Who belives President Obama is a Socialist?

apple0154 said:
What evidence is there to suspect Obama is working towards any end? People talk about the health care when almost every first world nation has a health care policy. Are they all socialist nations?



The point is every time the government tries to help the citizens people scream Socialism! The irony is people complain about taxes and say the government never does anything for them.

There is not one nation that has a medical plan where the people want it discontinued. Not one nation.

This idea socialism is some bogeyman is nonsense. The countries people state as examples (Germany, Cuba, Russia) have nothing to do with Socialism. If one wants to talk about socialism many European countries are examples and the people have democratically chosen such a government.

Socialism is not loss of freedom. Socialism is getting the government to work for the people. Dictators taking over a socialist country will result in a dictatorship. Democratically elected representatives governing a socialist country will result in a free, democratic country. Why do people have such difficulty understanding socialism is not the problem?
Click to expand...
What evidence? His own words were submitted earlier where he said he wanted the only option for medicine to be the government...

Come on. We have to actually shut off our brains to be that disingenuous.

And here in the US, up until now, we have sought different solutions than government nannyism which were instrumental in creating the world's strongest nation. The point is you attempt to argue it "isn't socialism" because "it is but not enough of it" or "even if it is, it's what we want because it makes the government 'work for the people'"...

That isn't just a weak argument, it is surrender.

Amazingly, I am not one of the people who argue that Obama is a socialist, but pretending that there is no way a person could come to that conclusion, because you want ever more socialism, from his actions is flat lying to yourself.
 
Damocles said:
What evidence? His own words were submitted earlier where he said he wanted the only option for medicine to be the government...

Come on. We have to actually shut off our brains to be that disingenuous.

And here in the US, up until now, we have sought different solutions than government nannyism which were instrumental in creating the world's strongest nation. The point is you attempt to argue it "isn't socialism" because "it is but not enough of it" or "even if it is, it's what we want because it makes the government 'work for the people'"...

That isn't just a weak argument, it is surrender.

Amazingly, I am not one of the people who argue that Obama is a socialist, but pretending that there is no way a person could come to that conclusion, because you want ever more socialism, from his actions is flat lying to yourself.
Click to expand...

Damo, it's a dishonest argument at its core. Socialism is s SYSTEM. Are we a socialist country because we have Medicare? Because we have Social Security?

Of course not. We're still a country that adheres to the ideas of liberty, free enterprise & capitalism. Obama is a capitalist; he grew up in a capitalist system, and does not have a subversive agenda to have government take over every industry, until we are indeed a Socialist country.

Calling him a "socialist" based on one issue - that happens to be bankrupting the country - is disingenuous at best, and you know it. It's like calling Bush a fascist for the Bush Doctrine (and yes, people did, but you won't see me defending them).
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Uhhh yea....more correctly. US Right wing definition of socialism. Anyone who doesn't walk in lock step with the good ole boys is a socialist.

Ya know I think it's a paranoid joke. Do ya'll look under your bed at night to make sure there's not a socialist under neath it?

Do you thank the good lord above that Jesus was a free market capitalist?

I mean do ya'll think that government subsidies to anyone but Banks, Farmers and Corporations is creeping socialism? LOL
Click to expand...

The topic is NOT weather Jesus was a socialist...and who gives a shit anyway....
The point IS...Obama is a socialist...and your strawman crap ai't gonna change that fact....
and it seems, your being a fool is a fact also...
 
bravo said:
The topic is NOT weather Jesus was a socialist...and who gives a shit anyway....
The point IS...Obama is a socialist...and your strawman crap ai't gonna change that fact....
and it seems, your being a fool is a fact also...
Click to expand...


By your definition Obama is a socialist and so is everyone in the current Congress to the left of Jim DeMint. When your definition of Socialism is so broad that it includes everyone in the government, I think you need to work on your definition a bit, unless, of course, you believe the US is a Socialist country and has been consistently Socialist since FDR at least.
 
bravo said:
The topic is NOT weather Jesus was a socialist...and who gives a shit anyway....
The point IS...Obama is a socialist...and your strawman crap ai't gonna change that fact....
and it seems, your being a fool is a fact also...
Click to expand...
That wasn't a strawman. It was unadulterated sarcasm. :)
 
Onceler said:
Damo, it's a dishonest argument at its core. Socialism is s SYSTEM. Are we a socialist country because we have Medicare? Because we have Social Security?

Of course not. We're still a country that adheres to the ideas of liberty, free enterprise & capitalism. Obama is a capitalist; he grew up in a capitalist system, and does not have a subversive agenda to have government take over every industry, until we are indeed a Socialist country.

Calling him a "socialist" based on one issue - that happens to be bankrupting the country - is disingenuous at best, and you know it. It's like calling Bush a fascist for the Bush Doctrine (and yes, people did, but you won't see me defending them).
Click to expand...
Again, the argument you seem to have here is "it isn't quite enough socialism to be Real Socialism" (you can almost hear the capitals)... That's a weak argument and starts with the premise that no portion of government ownership of any service or production could possibly be called socialism unless we go fully USSR. It's silly on its face.

And again, I am not defending anybody here. I am simply pointing out the holes in this particular argument. Tell me how it isn't, as some of them would say, "European style incremental socialism"... do it without saying, "IT isn't the USSR so it can't be 'socialism'"...

Of course it could. Somebody, who by their words and actions, would like to take a huge portion of our GDP and put it into government ownership and control and they say they are working towards it "with all their heart" (I know you know the video I am talking about) can be said to be trying to instill some form of at least partial socialism.
 
Damocles said:
Again, the argument you seem to have here is "it isn't quite enough socialism to be Real Socialism" (you can almost hear the capitals)... That's a weak argument and starts with the premise that no portion of government ownership of any service or production could possibly be called socialism unless we go fully USSR. It's silly on its face.
Click to expand...

That's not my argument, at all. That's a sad misrepresentation.

Your sympathies are more aligned w/ the paranoids. I get it.
 
Onceler said:
That's not my argument, at all. That's a sad misrepresentation.

Your sympathies are more aligned w/ the paranoids. I get it.
Click to expand...
Yet it was your argument. Basically you say if we don't fully implement the "SYSTEM" (caps are yours) then we can't possibly think anything at all is even partial socialism...

It's only one post previous of yours that you said it.

I'm on the side of logic and reason. It isn't reasonable to say that it isn't whole hog USSR therefore they can never say that a chunk of our economy being taken over by government might in fact be a bit of socialism... The man himself says that is what he wants and that what he passed is the first step towards it...

saying, "I can't possibly see how anybody could think that..." is a bit disingenuous IMO.
 
Damocles said:
Yet it was your argument. Basically you say if we don't fully implement the "SYSTEM" (caps are yours) then we can't possibly think anything at all is even partial socialism...

It's only one post previous of yours that you said it.

I'm on the side of logic and reason. It isn't reasonable to say that it isn't whole hog USSR therefore they can never say that a chunk of our economy being taken over by government might in fact be a bit of socialism... The man himself says that is what he wants and that what he passed is the first step towards it...

saying, "I can't possibly see how anybody could think that..." is a bit disingenuous IMO.
Click to expand...

You're not that daft. You're a smart guy. That's not what they're saying, and you know it.

They're saying "He is a Socialist," and "This is Socialism." They are not even mentioning healthcare in the context of this thread & the last few discussions regarding the topic on this board; they're talking more about the stimulus, which I'm sure even you would agree is ridiculous.

You have a blind eye for the nutters on the right.
 
Onceler said:
You're not that daft. You're a smart guy. That's not what they're saying, and you know it.

They're saying "He is a Socialist," and "This is Socialism." They are not even mentioning healthcare in the context of this thread & the last few discussions regarding the topic on this board; they're talking more about the stimulus, which I'm sure even you would agree is ridiculous.

You have a blind eye for the nutters on the right.
Click to expand...

It is what you're saying. In your retard mind, we can't be on the path to socialism unless we're there. And it's really fascism. Because they will never really distribute the wealth.
 
Last edited:
Onceler said:
You're not that daft. You're a smart guy. That's not what they're saying, and you know it.

They're saying "He is a Socialist," and "This is Socialism." They are not even mentioning healthcare in the context of this thread & the last few discussions regarding the topic on this board; they're talking more about the stimulus, which I'm sure even you would agree is ridiculous.

You have a blind eye for the nutters on the right.
Click to expand...
The stimulus isn't socialism, it is an attempt to drive an economy in a specific direction with an extremely bad efficiency towards actually "stimulating" the whole economy. It's a poorly conceived attempt at Directed Trickle Down...
 
Damocles said:
The stimulus isn't socialism, it is an attempt to drive an economy in a specific direction with an extremely bad efficiency towards actually "stimulating" the whole economy. It's a poorly conceived attempt at Directed Trickle Down...
Click to expand...

That's a dodge, and not a very artful one.

We're not debating the stimulus here.
 
NigelTufnel said:
By your definition Obama is a socialist and so is everyone in the current Congress to the left of Jim DeMint. When your definition of Socialism is so broad that it includes everyone in the government, I think you need to work on your definition a bit, unless, of course, you believe the US is a Socialist country and has been consistently Socialist since FDR at least.
Click to expand...

The fact is, my definition isn't broad....its limited....its limited to "anyone that adheres to the political philosophy of redistribution of wealth"....taking from those that have enjoyed good fortune and giving to those that have not ... and believing that its the moral responsibility of government to mandate it.
 
bravo said:
The fact is, my definition isn't broad....its limited....its limited to "anyone that adheres to the political philosophy of redistribution of wealth"....taking from those that have enjoyed good fortune and giving to those that have not ... and believing that its the moral responsibility of government to mandate it.
Click to expand...


So basically anyone that believes in the concept of the income tax is in your eyes a socialist. So pretty much everyone.
 
Damocles said:
Yet it was your argument. Basically you say if we don't fully implement the "SYSTEM" (caps are yours) then we can't possibly think anything at all is even partial socialism...

It's only one post previous of yours that you said it.

I'm on the side of logic and reason. It isn't reasonable to say that it isn't whole hog USSR therefore they can never say that a chunk of our economy being taken over by government might in fact be a bit of socialism... The man himself says that is what he wants and that what he passed is the first step towards it...

saying, "I can't possibly see how anybody could think that..." is a bit disingenuous IMO.
Click to expand...

According to Damo's view, anyone that supports Medicare can be rightly be called a Socialist. It's ridiculous. I think he has listened to that Ronald Regan stuff from 1961 too much.
 
Damocles said:
Yet it was your argument. Basically you say if we don't fully implement the "SYSTEM" (caps are yours) then we can't possibly think anything at all is even partial socialism...

It's only one post previous of yours that you said it.

I'm on the side of logic and reason. It isn't reasonable to say that it isn't whole hog USSR therefore they can never say that a chunk of our economy being taken over by government might in fact be a bit of socialism... The man himself says that is what he wants and that what he passed is the first step towards it...

saying, "I can't possibly see how anybody could think that..." is a bit disingenuous IMO.
Click to expand...

Your logic applied elsewhere would mean China has had creeping democracy for decades as evidenced by people permitted to vote for village leaders. Or referring to Castro as having been a democratic leader because elections were/are held.

Taking over a chunk of the economy, health care in particular, was/is necessary as it wasn't serving the citizens. That's a far cry from "Socialism".
 
bravo said:
The fact is, my definition isn't broad....its limited....its limited to "anyone that adheres to the political philosophy of redistribution of wealth"....taking from those that have enjoyed good fortune and giving to those that have not ... and believing that its the moral responsibility of government to mandate it.
Click to expand...

It's the responsibility of government to serve the citizens. If not, why have a government?
 
Nigel and apple, stop being such retarded absolutists. Socialism is incremental. Under Reagan the US was at about 15%, and The Obama wants it to be close to 100%.
 
NigelTufnel said:
So basically anyone that believes in the concept of the income tax is in your eyes a socialist. So pretty much everyone.
Click to expand...

Are you really a bonehead, or is it that you lack reading comprehension...?

Income tax is just fine, as long as its fair to equal FOR ALL citizens....
Government needs money to do it job....
1. Provide defense
2. Build infrastructure
3. and basically do the jobs that are just too big for the individual...(infrastructure)

In a socialist society, that would include just about everything.....
In a capitalist society, that would include guaranteeing a fair and balanced system of law, regulation and taxation to give all its citizens an equal opportunity to prosper and grow....
Not to stifle personal development..
To celibate and encourage personal success...
and to assist those that need assistance.....

A fair income tax would be...a citizen would be required to par a percentage of his assets to the government to finance its existence...thats means EVERY
CITIZEN EQUALLY....not only half of them....that means all pay at the same rate, regardless of assets....thats called fairness....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top