What Lessons, Realizations, and Outcomes stem from the Walker Recall?

I think one very obvious lesson that wasn't learned on this forum is that making outrageous predictions can be humbling for normal humans. You know, the ones capable of saying, "Oops, I was wrong." The others are still insisting the Walker's Recall Election was a grand victory for unions and socialism.

That's why I rarely make outright predictions. The next election? Who knows? Pollsters never poll dead people or foreign nationals.

 

Only Nixon could go to China...


Only Barrack Obama could have had such a good chance at converting America into a Euro-Style Socialist Country, yet accomplish the feat of turning the America so thoroughly and permanently away from that path.

 

Having personally have had to live through this circus in my state, the first and foremost thing that I came away with is that public sector unions need to be made completely illegal. They left acted like a bunch of thugs and there was a reason that you saw lots of "Recall Santa, he didn't give me what I wanted" bumper stickers. They cause several millions dollars of damage to the capitol, wasted over 18 million dollars on just Walkers recall not including the previous recalls of the state senators. My favorite part was after the Democrats abandoned their posts, after they came back on of them suggested that it should be illegal for state senators to leave like they did in the future........obviously they didn't want the Republicans to do it to them. As usual liberals think rules only apply to other people and not themselves. I have lost friendships because I had to listen to relentless badgering about how I could possibly support Walker by idiotic lefties and I was patient until Walkers MASSIVE victory. I was going to be the mature one but my darker side won out and I made it a point to rub it into their faces ever time I saw them until they didn't want to talk to me anymore. In the end losing a couple of jerkwad friends was definitely worth it though.

Any time I get into a left vs right argument now I simply say California versus Texas and Wisconsin versus Illinois. There is literally no comeback for a liberal to that brilliant argument.

 

This is why I find self described socialists as all emoting and little actual thinking. Every one of the socialists on this webboard has his own, very narrow and personal, definition of socialism.

In your case, you have a personal definition that includes Norway but seems to exclude Cuba or North Korea. I don't think you could actually define what your definition of socialism is. I suspect that you're not really a socialist, but just a welfare statist who is playing at being a radical.

 

Every ideology in history has that issue. It's called "evolution." There are over 30,000 denominations of Christianity. Capitalism has about ten different schools of thought and about twenty-seven variants. Socialism has about six models and eighteen variants.

No, it doesn't. Cuba would be a great example, if we would just stop oppressing them and lift our pointless, immoral embargo.

As for North Korea, I make no definitive statements about it, as I know very little about it. All I know is that they follow the Juche philosophy of self-reliance and don't seem very keen on keeping communism, as they've been removing any references to communism from their legal documents and have backed away from Marxism-Leninism.

Then again, what little I know of Juche certainly sounds compatible with socialism. I dunno.

I can. I just don't subscribe to a solitary form of socialism, as I've found multiple models to be quite successful. As long as the system adheres to the basic principles of socialism and is effective, I'm okay with it.

 

I Thank You for this post, when I created this thread, which has now wondered greatly, perhaps to some good converation and profit, but not at all to my origial purpose. This kind of feed back was what I sought. Thanks Again.

 

What on earth makes anyone think Obama wanted to convert America into a socialist country?
Where is your evidence of that?

 

I just love one sided biased, party line 'opinions'.

 

It shows conservative views are ascendant. Romney will win the Presidency, and the Republicans will reclaim the Senate.

 

I asked for Opinions on the subject. Most people have a party affiliation, even those who claim to be independents usually have a leaning.

It is therefore no surprise that I get in response a one sided view on the subject.




Its back to the same old liberal tricks;

when a Republican is partisan its bad and disruptive, when a Democrat is partisan it is a good sign of unity,

when the Democrats vote party line and block a bill, it is described as saving-the-country, when the Republicans do the same it is obstruction,

when the Democrats hand out government largess based on skin color and ethnicity, it is called "Social Justice", if a Republican were to even think of doing the same it is labeled "Racism"...



Yeah, whatever.

Let the country fail, rebuild from the ashes. Hopefully the majority of the parasites won't survive the collapse.

Who is John Galt?

 

Well I guess my point is that there doesn't seem to be any "basic principles" to socialism. If it feels good, heh, it's socialism.

 

Well, that's not the case.

 

If you take a college level political science class, they formal definition of socialism is a society / nation where the central-federal level government is the only entity allowed to own the "Means-of-Production".

In other words, the Mines, Farms, Factories, Fisheries, Semi-trucks, Warehouses, Distribution-Centers(formerly know as Stores) are all owned and operated by the government.

Under Socialism, it is still possible to own a private home or vehicle, and you own your own body. This distinguishes the formal definition of Socialism from Communism, under which no individual is allowed to claim ownership of even their own liver or heart.

Obviously, those societies which you two have been refering to do not meet the strict difinition of "Socialist". No society I can think of in the real world, has attempted to meet the strict defination and survived more than a few years. Which of coarse says allot about the practicality of such a system of government.

Those nations such as France and Norway which are held up as "Socialist" nations, in the strict poli-sci view are merely socialistic, rather than pure Socialist in nature.

I don't think the system works well enough for any purely Socialist country to survive, any more than a purely Capitalist society could...

It is always a matter of where a country falls along a continuem of government control vs. private control of the "Means-Of-Production".

 

Well I know what the book definition of socialism is. My point was that the many socialists on this board have no consistent definition themselves. "The Real American Thinker" list of socialist nations are a case in point. They are a mish mash without consistency. And of course, their personal list excludes any socialist nation that was a flop. "Oh, that's not true socialism."

 

Are you actually reading what I write?

 

If that's what they are teaching, they are wrong.

 

Yeah, yeah, raiiiiiight, whatever...

Look, Only Idealistic, Naive public school indoctrinated young fools still buy into the siren song of Socialism.

Well, and perhaps cynical old political snake oil salesman practicing to deceive for personal gain.




Just how was it put in "Animal Farm"?

"Yes, as we first taught you, All Animals are created equal, 'tis true, but SOME animals are more equal than others...."

The Obama Presidency more than any other in American History has proven that sentiment.

ENOUGH!

The Political LEFT has FAILED America is a quite disastrous way, time for them to go and not be allowed back in my grandchildren’s lifetimes.