Ron Paul: Barack Obama is Not a Socialist

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by hermit, Apr 13, 2010.

  1. Republicans and tea party activists are fond of accusing President Barack Obama of being a socialist, but today party gadfly Ron Paul said they had it wrong.

    “In the technical sense, in the economic definition, he is not a socialist,” the Texas Republican said to a smattering of applause at the Southern Republican Leadership Conference.

    “He’s a corporatist,” Paul quickly added, meaning the president takes “care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”

    Supporters of the Texas lawmaker appear to represent a significant number of the 3,500 attendees here, fueling speculation that Paul is likely to win the straw poll later today. The Campaign for Liberty, Paul’s political outfit, declined to discuss how many of his supporters were at SRLC.

    The Texan’s supporters often descend on political gatherings to vote for him in 2012 straw polls. In February, he won the Conservative Political Action Conference’s straw poll with a hefty 31% of the vote.

    http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/04/10/ron-paul-barack-obama-is-not-a-socialist/tab/article/
     
  2. Mav88

    Mav88

    It's called fascism you dumbass, Ron just didn't want to say it.
    He does think of himslef as some sort of great leader and everyone marches to his tune.

    He isn't fascist though, it's only a stage. Clearly his leanings are left, redistribution is the giveaway.
     
  3. So he isnt a fascist but its fascism, make up your mind numbnuckle.
     
  4. Ricter

    Ricter

    lol
     
  5. Ron Paul is the king of fruitcakes
     
  6. The real problem is that Obama does not understand what Capitalism is.
    Obama has never had to meet a payroll. Obama has never had to compete in the private market.

    He is ignorant as to what it takes to create wealth. The wealth Government needs to operate.
     
  7. hell yes. we need a guy like george bush. 12 trillion of wealth evaporated under his leadership.
     
  8. I think the bigger problem is that wealth creation is not equal amongst everyone. There is a large majority that could not create wealth if you gave them $100 million to start with. We see this over and over with lottery winners.

    The left leaning folks see this inequality as something they should correct via government action. i.e. here is a social reason that prevents someone from attaining the same level of wealth as another and govt needs to step into to correct that social injustice.

    What they cannot admit is:
    1) some people are just fine with not being wealthy
    2) some people will bitch about it but willingly not do anything about it
    3) some people want to to do something about it but do not know how and will not educate themselves to learn how
    4) some people, no matter how hard they try or how much they want to, just don't have what it takes

    So instead of encouraging those that can and providing an environment that has equal opportunity to facilitate those that want to, they take from the wealthy to give to those that cannot or do not want to. Ass backwards if you ask me for creating a strong and prosperous nation.
     
  9. Ricter

    Ricter

    A majority could, with the right upbringing, which is what wealthy families give their kids.

    You are wrong there. It is precisely equality of opportunity that the left desires, and what we do not have, not by a long shot.

    Our society is playing a game of Texas hold'em with an additional rule, where the winner of the current hand gets to add one rank to, or choose the suit of, one of his cards in the next deal, and he also gets to choose who will take his seat when he gets up.

    We need a separation of business and state.
     
  10. And Obama has had the chance to change the policies and corruption that caused it, and could cause it again - but didn't.
     
    #10     Apr 13, 2010