Liberty Bear

[David Blomstrom]

Hi, I just joined a few minutes ago. (I didn't see any rules prohibiting hyperlinks or animated images in my signature, so I included both. If there is a rule against that somewhere, let me know, and I'll change it.)

I don't know exactly where I fit on the political spectrum. I long considered myself a liberal, but living in Seattle - which can be described as a liberal train wreck - has taken its toll. So I began calling myself an Independent for a while.

But one of the biggest inspirations in my life is Hugo Chavez, who is a socialist, of course, but exactly what does "socialist" mean?

I consider myself a socialist in the broad sense, meaning I favor a mixed economy, with a lot of social justice, rather than rampant corruption.

Many people consider my ideas and style (very similar to Hugo Chavez) very radical. I've been called everything from a socialist to a right-winger to an anarchist. One thing's for sure: I'm not your typical U.S. citizen.

Anyway, I'm running for public office and am speaking out very boldly against George W. Bush and Bill Gates - in Bill Gates' home town. I'm also using my campaign in part to support Hugo Chavez.

So I'll probably be dropping in on a few Hugo Chavez threads here.

[motivez]

Hey David, welcome to LL

We have a lot of libertarians and free market advocates here, so it should be really interesting to see you guys debate the issues

What about Chavez inspires you exactly?

[David Blomstrom]

Originally Posted by motivez

What about Chavez inspires you exactly?

Like many people, I was initially energized by the fact that Chavez was virtually the only world leader who had the courage to stand up to George W. Bush. Chavez has held corrupt corporations like Exxon accountable, and he appears to be channeling much of the revenue from Venezuela's oil exports into social reforms, rather than corruption.

On a personal note, Chavez' style is remarkably similar to mine; like Chavez, I don't mince words. I was also astonished to learn that Chavez had founded a "Fifth Republic Movement." In fact, my chief political website is nicknamed Fifth Republic. Anyway, I was inspired to begin exploring the idea of creating a new political party - the Fifth Republic Party. It will probably never go anywhere, but it should be an interesting experiment.

On the negative side, I don't agree with Chavez' position regarding China vs Tibet. Indeed, I was shocked that he would more or less side with China, claiming the U.S. was behind the protests that marred the running of the Olympics torch.

Yet, even here, Chavez may not have been totally off base. I was disgusted when the Dalai Lama met with Diane Pelosi, as corrupt a politician as they come. More recently, I found a photo of the Dalai Lama shaking hands with the woman I'm running against for office - again, she's very corrupt.

I'm not suggesting the Dalai Lama is corrupt. He could be politically naive - or maybe he's smart enough to know one sometimes has to play political games in order to survive. That's something Chavez would know about.

Anyway, Chavez isn't perfect, but he sure makes George W. Bush look like the buffoon he is.

[kinggovernor]

welcome to the board

Socialism inherently has rampant corruption, how would you address that?

[David Blomstrom]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

welcome to the board

Socialism inherently has rampant corruption, how would you address that?

You've got it backwards... Capitalism has rampant corruption. That's one of the reasons I favor socialism.

Of course, it all depends on how one defines "socialism" - and the definitions are all over the map. We all know what the common dictionary definition is, but, in the broader sense of the term, socialism can be loosely defined as "social justice."

Ironically, right-wingers define it still more liberally. For example, when I suggest that Bill Gates should be held accountable for his endless crimes, right-wingers often call me a "dirty socialist."

In other words, if I rob a bank, I should go to jail, but the capitalist system demands that the rich and powerful should be allowed to get even richer by screwing everyone else, even if that means committing far greater crimes.

I'm passionate about accountability, and that makes me a socialist. Examples: The energy industry should be nationalized, and we should enjoy universal health care, just like other advanced nations do. I favor regulation over deregulation. Something needs to be done about CEO salaries; it's utterly ridiculous that even the most corrupt and incompetent CEO's can earn millions of dollars a year, while workers are getting shafted left and right.

In a sense, our government is already practicing socialism. The problem is, it's giving money and favors to Bill Gates and his cronies, not to the people who really need and deserve it.

[David Blomstrom]

I posted a lengthy response, but I don't see it. If this message appears, then I'll rewrite my respone.

[David Blomstrom]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

welcome to the board

Socialism inherently has rampant corruption, how would you address that?

You have it backwards; corruption is inherently rampant in capitalism. That's precisely why so many U.S. citizens are taking a closer look at socialism.

Of course, this argument can be all over the map, depending on how one defines socialism. I think we're all familiar with the standard dictionary definition, but socialism has come to mean so much more. It is somewhat synonymous with social justice.

Ironically, right-wingers apply the most liberal interpretations to the word. For example, when I suggest that Bill Gates should beheld accountable for his endless crimes, right-wingers often call me a "dirty socialist." If I suggest that CEO's should not be overpaid or that we should return to regulation, not deregulation, I'm a "socialist."

So be it.

I'm a fierce believer in accountability. In this spirit, corporate executives should be held to the same standards as the rest of us. If I rob a bank, I got to jail. If a corporation screws millions of consumers, then the individuals behind that scandal should go to jail.

So my idea of a mixed economy is based on capitalism - with a strong dose of socialism designed to keep it honest. I would nationalize the energy industry, which is screwing us blind. I also think the U.S. should offer its citizens free health care, like other civilized nations. I would embrace regulation, which could go a long ways towards cleaning up the media.

And, if I could be president, I would work overtime on holding corrupt corporate executives and the government officials who support them accountable.

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by David Blomstrom

Like many people, I was initially energized by the fact that Chavez was virtually the only world leader who had the courage to stand up to George W. Bush. Chavez has held corrupt corporations like Exxon accountable, and he appears to be channeling much of the revenue from Venezuela's oil exports into social reforms, rather than corruption.

On a personal note, Chavez' style is remarkably similar to mine; like Chavez, I don't mince words. I was also astonished to learn that Chavez had founded a "Fifth Republic Movement." In fact, my chief political website is nicknamed Fifth Republic. Anyway, I was inspired to begin exploring the idea of creating a new political party - the Fifth Republic Party. It will probably never go anywhere, but it should be an interesting experiment.

On the negative side, I don't agree with Chavez' position regarding China vs Tibet. Indeed, I was shocked that he would more or less side with China, claiming the U.S. was behind the protests that marred the running of the Olympics torch.

Yet, even here, Chavez may not have been totally off base. I was disgusted when the Dalai Lama met with Diane Pelosi, as corrupt a politician as they come. More recently, I found a photo of the Dalai Lama shaking hands with the woman I'm running against for office - again, she's very corrupt.

I'm not suggesting the Dalai Lama is corrupt. He could be politically naive - or maybe he's smart enough to know one sometimes has to play political games in order to survive. That's something Chavez would know about.

Anyway, Chavez isn't perfect, but he sure makes George W. Bush look like the buffoon he is.

He is an egotist like Castro, only he has all the answers, doesn't really believe in democracy. The only protection people really have from a person like him is the vote. He may have some good ideas like Castro but can a person like him listen to the voice of the peoples reps. If he doesn't he will turn into a murderer like Castro.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Blomstrom

You have it backwards; corruption is inherently rampant in capitalism. That's precisely why so many U.S. citizens are taking a closer look at socialism.

Of course, this argument can be all over the map, depending on how one defines socialism. I think we're all familiar with the standard dictionary definition, but socialism has come to mean so much more. It is somewhat synonymous with social justice.

Ironically, right-wingers apply the most liberal interpretations to the word. For example, when I suggest that Bill Gates should beheld accountable for his endless crimes, right-wingers often call me a "dirty socialist." If I suggest that CEO's should not be overpaid or that we should return to regulation, not deregulation, I'm a "socialist."

So be it.

I'm a fierce believer in accountability. In this spirit, corporate executives should be held to the same standards as the rest of us. If I rob a bank, I got to jail. If a corporation screws millions of consumers, then the individuals behind that scandal should go to jail.

So my idea of a mixed economy is based on capitalism - with a strong dose of socialism designed to keep it honest. I would nationalize the energy industry, which is screwing us blind. I also think the U.S. should offer its citizens free health care, like other civilized nations. I would embrace regulation, which could go a long ways towards cleaning up the media.

And, if I could be president, I would work overtime on holding corrupt corporate executives and the government officials who support them accountable.

I would encourage you to make a thread about the definition of both socialism and capitalism

[David Blomstrom]

Originally Posted by Rouger2

He is an egotist like Castro, only he has all the answers, doesn't really believe in democracy. The only protection people really have from a person like him is the vote. He may have some good ideas like Castro but can a person like him listen to the voice of the peoples reps. If he doesn't he will turn into a murderer like Castro.

He was elected, then reelected twice. He's supported by other Latin American nations.

Moreover, I don't see Chavez as an egotist so much as a very intelligent and very self-confident individual. He walks his talk.

[David Blomstrom]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I would encourage you to make a thread about the definition of both socialism and capitalism

Defining Capitalism and Socialism

[jimeigh]

Originally Posted by David Blomstrom

Anyway, I'm running for public office and am speaking out very boldly against George W. Bush and Bill Gates - in Bill Gates' home town.

lol wat? why?

[Rouger2]

Don't hate the capitalist it is not their fault they compete with a killer instinct it is the way they produce goods most efficiently at the lowest cost to society. Do blame them for buying our elected reps though, and blame those keepers, or the people's representatives, who are suppose to referee and make the rules for the competitive game they play.

[David Blomstrom]

Originally Posted by jimeigh

lol wat? why?

Why do I attack Bill Gates? Because the bastard attacked me. Because of his endless corruption, from Microsoft to K&L Gates to the Gates Foundation.

Billy boy is in dire need of a taste of accountability.