jhay78 wrote: You are partly judged by the company you keep. Obama's past associations combined with the czars he's appointed makes him a RADICAL.

Why is the term "socialist" so offensive to you people, but the policies and ideas of socialism are OK?

Because Obama isn't a socialist?

derek bomar wrote:

jhay78 wrote: You are partly judged by the company you keep. Obama's past associations combined with the czars he's appointed makes him a RADICAL.

Why is the term "socialist" so offensive to you people, but the policies and ideas of socialism are OK?

you do realize that past presidents have also had czars, don't you?

DB, I think the point he was making was the backrounds of the czars that Obama picked, not necessarily the fact of having a czar.
But, I could be wrong(?)

Paladin wrote: Chances are still very good he gets re-elected and more successes will keep the Ds favored by voters. Financial reform appears to have the Rs on the wrong side of the issues again.

Paladin,

Financial reform? Who has done any sort of "reform" muchless financial reform? LOL

Why don't you guys that voted for Obama convince me he isn't a socialist leaning President?

What policies has he proposed that involve limiting the roll of the Gov. What areas has he cut, what has he done to remove red tape obstacles?

Show me how a man that states "we need to spread the wealth around" doesn't have socialist views.

Obama is not a socialist, yet. He is more a corporatist and a collectivist currently (and the Rs have their fair share of corporatists as well). Bringing the auto industry, the health industry, the banking industry and a few others under government control is collectivism and borders on fascism (because the gov't still allows private ownership). Now, having said that, it doesn't mean he's some ruthless dictator or tyrant, it's just calling a spade a spade.

Unfortunately, he is a lot like GWB in a lot of areas. Sad really, limited and preventive wars don't work, yet here we are pretty soon going on to decade 2 of "the War on Terror".

If we're going to use the idea of someone not "limiting the role of government" as the basis for being a socialist, we've had lots and lots of other socialist presidents as well.

cbus4life wrote:

Shane Falco wrote: Moderates don't go around the world saying their country is the cause of all evils, moderates don't make campaign speeches in other countries while RUNNING for POTUS, moderates don't take over private auto company's, moderates don't take over 1/6th of a counties economy, moderates don't have pay czars, moderates don't have self proclamied Marxist as advisers, moderates don't associate on any level with people that attempt to blow up Gov. buildings that go on to say they wish they would have done more damage. Moderates don't go to racist chuches,

Should I go on?

When did he say this?

Let not confuse his opinion with facts now!

Shane Falco wrote: Moderates don't go around the world saying their country is the cause of all evils, moderates don't make campaign speeches in other countries while RUNNING for POTUS, moderates don't take over private auto company's, moderates don't take over 1/6th of a counties economy, moderates don't have pay czars, moderates don't have self proclamied Marxist as advisers, moderates don't associate on any level with people that attempt to blow up Gov. buildings that go on to say they wish they would have done more damage. Moderates don't go to racist chuches,

Should I go on?

Ridiculous claim

CenterBHSFan wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

jhay78 wrote: You are partly judged by the company you keep. Obama's past associations combined with the czars he's appointed makes him a RADICAL.

Why is the term "socialist" so offensive to you people, but the policies and ideas of socialism are OK?

you do realize that past presidents have also had czars, don't you?

DB, I think the point he was making was the backrounds of the czars that Obama picked, not necessarily the fact of having a czar.
But, I could be wrong(?)

hard to tell...however it just seems like when people bring up czars they try to link it to communism/socialism because of the word itself

Did he not take over GM and Chrysler

Did he not take over Health Care

Does he not have a Pay czar

Did he/ does he not associate with Bill Ayers

Guess I must have been dreamin.

Shane Falco wrote: Did he not take over GM and Chrysler

Did he not take over Health Care

Does he not have a Pay czar

Did he/ does he not associate with Bill Ayers

Guess I must have been dreamin.

You need to read up on "We the people" Just as "we" invaded Iraq and Afghanistan"

Just as WE landed on the moon

Just as WE need to find a cure for cancer.

Yes, unfortunately you have been dreaming. This behavior for some is a nightmare however.

Shane Falco wrote: Did he not take over GM and Chrysler

No more so than Reagan taking over Chrysler in the early 80's. You may not like government temporary bail outs of the auto industry, but don't act like this is unporecedented.

Did he not take over Health Care

This is a false statement. Not until a single payer plan is implemented, can you make this wild statement. As the plan is written, only 4% of the overall population is socialized.

Does he not have a Pay czar.

Other administrations had czars as well which was already posted by someone else.

Did he/ does he not associate with Bill Ayers.

A lot of people associated with Bill Ayres. Doesn't mean shit whether or not he agrees with anything Bill Ayres stands for. Other presidents have associated with slimeballs too.

Guess I must have been dreamin.

You are not dreaming, you just listen to the wrong people in coming up with your conclusions.

Read the article posted by PTowne. We are talking about a schollar, a writer for the ultra consersative publication, the American Enterprise Institute and learn.

Shane Falco wrote: Did he not take over GM and Chrysler

Did he not take over Health Care

Does he not have a Pay czar

Did he/ does he not associate with Bill Ayers

Guess I must have been dreamin.

He didn't take over health care though. He changed how the health insurance industry works but he didn't take over health care or the health insurance industry.

I Wear Pants wrote:

Shane Falco wrote: Did he not take over GM and Chrysler

Did he not take over Health Care

Does he not have a Pay czar

Did he/ does he not associate with Bill Ayers

Guess I must have been dreamin.

He didn't take over health care though. He changed how the health insurance industry works but he didn't take over health care or the health insurance industry.

The process isn't completed yet.

What he has done is set in motion the machinery for bureaucrats essentially dictating: (1) who must buy insurance (2) how they buy insurance, getting rebates or not (3) what type of insurance they must carry and (4) who the insurance companies must cover.

How is that NOT taking over the insurance industry?

Footwedge wrote:

Shane Falco wrote: Did he not take over GM and Chrysler

No more so than Reagan taking over Chrysler in the early 80's. You may not like government temporary bail outs of the auto industry, but don't act like this is unporecedented

Apples and oranges.

1. It was 1979, and it was Carter. Chrysler never received a dime from the government...they received loan guarantees, and the treasury ended up 350 million richer for the effort.

2. Iacocca remained CEO, not some administration puke.

3. As of today, Chrysler has already stiffed the taxpayer for 7 billion plus under the current plan.

Ironic that Carter would end up actually being more astute in this case than The Smartest President in Modern Times....

CenterBHSFan wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

jhay78 wrote: You are partly judged by the company you keep. Obama's past associations combined with the czars he's appointed makes him a RADICAL.

Why is the term "socialist" so offensive to you people, but the policies and ideas of socialism are OK?

you do realize that past presidents have also had czars, don't you?

DB, I think the point he was making was the backrounds of the czars that Obama picked, not necessarily the fact of having a czar.
But, I could be wrong(?)

Yes, I meant their backgrounds. I know past presidents have had czars, but it seems like Obama appoints a new one every week.

jhay78 wrote:

CenterBHSFan wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

jhay78 wrote: You are partly judged by the company you keep. Obama's past associations combined with the czars he's appointed makes him a RADICAL.

Why is the term "socialist" so offensive to you people, but the policies and ideas of socialism are OK?

you do realize that past presidents have also had czars, don't you?

DB, I think the point he was making was the backrounds of the czars that Obama picked, not necessarily the fact of having a czar.
But, I could be wrong(?)

Yes, I meant their backgrounds. I know past presidents have had czars, but it seems like Obama appoints a new one every week.

When was the last time he appointed one?

Writerbuckeye wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Shane Falco wrote: Did he not take over GM and Chrysler

Did he not take over Health Care

Does he not have a Pay czar

Did he/ does he not associate with Bill Ayers

Guess I must have been dreamin.

He didn't take over health care though. He changed how the health insurance industry works but he didn't take over health care or the health insurance industry.

The process isn't completed yet.

What he has done is set in motion the machinery for bureaucrats essentially dictating: (1) who must buy insurance (2) how they buy insurance, getting rebates or not (3) what type of insurance they must carry and (4) who the insurance companies must cover.

How is that NOT taking over the insurance industry?

Tell me when the insurance industry is owned and operated by the US Government. Until then, stop saying that we took over health insurance because it isn't true.

fish82 wrote:

Footwedge wrote:

Shane Falco wrote: Did he not take over GM and Chrysler

No more so than Reagan taking over Chrysler in the early 80's. You may not like government temporary bail outs of the auto industry, but don't act like this is unporecedented

Apples and oranges.

1. It was 1979, and it was Carter. Chrysler never received a dime from the government...they received loan guarantees, and the treasury ended up 350 million richer for the effort.

Chrysler experienced problems in the late 70's, but it was in fact Reagan's administration that bailed them out. Whereby Iacoca did turn the company around and repaid every dollar plus interest, it was still structured the same way as today's loan.....taxpayer "guaranteed." Had Chrlysler not recovered, the taxpayers would have been on the hook.

I have no idea if today's Chrysler will ever repay the loan...but the 2 scenarios are in fact apples and apples.

Give it about 4 years



Like I said somebody convince me he's not!

I Wear Pants wrote:

Writerbuckeye wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

Shane Falco wrote: Did he not take over GM and Chrysler

Did he not take over Health Care

Does he not have a Pay czar

Did he/ does he not associate with Bill Ayers

Guess I must have been dreamin.

He didn't take over health care though. He changed how the health insurance industry works but he didn't take over health care or the health insurance industry.

The process isn't completed yet.

What he has done is set in motion the machinery for bureaucrats essentially dictating: (1) who must buy insurance (2) how they buy insurance, getting rebates or not (3) what type of insurance they must carry and (4) who the insurance companies must cover.

How is that NOT taking over the insurance industry?

Tell me when the insurance industry is owned and operated by the US Government. Until then, stop saying that we took over health insurance because it isn't true.

It's the infamous "momentum theory" LOL. Just like the Hannitys of the world that think that Obama is eliminating our nuclear detterence ability by setting limits...or the fringe belief that registering hand guns will surely lead to the complete confiscation of all guns from the American citizens....and the unbridled stop to the 2nd Ammendment rights.

so·cial·ism Pronunciation: \?s?-sh?-?li-z?m\
Function: noun

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods (If taking over the American automobile industry, dictating that Americans must purchase health care insurance or face a fine, implementation of price controls in the health care industry, spending public funds to allegedly "stimulate" the economy, etc. aren't socialist acts by this Congress and this POTUS then I suppose Webster needs to redefine the noun.)

2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state (Not quite there but working on it.)

3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done (Well I suppose we can always place a heavier tax burden on the top wage earners to pay for that new health care bill eh BHO?)

Is Obama a socialist or a classic tax & spend liberal? Is there a difference?

I have a questions for all the people who find Obama to be a moderate. Is there someone in American politics who you feel is too far out there as far as being a "socialist" or a radical leftist?

I often see people come to Obama's defense on issues but never see anyone point to an example of someone who is. Some made the point earlier that Woodrow Wilson or FDR were radicals (I don't necessarily disagree). Heck, for just the sake of definition of the term radical so were are founding fathers and Abrahama Lincoln. I just want to see someone from the left side of the aisle show me someone, today, admit that someone is over the top on their views.

I don't know why liberals hide from the word "socialist." It is what it is. If you believe in it then have the balls to admit it and defend your position on it.

The pathetic thing is liberals not only hide from the word "socialist" they also steer clear of the dreaded "L" word.

I Wear Pants wrote: Tell me when the insurance industry is owned and operated by the US Government. Until then, stop saying that we took over health insurance because it isn't true.

Legal or monetary ownership does not always indicate true ownership. True ownership of a product, business, estate, or anything is measured in who possesses the power to control its use.

For instance if you own your car free an clear and now hold the title in your name, but your neighbors get together and decide to limit your use of it. You can only drive it 100 miles a weak or you a pay a stiff a fine. There are three people in the neighborhood that can't afford a car. So you are required to drive them one day a week to the grocery store. Also in order to drive your car in your neighborhood you will have to purchase a pass. I could go on but you get the point. At some point you no longer own your car.

Those of you running around saying no one can utter the word socialist because government does not own the means of production, need to stop and think a little bit about what true ownership really is. Take taxes for instance. I "own" my means of production, but lets say some form of government has the power to take lets say 50% of my production right off the top. Would they then not own half of my production? Then take into account that the other half of my production that I get to keep they get a say in what I do with that as well.

I have no problem with those that want to join together in collective government to meet the social needs of its citizens, just don't force me to join you. The constitution actually allows it. Just not at the federal level were it can be shoved down the throats of all. That much power in the hands of a few in DC is what they were trying to prevent, not state and local governments who know best how to meet the needs of their citizens.