The Smiley Smile Message Board

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/22/socialist-president-poll_n_7638400.html

If "nearly half" of America is to be believed (not that our current and many previous overlords aren't/weren't socialists), this country is f***ed. But hey, why try to argue against an ideology that left hundreds of millions of people dead and only leads to shortages, starvation, famine, lost liberty, and constant surveillance, right?

At this rate, either ship them all to California or the northeast and let them destroy themselves...or wake the hell up and stop voting for socialism.

*Sigh*

I hope people wake up and come to their senses, but methinks it'll only get worse before it gets better.

I wonder what percentage of Americans can offer a remotely coherent definition of socialism.

 :lol

You are hilarious.

You probably think the Benghazi thing is a big scandal too.

By the way, you righties are having quite the week aren't ya? First you lose your traitorous, treasonous Confederate flag, and now the Supreme Court (of which a majority is conservative) just upheld Obamacare for the second time. Ain't life great.

Viva la socialism baby!




* Even though President Obama is at best a moderate Republican, and even Bernie Sanders at best is a Democratic Socialist.


Spot on.

 :lol

You thinking I'm a right-winger. Any other assumptions? I don't give a damn about Benghazi or the REBEL flag or Obamacare. There are bigger fish. Those are distractions.

Your logical fallacy is the straw man, my friend. I suspect the ad hominem will soon follow.

Oh wait, you're not a right winger. You're a somewhat younger dude who realizes it's embarrassing to call yourself a Republican and be linked to jackasses like Dick Cheney, Rick Perry and neo-Confederate nutjobs like Bean Bag and so you call yourself a "libertarian" despite the fact that your "beliefs" probably line up quite well with the modern GOP.

Also, so you do agree Benghazi is much ado about nothing? That it's a tragedy at best and not a nefarious scheme by President Obama or Secretary Clinton to kill Americans? Maybe you'll prove me wrong and agree, but I suspect you won't.

No, my beliefs for the most part do not line up with the modern GOP.

I support capitalism, not corporatism. Both major parties support corporatism. No handouts or corporate welfare. No picking winners. No ridiculous tax code. Simple as that.
Social issues are best left out of the government's jurisdiction. Consenting relationships are no business of the government.
Foreign aid needs to end. Support the troops by BRINGING THEM HOME. No country is crazy enough to attack the U.S. mainland lest they invite a painful response.
People have a right to defend themselves.
There is no such thing as a "right" when people are not allowed to opt out of participation.
Rights do not come without responsibilities.
The burden of proof always rests on the person who says "no, you can't do that."

Simply, I don't give a damn what others do as long as I don't have to participate or pay for it.

Benghazi was a tragedy. Being in that part of the world with those savages is a HUGE mistake. They don't want us there, so leave them alone. Let the chips fall as they may. Obama's no idiot. Idiots aren't elected president. I think he and Hillary, like all politicians, are about as honest as water is dry, but there was not some grand conspiracy behind Benghazi. Washington, D.C. may be the Good Old Boys club but those uber-radicals in the Middle East are not members of said club.

You know what man? Right fuckin' on. I don't agree with a little bit of what you said, but at the same time I do agree on quite a bit. I must say I was wrong about you.

I'd like to get into it more, and hopefully will at a later time.

But anyways, unlike Bean Bag, you don't seem to be part of the problem. Mea culpa.

Hi all,

I truly want to enjoy the summer.

Talking (with reason) works. Huzzah.

Don't believe Huff n' Puff spin. Despite Romney being DEAD-ON BALLS accurate (47% is stuck on gimme) this is good news for America -- Socialism is dead last.

(http://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/6bdstjdogu2cb2zu35rrmw.png)

It's the atheist numbers that, while I'm well aware, somehow keeps surprising me. It's funny to me that people are more willing to elect someone who believes in a religion that contradicts their own than someone without one.

And as one, no offense taken.

I'll admit to being incredibly biased against Catholics (the Church hasn't been the same since John Paul II). I wouild never support one for president unless his or her views were agreeable...and even then, if no other competition was around. I'm pagan, vehemently anti-communist, and I don't trust the Catholic Church and ESPECIALLY not Red Francis when it comes to their views on communism; I think they're lying through their teeth.

This is one of those polls that should really make people feel good -- and help to lower all the anxiety caused by the Left wing hate groups. We're an open minded country that will hear what anyone has to say.  It's in our nature, as Americans, to want a competition of ideas -- despite what the Haters want you to believe.

I don't want to dwell on the Haters, but they take "opportunities" -- however they arise -- to emphasize hatred and tell us it's "in our DNA."  In reality, they speak for themselves -- they're filled with hate and never assume blame. Just like how the HuffPo tries to take this very uplifting poll and say, America almost wants Socialism -- which in their mind is a positive. Because it's in their DNA, not ours.

[quote author=You are hilarious.

You probably think the Benghazi thing is a big scandal too.

By the way, you righties are having quite the week aren't ya? First you lose your traitorous, treasonous Confederate flag, and now the Supreme Court (of which a majority is conservative) just upheld Obamacare for the second time. Ain't life great.

Viva la socialism baby!=quote}

Weird how some posters here who apparently really, really hate America are contributing to a Beach Boys tribute site. That's a puzzle wrapped in a conundrum. Pubic schools at fault?

What the f*** does that mean? Why couldn't someone who is politically anti-American like Beach Boys music? Oh f***, a major seventh! George Washington incarnate!

Hold the f*** up. So one "really, really hates" America if they support the President's health care law and also despise the treasonous, traitorous flag of a group that tried to tear America apart. Really? Seems like you don't know what the f*** you're talking about.

However, maybe it is the pubic schools. I personally went to public schools, but perhaps you went to the pubic schools. Must be interesting.

More than half of Americans did vote for a socialist for President - TWICE. 

it would be such a nice world if people could talk about politics (or religion) without spouting nonsense and/or vitriol for a change. But hey, by all means, buy into whatever crap sells ad space.

Bernie is a Democratic Socialist. Big difference between that and the Dictatorial/Authoritarian Socialism of the USSR.

You're right Alex. But that doesn't matter to demagogues like Bean Bagger who try to make people assume that any little whiff of "socialism" equals Lenin and Stalin.

That may be. Either way I don't think he has much of a chance. The Democratic version of the good ol' boys club is not going to nominate him because 1) he's not Hillary and 2) he's Jewish. Those are two unbreakable rules in 2016 for the Democrats.

I suggest that you all read the first book of Ovid's Metamorphoses and also the first chapters of the book of Genesis which clearly exposed the folly of mythical utopianism which is the root of American hippie culture and of course of Marxism. Anyone who has studied Marxism in detail as I have of course in the same building where the Frankfurt School met at my college Columbia University in the City of New York, knows that it is based on utopian illusions and a false understanding of human will.

The dude unfortunately here is addressing a caricature of Republican thought. He seems to have forgotten, among other things, that a Republican lawyer from the Bush administration powerfully and correctly argued in favor of gay marriage. He is allowing the Huffington Post and Media Matters to define what a Republican is in complete contra distinction to what true American conservatism is, which is love of freedom.
The professor is a proud conservative and of course at once and opponent of backward evangelical conservatism which represents a very small wing of the conservative movement and the Republican Party, but which Democrats love to attack because they have no coherent intellectual argument against core conservatism.
It is easy to mock rednecks but that itself does not constitute a refutation of American conservatism. Almost 7 years of the Barack Obama administration has hurled millions of people into poverty and on food stamps in a dependency society. Obama, my college classmate of course, will not be content until everyone is completely dependent upon the government. American liberalism is an absolute disaster in its current incarnation.

I am shocked to read that The Professor is spewing out this complete distortion of fact. He is one of the last people I expected to mimic the Fox News vitriol of lies and misinformation.. The economy fell off a cliff during the Bush administration. I recall McCain suspending his campain to return to Congress to vote on emergency measures. Once the boulder was off the cliff, no one - Obama, Jesus, Superman - was going to stop it from crashing to bottom.

Since then, Obama has overseen one of the most dramatic periods of economic growth in US history.
If it weren't for the continued corporate assault on the middle class, to the growing advantage of the 1%, Obama would be hailed as one great President. After all, he did get us out of W's Iraq fiasco, ended the war in Afganistan, and helped tens of millions finally get some affordable health care. Funny, conservatives seem to be at a loss when pressed for specifics on what exactly Obama has done wrong. It's all smoke and mirrors in an effort to elect corporate sponsored politicians who will continue to grease the skids for the 1%.

The professor has some interesting and well-informed comments.  His opinions are informed over time in an academic context. The brush is too broad that paints Republicans and Democrats.  There are shades of moderates in both groups.  But, Sanders meteoric ascendancy is interesting and more a function of a "protest against Hillary" with the history of falsehoods that has dogged both her spouse and herself.  

Who even knew his (Sanders') name?  Dems want an alternative.  Many don't like this alternative and the party needs someone who is credible and why Uncle Joe is being urged to enter the race...to save the party.  Now his outspokenness which has been critcized are being embraced.  Trump has made it popular to tell it like it is and not script every sound bite.  

This war has gone on and on.  What we have here is an Obama campaign laundry list that was comprised of promises that have been incompetently carried out.  When people get into office they often get a slap of reality that  their campaign promises were pie-in-the-sky and outright dangerous.  I fear what remains on his list.

There is always a contingent of solid troops who are left behind to supervise this transition and not create a leadership void. Welcome ISIS.  And she ordered a "stand down" in Benghazi.  The blowback will likely be impossible to overcome, despite all efforts to rescue her.  Some of the Republicans look more like moderate Dems, because of this insane posture on "redistribution of wealth."  Obamacare was taken out of Romney's top drawer, a Republican.  But, the lies were in the concept that people could choose and keep their own docs and it would not be taxed.  Now we know better.  

Best way to get your news is from more than one source.  I'm watching ABC with Stephanopoulos right now.  He was the press guy for Bill Clinton and has made some serious boo-boos contributing to the Clinton Foundation while grilling Hillary's opposition. And, I watch Fox to see the opposing viewpoint and European programming to get their interpretation of US events and politics.  Each brings something different so you can filter and inform your own choices.          ;)

This is good advice. I'd add to it my own little unsolicited rule of thumb: when you hear something that reinforces or refutes your own position, let your first thought be along the lines of "what about this [point of disagreement] is true?" And really think about it. The easy way to live is to just take the parts you like and shout, "yeah, I'm right! f*** you morons!" But easy isn't the same as honest. If you know everything and aren't constantly questioning, reassessing, and maybe evolving your positions, you're an idiot.

A little intellectual humility (and an unwillingness to play the mob mentality schtick) would go a long way in "making America great again" (if it has somehow lost whatever greatness it purportedly had once, in the glory days of whenever).

Thanks, Captain! 

The whole concept of "Making America Great" really resonates with people who don't like the third world image we now have. They want industries brought back into the States. People are sick and tired of this mamby-pamby, wussy, approach for political candidates.  The day of the press corps running the show, and minimizing damage-control is over. 

Humility is not Trump's strong suit but his boldness is what has catapulted him to the top.  It is a unique political model to fund your own campaign.  No one does it. S/He who has the gold, rules.    ;)

And yes, it is easier to call someone an idiot if you're not in agreement, rather than to do some homework and make a reasonable argument.
   

The third-world image is false, perpetuated by a hungry GOP. We're the most powerful nation in the history of the world. I don't think Canada or Mexico smell blood and plan to invade anytime soon. Some blunders of one administration don't change that any more than the blunders of the last, or the previous, or its previous administration did. The only real question is by what measure are we the most powerful nation in the history of the world. First-world problems...

To piggyback on one of your points, the industries leaving is a problem. Realistically I don't think the GOP solution of cutting corporate taxes will do much: the issue is labor costs. As long as Apple can pay about $2/hr for Chinese workers (for one example), all the tax breaks in the world won't matter: they're not going to return. Further, the reality of the world indicates that problem--losing manufacturing--will only get worse as more tasks can be automated. We need fewer people to produce goods and perform services than ever before. This is a boon for ownership; it's a disaster for labor. Cutting taxes doesn't fix that problem: corporations aren't trying to create jobs, they are trying to increase profits, and whenever that can be done--often by cutting labor at every chance--they will do so. That's their mission. They're not charitable organizations.

Neither does burying one's head in the sand and ignoring the reality of technological progress help bring jobs back. You can't force companies to hire unnecessary labor, or to overpay for unnecessary work. You can't isolate the nation and refuse to do business globally, raising tariffs or imposing penalties to compensate. (Well, you can, but it doesn't strike me as a great idea.)

Neither party has a realistic solution to this problem. And it's not a problem caused by either party's policy. This just happens to be one of those moments--moments comprising decades, of course, time being a lengthy thing--in history when the model changes. It has happened before. In the late 1800s and early 1900s people speculated that industrialization and mechanization would mean people no longer had to work, that we'd have leisure time to follow higher pursuits. Instead what we considered "work" changed and work forces relocated, learned new skills and professions.

I don't know how to deal with the situation. The easy answer is something like "innovation; everyone for himself to find the new model." Easy to say, hard to do. And I don't believe letting massive segments of the population suffer while the times change is a good idea, so some organized, government-led support seems like a good idea at some point. (Ooooh, socialism! Dirty! But it beats people living in abject poverty just because someone developed an app that made them tangential to the path of history.)

What is your opinion of the fact that he panders towards Christians (even though it is obvious he had very little interest in it until this campaign, as he referred to communion as a "cracker")?

And do you applaud his "boldness" when he insists that President Obama was not born in the United States? And is it namby pamby, wussy for him to avoid answering whether he thinks President Obama is a Christian or not?

Seems to me he's really not all that bold at all. More like pandering to a bunch of fools who eat it up hook line and sinker.

Obama would be deeply offended if you credited a phantom GOP for his proudest (in his mind) accomplishment.  Seriously.  Third World Status for America, Lead From the Behind.  And all the rest.  If there's one thing you/I should agree on regarding this turd of a president -- it's this.

He hasn't achieved it.  But he HOPES this will be his legacy Captain.  Turning a self-reliant, God-fearing, gun-toting America into a third-world land of government-dependence, gov't-run healthcare, weak military, weak dollar -- sans Constitution, sans liberty, sans protections of any kind for the people -- this is Barrack Hussein's fantasy, wet dream, legacy -- whatever you want to call it.

It's not only perpetuated by him -- it's highlighted, trumpeted, exalted by him.  I'm not being political at all here.  He might word it differently to avoid the headline, sure -- but my God, I think you would deeply, deeply insult him if you credited a bunch of useless boobs like Mitchy McConnell and John Boner with this.   :lol

Nonsense. Efforts to act as part of the world community rather than being a bully-state bumbling where we don't belong--whether successful or not*--are not remotely the same as efforts to be a third world country.


*I don't think he has been good on foreign policy. Neither was his predecessor.

Well, one thing that I find interesting about Trump is that the whole campaign finance thing is absent in his instance.  He doesn't have to pander to citizens, or industries who feed at the govt. trough, and that has changed the landscape.  He has not been "rehearsed" as far as speeches and debates are concerned and that is a large part of campaign management. 

Referring to communion as a "cracker" is interesting, and does not sound as though he has a Cathoic background, which would not endear him to them. But, we are supposed to have a certain separation of "church and state." Everyone who has taken American History in school knows that.

Trump did make an issue of "birther" credentials, a few years back, and that is a criteria for election to be president.  Whether whatever religion Obama declares he is part of, I can't speak to.  I lot of people who are brought up in certain religions are often "cultural or social" observants and are not practicing in a bona fire way.  And, whether he responds or not, was interesting.  So he shows up for church for the cameras? Big deal. Does it get him votes? Maybe. 

Did he hear the question? (He seems to be old enough that he could be getting hard of hearing.) Was the guy a plant in the audience? Was it an opportunity for Hillary to use it as an issue? I don't know. 

After the fact, Trump questioned whether he had a "duty to defend where the Presdident was born?"  Maybe not. Or, whether he was wrong, or classless, to let the question "float out there" and let it spin out? He isn't the Presdent's lawyer.  Or his press secretary.  He is on the other side of the battle, running as a Republican.  Maybe he could have said that "he thought that the matter had been resolved." It might have been smoother. But, these events have people baiting candidates just for the opposition and they need to be ready with some tactful response.

Trump is changing the game because politics and campaigning for office, is built on money from supporters as the driving engine. You can't buy TV ads without big bucks.   And because he says he doesn't need money, he gets to voice his opinions more openly, than a candidate who is beholden to special interest groups.  It seems that Trump is talking to people who are spilling their guts about what they think is wrong with govt.  in the U.S.  He is no career politician or one, coming in like a Dynasty entitlement.  People are fired up about so many issues.  And he is using that to his advantage.

But, I don't this guy could "pander" if he wanted to.  It doesn't seem consistent with his personal style.   :lol

It's not really nonsense though.  Only because Obama doesn't see lowering America's status in the world as a negative.  We won't agree, but Americans -- no longer just Conservatives -- do believe we're on the wrong track.  I won't bore you with examples.

But "acting a part of the world community" is now seen as PC marketing --- all to make this sinking dissent feel savvy.  It feeds on the seed that Bush was a "bully."  But that seed ain't sprouting.  Our international relations were much better then -- and the world was much safer.  This is important -- it's part of Trump's appeal.  People are wise to the PC spin.

Yes, "third-world" creates a lot images in the mind -- but it doesn't have to go quite that far.  Leftist have never liked America's super power status.  Liberalism has never really raised people up.  But it does succeed by lowering people and things that are successful.  Get even-ism.  There's a precedent there.

I keep waiting for you to break character and admit you've just been doing a bit.

I'm sticking with my "nonsense" position.

Back from the dead (hey, it's Good Friday, after all...), this op-ed in the Washington Post reminded me of this thread.

While a lot of it just fits into the quote commonly (but I understand mistakenly) attributed to Churchill about "if you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart; if you're not a conservative when you're 35, you have no brain." (Specific "quote" varies, as does its originator.) But the more interesting and amusing part to me was the difference in millennials' answers when the question was worded differently. I have to say, it reminds me of my college years (20 years ago), when I visited an old friend at a different college. He told me he considered himself a socialist. When I asked him what he meant by it, literally the only thing he could say was "like Scandinavia."

If I may pervert the aforementioned quote, my takeaway is "anyone who doesn't know everything when he's 18 is an idiot; anyone who does know everything when he's 38 is also an idiot."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2016/03/24/millennials-like-socialism-until-they-get-jobs/?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-a%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

If you're in a system in which you have to compete for needed resources, you start to compete for resources. And people in a system start to believe the system they are in is "the way life is" and the way they and others behave in that system is "the way people are."