“An Alabama congressman told local officials this week that he’s worried about the number of socialists in Congress, and he put the number already there at 17.”
Not surprisingly this is from Fox news.
Some bloggers have come away with the belief that he is referring in some way to the CPC (although the group does not claim to be socialist). Well this is somewhat beside the point.
My question here is…should politicians be banned from using certain words, if only to put a stop to nasty rhetoric and finger pointing? Are there other solutions to this idiocy?
“An Alabama congressman told local officials this week that he’s worried about the number of socialists in Congress, and he put the number already there at 17.”
Not surprisingly this is from Fox news.
Some bloggers have come away with the belief that he is referring in some way to the CPC (although the group does not claim to be socialist). Well this is somewhat beside the point.
My question here is…should politicians be banned from using certain words, if only to put a stop to nasty rhetoric and finger pointing? Are there other solutions to this idiocy?
“An Alabama congressman told local officials this week that he’s worried about the number of socialists in Congress, and he put the number already there at 17.”
Not surprisingly this is from Fox news.
Some bloggers have come away with the belief that he is referring in some way to the CPC (although the group does not claim to be socialist). Well this is somewhat beside the point.
My question here is…should politicians be banned from using certain words, if only to put a stop to nasty rhetoric and finger pointing? Are there other solutions to this idiocy?
Such as…? If you take out terms that are consider inflammatory or overly general, they might just be forced to use words that actually properly describe the object of their interest. Suddenly “Socialist” may become “economic humanist” or “Terrorist” may become “Foreign opponent.” Maybe not, but a bit of censure in public speaking may not be a bad thing. That is my thought here at least.
I’m curious as to why a Socialist American politician might be better than a Democratic or Republican American politician.
well, for one: Egalitarianism If Obama was a Socialist he wouldn’t forget about gay rights suddenly after becoming elected.
I think its good becuase its a sort of transitional state from capitalism to communism, with more power going to the workers( a mild form of collectivization).
well, for one: Egalitarianism If Obama was a Socialist he wouldn’t forget about gay rights suddenly after becoming elected.
So your belief is that people will change their nature drastically based on political affiliation? That is…rather interesting. Well good luck with that view of the world I suppose. Personally I think it is fair to say that Obama would be largely the same man whether he were Democrat, Republican, Socialist, or any other affiliation you can think of. That he chose Democrat possibly indicates he identifies more with the positions that party holds, but that translates to roughly the same thing in practice.
Obama is a social democrat which is a form of socialism. So, in a sense he can be called a socialist.
Whether someone is an actual socialist or not is often beside the point (in today’s usage in America). It is more often used as an insult or slur that is given regardless of a persons economic position. I don’t mind if people dislike socialist policies (I’m against quite a few myself), but when politicians get brushed off as “socialist” without anyone talking about what they are actually trying to do it becomes a problem. The “17 socialists in Congress” is precisely that kind of unhelpful labelling.
The way I read the article it seems like Fox News is basically concurring with your point of view. They are trying to understand why the Representative would make such a statement while offering no opinion of their own as to why this would be a good or bad thing. I really don’t see any one sided journalism here if that is what you are implying. The Representative using a “label” without further explaining what he meant would be the only foul I see here. Though if one disagreed with socialistic principles then one could use the term “socialist” as derogatory in the sense that those people represent something you see as inferior.
To Conco read up on “social democrat” and not “socialism”. There is a stark contrast.
