How Long Before Obama Turns the US into a Socialist Shit Hole?

[Peter Parka]

Yeah Mulder, we all know how terrible Socialism is. I hate to be the one to point this out but being Socialist dosen't make you Stalin.

 

[SgtSpike]

Yeah Mulder, we all know how terrible Socialism is. I hate to be the one to point this out but being Socialist dosen't make you Stalin.

But it does make you a socialist, which you just said is terrible.

 

[BlackCherry]

In politics, like sport, sore losers stink
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
By Reg Henry, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Comrades, when the dreaded socialism descends on America courtesy of the Obama administration -- which, by the way, is the most ridiculous delusion to sweep the land since the Y2K scare -- I hope team sports become mandatory.

Team sports teach important life lessons, especially about winning and losing: To wit, don't be a loser when you win but be a winner when you lose. In other words, act with a little class, win or lose. And, oh yes, keep a sense of humor.

Apparently, it is a difficult concept for some folks to grasp, presumably because they never had malevolent bruisers with missing teeth pound them into a pulp and then smile and shake hands after the game is done.

The game is done in the presidential election, too, save for the presentation of the trophy, but some people pound on. This is not right. These sore losers should be rounded up and required to join hockey or rugby teams so they can learn some character. If all else fails, they should be made to join women's paddle tennis teams, where the politics resembles Zimbabwe without the gentility.

In my sporting life, I long ago became an expert in losing. Readers recognize my expertise in this field and I often get supportive e-mails that say: "You are the biggest loser in Pittsburgh." Of course, I blush with modesty but I have to admit I know something about losing and the proper way to behave in defeat. Jeez, I've had enough practice.

To be fair, most on the losing side this year have been gracious without any help from me. They were led from the start by the example of Sen. John McCain with his good-hearted concession speech. President Bush and first lady Laura Bush also were the model of civility when the Obamas visited the White House this week. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain understand sports and the ethic of leaving it all on the field of play.
But even as Mr. McCain spoke, some of his supporters couldn't quite let go of their boorishness and ill will, presumably because their only sport in school was croquet or pingpong, which typically do not attract any dentally challenged bruisers to help build sporting character.

Even now, some die-hard conservatives keep up their sulky whining, predicting dire consequences for the republic because the majority of the voters acted in a way they considered flagrantly unpatriotic -- i.e., they did not support their candidate. Deaf to the final siren, they rehash all the old plays that were so recently found wanting.
This has to stop. It serves only to perpetuate the notion, perhaps erroneous but perhaps not, that the losing side was composed largely of the bitter, the old and the cranky -- not the best image to attract those frisky younger voters in the future.
Withholding the final handshake is also unnecessary. Sports is all about ups and downs and so is politics. Every victory brings the seeds of a future defeat, as the One Great Scorer knows full well because it was he who devised the game and watches it unfold up there in the grandstand in the sky.

That is why I will not publicly exult over Mr. Obama's victory. I restrict myself to making private whoo, whoo, whoo sounds in the company of consenting adults. I will certainly not employ the charming little phrase that in 2000 and 2004 was in the mouths of those who now live in dread of socialism/Marxism -- "Get over it!"
They will get over it fine because they do not know what a silver lining this cloud presents. I'm sure His Largeness Rush Limbaugh knows. As irritated as he may be with the election result, the days of wine and roses will arrive for him with the Obama administration. Unless you are the Steelers, playing offense is more agreeable than playing defense.

Also, the Obama administration will have many chances to screw up -- not only because Democrats possess a natural talent for screwing up but because of the scale of the challenge. Dr. Seuss in "The Cat in the Hat" might have been writing about our present day: "And this mess is so big/ And so deep and so tall,/ We can not pick it up./ There is no way at all."

The truth is, everybody ought to be humble after this election. Once the game resumes -- and Mr. Obama has actually done something -- catcalls from the cheap seats will be entirely sporting and appropriate. Those yelling now should leave the stadium as the confirmed losers they are. They won't get socialism, but a little socialization with good sports wouldn't hurt.

Reg Henry can be reached at rhenry@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1668. More articles by this author
First published on November 12, 2008 at 12:00 am

 

[Leather N Lace]

In politics, like sport, sore losers stink
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
By Reg Henry, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Comrades, when the dreaded socialism descends on America courtesy of the Obama administration -- which, by the way, is the most ridiculous delusion to sweep the land since the Y2K scare -- I hope team sports become mandatory.

Team sports teach important life lessons, especially about winning and losing: To wit, don't be a loser when you win but be a winner when you lose. In other words, act with a little class, win or lose. And, oh yes, keep a sense of humor.

Apparently, it is a difficult concept for some folks to grasp, presumably because they never had malevolent bruisers with missing teeth pound them into a pulp and then smile and shake hands after the game is done.

The game is done in the presidential election, too, save for the presentation of the trophy, but some people pound on. This is not right. These sore losers should be rounded up and required to join hockey or rugby teams so they can learn some character. If all else fails, they should be made to join women's paddle tennis teams, where the politics resembles Zimbabwe without the gentility.

In my sporting life, I long ago became an expert in losing. Readers recognize my expertise in this field and I often get supportive e-mails that say: "You are the biggest loser in Pittsburgh." Of course, I blush with modesty but I have to admit I know something about losing and the proper way to behave in defeat. Jeez, I've had enough practice.

To be fair, most on the losing side this year have been gracious without any help from me. They were led from the start by the example of Sen. John McCain with his good-hearted concession speech. President Bush and first lady Laura Bush also were the model of civility when the Obamas visited the White House this week. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain understand sports and the ethic of leaving it all on the field of play.
But even as Mr. McCain spoke, some of his supporters couldn't quite let go of their boorishness and ill will, presumably because their only sport in school was croquet or pingpong, which typically do not attract any dentally challenged bruisers to help build sporting character.

Even now, some die-hard conservatives keep up their sulky whining, predicting dire consequences for the republic because the majority of the voters acted in a way they considered flagrantly unpatriotic -- i.e., they did not support their candidate. Deaf to the final siren, they rehash all the old plays that were so recently found wanting.
This has to stop. It serves only to perpetuate the notion, perhaps erroneous but perhaps not, that the losing side was composed largely of the bitter, the old and the cranky -- not the best image to attract those frisky younger voters in the future.
Withholding the final handshake is also unnecessary. Sports is all about ups and downs and so is politics. Every victory brings the seeds of a future defeat, as the One Great Scorer knows full well because it was he who devised the game and watches it unfold up there in the grandstand in the sky.

That is why I will not publicly exult over Mr. Obama's victory. I restrict myself to making private whoo, whoo, whoo sounds in the company of consenting adults. I will certainly not employ the charming little phrase that in 2000 and 2004 was in the mouths of those who now live in dread of socialism/Marxism -- "Get over it!"
They will get over it fine because they do not know what a silver lining this cloud presents. I'm sure His Largeness Rush Limbaugh knows. As irritated as he may be with the election result, the days of wine and roses will arrive for him with the Obama administration. Unless you are the Steelers, playing offense is more agreeable than playing defense.

Also, the Obama administration will have many chances to screw up -- not only because Democrats possess a natural talent for screwing up but because of the scale of the challenge. Dr. Seuss in "The Cat in the Hat" might have been writing about our present day: "And this mess is so big/ And so deep and so tall,/ We can not pick it up./ There is no way at all."

The truth is, everybody ought to be humble after this election. Once the game resumes -- and Mr. Obama has actually done something -- catcalls from the cheap seats will be entirely sporting and appropriate. Those yelling now should leave the stadium as the confirmed losers they are. They won't get socialism, but a little socialization with good sports wouldn't hurt.

Reg Henry can be reached at rhenry@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1668. More articles by this author
First published on November 12, 2008 at 12:00 am

:clap:clap:clap:clap

 

[SgtSpike]

In politics, like sport, sore losers stink
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
By Reg Henry, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Comrades, when the dreaded socialism descends on America courtesy of the Obama administration -- which, by the way, is the most ridiculous delusion to sweep the land since the Y2K scare -- I hope team sports become mandatory.

Team sports teach important life lessons, especially about winning and losing: To wit, don't be a loser when you win but be a winner when you lose. In other words, act with a little class, win or lose. And, oh yes, keep a sense of humor.

Apparently, it is a difficult concept for some folks to grasp, presumably because they never had malevolent bruisers with missing teeth pound them into a pulp and then smile and shake hands after the game is done.

The game is done in the presidential election, too, save for the presentation of the trophy, but some people pound on. This is not right. These sore losers should be rounded up and required to join hockey or rugby teams so they can learn some character. If all else fails, they should be made to join women's paddle tennis teams, where the politics resembles Zimbabwe without the gentility.

In my sporting life, I long ago became an expert in losing. Readers recognize my expertise in this field and I often get supportive e-mails that say: "You are the biggest loser in Pittsburgh." Of course, I blush with modesty but I have to admit I know something about losing and the proper way to behave in defeat. Jeez, I've had enough practice.

To be fair, most on the losing side this year have been gracious without any help from me. They were led from the start by the example of Sen. John McCain with his good-hearted concession speech. President Bush and first lady Laura Bush also were the model of civility when the Obamas visited the White House this week. Both Mr. Bush and Mr. McCain understand sports and the ethic of leaving it all on the field of play.
But even as Mr. McCain spoke, some of his supporters couldn't quite let go of their boorishness and ill will, presumably because their only sport in school was croquet or pingpong, which typically do not attract any dentally challenged bruisers to help build sporting character.

Even now, some die-hard conservatives keep up their sulky whining, predicting dire consequences for the republic because the majority of the voters acted in a way they considered flagrantly unpatriotic -- i.e., they did not support their candidate. Deaf to the final siren, they rehash all the old plays that were so recently found wanting.
This has to stop. It serves only to perpetuate the notion, perhaps erroneous but perhaps not, that the losing side was composed largely of the bitter, the old and the cranky -- not the best image to attract those frisky younger voters in the future.
Withholding the final handshake is also unnecessary. Sports is all about ups and downs and so is politics. Every victory brings the seeds of a future defeat, as the One Great Scorer knows full well because it was he who devised the game and watches it unfold up there in the grandstand in the sky.

That is why I will not publicly exult over Mr. Obama's victory. I restrict myself to making private whoo, whoo, whoo sounds in the company of consenting adults. I will certainly not employ the charming little phrase that in 2000 and 2004 was in the mouths of those who now live in dread of socialism/Marxism -- "Get over it!"
They will get over it fine because they do not know what a silver lining this cloud presents. I'm sure His Largeness Rush Limbaugh knows. As irritated as he may be with the election result, the days of wine and roses will arrive for him with the Obama administration. Unless you are the Steelers, playing offense is more agreeable than playing defense.

Also, the Obama administration will have many chances to screw up -- not only because Democrats possess a natural talent for screwing up but because of the scale of the challenge. Dr. Seuss in "The Cat in the Hat" might have been writing about our present day: "And this mess is so big/ And so deep and so tall,/ We can not pick it up./ There is no way at all."

The truth is, everybody ought to be humble after this election. Once the game resumes -- and Mr. Obama has actually done something -- catcalls from the cheap seats will be entirely sporting and appropriate. Those yelling now should leave the stadium as the confirmed losers they are. They won't get socialism, but a little socialization with good sports wouldn't hurt.

Reg Henry can be reached at rhenry@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1668. More articles by this author
First published on November 12, 2008 at 12:00 am

Lol, ok... so we're not supposed to say anything about Obama's socialist viewpoint until he actually START's taxing the rich more and giving it to the poor? I mean, he's come out and said what he's going to do plain as day, and you guys don't want to admit it until he actually starts to do it? Or you just never want to admit it?

Give me a break, that was the most biased article I've read in a long time. Anyone who says that Obama ISN'T for more socialist behavior in the USA is just lying to themselves.

 

[Peter Parka]

I cant see what the problem with trying to give poor people a better standard of living is anyway. Yes, I agree, Omaba wants the USA to be more socialist but it's a VERY moderate kind of socialism he preaches anyway, I guess a lot of Americans still haven't moved on from McCarthyism yet.

 

[BlackCherry]

I think the main focus of the editorial (keep in mind, it's an opinion, of course it's going to be biased to a point) is to stop moaning about things until they actually happen for cry pete! He hasn't even taken office yet.

...and we're not talking Marxist socialism here...How is taxing the middle class more and giving tax breaks to the wealthy upper echelon (who makes up what, one or two percent of the population) a fair and balanced system?

TaxProf Blog: Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%

 

[SgtSpike]

I cant see what the problem with trying to give poor people a better standard of living is anyway. Yes, I agree, Omaba wants the USA to be more socialist but it's a VERY moderate kind of socialism he preaches anyway, I guess a lot of Americans still haven't moved on from McCarthyism yet.

It's stealing. Stealing the money that I've worked hard for, and giving it to people who haven't done a crap to try and get a better job or go to school or work at all in some cases.

If someone is poor, they can work hard for a couple years and I guarantee they will either find a better job or get a significant pay raise. The problem today is, hardly anyone has a good work ethic anymore. Hard workers are very hard to find, and I was just recently talking to a supervisor about that very thing who recently hired my cousin. He said my cousin was the hardest working guy he'd seen in a long time, and I'll bet you that it won't take long before he gets a good pay raise and possibly a higher-up job.

Anyone who isn't in the financial situation they'd like to be only has themselves to blame, and those who work their rears off shouldn't be the ones to pay for it.

 

[SgtSpike]

I think the main focus of the editorial (keep in mind, it's an opinion, of course it's going to be biased to a point) is to stop moaning about things until they actually happen for cry pete! He hasn't even taken office yet.

...and we're not talking Marxist socialism here...How is taxing the middle class more and giving tax breaks to the wealthy upper echelon (who makes up what, one or two percent of the population) a fair and balanced system?

TaxProf Blog: Warren Buffet Pays 17.7% Tax Rate; His Employees Pay 32.9%

I'm not sure what the whole situation behind that is, but I agree, that is wrong if that is indeed the case. Any imbalance in the tax system shouldn't be there. Everyone should pay the same % of taxes IMO.

Thus far though, everything I've seen puts corporate (or big personal) taxes at about 35% yearly, and anyone who makes less than 1 million a year probably isn't paying that much. For the most part, companies and persons who make more are taxed much more already.

 

[Peter Parka]

It's stealing. Stealing the money that I've worked hard for, and giving it to people who haven't done a crap to try and get a better job or go to school or work at all in some cases.

If someone is poor, they can work hard for a couple years and I guarantee they will either find a better job or get a significant pay raise. The problem today is, hardly anyone has a good work ethic anymore.
Anyone who isn't in the financial situation they'd like to be only has themselves to blame, and those who work their rears off shouldn't be the ones to pay for it.

Wow, you really believe this bullshit, dont you? You honestly believe that people are happy living in poverty if it dosent mean getting a job!

My wife is sick and I need to stay home to look after her and here you are saying that the reason I haven't got any money is my own fault! I'd take socialism over that selfish, lying attitude, any day!

 

[Alien Allen]

wonder what the liberals would do if we had a national sales tax?

would they want the rich to pay lets say double the sales tax compared to what the poor and middle class would pay?

 

[SgtSpike]

Wow, you really believe this bullshit, dont you? You honestly believe that people are happy living in poverty if it dosent mean getting a job!

My wife is sick and I need to stay home to look after her and here you are saying that the reason I haven't got any money is my own fault! I'd take socialism over that selfish, lying attitude, any day!

I think we should have lower taxes (for everyone) and charities instead of welfare. If people want to help, then they'll help. I would help even if that were the case, but I don't think it's right to MAKE people help. That's not a free country.

And please, please go move to a country that is socialist. Let me know what it's like there. And don't try to turn MY COUNTRY into it!

 

[Peter Parka]

I think we should have lower taxes (for everyone) and charities instead of welfare. If people want to help, then they'll help. I would help even if that were the case, but I don't think it's right to MAKE people help. That's not a free country.

And please, please go move to a country that is socialist. Let me know what it's like there. And don't try to turn MY COUNTRY into it!

I live in a Socialist country, it works quite well thanks.

 

[SgtSpike]

I live in a Socialist country, it works quite well thanks.

You have a monarchy, not a socialism. You mean to tell me that you make the same amount per year as everyone else on your block?

 

[BlackCherry]

Actually, the monarchy is figure head only for the most part. The UK and much of Europe is a mixed democratic/socialist set up.

Charities vs welfare can be a catch 22 as well...many charities are tax exempt (and that doesn't just include sales...it includes property as well) yet have for profit branches to them, i.e. hospitals, universities, etc. They are often major property, equity, and asset holders, but yet do not contribute to taxes. You'll also note that when a mixed system like this is in place the instances of welfare go down dramatically...look at the cases of welfare during the Clinton administration vs the Bush administration.

I also don't understand the rationale of having a stimulus check sent to me when the fed clearly has no cash...you're basically robbing Peter to pay Paul and it's not enough of an amount to really do anything. One of the things I remember Obama mentioning at some point during the campaign was support for another stimulus check...I really don't like that idea.

 

[SgtSpike]

Actually, the monarchy is figure head only for the most part. The UK and much of Europe is a mixed democratic/socialist set up.

Charities vs welfare can be a catch 22 as well...many charities are tax exempt yet have for profit branches to them, i.e. hospitals, universities, etc. You'll also note that when a mixed system like this is in place the instances of welfare go down dramatically...look at the cases of welfare during the Clinton administration vs the Bush administration.

I'd be curious to see those numbers actually...

 

[BlackCherry]

I'd be curious to see those numbers actually...

I'll try and dig them up somewhere...I remember reading them at one time...it might have been factcheck.org. I'll try and find them so I'm not just talking out of my ass...I won't lie to you, it does happen from time to time. lol

But I will say this in response to that editorial...I guess what I've never really understood is why anyone would want to see their Commander in Chief fail. I'm not a Bush fan and I've been critical of a lot of his policies...but not because I WANT to see him fail...that makes us all as a country look bad...it's almost as though the nay sayers want to see Obama fail...and I just don't get that logic. This is your country you're talking about whether you voted for him or not...why wouldn't you want him to do well!?

 

[Peter Parka]

You have a monarchy, not a socialism. You mean to tell me that you make the same amount per year as everyone else on your block?

Sorry my friend, you are confusing socialism with communism. The monarchy is just a figure head, the Queen has no power.

 

[Leather N Lace]

I think the main focus of the editorial (keep in mind, it's an opinion, of course it's going to be biased to a point) is to stop moaning about things until they actually happen for cry pete! He hasn't even taken office yet.

That was the point I got out of it. :nod:

 

[SgtSpike]

Sorry my friend, you are confusing socialism with communism. The monarchy is just a figure head, the Queen has no power.

Am I?

http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4.html

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share Thisso·cial·ism (sō'shə-lĭz'əm) [URL="http://dictionary.reference.com/help/ahd4/pronkey.html"]Pronunciation Key [/URL]

n.

1. Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.
2. The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Collective ownership sure sounds to me like everyone would have the same income, or own the same stuff, as everyone else. If not that, then how would you define socialism?

EDIT: Regardless of the answer to your question, I don't want socialism. Whatever you define it as, it's still based on redistribution of wealth. I really really really hope that socialism doesn't go any further in the US. I'll fight it every step of the way.