People who want to conflate Obama with socialism should read this: http://balkin.blogspot.co...alism.html - Some may find the taxonomy presented therein useful for further discourse. Or they may not, but they should read it anyways.

If anyone has any problems with big words in the article, either Wendy or I will be glad to help.

You leave me out of this.

Nice article, Bridgier.

The last line sums it up perfectly. For those of us who not only hate big words but get confused when they come at us in long strings, here is the money line:

"the Republican party is as "socialist" as Obama. They are simply haggling about how much regulation is appropriate. To whatever extent Obama is a socialist, we are all socialists now."

As for the "taxonomy" ("labels" to us non-scholars), I like it and agree that it would be very useful. Perhaps we should utilize the new system in Brian's "who represents the middle?" thread...

P.S. to Wendy - You crack me up!

Big words confusing
Must state thoughts in seventeen
Syllable groupings

Good idea, Steve.

So does anyone else find it ironic that the author goes to great anal and didactic detail to free President Obama from the charge of being socialist, while at the same time paints all forms of republicanism with the same and singular broad brush?

Nothing says credible like juxtaposing "Social Democrats" on the one hand vs. "Market Fetishists" on the other.

Otherwise, nothing will lose conservatives faster than all this focus on equality. Economic "equality"=socialism=shared misery.

Why should a moderately comfortable bottom half resent a remarkably comfortable top half? Or change the percentages... what difference does it make? It's an unfortunate piece of human nature I guess. But not one that should be fed.

The bottom half wasn't as useful as the top half - It was more of a history lesson that I hoped would free us from the ahistorical usage of socalist on MC.com.

As soon as we can clean up the constant abuse of the word 'neocon' we'll see what we can do

Oh that one's easy: IAPAC + PNAC + Heritage Foundation = NeoCon.

Capitalistic, corporate whores do not equate to socialism by any true definition of the word.

I'm guessing you mean AIPAC?

http://www.iapac.org/

Otherwise now I'm totally confused.

Probably just easier to say something like "Zionist Tool of Ze Joos" instead

Capitalistic, corporate whores do not equate to socialism by any true definition of the word.

I know Obama upset some with that whole socialist denial, but don't you think this is taking it a little far?

Moderately comfortable - you should get out more - does it look comfortable?

When you're right, you're right - I meant AIPAC.

Bridgier, You commy. Good article.

Compared to a world with an average wage of around $8000, the large majority of people here would be considered well off. Someone else said owning a computer made you wealthy by world standards. Apparently you didn't agree.