Forum Post: Spain tilts right as voters oust Socialists; Europe debt crisis claims another government
Posted 13 years ago on Nov. 20, 2011, 9:56 p.m. EST by Joyce
(375)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
MADRID (AP) — Spain's center-right conservatives swept convincingly into power and into an economic hot seat Sunday as voters enduring 21.5 percent unemployment dumped the ruling Socialist government — the third time in as many weeks that Europe's debt crisis has toppled an administration.
These headlines can be a bit misleading sometimes. European poitics are quite a bit different than american politics. The socialists are not really socialists and what we would think of as a conservitive isnt the same there.
why isnt it that easy for americans? what are we doing wrong?
We already have a far-right, corporate fascist government.
that is untrue
You obviously have no clue WTF you're talking about.
No. You don't. You and all the other Fox News, TeaTard conspiracy whackadoodles who think we have anything even remotely akin to socialism are sorely mistaken and have no concept whatsoever of what socialism in reality is. Our "left" (i.e., the democraps) are, by the standards of almost ANY nation outside the US, very conservative, and considered right-wing. Our "right wing", (i.e., the Republican'ts) are, in fact, considered to be outright, batshite, looney. You should try reading a book, and not one written by Glenn Beck. What we have is a corporate fascism, where corporations and their wealthy owners and CEOs control the government. That, in fact, is why we are protesting, to get corporate influence out of our government (not for socialism or anarchy or hand-outs or any other bullshite that you teatard morons keep accusing us of).
Not to diagree with anything you said, but, unfortunately we do have socialism of sorts.
We've socialized corporate profits and losses through bail outs and subsidies.
We only have 'market' solutions when it comes to those in poverty.
The rich got the 'social', the poor got the 'ism'
I see what you're saying, and based on the common, and erroneous, conception of socialism, that would seem to make sense (as ironic and wrong as it is). However, this still indicates a lack of comprehension of what socialism is supposed to be. It isn't stealing from one group to give to another (which is what you're talking about, although in reverse, and what Faux News and the corporate fascist right want you to believe socialism is), but rather, socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, i.e., in which the people (labor) owns the means of production, rather than rich capitalists. It does not negate personal, private property, nor advocate stealing from anybody, but rather seeks to ensure that laborers assume a fair share of the profits of their labors from the goods they produce.
I think I'm in love =^_^=
"whackadoodles"? Ha. Okay Occutard, let's get something understood. You may like to compare and rank our political system in terms of "almost ANY nation outside the US" but that doesn't mean shit.
Just because you,and OWS like to redefine these terms differently doesn't make it reality. Obama IS a Progressive Liberal,Socialistic/Communistic Politician. You are completely misinformed and that's okay because I can tell you've been indoctrinated by OWS big time.
What you think of Conservatives or Republicans is irrelevant as again,you don't know WTF you're talking about.
After reading your venom filled reply I don't believe you even know what OWS is really about. Clearly you're lacking knowledge and it reflects in your monotone tirade.
"Progressive Liberal,Socialistic/Communistic"
Yep, you have certainly got it all figured out. Definitely not a "Fox News, TeaTard conspiracy whackadoodle"
It's all absurd.
Okay, genius, define socialism (and try to use a more substantial resource than a dictionary, because a few of them are in error on the matter, frankly), and then explain how Obama has in any way implemented or tried to implement that. Because bowing to the will of corporate fascists is not socialism. It's fascism.
OWS started to protest corporate influence over our government, primarily, to demand that Citizens United be overturned, and democracy returned to the people. That is the primary focus of OWS.
You know, for whatever well-deserved "venom" I spew at you, at least I explain things. Your only argument is "you don't know wtf you're talking about", all the while, you haven't once backed up a single statement you've made with a logical argument. Oh, probably because you've been indoctrinated by Beck and Murdoch, and wouldn't recognize a logical argument if it bit you on the arse.
Your fearless leaderless leader says the corporate influence stuff is just a "Trojan Horse." ; )
http://occupywallst.org/article/occupywallstreet-update-from-adbusters/
We don't have any leaders.
Yeah, that's what they keep telling you. lol
I don't care. I do what I want!
The funny thing about the post you link to is that it's not posted by the adbusters folks, whom you claim are our leaders, and, who are, in fact, Canadians, but by someone named "LupeFiascoConcert" in New Jersey. I question its authenticity. Looks like trollery to me.
That's because, like most of the others here, you only see what you want to see. If you'd pay more attention you'd notice that there's a direct link to the orginal post on Adbuster's site.
And?
Anyone can post a link, friend. Look: http://www.farcebork.com
Oooh! I posted a link!
Ummm... It's on Adbuster's blog.
http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet-update.html
Ooooh! Can you post to their blog? Yeah, that's what I thought. lol
Next lame rationalization you'd like to try?
Interesting. You are correct, sir. It IS on their blog. Frankly, I haven't had much of a look at the Adbusters, because while they may have set the spark that initiated this whole thing, they are, in the long run, rather insignificant, on the grand scale, because they are not leaders of the protests. The protests are democractically governed by the people involved. The main focus of the protests is removing corporate influence from our government, regardless of what splinter groups or side-issues are brought into the matter, even if they are the group that set the initial spark.
I know many, many folks involved in the protests, and for all of them, the main focus is simply this: Get corporate money out of our government. Repeal Citizens United. Return our democracy to the people.
Sure, there are people with other goals, and, in fact, people with conflicting goals, but the fact remains, the main point of Occupying Wall Street is to remove Wall Street's influence on our government, period.
Right... When was it exactly that Lasn's "Trojan Horse" turned into a real pony? So they orchestrated assembling a bunch disenchanted people for a contrived reason and damn if it didn't turn into the real reason! Why it's a veritable anarchist's miracle! lmao
So you (collectively) got played thinking that it was about something as mudane as Citizen's United. You'll know better next time to look more closely before becoming a useful idiot for someone else's agenda.
Obama is a neoliberal, not a progressive or liberal.
neoliberals believe in free trade - liberals do not
neoliberals continue corporate subsidies- liberals do not
neoliberals believe big banks must not fail- liberals do not
neoliberals find 'market' based solutions as part of gov't programs
liberals don't
Obama is just like Bush was, socialize corporate losses, let gov't programs be administered by private companies, and trust in and bail out big banks.
Obama and Bush were both socialists. corps got the 'social' the poor got the 'ist'
which is why things have gone from worse to even worst
Well, except socialism is NOT (contrary to what Murdoch and Beck would have you believe), about stealing from one group and giving to another, which is what you're talking about. The phenomena of which you speak is, indeed, a reality, but it isn't socialism.
Unfortunately, it is socialism, being corporate socialism, also known as fascism.
The socialism you are refering to is for people, not corps.
I could argue that form is also unworkable, but what would be the point? If we can agree the current situation is unsustainable, then we can work together to change it.
If we can agree the current situation is unsustainable, then we can work together to change it.
This much I can heartily agree.
Thank you.
What we have sure as hell is not capitalism or fascism. Capitalism works! Philosophically I am a member of the 1%, but financially i am in the 99%.
The entire idea behind capitalism is to find the cheapest labor available and distort value as much as possible so a small minority of people can feel superior.
Is that what you mean by 'works'?
There can be no monopolies with true capitalism. (Laissez-faire) and pure. I am guessing you, being a protester, love the french and know what laissez-faire means
"There can be no monopolies with true capitalism"
No evidence for this article of libertarian faith; plenty for the opposite. Monopolies form naturally.
In our history, we have the Gilded Age:
"Here was a society in which people were free to keep everything they earned, because there was no income tax. They were also free to decide what to do with their own money—spend it, save it, invest it, donate it, or whatever. People were generally free to engage in occupations and professions without a license or permit. There were few federal economic regulations and regulatory agencies. No Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, welfare, bailouts, or so-called stimulus plans. No IRS. No Departments of Education, Energy, Agriculture, Commerce, and Labor. No EPA and OSHA. No Federal Reserve. No drug laws. Few systems of public schooling. No immigration controls. No federal minimum-wage laws or price controls. A monetary system based on gold and silver coins rather than paper money. No slavery. No CIA. No FBI. No torture or cruel or unusual punishments. No renditions. No overseas military empire. No military-industrial complex."
Libertarian, laissez-faire paradise.
No monopolies right? But, why did Teddy Roosevelt need to bust the trusts? How could monopolies have possibly formed?
Obviously, this society must have been the most just and equal in our history, considering the promises libertarians make us about how wonderful things will be once government gets out of the way...
'Government for the people, a despairing Rutherford B. Hayes noted in his diary, was supplanted in the Gilded Age by "government of the corporation, by the corporation, and for the corporation." It was an era when government held the keys to corporate and private fortunes—land and subsidies for railroads, tariff protection for manufacturers, mountains for mining companies, timber lands for lumber kings, court orders to prevent strikes, and state militia and federal lawmen and U.S. Army regulars to break strikes and shoot strikers. "Government by campaign contributions," in Henry Demarest Lloyd’s words, gave America the most violent strikes in the industrializing world.'
From: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2007/06/the-dark-side-of-the-gilded-age/6012/
Only governments can create monopolies through support, bailouts, etc. Actually the Gilded age sounds fairly nice compared to the present. No taxes and economic regulations. No immigration control, social security, welfare, minimum wage laws. All that sounds great. Saying de facto statements does not mean they are true.
Please define "de facto statement"
"Only governments can create monopolies through support, bailouts, etc"
Evidence? Hint: There isn't any. You are making a statement of religious faith.
The rest: You have poor comprehension.
Well i clearly am not the one who has poor comprehension. In fact i bet i am smarter than you. I digress from this juvenile banter. How is that a matter of religious faith for i am an atheist?
Again, you have poor comprehension. Your libertarian belief system is a religion.
Hope you can educate this one. There needs to be a warning label put on ayn rand stuff. And he's too young to understand Ron puul is a tool.
Sigh. I know better than to try. The hubris of youth mixed with Rand's ego-amping manipulation is just too much for knowledge to overcome. Life experience will hopefully mellow him out, assuming he's not on course to full-blown sociopathy.
I kind of think that latent antisocial tendencies can be triggered, and Rand has figured out how to do so linguistically. Just a hypothesis, but my own run-in with her at an impressionable age shook me pretty badly, and I can see how some go the other way. I had good parents and a pretty compassionate/moral nature and got through it, and maybe I'm the better for it, but some end up damaged for life...
Probably sounds nuts, but it really is like a cult.
No, I can agree totally. I also read her, and came from a conservative household. So I assumed that this was acceptable reading material, as the pundit conservatives touted it. But my folks freaked when they saw me reading it, and explained how rand was the antithesis of conservatism.
And being church going folks, they were saddened that I could even read it without puking. They opened my eyes, and it really made my skin crawl to see how seductive it was.
No teen should be allowed to read it without parental supervision, if at all.
Real conservatives rock. :)
Ron puul is a moron in economics. Putting the USA on the gold standard will only shrink the economy
Strawman over here with the ridiculous statements. How so is libertarian a religion? I understand that you might make the argument that i worship it as one. But that is fairly childish as i do not. Nice try, go back to berkeley.
Interesting. Define strawman.
Ahhh blast these "wait 0 minutes before making another post" rules. When one argues using fallacious arguments and information
How could i possibly get a -1 points on this? all i did was give a definition, haha
Hahaha, we read "Atlas Shrugged" in school last year? wow, people getting pissed because i read atlas shrugged in school. It was mandatory and i am damn glad it was
Someday, kid, you're going to fall on hard times. You better hope someone with your philosophy is not running things.
Gotta love Illinois schools for making that a mandatory read. It was actually enlightening. BTW, i wont look for handouts if i fall on hard times
ummm, not to burst your bubble but your statement:
Actually the Gilded age sounds fairly nice compared to the present. No taxes and economic regulations.
Are you freakin nuts, or willfully ignorant? Or uninformed?
I'm an optimist, and assume your uninformed. Because child labor, absence of any middle class, and grinding misery for those in the factories does not sound great at ALL.
Yes with a lack of regulation, and worker safety standards, chicago sausage sounded great till upton sincairs book the jungle came out (that special spice was the worker)
And women being locked into the textile mills was down right peachy
I could go on and on, but what's the point....
Well said.
Thank-you
will you not reply to my question? No answer perhaps? Prof didn't teach you at berkeley?
Sorry bud, but you've made it clear you don't know shite. If you don't see how making a dogmatic statement of fact that's not based on any evidence is akin to faith, I can't help ya.
ahh a fellow atheist i presume? You show ignorance by not evading the question.
Ahh, now that makes sense, so your an atheist.Couple that with ignorance, and you get another Ayn rand devotee.
Not to denegrate atheists in general, when they actually use logic, and maintain an ethical/ moral compass, then they prove they can think for themselves and don't accept dogma off hand.
But take the ethical/moral compass away, and you wind up proving there is a devil through your thoughts and actions.
Want proof? see karl rove or ayn rand. What gets me is when bible believing christian buy into your swill, it's counter to the gospel, ethics, and morality.
Karl Rove is a dumbass, i agree. Ayn Rand however is quite logical. You show no evidence of my ignorance in that post. You make unsubstantiated claims. That is all you do
I assume that you are the ignorant one. You want the government picking out of your back pocket? come on now. I interpret natural and pure life as being solitary from any interference. Why should a business owner have to pay certain fees to the government. The smart folk should prosper
You are a social darwinist. That is indefensible and despicable
It is not indefensible and despicable: thats an opinion. No i am not a social darwinist. I just dont believe that one who is prosperous should have to support the poor
You are an overly proud atheist who espouses to a 19th century laissez faire philosophy and you think the people who are the most cunning should prosper and anyone with any scruples or without a high intellect should starve and freeze to death. That sounds like social darwinism to me.
Ayn Rand gets her hooks in them early.
i dont care what your religion is. No you have totally misinterpreted me. You take things to the absolute extreme. Think kid. NO ONE SHOULD BE FORCED TO SUPPORT ANYONE ELSE FINANCIALLY, MORALLY, OR ANYTHING
Well, for you to assume that I'm ignorant, without being able to answer a single point I've made, and continue with a rant based upon opinion and without fact to back it up, shows that you are both arrogant and illogical. So I assume you are a neocon.
See how that works, I made an assumption based upon fact. I formed a logical, coherent conclusion, but I digress...
Your new argument, being business owners should not pay fees to the government would be the advocacy of generational theft.I'll dumb it down for you.
If a business is a success and shows a profit, then it rightfully pays it's taxes to that government that fostered the environment where profit could be had. In other words taxes go to pave roads, educate employees, staff the armed services that protect us, provide water, sewer etc.
These things are already in place for the hypothetical business owner. For him/her not to pay and therefore not maintain those services is theft both from the previous and comming generations.
That neocon assumption was fairly ignorant. But i am not a neocon. haha... your generational theft point is off the mark. Well listen here toots, that last bit was logical. However, that tax should then remain stagnant. The tax should never have to change as one who makes a large profit and one who makes a small profit were both fostered by the same background and governmental provisions. The big earner should not pay more. In the USA we should look at business owners who make big profits as role models. I for one do
Wow, mister neocon, your starting to use reason and logic but are a bit off. I assumed you were based upon the facts I earlier presented. You prove you are by your own statement:
The tax should never have to change as one who makes a large profit and one who makes a small profit were both fostered by the same background and governmental provisions. The big earner should not pay more. In the USA we should look at business owners who make big profits as role models.
This is typical neocon rubbish. It's rubbish because if someone benefits more from a given system, then by his own economic activity, has used those services more, therefor needs to maintain what he has used. If not then the system falls into disrepair and eventually falls apart.
This should sound familiar, because this is what is happening today, it's not theory, it's happening to our great country every day.
But, if you maintain that taxes should be stagnant, then that means we would need to repeal all the tax changes of the last 30 years. I'll dumb it down, I know, too many syllables.....
Stagnent means unchanging, so that would mean that all these tax changes were a bad thing according to your logic...
And your Idea that business owners should be role models, is also neocon rubbish. They would be role models if, and only if, they were ethical. People of any background can and are role models, but to be a positive role model, a person needs to be ethical. Unless of course being ethical is somehow derrogatory in your eyes.
ethics is not derogatory. I disapprove of tax cuts. I dont fall into the stereotypical right wing group. I know what stagnant means moron. I used it in my prior response. One does not benefit more from a system because they used more resources from that system. They just had the ingenuity and intelligence to do so. Come on now. If everyone used your logic, people would be outsourcing resources so that they could be successful
Ah, another of America's temporarily embarassed millionaires!
Naw, probably just a kid who's parents didn't screen out rush limbaugh, faux news, or glenn beck. That's why people need to set-up their parental controls on the TV.
"Hey kid, feed off of olberman and msnbc bullshit. See you when your reason is blasted."
Ahhh, the plight of american youth......
Boy, when I was 16 and up this late, being on a computer was my last thought.....
Then again the commidor 64 wasn't all that appealing even in the daylight.
kate chopin, the awakening essay. thats why im up
ahhh, well if you are really trying to learn might I suggest John locke, Tomas paine, the arguements of cicero, and some victor hugo for good measure??
My original assumption was that you were meerly uninformed, but you have a lifetime ahead of you to read and learn...just don't take ayn rand as gospel, try gospel for gospel, and if you truely believe in limited gov't, then the above authors are a good start, as that is what they expound. But they do so in a way that makes sense, founded our country, and shows where gov't does have a purpose, how it functions, and why.
I am trying not to. I enjoy reading one sides work and the coupling that with the oppositions. I have learned from Rand but will not worship her. That list is fairly strong. I have read some of them and studied the rest in European History and Latin class
I am not a millionaire, but a 16 year old. And it is true that this economic system is not pure capitalism. That is fact. That is indisputable. I like your username though
Come back with some life experience then.
oh mr. i have come down on tough economic times and will brashly join the movement. Piss off. What i said was fact
Socialism doesn't work. Period.
Good move by Spain. Socialism is a canker.
Thanks for posting this story. Socialist are losing out in the EU but they're trying to overthrow the Govt. here.
sweet! oust the socialists
Oh boy, this will hit a nerve or two.