Socialist = black?
Posted by Richard on October 22, 2008
Wow. I had no idea. Apparently, when I call someone a "socialist," that's really a code word for "black."
So I guess that Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Thomas More, Charles Fourier, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Jacques Rousseau, Robert Owen, Clement Atlee, and all those other Europeans who created and advanced the political philosophy of socialism were black.
What utter nonsense. Who is this idiot?
Subscribe To Site:
The Capt. said
Thank the policies of Bush (elected twice) and the Republican Congress since 1994 for where we are right now – supported by John McCain. The New Banking Law that Bush and Republicans pushed around 2003 has led to bankster credit rates on credit cards and loans, no less the Adjusted Rate Mortgage Scam through deregulation. Today in Congress, their planning to patch up holes through the same regulation John McCain was against.
The government’s actions today is socialism made through pseudo-capitalism. The stupidity of so many to support Supply Side Economics, who knew better, was to mislead the American people. I’ve called this scam since March ’06 – only the ignorant was blind to this. The perpetrators were not ignorant nor stupid – they were criminals, yet to be punished.
So before going off on a tangent about race, stick to what has really brought us to socialism under a Republican President and a Republican Congress that brought us free trade, an increase in illegal immigration, exportation of jobs, and an increasing dependence on foreign oil. This same team has twarted changes the Democrat Congress brought forth but loss through vetos of the President upheld by Republicans.
Time for change!
Hathor said
Maybe that person was thinking when “commie sympathizer” was synonymous to uppity Negro, civil rights leader, liberal or union organizer.
I don’t want to hear it that some were, the term was used generically in the south in the fifties.
rgcombs said
Capt., you’re either woefully misinformed or deliberately spreading misinformation. The “New Banking Law” you refer to is probably the repeal of Glass-Steagall (via Gramm-Leach-Bliley), which happened in 1999 (and was signed by Pres. Clinton). Megan McArdle (among others) thoroughly discredited the idea that this act had any effect on the current crisis. In fact, some argue that it has mitigated the current crisis.
The blame for the current liquidity crisis is directly tied to the efforts by leftists/liberals (going back to the Carter administration and greatly exacerbated by the Clinton administration) to make home ownership easier for poor and minority applicants by radically easing credit via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — to the point (to cite one example I heard recently) where a woman with no job could apply for a loan on a $350,000 house and finance 100% of it — 80/20, with an 8.25% first and a 12% second — an utterly insane idea from either her or her lender’s perspective, but approved because Fannie Mae would buy it and resell it (bundled with others like it) to greedy, willing accomplices in the financial markets counting on the implicit federal guaranteed of Fannie’s obligations.
More than a trillion dollars of such bad loans built the house of cards that’s now come crashing down.
The primary perpetrators of such financial frauds (the people running Fannie and Freddie), their accomplices in institutions like Countrywide and Bear Stearns, and their congressional supporters (and massive campaign contribution recipients) were mostly liberal Democrats. So don’t try to place the blame solely on Republicans. (They deserve ”some” blame — some of them, too, were bought by Fannie, Freddie, etc., and the rest preferred to look the other way rather than fight to end the abuses.)
But it was the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003-4, and joined by McCain in 2006, that tried to rein in the easy credit and ridiculous leverage (40:1) of Fannie and Freddie. In each case, they gave up (much too easily!) in the face of united Democratic opposition led by Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and the Congressional Black Caucus demagoguing on behalf of poor people’s right to easy credit.
It’s astonishing to me that Republicans haven’t been able to articulate the facts of this matter and place the blame where it belongs. But I guess they’re not called The Stupid Party for nothing.
Hathor, that sounds like a reasonable explanation for Lewis Diuguid’s outburst. But it’s an explanation, not an excuse. This is the 21st century, not 1955. To insist that no one can accuse ”any” black person of supporting socialism in 2008 because of similar false accusations against some black people more than fifty years ago is irrational and absurd.
After all, there ”are” black socialists (and were even back then, whether you want to hear it or not — Paul Robeson really ”was” a communist).
The fact that some idiot bigots used to argue that all Jews are thieves doesn’t mean no one may ”ever again” accuse any Jew of thievery. That would be stupid.
So is Diuguid’s “code word” argument.
The Capt. said
As usual, another delustional Republican just like your president. To believe people other than Republicans (de-regulators), who controlled the Congress and Senate except for 12 years (with the last almost 2 years run by Democrats) says you’re as out of touch as McCain. With you it’s always labels, race anything but the issues. Chief, you’re either rich (but badly misinformed) or stupid (if you’re middle class) to STILL be whining for policies Reagan and Bush have proven don’t work. So cry about liberals, socialists, minorities and the like, but look in the mirror if you want to know WHY WE ARE, WHERE WE ARE! You sound like a friend of Moonbat Monitor. You’re both ill!
Hathor said
The reason I said I didn’t want to hear it was not that I didn’t know about Paul Robeson, but I get sick of getting history lessons about stuff I am aware of. My comment had nothing to do with blacks being communist or socialist, but perhaps where the association came from. It seems that most people that have metioned this article seem to think it came out of thiin air. I thought the conclusion was a long strecth, but I did know why Diugiud might make that association.
I don’t why in your experience that you would think certain attitudes would have died over the fifty years.