In Europe they have socialist parties. In fact, I’ve interacted with European socialists on quite a frequent basis. They all say me the same thing: “Obama’s a conservative!”.

Jesus H Christ are they ANY moderate to conservative writers on the Mediaite staff?

MarkStr82Hell says:
April 15, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Jesus H Christ are they ANY moderate to conservative writers on the Mediaite staff?

You’re kidding right?

Absolutely. What about this post makes you think I’m not one of them?

@Jon Bershad

You stated, gee you think someone would have done that before.

Fake Journalist Stephen Colbert did exactly that, about 1,5 years ago before the election. Good to see CNN is catching up.

It really gets quite tiresome to see women in politics completely harassed by the press. It doesn’t seem to matter which party they are one. Hillary was trashed from militant Rush to closeted queen KO. Since 2007, Sarah Palin has the bulls-eye on her back. Were you nerdy pundits tormented by your mothers?
Enough is Enough!

YES fellow commenters – we must RISE UP and TAKE BACK this blog for Right-Thinking Americans!!1 For TOO LONG we have dealt with the LIB BIAS of MediaSPITE and been forced to read its LEFTY take on media news!!1 Like all of you, instead of switching to a blog I actually ENJOY reading, I stay here and REGISTER MY DISGUST through the use of the most powerful tool in the world (besides the Obamessiah HAHA) – INTERNET COMMENTS!!1 We must NEVER give up!!1 We must COMPLAIN and COMPLAIN until Dan Abrams himself CLEANS HOUSE!!1 Together we can take back our Once Proud Republic, starting with THIS WEBSITE!!1

@Marcus
Considering I interned at CR a while back, I can only say that I truly am ashamed for forgetting that.
(that’s not sarcasm, btw)

The fact that he claims Palin was the most socialist candidate of 2008 shows that this guy isn’y being serious: he’s just lifted his game plan from Alinsky.

Give it a rest, Karl Spensen, your shtick gotten so tired.

@Jon Bershad

Oh, what a cool internship that must have been. And don’t feel too ashamed, the interns did a decent job with all the tagging of the video clips; but just know, the CN is watching =p

Cecelia:

Karl’s real name is actually Christian Larson. If you point that out and then start asking questions (such as why do you end every sentence with a subscript “1″?) he usually goes away.

Actually Finch, I respectfully beg to differ. The oil revenue share with her constituents in Alaska was a pretty enormous re-distribution of wealth campaign for then Governor Palin. Now I don’t really think that she is a socialist – actually couldn’t be further from it. And neither is Obama. In fact, I think that the point of this post is that the term socialism has been completely misappropriated in the last couple of years, a sentiment with which I whole-heartedly agree.

AF, he needs some new material.

Finch: I just wish he would go away for good… if it weren’t for the trolls on here, we usually have some good discussions. Although, as candidates–the Alaskan oil funds that was given to residents was more socialist IMO than anything the other candidates have done.

Mr. Spensen, don’t think I’m not taking your threats seriously. “Rise up” is clearly a call to violence. I’m watching you.

I think the proper term is democratic socialist.

marcus.lewis and I are in accord!

Colby:

Fair point. I honestly didn’t think about the oil share revenue program. But even with that, I think there’s a difference between distributing the wealth gained from a public asset (namely, the state’s natural resources) and the redistribution of private wealth.

As in the social democracies of Europe.

Marcus:

I agree. I know, for example, that you and I disagree more often than not, but that’s what makes political debate useful. And I think/hope that we disagree without stepping over the line and getting too personal. (I know I try my best to keep things civil, but sometimes my Irish temper gets the best of me . . . ) If Christian Larson does not like the back and forth, then why is here?

I actually don’t know much about the oil program in Alaska. Is the amount that people get back a flat amount, or is it “progressive” (ie, linked to income)?

I’m going to have to come up with a gender neutral name.

Marcus, it was a terrific time. Everyone there was really great (including the man, himself) and it’s just a very cool atmosphere.
And, since I worked in the post-production department, you can be sure I tagged a looooooooooot of footage.

@finch

They get back a flat amount… last year the refund was for $1,305.00.

@Jon

Well that’s very interesting to hear. Any idea how Allison’s blind script deal is going?

@marcus.lewis & @AnonymousFinch: While the Alaska dividend is a fixed amount, per person, there was the windfall from the high oil prices in the runup to the election, which gave everyone a one-time additional amount.

I don’t remember the particulars and apologies if it’s in the link, I just got in from the store and haven’t read it yet, but Governor Palin pushed hard to have the windfall distributed as a “rebate”* and not dedicated to other purposes as some in her legislature had suggested. It was something for which she was proud.

*technically not a “rebate” because there’s no state income tax in Alaska.

@magi

That’s correct. There was a windfall in 2008 for about 1200 extra or something like that. But I think what Finch was inquiring about was if the dividends went to those who make under X amount per year, or if its distributed among all residents. The answer is all residents (minus some peeps who were arrested).

Marcus:

Exactly. Knowing those facts, I don’t think it’s socialistic at all. First, it’s not redistributing private wealth, it’s distributing income from a state asset which was already communally owned. Second, if it was a flat amount, it did nothing to change relative income distribution among the rich and poor. Again, I’m no expert on the program so someone can correct me if I’m wrong, but given those facts that doesn’t sound socialistic at all.

@marcus: Yeah. You’ve got to live there for a year to qualify and in particular, I just wanted to get in that it goes to every resident, so a large family like Palin’s does quite well and there are quite a few families, who count this as their largest source of income.

@AN: If it’s anything like the way it’s done in the Southwest, it’s the “lease” money for oil and gas harvested from state-owned lands. IOW: My understanding is that the state owns the land and they sell the oil and gas to a private company based on its market value, then in the case of Alaska, the communal profits are divided among the citizenry.

I actually think that a lot of the south may have a more “socialist” infrastructure, but the state of Alaska is distributing “profits” from their income-producing property. Sounds pretty socialist to me.

@Finch

You are mostly correct, except with the relative income distribution. The lower income individuals receive the same amount as a millionaire; however, the dividend makes up a larger share of their total income. So it is redistribution of some sort.

Marcus, unfortunately I’ve got no good info for you. All I can tell you is that she was very nice and gave really informative answers at the exec Q&A they had at the end of the semester. Also that one of the interns picked up her wedding gown and said it was really nice.

If you want some real inside dirt, I can give you this: I know that one of the commenters who posts here frequently took one of the creators of The Daily Show to prom. I don’t know what you can do with that knowledge, but enjoy.

lol cheers mate

I don’t think it’s socialistic at all. First, it’s not redistributing private wealth, it’s distributing income from a state asset which was already communally owned.

Except that communal ownership of natural resources is a major principle of Socialism.

Haha, man..I totally forgot that Sarah Palin coordinated and oversaw one of the most socialist things in America.

Hell, they don’t even do that in socialist Sweden where the mining and forest industry is private.

JamesA:

No, you really don’t get it. Socialist are willing to seize natural resources (and other private wealth) for the collective’s sake. Here, nothing is being seized and no private property rights are being taken away. We’re talking about resources that have belonged to the state from the outset (recall that’s why be bought Alaska from Russia in the first place for it’s natural resources; it was called Seward’s Folly).

No one says that in a capitalistic system, the state won’t own certain property and resources. This is no different than if the State of Alaska sold the Governor’s mansion and returned the money (on an equal share basis) to the people of the state. That’s not socialism.

Again, the new trick that Leftists are playing is to claim that any form of a program or action whatsoever is inherently socialistic (like the idiot in the underlying article who claims that the military is socialistic). Sorry, but no. Capitalism isn’t anarchy. All of these systems exist along a continuum, but there is a point where you have government, but you still have functioning free markets (capitalism) as well as a point where you have government control over the no-longer-free markets (socialism).

No, you really don’t get it.

No you’re the one who doesn’t get it. You’re purposely confusing revolution, a political action, with socialism which is an economic system because you don’t want to admit that the system is Alaska is socialist.

And it is the right that is playing to claim that anything passed by this Congress and supported by this President is inherently socialistic when the truth is that the system that Sarah Palin supported and presided over in Alaska was far more socialistic.

The Socialists are right. Obama is not one of them. Like it or not the United States “is” and has been a Socialist Nation since the beginning. Our Nation was founded by true Liberals that were Social “Capitalist.” Obama is a Progressive. Which is the complete opposite of a Socialist. There are two constitutive interpretations of the reality of the human condition in the physical world. These two primary interpretations of change are described as Conservative and non-conservative or Progressive. Socialist are Conservative. Conservative means the preservation of what already exists, such as historical sites and buildings, institutions, parks or wildlife refuge. What already exists is deemed by the liberal conservative of greater worth than any alternative that could replace it. All change should be complimentary to continued maintenance in same or similar conditions. Progressives always have greater technology, money and a “moral” system that allows them to steal and kill for superior ends. Hitler and the Nazis were arch-progressives, This is the Path Obama seems to be taking. People Like Limbaugh, Hannity, and Beck. Divided Liberal, and Conservative through their own perverted and ignorant means. Everything has been re-defied now by them, and the media. They made up their own interpretations of Conservative and Liberal to divide the masses for their own monetary gains. If you are a true Liberal Like I am, then you are Conservative in nature. If You are a Progressive then you are the opposite of a Conservative. The Democratic and Republican Parties are led by Progressives. The only difference between the two party’s are. Democrats want Big Government to control the Progressive system. Republicans want Big Business to control it. As long as they fight each other. they will never achieve their gains. once they realize they both want the same thing and join forces, Then you will have a True Fascist Nation. Please join me to keep this from happening… http://www.theadvocates.org/index.html

Oh and I almost forgot Sarah Palin is a Socialist! and there is nothing wrong with that ; )

Wow Anonymous you are so tangled up in your thinking I don’t’ know were to start. Socialist by themselves do not or ever Seize natural resources. If you are talking straight Communist, Capitalist or Marxist etc… Then you would be right. A Socialist is by definition is a system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. The United States is Socialist Nation That Uses Capitalism as a means of modus operandi. As a Social Nation we elect leaders to represent each collective “State.” This Socialist Union of States is called a Republic. Government Control over free markets is not Socialism. It is Totalitarianism. If it was Socialism it would be controlled by the people. Because we have let the media, schools, and Government paint this Socialist Republic we have as evil, we are slowly releasing “our” ownership of our great nation over to the Government we have elected to represent us. Who led us to believe that they have our best interest at heart. Once they have all that we once owned then we will cease to exist as a Socialist Republic, but a Fascist State under Totalitarian rule…

@AnonymousFinch: “Redistribution” may be someone’s method to convert an existing economy, but in an organic socialist (or communist) system, there would be nothing to redistribute because everything would be evenly distributed the first time.

Quick, somebody call Alex Jones and tell them this is a conspiracy: The American Socialist pretend that they do not see themselves represented on Obama so people think that he is not secretly working for them. TELL DEH WORLD BEFORE IT’S TOO LATE!111111111!!!!

Seriously… if they believe that Palin’s m.o. is more socialist than Obama then:
1-That’s their opinion.
2-It might be true (being that we are talking about legitimate socialists).