Dick Morris accuses President Obama of being an incompetent socialist.
Uh… is there any other kind?
PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. Please note that comments are reviewed by the editorial staff and may not be posted immediately. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pjmedia.com.
Yes, there are many examples of competent socialists, just not in the United States. There are precious few examples of socialists here either.
Obama appears to believe that the government “of the people, by the people and for the people” should actually do something positive for the people for a change. That’s not a socialist perspective, it is just not a radical right-wing perspective.
It depends on the goals. Pol Pot was a success in some ways, a miserable failure in others.
If you really want to look at it a certain way.
There are National Socialists.
The only positive thing government ever did or can do for the people is to leave them the fuck alone.
The only way politicians can run an economy is, as Obama is demonstrating, into the ground.
Isn’t an incompetent socialist the better kind?
This whole flap about “excessive pay” is a prime example. Set aside how absurd the “excessive pay” idea sounds from an administration with a tax cheat at Sec Treas, a Pardon Vendor at AG, and a series of congressmen and senators who took money from bailout firms to look the other way (one of whom is now president) follow this logic to it’s conclusion.
If taxpayers have the right to tell execs of bailout companies that they can’t have the pay they want, do I have the right to deny welfare (ie. “bailout money”) to welfare recipients who do drugs, drop out of school, or get knocked up out of wedlock (the three most common causes of poverty, all preventable)can I deny tax subsidized health care to people who have habits that increase their risk of heart disease, cancer, or AIDS?
Of course not, an attack on those rights on the poor would be seen as an attempt to attack those rights for everyone, so why is the right to earn what the market will bear any less important? Why is it any more likely to stop with those getting money from government? Does anyone really thing it’s a coincidence that the right that gives people autonomy is under attack and the rights that make people government dependent are still protected?
I’m starting to think Obama isn’t such and INCOMPETENT socialist after all.
Compentence has to be assessed relative to intended goals. When socialist policies wreck the economy, we call it the Law of Unintended Consequences, assuming that they could never have intended such a thing. Think again.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/05/the_law_of_intended_consequenc.html