Just wait till she hears about Australia! It's both

while the electoral votes were won in a landslide by obama, and i will admit it was an impressive victory, the popular vote... you, me and all the citizens who voted, was by no means a landslide. 52% to 46% a solid lead yes. landslide... hardly.




socialism:

-An economic system in which the production and distribution of goods are controlled substantially by the government rather than by private enterprise, and in which cooperation rather than competition guides economic activity.

-Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods and services.

-Socialists mainly share the belief that capitalism unfairly concentrates power and wealth among a small segment of society that controls capital and creates an unequal society.

that sound about right?

it seems to me that in socialistic views if society is "unfair" then it is the governments job to create equality and make it "fair"

this is not too far off from the rhetoric that obama ran on.

having said that... i do have to admit that the curent administration buying into, in some cases forcibly, public banks is far more socialistic than anything obama has done, yet.

No it isn't.

oh!... the world how it actually is... you mean the world where we have rainbow factories unicorns and free sugar coated fairy wings for all... or did you mean the world in which even if there were no religion or guns to cling to there would still be violence, crime and atrocities aplenty? :saddowns:

Maybe this has already been posted here; I didn't read all of this thread because it's too wakka wakka. Anyway, the skimpy of it is that this lady thinks Obama is going to pay for her gas and mortgage. o_O Heard about this from, sigh, Karl Rove's opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. x_X

What?

You quoted a definition of socialism that includes government ownership of the means of production and distribution. How can you think that's anything like what Obama is advocating?

so far obama has been for "universal" health care. read: government run health insurance. while health insurance is a service as opposed to "goods" it is similar in ideology to a socialistic view.

Obama won the damn thing straight up, and with what I would consider to be a mandate. If we remember, Bush and the GOP claimed one after 2004, and that was a differential of 3%. He basically ran a flawless campaign, that was completely understanding of how folks "today" think. I give him kudos beyond all measure.

However, I think we'd all be fools to discount the "pop culture" mentality that existed during this particular election. I'm not saying Obama's support was completely derived from it, but it was a major factor. I'm a firm believer in that if this election was stretched out another month, or cut short a month, it's a lot closer than it was. Americans do this; we focus on something for a few months, get bored and forget about it. Anybody remember the whole Green phase that went on this summer? You could not turn on a TV without hearing some talking head/pundit expounding on the benefits to going green. How often have you heard it recently?

People moved on, and the election was the next natural extension. Obama, and brilliantly I might add, had long recognized this, and tailored his campaign and message to those people. Change was something that anyone could believe in, and what's more anyone could take the moral high ground in defending it. If you didn't vote for Obama, well you didn't understand the issues, or didn't want to help push the country forward into a new, shiny, bright day. Ironic, considering that a great many of the supporters of both candidates couldn't even identify the stances of their candidates on the issues.

Also, I'm a little perturbed at the notion that America should be pleased as punch that the rest of the world is so happy with this election. If my President helps to ensure my standard of living goes up, I could give a flying **** what the Europeans think. I don't expect the President of Finland to create policy that is beneficial to Americans in some way or another. Granted, America is involved on the global scale in ways that Finland is not, but the basic premise of the Presidency should be to serve the people of the United States, not those in Britain, Germany, or France. I hope Obama realizes this as we move forward.

Looks like Obama could still end up with one of Nebraska's electoral votes: http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_page=2835&u_sid=10480262

Not that I'm in favor of the electoral college in general, but splitting the vote is a more reasonable approach. Of course, any of the big states choosing to do so without the rest of the nation would be a huge advantage to one party or the other.

Hint: Our health care is already heavily socialized. So are many other aspects of our society. Stop being all "HURR SOCIALISM IS COMMUNISM I DUN DUR HAVE MAH RIGHTS TO MAH MONEY"

Maybe Obama might change the American perspective and convince you that socialism is a good thing and change this hilarious phobia of government that is so uniquely American.

Every government in the industrialized world provides services. Having the government provide one more service doesn't make a government socialist (or even "more socialist") if the main distinction between capitalism and socialism is government control of production and distribution of goods.

Also, nationalizing health care wasn't even part of Obama's platform.

The last government we had kind of screwed us. That's why we exist.

Over my dead body.

"Universal" means that everyone has access to it, not that the government is running it.

My dad sent me a thing of interest, perhaps, to some here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/167572/page/2

I just got this over my fraternity listserv -- the bullet points are the most interesting part (insider information):

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167581/page/2

(Page 1 is interesting too but not as much; if you want to read it click back to it)

i lol'd

If I trused the elected officials to be honorable and decent people, and were capable of running an efficient system that benefitted the people, then yes. You would be right.

I saw this map just now and thought it was pretty interesting... it shows each county and if their vote shifted right or left compared to last election...

I think it's interesting that the only areas that show a significant red shift are... racist redneck areas.

Arizona sticks out like a sore thumb.

And the whole state of arkansas... that is totally amazing

And just what the hell happened in Indiana? Why is this stuff completely confined inside state borders?

:haw:

That's significantly different from the one Brian posted.

also REDSHIFT

Of course it is, because one shows shifts, the other outcomes.

Arizona's doesn't really have much racism though. I'm assuming the shift (and also Alaska) is because they're McCain and Palin's home states.

Although you can tell how much AZ cares for McCain though. Only 7 counties shifted red (and all less than 10%) and 8 shifted blue, including McCain's own.

That's because Brian's maps show which county voted which way. This shows how each country voted compared to 2004. If Bush won by 60% in a county, and McCain only won by 55%, that country would be blue.

What's up with that red country in Colorado though?

Ahhh..that's what I get for not reading everything.

The map confirms something I've always believed to be true: Eastern Massachusetts is full of racists.

hello

area proportional to population:


and without the crazy distortion:


every blue bit is pretty much a city

I find it interesting how the rural areas are predominantly red- for some reason, people in large groups seem to vote Democrat.

More poor people and minorities?

Maybe. Colleges tend to be left-ish as well- Hanover NH (home to Dartmouth College) was ~5:1 Obama/McCain...and as colleges are usually in cities, that would explain it also.

well, columbus, ohio home of Ohio State University (go bucks. woo. i really dont care) has been over the last 8 years at least conisistantly red, so, perhaps it is the exception that proves the rule?

People in remote areas must be more self-reliant and the focus is on the family and a small community. People in densely populated towns and cities tend to rely more on common services and do less for themselves so, I reckon, there's a higher "take care of me" mentality that is consistent with the Democrat big government thesis.

Does anyone remember if a real Peanuts strip on a similar premise as the first three panels exists (except w/ Peppermint Patty instead of Franklin)? Charlie Brown's baseball team being usurped from him seems vaguely familiar.

I would hope you realize that this has nothing to do with Obama 'serving' the people in other countries.

The reason the rest of the world is pleased with Obama is because he seems to be more willing to cooperate internationally.

The world is facing major issues, such as global warming for example. The cooperation of the USA in this regard is key. All the Bush administration did for 8 years was frustrating the rest of the world by following its own stubborn course, ignoring the UN, Kyoto, etc.

Don't forget that the US is the largest polluter in the world, and it needs to take its responsibilities in terms of global cooperation. Obama, much more than Bush & co., seems to understand this.

Don't underestimate the damage that has been done. Bush pretty much caused the world to hate America. Obama seems like someone who could restore the US' image, and make it loved once again.

Uhm...Screw you?