Democrat.

The author censored the fact. Because the fact contradicts the "hate" theme that Leftist journalists have been pushing down the public's throats.

Orwell's "Ministry of Truth" and "The Swamp" have a lot in common.

Obama's socialist agenda is no joke. Its downright terrifying!

When you have a personality cultist who's enforcing the will of a group of extreme bankers, that's fascism.
I hope the apologist for his policies realize this. Do you really think the insurance companies oppose the government making you buy insurance from them?

Socialism? L-O-L!

I guess that you want to be billed seperately for your roads, hospitals, schools, military, fire and police services. The common good is why we have laws.

I recall the Republican party getting crazed when a women's band ridiculed their leader. They claimed that those who mock the President were un-American. It seems they have short memories in stealing this guy's work and using it to show how desperate they've become.

Funny he criticizes Obama for lacking substance and his "art" is completely derivative. The "socialism" tag is lame.

What a bunch of mental children.

America has been a capitalist/socialist hybrid since the Teddy R. admin.

Public schools
Public roads
Public universities
public libraries
public lands
National Parks
State Parks
child labor laws
workman's comp
unemployment ins.
universal suffrage
Social Security
FDIC
Trust Busting (TR)
Medicare
Civil Rights
40 hr. work week
minimum wage

All the above qualify as 'socialism' with these mental cretins.

I'd like to commend the Tribune for printing this story. You rarely see anything negative about the man on these pages. Bravo!

socialism equals higher taxes! read my lips, DO NOT tax my employer benefits as income. I'm relatively healthy and do'nt use them. If the poor need medical they can go to cook county hospital as Stroger already raised my taxes and we do'nt need the feds to duplicate this service or mismanagment.

As is usually the case whenever someone does something like this to a black. even a half black like Obama, they are considered racist. What would people have thought if that was Bush's face and not Obama's? Funny to say the last but he wouldn't have been considered a racist. Someday, people wil realize Obama is picked on because of wh he is and not what color he is.

You want the unfettered free market to run your life?
Move to Somalia!

I'm waiting for this artist to be sued for copyright infringement in 3,2,....

I'm in Toronto Canada visiting some friends and today we saw alot of these obama joker posters stuck on garbage cans infront of the CN Tower.

Life is good...

Paulo

Alkhateeb is a real laff riot.

Is that his way of saying Obama is an apostate?

Stating the obvious, roads, police, fire, military is the duty of the government. Private enterprise is not. When government gets involved in private business or the realm of a free-market system, then it becomes socialism.
By the way, MOST hospitals are private businesses. The public ones like Stroger or many VA hospitals historically are not run very well.

How dare you!, pick on the great one,
the world's greatest community organizer. I only wish I had his creativity. I'm sure Jack Nicholson would be outraged.

Socialism? L-O-L!

I guess that you want to be billed seperately for your roads, hospitals, schools, military, fire and police services. The common good is why we have laws.

There is a differance between the Govt. building infrastructure and taking over buisnesses.

I recall the Republican party getting crazed when a women's band ridiculed their leader. They claimed that those who mock the President were un-American. It seems they have short memories in stealing this guy's work and using it to show how desperate they've become.

So the dems calling people at town hall meetings NAZIES, and saying they were OUT OF TOUCH is ok with you then?

And as I recall, the Dixie Chicks fanbase voted with their wallets, hence the fact that the chicks are no longer heard from.
Posted by: Stating the Obvious | August 18, 2009 7:21 PM

Paula,
Canadians have a much higher approval and likeness of Obama than they did of derelict boy George Bush. That goes without saying. Have you asked any Canadians what their opinion is of the health care they receive?? I didn't think so.
Socialism is the new Republiscum buzzword.

* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | August 18, 2009 9:06 PM
.
You are incorrect. Socialism involves both the collectivization of a population along with redistribution of wealth by a central authority. Many of the laws and services you cite involve neither. Things like public roads, libraries, lands, and parks involve no redistribution of wealth because everyone has equal use and access to them regardless of economic status. Child labor laws, labor laws, workmen’s comp laws, universal suffrage, FDIC, trust busting, civil rights, or minimum wage laws involve neither collectivization nor the redistribution of wealth. This should have been obvious.
.
In contrast, items like social security, welfare and public schools do involve some aspects of collectivization and redistribution. Taxpayers are collectivized under social security and by community. Social security recipients are eligible to receive more money than they pay in from taxpayer contributions; welfare recipients, collectivized under social security, receive more than they pay in taxes (which is little or none); and parents with children receive an unequal benefit in the education of their children through (collectivized) contributions from those who may never have children in school. In each of these instances, someone is paying for more than they are getting, and someone is getting more than they paid for.
.
Moreover, those who possess distaste for the leftward ideology don’t consider many of the items you cite to be “socialist” manifestations for the same reason. You should be ashamed of yourself for using such a thin “reductio ad absurdum” argument. Get the position right before you attack it. You don’t loose all your credibility that way.
.
PS - Watch who you call a mental cretin. You were wallowing in ignorance yourself.

JW,
You are defending the indefensible.
All the entities I mentioned have been attacked as socialism by the retrogrades of the right in the past. You must not be paying attention.

Just because YOU didn't doesn't pardon those who do. They are, in fact, beneath contempt. You must truly sanitize your contacts in every day life. I wish I could, but I am compelled to work with and associate with many of the cretins I describe.

They are low functioning reactionary, Beck boot licking, violence prone fools. I have run across them in every job I ever had from Fortune 500 companies to part time semi-retired work to the US Army.

These people are calling England, Germany, Canada, Austrailia, France, and any other social democracy you care to name 'socialist' and 'fascist'.
You say;
"Socialism involves both the collectivization of a population along with redistribution of wealth by a central authority. "
How does your statement square with anything the T-Baggers and Town Hall Mobs are claiming? I would love one of those fat 'cretins' to go over to England or Canada and tell somebody there the aren't free. Hilarious.

Note to JW: They have private property in all those countries too.

And finally, your examples of what you actually consider socialist, SS, public schools, etc. the American people love and want.

National Health Ins. would be no different.

BTW, in case you don't know, Steven Hawking is English and has been treated by the NHS there his entire life. Just want you to know.

John W,

What could be more "“reductio ad absurdum” than 'Obama wants to kill grandma', or Palin's 'death panels'.
You may not have subscribed to these stupidities, but you seem to an apologist for those that are.

What the Hey! Just another right wing nut!! Remember that the republicans never do anything FOR this nation, they only do things TO this nation! NATIONAL HEALTH CARE FOR ALL, WITH OR WITHOUT THE RIGHT WING NUTS! whiteagle38

john w,
You aren't very old, are you?

C Mo,
I'm not surprised that Johnny W thinks that Pres Obama in white face is funny. The Libertarian/Conservative nutbags that he runs with are the same idiots who were intimidating people with high powered weapons at the recent healthcare townhall in Arizona.

Libertarians are nothing more than knuckle-dragging right wing cretins.

Things like public roads, libraries, lands, and parks involve no redistribution of wealth because everyone has equal use and access to them regardless of economic status. Child labor laws, labor laws, workmen’s comp laws, universal suffrage, FDIC, trust busting, civil rights, or minimum wage laws involve neither collectivization nor the redistribution of wealth. This should have been obvious.

john w, come on!
Every one of the items listed by morris were bitterly attacked as socialist or even communist plots! It happened, and a lot of it recently!
You are unbelievable. Anyone that has read a newspaper in the last 30 years could tell you than. Wake up!

John W,
Here's a good example of the ignorant cretins I have been referring to.

http://www.knoxviews.com/node/11929

Now, there are T-Bagging fools out there repeating this as fact. Yet YOU defend this? And attack ME? You should be attacking this as ignorant and stupid, which it is.

I stand by my original statement and rebuttal.

To the general Swamp community:

What's wrong with John W? Why does he defend the stupidest ghouls, whose tactics and language I think he has actually disagreed with in the recent past?
I believe he has said he doesn't think the Dems or BHO are Nazis, or the town hall yelling is good, yet he attacks me, the Dems and defends the Town Hall Mobs.
Why? What kink in his psyche has led him to this? Why can't he admit, just this once that the Dems are in the right and the idiotic mob is in the wrong? What happened in the past that may have traumatize the youngster?
Anybody care to analyze JW?

I don't care to analyze John W, but here is a good assessment of
John D.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19RJEnNUg1I

Is this playlike artist also a flag burner??.Probably!!!..

* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | August 19, 2009 9:33 PM
.
Note to C.Morris:
.
A country need not prohibit private property or industry to be “socialist” or have “socialist” programs. Denmark is admittedly a non-Marxist, “socialist” country where private property and private industry exist. The goal of socialism is to attain “social justice” by taking from those who have and giving to those who have not - on the theory that insuring a minimum level of material wealth constitutes “justice” - regardless of why people cannot generate sufficient wealth on their own. Continental socialists, unlike Marxists, believe that it is better to accomplish “social justice” without confiscating private property beyond taxation (as the Danes have discovered). That way, the government has less to control to attain its goals of social justice. In Denmark, the wealth redistribution is accomplished through heavy taxation and vastly uneven redistribution.
.
You say: “All the entities I mentioned have been attacked as socialism by the retrogrades of the right in the past. You must not be paying attention.”
.
I would like to see some examples of this. The one web site you referred to wasn’t an example. The site was an article discussing a claim that Steven Hawking wouldn’t survive under the British system of medicine. Whether or not Steven Hawking would or wouldn’t survive is not to attack the system as “socialist.” It is an attack on the basis that the British system is heartless. Anecdotal examples exist to prove the latter proposition regardless of whether Steven Hawking is such an example.
.
Furthermore, you tend to group all of those who “attack” these programs into one monolithic group you then label as “tea-baggers” or “boot licking, violence prone fools.” They are not monolithic, and not all of them have been influenced by the fear mongering of the so-called right wing ideologists. Libertarians and the folks at the Cato Institute, for instance, tend to be more selective, but they also disfavor many of the truly socialist programs we have. Their distaste for these programs is sometimes as great as those you vilify as “boot licking, violence prone fools.” The difference is that the folks at the Cato Institute (or the Von Mises Institute) can back up their objections with reason.
.
You say, “These people are calling England, Germany, Canada, Australia, France, and any other social democracy you care to name ‘socialist’ and ‘fascist.’”
.
I have never heard these countries called “fascist” (although continental socialism was an element of fascism in Italy and Nazism in Germany). To some degree the label socialist is an accurate depiction of the government functions of these so-called social democracies. For example, collectivization of an entire population for distribution of medical benefits is socialism, especially where the wealthiest pay vastly more than the poor in taxes for the medical system. The same is true for the countries that have government guaranteed paid vacations, unlimited sick days, full child care, and lavish retirement, unemployment, and social perks. Making available equal benefits from unequal contributions is wealth redistribution. Again, the fact that private property and businesses exist does not detract from the socialist label. As the Danes have proven, socialism isn’t an all or nothing proposition.
.
One should also mention that the governments of many of these countries are far less squeamish about calling themselves socialists. The French Socialist Party (Parti socialiste) was in power there for about twenty of the last thirty years. Why do people here deny what they openly admit?
.
You also stated: “And finally, your examples of what you actually consider socialist, SS, public schools, etc. the American people love and want.”
.
Okay. I think it’s debatable whether your assertion here is entirely true. I would agree that those who have been seduced by plunder politics want these things and more. I think it’s a false overstatement to suggest that the entire American population wants this stuff.
.
However, even if what you say were entirely true, it wouldn’t change the fact that these programs are designed and operated on socialist principles. They all involve the redistribution of wealth by a central authority within a collectivized population. That earns them the socialist label. The question that needs to be asked isn’t whether they are desirable or popular - but whether you and others really like socialism, but just hate the label. I think you and the rest of the progressives should be honest with yourselves and embrace it.
.
With regard to “freedom” in these other countries, you are fooling yourself if you believe for a moment that people living there have as much freedom as we do. That is simply not the case. In France and Germany, for example, you can be put in jail for the content of your speech on a variety of subjects, most of which would be considered protected speech under the First Amendment here. For example, one can go to jail for “outraging” the national anthem (!) or the flag; or for disparaging or insulting public servants or government officials. In contrast, flag burning is considered protected speech in the U.S., and disparagement of government officials and public servants is a matter of routine here. (We here in the Swamp would all be in a lot of trouble if the latter were not true.) I could go on with long lists of things that cannot be said or done in many of these countries that we permit and protect here.
.
In addition, many of these countries exact substantially higher taxes than we do. (Up to 50% in France for what we would consider a middle-class income; and 70% in Denmark.) This is a significant restraint on an individual’s freedom of movement and personal autonomy. Ownership of another’s labor is one definition of slavery. At these levels of taxation, the difference is only a matter of degree rather than kind. So please don’t tell me about how free they are.
.
As a final note: You don’t have to analyze me. I am a Libertarian. I believe in permitting the greatest freedom of thought and action, including freedom of speech. I may disagree with the content of someone’s ideas, and I am happy to express my disagreement with any them. However, I still fully believe that bad ideas are entitled to air time. Bad ideas are cured by exposure to good ideas, or at least correct ones, in the form of more free speech. “Publicity is justly commended as a remedy for social and industrial diseases. Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; …” - said Justice Louis Brandeis; and he was right. I also believe that the intensity of communication can sometimes be equally as important as the words. Thus, what you vilify as disruption, I simply view as a mode of protected speech - as long as it doesn’t threaten imminent violence or physical harm. And, no, I am not attacking you. I am challenging the new conventional wisdom and your perceived dependence upon it. So there.

* * * * *
Posted by: Rod Serling | August 19, 2009 10:03 PM
.
Examples? I’d be glad to agree if you show me examples. I recall reading about disagreement with some of these laws or programs, and I know that some people have attacked SOME of them as being socialist; but I don’t believe ALL of them were attacked on the grounds they constituted some form of socialism.
.
I find it especially difficult to believe that things like public roads, public libraries and public education were attacked by “right-wingers,” especially since Republicans have been responsible for promoting them. Eisenhower signed off on the national highway system as a measure designed to insure national defense. Federal funding for education continued through the administrations of Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the Bushes.

“john w,
You aren't very old, are you?”
.
Posted by: TheLeninSisters | August 19, 2009 9:52 PM
.
Define old. I’m past the half-century mark and I have white hair in my goatee. I was the last child of parents who were old enough to be grandparents to people my age. In which case, I certainly developed the frame of mind of “older” generations.

* * * * *
Posted by: Neutral Lady | August 19, 2009 9:37 PM
.
I agree that that the “death panel” rhetoric is factually incorrect. But I disagree that it is an example of a “reductio ad absurdum” argument. As a logical fallacy, reductio ad absurdum is the assertion that one proposition leads to absurd consequences without demonstrating any derivation or causation between the result and the initial proposition. Example: “If X is true, as they claim, then A, B and C are also true (with the false implication that A, B and C are the absurd consequences of X when taken to its logical end.) Rather than asserting that “death panels” are the natural cause of having a government controlled health care program, the so-called right-wingers erroneously believe that the current House bill has provision for death panels written into it. The latter is simply false rather than an absurd consequence. Do you see the difference now?
.
And, no, I am not an apologist for the “death panel” crew. The fact that I agree they have a right to air their views, and to be confronted with those who disagree with them, does NOT mean that I agree with the content of their speech. I merely advocate toleration for their speech. Whatever that makes me, it certainly doesn’t make me an “apologist” for their cause.

* * * * *
Posted by: unemployed lawyer | August 19, 2009 9:57 PM
.
Still stuck on stupid, aren’t you?
.
I never said anything about Obama’s portrayal in white face. In fact, I have no opinion on the matter other than to say that I agree with the artists reasons for it and that it is free speech. Even if I hated it, I would argue that it must be tolerated. That doesn’t seem to resonate with right-wing fascists like you who wish to hinder free speech that doesn’t further your political agendum while falsely hiding behind the “civil rights” record of liberals in the past.
.
And speaking of idiots, when will you ever learn that Libertarians disavow the use of force or violence to promote social or political goals? In which case, we would never “run with the same idiots who were intimidating people with high powered weapons ...” Nor are Libertarians “right-wing” in any sense of the word. Unlike you, we don’t favor government over individual liberty and personal initiative. Nor do we believe, like you do, that the government is the answer to all social ills. Your loving embrace of government is more likely to lead to fascism than anything we believe. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it, you dolt.

JW,
Here's all you need to know about cons. and Libertarians. These ideas have been public and in the 'common knowledge' category for 40 years at least.

As far as 'proving' my allegation that every program Americans love have been attacked by the right wing as Socialist; Read the letters to the editor in your local rag some morning.

Here's one site for your perusal. Privatizing America's roads has been a Libertarian project for decades.

http://revolutionradio.org/2009/01/02/no-more-socialist-roads/

Further;
"You say, “These people are calling England, Germany, Canada, Australia, France, and any other social democracy you care to name ‘socialist’ and ‘fascist.’”

The Town Hall Mobs are calling Obama a fascist and worse for proposing universal healthcare. By extension they are calling Western Europe 'fascist'.

Finally, socialism does not = fascism.

"Posted by: Rod Serling | August 19, 2009 10:03 PM
Examples? I’d be glad to agree if you show me examples."

John W,
Here's just a small sample of the stupidity. I don't claim to vouch for the veracity of these claims. They are absurd on the face of it. But this is the right wing, Libertarian rhetoric that is destroying America.

Unions are communist


http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080422160001AAn2hxO

Schools are commie

http://www.roseindia.net/articles/our-public-schools.page

Libraries are socialist


http://everything2.com/title/Libraries+are+for+socialist+welfare+scum

'I’m past the half-century mark'

But your certitude, idealism, and ridgid thinking seem to betray the inflexibility of youth. You seem so sure of every utterance that life experience seems to be not in the equation.
I actually pictured you as a young fellow living at home with Mom and Dad.
Sorry..

Rod is right.
There are no real credible or believable sites regarding these claims because they are all incredible in the first place. And they involve the same 'reductio ad absurdum' logic you so disingenuously decry. The same 'illogic' used by the Birthers, Tea-Bags and town hall bullies. This illogic has been afoot in the land as long as I can remember.
You should know better!

JohnnyW,
We hope you, as a real Libertarian, support the legalization of recreational drugs, abortion, no zoning laws, fixing your own roads, allowing any book or magazine to be displayed in a public library.

*The fact that I agree they have a right to air their views, *

I agree sir! When a cretin lets out a huge sour cloud of gangrenous gas, open the window, then shove the fool out!
And - I - say - a - good - day - to - you, Sir!

"For example, one can go to jail for “outraging” the national anthem (!) or the flag; or for disparaging or insulting public servants or government officials. "

JW,
I'm still picking through your novella. This is pretty funny. At times in the past 40 years right wing governments have been in charge of France and Germany. They push through some bad stuff when they are in. Those repressive laws are usually the result of 'nationalist' right wing parties parties.
BTW, I'm going to dirty up the Swamp with a bunch more garbage 'proof' sites, but the only Euro/Western countries I can find that have or want to outlaw the criticism of their governments are Estonia and Israel.

BTW, your conservative friends in the Republican party want to make flag burning unconstitutional. ??

Hey Morris! Here's one for J-Dubbya!
The Italian conservative that Bushie loved seems to dislike criticism. I still don't see any individuals going to jail for it though.

http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1205565/Berlusconi-It-unacceptable-state-television-criticise-government.html

That's the only western Euro I can find. A real right winger! hahahahaha!!! For once I agree with you!

JW = Elmer Fudd
CM = BB

What d ya think ladies!?!?

C Mo,

I love listening to Johnny W claim that he isn't what he is....when it's convienient to him.

He doesn't agree with the townhalls shouters, but he supports them, if you''ll only give him the time to twist it. Ditto for the gun nutbags when they do batsh*t crazy stuff.....but when things settle down, Johnny W supports them.

Don't waste your time with a guy who believes in gov't black helicopters. He's just like Terry, he thinks winning an argument involves shouting the loudest (and in John W's case, writing chapter long screeds) and having the last word.

* * * * *
Posted by: Rod Serling ♫♫ | August 20, 2009 7:32 PM
.
These are very interesting “examples” you have given. You mean you really couldn’t do any better?
.
The first example is from a person who complains, without elaboration, that unions are “communist.” The person does not identify why he thinks they are “communist,” or what he thinks communism is - other than to suggest there is something “communist” about unions because they take too much of his money. There is no mention of socialism in the article. Nor, for that matter does the article identify the particular political stance of the individual with regard to the individual versus the state. Without these, the article hardly stands as an example of a the ravings of a “right wing” Libertarian (which is an oxymoron; but more about that later).
.
The second example is a strange article that equates the public school system with the socialist system that prevailed in the Soviet Union and the current public education system in Communist China. This article has nothing to do with a description of socialism regarding collectivization and redistribution of wealth. Instead, the author merely associates the school system with “socialism” because of they way a “socialist” country handled its education system. Oh well, a broken clock is correct twice a day too. It also fails to establish the author’s point of departure.
.
You can’t take the third article seriously. In it the author is quoted as writing:
.
“Among the Libertarian community it is often noted that the primary use of public libraries is provide sleeping quarters for unemployed bums and welfare slobs, and other parasites who are unworthy of existence (sic) who are looking for another handout from the nanny state. These people are intellectual property thieves at best and often simply vermin worthy only of extermination.”
.
The article is a parody of a caricature, and it does not represent the views of Libertarians as claimed. Libertarians don’t begrudge anyone the right to exist or to find a place to sleep; and it’s ludicrous to suggest that people might congregate in a library to get a handout. Libraries are not monetary distribution points. If you don’t believe me, just get a glimpse of a library clerk’s face if someone approaches him/her with an alms receiving hand held out.
.
Generally, I find it difficult to understand where you get the idea that the author of these little articles are “Libertarians” or that Libertarians are “right wing.” The term “right wing” normally refers to people who push “traditional” values and structures and/or favor the power of the state over individual liberty and initiative. Libertarians are neither. We are very happy to allow for social change as long as it is peaceful and doesn’t intrude upon everyone else’s rights. In fact, Libertarians are a bit counter-culture because they prefer less involvement by the state in the social order. That’s true even with regard to areas in which the government has traditionally involved itself. Likewise, Libertarians overwhelmingly oppose the power of the state to interfere in people’s personal lives or deprive them of important liberties. So, for your next assignment, try to find something that credibly (unlike example 3) demonstrates that Libertarians are “right wing,” or that they partake of the ideology that is “destroying the country.” That is, if you can actually figure out what those words mean. In case you get any more confused than you already are, go look up the Libertarian Party home page.
.
One further critique of your “examples” is in order. You need to explain how your so called examples, which have little to do with socialism, nothing to do with collectivization and wealth redistribution, and represent no identifiable ideology of any particular “right wing” group are good examples of anything discussed thus far. You strained yourself out and came up with nothing.

* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | August 20, 2009 7:09 PM
.
1. I happen to know the difference between fascism and socialism. They are not the same, but there is a relationship between them. Fascism is socialism PLUS strict social regimentation, ultra-nationalist policies and/or militarism. If you look at what Mussolini’s Italy and Hitlter’s Germany were, you will see that these features characterized the government and social order of both countries.
.
2. I question whether the town-hall protesters are referring to Obama as a “fascist” MERELY because of his push for “proposing universal health care” (because he really isn’t pushing for universal health care). I think the name calling might have something to do with the erroneous idea that the health care bill has “death panels” for the weak and elderly. (After all, the Nazis euthanized the disabled and feeble, and they got the idea from the American policy of “eugenics” from the ‘20s and ‘30s.) It might also have something to do with the fact that the health care bill imposes an individual mandate on everyone to participate in the health care insurance trap. That is an unprecedented step in government history. Some of these measures may be viewed within the backdrop of Obama’s accomplishments in the area of nationalizing or acquiring control over an auto manufacturer and financial corporations. (That, too, was something the Nazi’s did with industries essential to the state.) Then again, a promising reason they are calling him a “fascist” is that they are simply looking for a ‘snarl’ word because they don’t like him and don’t know what they are talking about. It might even be a combination of all the above. All of this being the case, it is unlikely that they are calling European countries “fascist” for having some form of socialized medical system. (And, BTW, the quote you quoted to me on socialism and fascism was something I quoted from you.)
.
3. My local newspaper is a yellow rag, so I don’t take it. Besides, I seriously doubt the paper would print what you consider to be “right wing” responses. I live in progressive Democrat land, I’m surrounded by papers sympathetic to progressive Democrats, and the whole place is only forty miles south of Nancy Pelosi’s home base. Thus, your proposed method of proving your point doesn’t work. I need your help.
.
4. But before you provide examples of the “right wing” attack on these programs as socialist, you had better define your terms. I’m beginning to wonder whether you even know what “right wing” means. I mean, I would like to see some meaningful definition rather than the kind of “they aren’t Democrats” or “they aren’t one of us” type of definitions I run across so often.
.
5. What has shaken my confidence is the little article you cited as an example of Libertarians pushing for the privatization of public roads. If you spent any time at all reading the article, you would have known the author claims that most Libertarians do not favor the privatization of roads. The author thinks that Libertarians ought to favor privatization, but he is admittedly a minority of one. If you could so mischaracterize Libertarians on the basis of a fringe article, what am I supposed to think of your definitions of right wing?
.
On the same subject, you also lost a lot of credibility with me by confusing Libertarians and Conservatives. There is some overlap in their beliefs when it comes to fiscal policy and government size; but there is also a universe of disagreement between the two parties. I’m sorry that you have succumbed to the idea that Libertarians are Republicans Lite. So much for common knowledge. So, no, I’ll decline to simply take your word for what is common wisdom. Go read the Libertarian Party home page and then tell me if your ideas are the same.

"These are very interesting “examples” you have given. You mean you really couldn’t do any better? "

JW,
Whhhaaaattt???!
That was my point in the first place.
These claims by the T-Baggers/Birthers, you pick a name, have no credibility at all, and they are the same low functioning types that have claimed every advance in the US has been socialism. (They are partly right. Socialism is not necessarily bad.)

I'm not trying to prove anything to YOU. I am pointing out the mental excrement that is out there pandering the Libertarian points of view. It's you people that want to eliminate all the social progress of the last century.

You said 'show me where they say that'; That's where they say it. Get it? You catchin' the drift yet, Homer?

There won't be any credible sites making these claims. They are all driven by stupidity/paranoia, so of course these sites will be stupid and paranoid.

Geez, JW, for god sake just google
'Public schools are communist' and see what you get. This is the noise that is out there, everyday, in the letters to the ed., the internet, the break room. It's a tidal wave of American stupidity.

And so what if you can find some site claiming the same thing written by a right wing 'intellectual'; It's still wrong. It doesn't change the fact the only thing that can fix our healthcare system is single payer NHI. That's what this is really about.

Remember, Grasshopper, sometimes capitalism needs a little socialism.

Johnny Dubbya says;
'Fascism is socialism PLUS strict social regimentation, ultra-nationalist policies and/or militarism. If you look at what Mussolini’s Italy and Hitlter’s Germany were, you will see that these features characterized the government and social order of both countries."

Webster says;

fascism |ˈfa sh ˌizəm| (also Fascism)
noun
an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
• (in general use) extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice.
The term Fascism was first used of the totalitarian right-wing nationalist regime of Mussolini in Italy (1922–43), and the regimes of the Nazis in Germany and Franco in Spain were also fascist. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach.

(Everybody note it doesn't mention the type of healthcare system)

reamer,
JohnW doesn't have the intellectual honesty to admit that 'fascism' can be left wing or right wing. It has zero to do with healthcare.

JW,
You are unreal, dude.

#2.
"(And, BTW, the quote you quoted to me on socialism and fascism was something I quoted from you.)"

I was re-quoting you quoting me, for something called 'context'.

#4.
Examples have already been provided by more than one poster here. And what is right wing? Let's go to Webster; (Thanks Reamer)
"right wing
noun ( the right wing)
1 the conservative or reactionary section of a political party or system."

5.
This one is easy. As RS pointed out no one should have any confidence in these right wing sites. They have no credibility, and they exist on the same intellectual level of fundie Christians, right wing Republican politicians, Tea-Baggers and Birthers. That's the whole point. Seems you are finally getting it.

Finally, on you questioning the close relationship of Libertarians and Cons; Well, you are the extreme result of conservatism. Let's refer to Webster again:
(BTW, there is an 'overlap' with liberalism in libertarian dogma. See if you can find it.)

libertarianism |ˌlibərˈte(ə)rēəˌnizəm|
noun
an extreme laissez-faire political philosophy advocating only minimal state intervention in the lives of citizens.
The adherents of libertarianism believe that private morality is not the state's affair and that therefore activities such as drug use and prostitution, which arguably harm no one but the participants, should not be illegal. Libertarianism shares elements with anarchism, although it is generally associated more with the political right (chiefly in the U.S.). Unlike traditional liberalism, however, libertarianism lacks a concern with social justice.

(I actually support legalization of drugs and prostitution, so we agree on one thing, I guess)

Those sites mentioned by CM and RS seem to be at the top of the Google tree. Must be popular with someone out there. Seems to add credence to the 'common wisdom' claim.

Fascism is socialism PLUS strict social regimentation, ultra-nationalist policies and/or militarism.

John W,
My gosh, you could replace the word
'socialism' with any of the following words -

religion
clerical
capitalism
communism
republic

- and end up with 'fascism'.

* * * * *
Posted by: TheReamer | August 21, 2009 9:22 AM
.
Your post oddly reminds me of the joke:
.
What’s the difference between a duck?
.
Answer: Its legs are the same distance apart.
.
You see, you compared what I wrote about fascism with a dictionary definition, and your definition didn’t involve any meaningful distinction from mine. The belief in the supremacy of a single national or ethnic group is what I described as ultra-nationalism. “Authoritarian” in your definition is just another way of saying “strict social regimentation” like I wrote.
.
What your definition left out was the socialist element. Don’t let your dictionary definition fool you. The Nazi Party (i.e. Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) began as a non-Marxist socialist workers party. Find and read Hitlers 25 point program - that he wrote for the NSDP - and you will see a lot of wealth sharing and collectivization in the ideology. Socialist principles had dominated politics for decades before the Nazi’s came to power, and it appealed to the masses. It was, therefore, simply natural for them to continue. The same is more or less true of the fascism practiced in Italy. Mussolini was an avowed non-Marxist socialist until he founded the Fascist Revolutionary Party. His policies also included the severe collectivization of the nation (“Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato,” - Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State) - and nationalization and heavy subsidies for business.

* * * * *
Posted by: OldCreaky | August 21, 2009 9:48 AM
.
OldCreaky, er … JohnEEEE-Boy,
.
You don’t have the intellectual capacity to know if you’ve been snake bit or powder burned. Fascism cannot, by definition, be “left wing.” Fascism involves an authoritarian government, social regimentation, and the rejection of liberalism. It has some very nasty nationalist and atavistic tendencies as well. These attributes are characteristic of “right wing” governments. A preference for statism - and particularly statism at the cost of individual liberty and personal initiative - has not particularly been part of the “left wing.”
.
And FYI - Germany had a nationalized health care system dating back to the 1880s. It was implemented by then prime minister Bismarck on the theory that a little socialism would prevent a lot of it. The Nazis who socialists (of the anti-Marxist, anti-Communists and anti-liberal kind) picked it up and ran with it because it fit their profile as collectivists with a strong ethnic agendum. In which case, you are wrong again. But, hey, who’s surprised by that?

* * * * *
Posted by: TheLeninSisters | August 21, 2009 3:49 PM
.
I’m sorry. There is simply no reasoning with someone who is too ignorant or too lazy to learn the difference between “socialism” and religion, clerical (WTF ever that means), capitalism, communism, and republic. The collectivism and control inherent in even the mildest forms of socialism are necessary characteristics of “fascism” - and the same cannot be said of the other things you find interchangeable.

Libertarian think:

FDR, Clinton, Obama = Evil socialist
Lay, Koslowski, Mosilo= Creative Capitalist
Government=bad
Unbridled Capitalism=priceless

If someone dies because they couldn't afford proper medical care:
1) To a liberal, it's a tragedy.
2)To a libertarian, it's a Market Correction.

JW,
Reading your responses leaves one shaking their head.

It's not what the posters here think that was the original subject;
It's what the stupid, low functioning T-Baggers, Birthers, and Town Hall Mobs are screaming:

IE - The Nazis had socialized medicine, Obama wants socialized medicine, ergo Obama is a Nazi.

You don't need to school any of us. You need to start schooling the mouth breathers showing up at town halls with loaded assault rifles.

You are picking through the minutiae of what's socialism, fascism, etc ad nauseam, and there could be a reason to do that at some point. But the problem here is not all of us; It's the cretinous T-Baggers, Birthers and screamers.

Now I don't like to stick up for reamer, but I suspect the reason he/she printed the Webster's definition of fascism, was to point out the 'right wing' component.

"an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."

Now, you seem to be quibbling with all of us over the fine points of right wing/left wing/con/lib etc. I certainly
agree that there is overlap, and blanket labels can be inaccurate.

But thats the whole point about the Tea-Baggers! That's exactly how they operate and that's exactly how the noise machine in the sites provided here operate. Code words.
Liberal is left wing is socialism is communism.
(Then, Conservative is right wing is libertarianism is fascism.?)
And that's why the following have been vilified for as long as I can remember as commie;

Public schools
Public roads
Public universities
public libraries
public lands
National Parks
State Parks
child labor laws
workman's comp
unemployment ins.
universal suffrage
Social Security
FDIC
Trust Busting (TR)
Medicare
Civil Rights
40 hr. work week
minimum wage

Now, here's another example of a ultra conservative point of view.

http://shelleytherepublican.com/2007/06/27/minimum-wage-laws-are-communist-crap.aspx

Now, I AM NOT SUGGESTING this makes sense, or is proof of anything. I am trying to show YOU what is out there. These are the people promoting conservative/right wing/libertarian talking points. No credibility? Right. Stupid? You bettcha. Simplistic? Dern right.

Go to work on them, JW.

And remember the old adage:
'If you move far enough to the left, you meet the same crazies coming around from the right'.

Just passing through, but WTH is john w on?

* * * * *
Posted by: craig | August 22, 2009 5:42 PM
.
I’m not on anything, craig. Maybe it just seems like I’m on something because, unlike you, I haven’t taken the Kool-Aid yet. Just sayin’.

* * * * *
Posted by: Alex | August 22, 2009 (at 12:18 AM & 2:27 AM)
.
Alex,
.
Where do you get all these wrong ideas from? Libertarians begrudge no one their life or place in the world. Also, most Libertarians are what one might call “minarchists” (rather than the “anarchists” you make us out to be). That is, we do not believe government is “bad” under all circumstances. Anarchists believe that; Libertarians don’t. Libertarians believe that government is fine in small doses, and that it ought to have a positive role in protecting people from harm from any source. Thus, we don’t give a free pass to those who exploit or defraud others.
.
We believe that individual freedom is the highest good, and that it should be both permitted and fostered to the degree that it doesn’t harm others. How could you possibly take issue with this position? Don’t you want to live your life as you choose? Ours is no different from the viewpoint espoused by those who led us through the Revolution and founded the federal government (intending it to be a “limited government”). Well, there is one difference: we don’t suffer from the hypocrisy of supposedly favoring freedom while championing slave ownership either. (We believe freedom means freedom for everyone.)
.
What we object to is when the government oversteps its boundaries, and particularly those set by the Constitution. I, for instance, don’t believe that one can (or should) call FDR or Obama “evil.” Neither intended evil by their actions (thus far). Unfortunately, tyranny often comes at the hands of the well-meaning. I would also be less than candid with you if I didn’t tell you that I believe both overstepped their boundaries and have taken this country down the wrong path with their big (and definitely unconstitutional) government schemes.
.
In particular, I believe that Barack Obama means well by his push for health care reform. It is fully within the viewpoint of his political party to invoke government at every turn to improve the lives of Americans. (I disagree with the viewpoint but not the thought behind it.) However, for some reason, those who think his plan is good have gotten into the habit of entirely disregarding the portions that hinder human freedom, privacy and autonomy. (And it does severely abridge all of these things.) Forcing people into the arms of insurance companies, forced confiscation of property, forced disclosure of private and personal information, and forced doctor-patient relationships are all a serious violations of a person’s constitutional rights to autonomy, privacy, property and conscience. (Cf. U.S. Const., Amends. I, IV, V, IX & XIV.) To me, Obama is like a choir boy who has the right music but can’t help singing out of key. He and his kind are simply deaf and blind when it comes to traditional constitutional limitations.
.
C.Morris supposedly claims to shake his head at my posts. I shake my head at his posts and those of anyone else who would not only lie down for this plan, but actively promote it as well. Some of you seem to forget that that the same big government - which Obama is expanding - could one day (and maybe soon) be occupied by another George W. Bush. The more power Democrats steal for use by the federal government can also be used by a bigger tyrant at a later date. This is why Libertarians like “small government.” A small government with diffused powers is less capable of tyranny. That was the whole point of “federalism” - which is now being thwarted. I will turn a deaf ear when you complain about the next right-wing monster. You will have given him (or her) the power to be monstrous.

* * * * *
Posted by: C.Morris✧ | August 22, 2009 11:27 AM
.
1. I’m not going to lecture the tea-baggers, birthers or anyone else who opposes the health care bill. What am I supposed to say? Should I tell them, “Look, you are right in opposing this bill, but you should be against it for the right reasons and not because of the wrong ideas you have”? The effort wouldn’t change anything. They would still be against it - as I am - and probably a little more confused.
.
Go look at my response to Alex (above) for the reasons I oppose the health care bill. My reasons (and those of Libertarians) have nothing to do with the reasons the tea-baggers, etc. also oppose the bill.
.
2. Your old adage is wrong. The opposite of authoritarianism is anarchy, not communism or fascism. In which case, the extreme of both ends cannot produce the “same crazies.” Fascism, socialism, and social democracy are all “right wing” forms of government. Republicans and Democrats are also “right wing” in their ideology. What unifies all of them on the “right” is their preference for state control (a.k.a. “statism”) over individual freedom and an individual’s exercise of self-government.
.
The very lack of preference for state control is what makes Libertarians different from Democrats or Republicans, and puts them into a category by themselves. You see, Republicans say they are for small government, but they haven’t been serious about it for decades. Libertarians are still serious about small government and more individual freedom. So, if Democrats are supposedly on the “left” and Republicans are on the “right,” there is no place to plot Libertarians on the same scale. They are just south of no north.
.
You keep telling me that you (Democrats) don’t need schooling. Yet, you keep on treating Libertarians as Republicans Lite - despite the fundamental differences in policy and perspective. You even had the audacity to claim that I am “the extreme result of conservatism.” That is so far from the truth it’s not funny. The so-called “conservatives” in this country favor statism too. You somehow can’t imagine that anyone who isn’t a Republican or conservative could disagree with the Democrat’s platform. That is why you can’t understand the reasons people disagree with Obama’s plans for reasons apart from the tea-baggers, birthers, and so on. The truth - if you are willing to accept it - is that there is a much larger political and ideological universe out there than that which is represented by the small-mindedness of either the Democrats or Republicans.

jw,

sorry to see that the failed reaganomics ideology that has tail spun the economy has cost you your job.

good luck in your search.