PDA

View Full Version : Ask the card-carrying socialists: Is Obama one of them?


tony hipchest
04-15-2010, 07:46 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/14/Obama.socialist/index.html?hpt=C1

"Socialized health care" is on its way. The "socialist agenda" is taking over America. And best of all, Barack Obama, a "committed socialist ideologue," is in the Oval Office.

But Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate. He's seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn't a socialist. He's not even a liberal.

"We didn't see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama," Wharton says, " and we certainly didn't see our agenda move from the streets to the White House."

Are many Americans secret socialists?

Obama's opponents have long described him as a socialist. But what do actual socialists think about Obama? Not much, says Wharton.

"He's the president whose main goal is to protect the wealth of the richest 5 percent of Americans."

He and others say the assertion that Obama is a socialist is absurd.

"It makes no rational sense. It clearly means that people don't understand what socialism is."

Definitions of socialism vary, but most socialists believe workers and consumers who are affected by economic institutions should own or control them.

Not all socialists, though, want to confiscate personal property. Democratic Socialists are more interested in protecting ordinary people from unregulated capitalism through regulation and progressive taxation.

Some of the socialist agenda is already part of American life, according to Wharton and others.

Social Security, Medicare, unemployment benefits -- all reflect socialistic values, says Van Gosse, an associate professor of history at Franklin & Marshall College in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, who has researched socialist movements in the United States and Latin America.

The widely accepted notions of public education and Pell Grants for college students are socialistic in origin, Gosse says. They fit well with the socialistic premise that government should provide basic security from the cradle to the grave to all of its citizens, he says.

"We assert that education should not be left up to the private market -- where those who can pay, get it and those who can't, don't get it," Gosse says. "It's a common good and in that sense it is a socialistic institution even if the U.S. remains a capitalist nation.

Why socialists hate Obama's health care bill

Those who call Obama a socialist, though, point to his policies. Big on their hit list: "Obamacare," which they call "socialized medicine."

It makes no rational sense. It clearly means that people don't understand what socialism is.

Socialists scoff at the notion. They don't applaud the passage of the recent health care bill either. They wanted a national "single-payer" health insurance plan with a government option. The bill that Obama championed didn't have any of those features.

Wharton said the new health care bill only strengthens private health insurance companies. They get 32 million new customers and no incentive to change -- something a socialist wouldn't accept.

"Most of it was authored by the health care industry," Wharton says. "I call it the corporate restructuring of health care."

Other critics point to Obama's Wall Street bailout -- which actually had its roots in the Bush administration. Critics say it's socialistic for government to assume control of private industry.

Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says the bailout had nothing to do with socialism.

Llewellyn says a socialist leader would have at least nationalized some of the troubled banks.

"He gave them [the banks] too much with no strings attached," Llewellyn says. "Banks that were too big to fail are bigger, and they can still fail."

How about Obama's bailout of the Detroit auto industry? During the bailout, the federal government assumed partial ownership of General Motors.

"It's not socialism," Llewellyn says. "The mere fact that the government owns something or has a stake in it, doesn't make it socialist. If that was true, you would say that we have a socialist army. The government owns the army."

Defining socialism is complex, Llewellyn says, but it starts with a simple goal: Socialists want to introduce democratic features into the economy to reduce inequality.

The economy has "to be run for the overall benefit of the entire population, not for the benefits of a very few people."

By that measure, Obama's economic policies are not socialist, he says.

"He's trying to save capitalism from itself rather than a radical trying to change into a new system," Llewellyn says.

This kind of name-calling is not new. Civil rights demonstrators and the politicians who passed Medicare were also called socialists and communists, Llewellyn says.

"Every time an expansion of the public's right has been put forward, Republicans have called it extreme, communistic and socialistic. It's a repeated tactic because they can't defeat the idea."

A Tea Party member explains why Obama is a socialist

Those arguments don't sway Conrad Quagliaroli, a Tea Party member who says Obama is a socialist.

He says that Obama's voting record as a senator was more to the left than the U.S. Senate's sole socialist, Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

He says Obama's association with radicals and his pledge to "spread the wealth" seal his socialistic credentials.

"The role of government is to provide a safe environment to conduct business, not to take from one and give to the other," says Quagliaroli, a financial planner who lives in Woodstock, Georgia.

Quagliaroli was not persuaded by the arguments of other socialist leaders who reject the idea that Obama is a socialist.

"He's just not socialist enough for them." :rolleyes:

Quagliaroli says he doesn't like socialism because it breeds mediocrity and encourages people to "live on the dole." Capitalism "breeds excellence" because it encourages initiative, he says.

The role of the government is to provide a safe environment to conduct business, not to take from one and give to the other.

--Conrad Quagliaroli, Tea Party member
Does that mean that Quagliaroli will refuse his Social Security checks, a government program that has been described as socialistic, and which he opposes?

Not necessarily, says Quagliaroli. :doh: He says he'll accept his Social Security checks for two reasons.

"They confiscated it from me to begin with, and the more money they give me, the less they'll have to waste," he says. "I can spend it better than they can. I don't pay $500 for a hammer."

The argument over Obama's ideology may rage on, but at least one socialist says another prominent politician ought to be inserted into the debate.

Llewellyn, the national director of the Democratic Socialists of America, says he was struck by one player in the 2008 presidential elections who displayed more socialistic leanings than Obama.

This candidate raised taxes on the big oil companies, and sent the revenue to the people.

If you want to learn something about spreading the wealth, Llewellyn says, don't look to Obama.

"To be honest, the most socialist candidate in the 2008 election was Sarah Palin."


:toofunny:- burn.

Godfather
04-15-2010, 08:02 PM
I have to agree...Obama is a spineless corporate *****. Most of what he's done has been a handout to the fat cats. Handouts to Goldman Sachs and AIG. Giving Big Insurance a captive consumer base. He throws crumbs to the po' folks to make them think he's their friend, but in reality he's bought and paid for by Wall Street.

Trouble is that between the corporate and individual welfare, the actual producers in this country (ie the middle class) are being squeezed from both ends.

SteelCityMom
04-15-2010, 08:05 PM
Why do people keep eluding to Obama being a socialist. He's obviously a commie.

Some peoples kids.

tony hipchest
04-15-2010, 08:15 PM
I have to agree...Obama is a spineless corporate *****. Most of what he's done has been a handout to the fat cats. Handouts to Goldman Sachs and AIG. Giving Big Insurance a captive consumer base. He throws crumbs to the po' folks to make them think he's their friend, but in reality he's bought and paid for by Wall Street.

Trouble is that between the corporate and individual welfare, the actual producers in this country (ie the middle class) are being squeezed from both ends.

all true.

there will never be a president that isnt bought and paid for by wall street. that is why capitalism is, and always will be our mainstay.

all this bullshit about socialism and communism is just that. bull propoganda and rhetoric shit. it is impossible and will never happen in our country because, while a democracy, that is not how the system is set up to work. americans will see the earth end in a firey ball of WWIII before that ever happens.

theres a difference between boiling a frog and sticking an m-80 down a toads throat.

*FROOOOOOG BASEBALL!!!!*

Godfather
04-15-2010, 08:17 PM
all true.

there will never be a president that isnt bought and paid for by wall street. that is why capitalism is, and always will be our mainstay.

all this bullshit about socialism and communism is just that. bull propoganda and rhetoric shit. it is impossible and will never happen in our country because, while a democracy, that is not how the system is set up to work. americans will see the earth end in a firey ball of WWIII before that ever happens.

theres a difference between boiling a frog and sticking an m-80 down a toads throat.

*FROOOOOOG BASEBALL!!!!*

Well, I disagree that we have capitalism. Capitalism is free markets and allowing the best people to rise to the top. We have a system where special interests bribe lawmakers to give them an advantage.

tony hipchest
04-15-2010, 08:28 PM
Well, I disagree that we have capitalism. Capitalism is free markets and allowing the best people to rise to the top. We have a system where special interests bribe lawmakers to give them an advantage.

fair enough. :cheers:

next up on obamas agenda is "wall street" reform. we'll have to see if the article rings true that obama isnt out to destroy "capitalism" in socialist/communist fashion, but to try and save it from itself.

revefsreleets
04-16-2010, 08:19 AM
I do not believe Obama is a full-blown Socialist, namely because there simply aren't enough liberals who lean far enough left to support that kind of an agenda. Left to his own devices, and I'd say we'd be discussing a different animal altogether, but Obama is being forced to govern more from the middle than I'm sure he'd actually prefer.

That being said, there was an excellent letter to the editor in my local paper today addressing just this issue. I thought it was brilliant in it's simplicity. While I'm NOT in support of the healthcare bill, my opposition lies much more along the sheer fiscal irresponsibility for the thing than any political ideology.

People bandy about the term socialism far too much...I'm not sure most people even understand the true definition of what it actually is.

Anyway, here is the letter:

What socialism is and isn't
I am a political independent who left the Republican Party because it adopted a borrow-and-spend economic policy once known as ''voodoo economics.'' Recently I have been concerned about the indiscriminate use of the word ''socialism'' in the health-care debate.
During my career, I had work assignments in several countries, including developed and developing countries. Some of them were socialist, so I have learned what socialism is and is not.
Under socialism, the government owns the facilities in question and all workers are government employees. With socialized medicine, the government owns the hospitals, medical centers, ambulances, doctors' offices, and the doctors, nurses and staff are government employees.
Part of the problem is that some will apply the label ''socialism'' to any universal health-care system. In that way, all European systems are lumped together as socialist. Some are, but the best are not.
The socialist systems, including those in the United Kingdom and Spain, are the ones that can have waiting lists for elective surgery. France and Germany are in the group that has government insurance with private hospitals (both nonprofit and for-profit) and salaried doctors, like those with the Cleveland Clinic.
The emergency rooms in those countries are not overloaded. Those systems, like our Medicare, are national systems, and are not socialism.
We have a mentality that prevents the adoption of better ideas and systems for health care, just because they were not invented here.
John Arnold
Munroe Falls

SteelerEmpire
04-16-2010, 08:39 AM
Well, I disagree that we have capitalism. Capitalism is free markets and allowing the best people to rise to the top. We have a system where special interests bribe lawmakers to give them an advantage.

I think that's now become a part of capitalism too...

GBMelBlount
04-17-2010, 08:59 AM
I have to agree...Obama is a spineless corporate *****. Most of what he's done has been a handout to the fat cats. Handouts to Goldman Sachs and AIG. Giving Big Insurance a captive consumer base. He throws crumbs to the po' folks to make them think he's their friend, but in reality he's bought and paid for by Wall Street.

Trouble is that between the corporate and individual welfare, the actual producers in this country (ie the middle class) are being squeezed from both ends.

Well said Godfather.

I will be the first to agree that I don't like handouts to fat cats either. Proper oversight and reform certainly makes more sense to me.

Thankfully, despite all of the problems with freedom and free and competitive markets, we somehow became the wealthiest and most prosperous country in the history of the world....by far!

I would like your input on something Godfather.

Do you feel it is ok, in principle, for the government to redistribute wealth if the recipient group is deemed a more "worthy" than corporate fatcats?

While I do not agree agree with this sort of corporate welfare, my question is what in your opinion makes this so much worse than other forms of wealth redistribution?

Godfather
04-17-2010, 09:20 AM
Well said Godfather.

I will be the first to agree that I don't like handouts to fat cats either. Proper oversight and reform certainly makes more sense to me.

Thankfully, despite all of the problems with freedom and free and competitive markets, we somehow became the wealthiest and most prosperous country in the history of the world....by far!

I would like your input on something Godfather.

Do you feel it is ok, in principle, for the government to redistribute wealth if the recipient group is deemed a more "worthy" than corporate fatcats?

While I do not agree agree with this sort of corporate welfare, my question is what in your opinion makes this so much worse than other forms of wealth redistribution?

No, I don't think any group of people is worthy to receive forced transfers of wealth (except disabled veterans).

The corporate handouts are bad not only because they're handouts, but also because they're handouts to people who don't truly need them. The corporate welfare dollars are routinely spent on things like vacations to 5-star Hawaii resorts. Think about what offends people most about individual welfare--it's not the people who truly need it, it's the people with fancy cell phones and Escalades whipping out food stamps at the checkout line. I think the same principle applies to corporate welfare.

MasterOfPuppets
04-17-2010, 09:42 AM
No, I don't think any group of people is worthy to receive forced transfers of wealth (except disabled veterans).

The corporate handouts are bad not only because they're handouts, but also because they're handouts to people who don't truly need them. The corporate welfare dollars are routinely spent on things like vacations to 5-star Hawaii resorts. Think about what offends people most about individual welfare--it's not the people who truly need it, it's the people with fancy cell phones and Escalades whipping out food stamps at the checkout line. I think the same principle applies to corporate welfare.

that , and seeing them whip out $60 for a carton of ciggs after they pay for delmonico's with thier independence card... :mad:

Vincent
04-17-2010, 11:08 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/04/14/Obama.socialist/index.html?hpt=C1
But Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate.
If your agenda is socialism, and a clear majority vehemently oppose it, are you going to go “Woo-hoo!!” at each incremental advance of your agenda? Your agenda wouldn’t get very far.

Iowa Senator Harkin takes the pragmatic approach. “What we are buying here is a modest home, not a mansion. What we are getting here is a starter home.” http://iowaindependent.com/23933/harkin-think-of-health-care-reform-as-a-starter-home “…we can build additions as we go along in the future. It is a starter home. Think about it in that way,”

Translation: “We have achieved the foundation on which we achieve our goal.” It’s the incremental strategy the donkeys have used for a century. Don’t try to shove the cow down their throats – serve them a steak at a time.

Soshacurity was sold to us on the basis that it was “voluntary”, and before employers had begun withholding from paychecks. Here we are some 70 years later with everybody that actually earns having 8% grabbed from their paychecks for something they’ll never “benefit” from.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without knowing how it happened”. “I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democratic Party has adopted our platform”. Norman Thomas – six time Socialist party presidential candidate – 1944.

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

He's seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and (Wharton) has a message for them: “Obama isn't a socialist. He's not even a liberal.”

satan denying the existence of the devil.

Why do people keep eluding to Obama being a socialist. He's obviously a commie.
You can tell a tree by its fruit. bho has been surrounded by communists since his “birth”. His “father” was a communist. His “mother” was a communist. His mentors were communists. He entered politics through the “new party”. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/archives_prove_obama_was_a_new.html Everybody he appoints is either far left or outright communist.

If it quacks like a duck…

SteelCityMom
04-17-2010, 11:19 AM
You can tell a tree by its fruit. bho has been surrounded by communists since his “birth”. His “father” was a communist. His “mother” was a communist. His mentors were communists. He entered politics through the “new party”. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/archives_prove_obama_was_a_new.html Everybody he appoints is either far left or outright communist.

If it quacks like a duck…

If you say so. I'm just eluding to the fact that you, and many others say he's implementing all these socialist policies and then will call him a communist in the same breath. There's a big difference between a socialist and a communist. Call an extremist of one group the other, and they'll most likely want to kill you.

Vincent
04-17-2010, 12:12 PM
If you say so. I'm just eluding to the fact that you, and many others say he's implementing all these socialist policies and then will call him a communist in the same breath. There's a big difference between a socialist and a communist. Call an extremist of one group the other, and they'll most likely want to kill you.

Yeah, I'm still waiting for steeltwink or the "teacher" (I forget which) to "explain" all of that to we, the "uninformed".

Those that try to "explain" the "difference" usually go something like this… “socialism is an economic system, while communism is an economic and a political system”. In their minds, that constitutes a “difference”. Even a casual examination of that explanation reveals a continuum. Better stated, “socialism” and “communism” reside on the same continuum. And in the historical context, they are stages on that continuum.

When we speak of “communism”, we generally think of the sovs as “the model”. They were they original commies after which the “others” fashioned themselves to a greater or lesser extent. The “USSR” “was” the union of soviet socialist republics. “Socialist” “was” the operative word.

We tend to think of “communism” as totalitarian, which is correct. Communism resides at the totalitarian end of the socialist continuum, as does nazism and the other total implementations of socialism.

I generally refer to bho as a stalinist because that is the closest description to the arrogant narcissistic communist personality that he is, and folks get all wee weed up when I point out the character “traits” he shares with a certain dead Austrian.

To say “he's implementing all these socialist policies and then will call him a communist in the same breath” is actually a correct use of both terms.

GBMelBlount
04-17-2010, 12:28 PM
that , and seeing them whip out $60 for a carton of ciggs after they pay for delmonico's with thier independence card... :mad:

I am completely with you on this.

Godfather
04-17-2010, 01:11 PM
The “USSR” “was” the union of soviet socialist republics. “Socialist” “was” the operative word.


Doesn't mean it was accurate...Red China is officially the People's Republic of China, but it's neither the people's nor a republic. The German Democratic Republic was neither a republic nor a democracy.

Socialism requires equality of outcome...and I'm willing to bet no Party member ever had to wait in line for bread.

Vincent
04-17-2010, 01:21 PM
Doesn't mean it was accurate...Red China is officially the People's Republic of China, but it's neither the people's nor a republic. The German Democratic Republic was neither a republic nor a democracy.

Socialism requires equality of outcome...and I'm willing to bet no Party member ever had to wait in line for bread.

Correct on all points.

The sovs, chicomms, sov satellites, and all the rest "were" mafias. They seized their power behind the veneer of socialism and building a "worker's paradise". All these regimes "had" a "nomenclatura" that comprised those that shopped at "different stores".

I use quotation marks here because of the commonly held perception that the sovs "were". The same mafia that seized Russia in 1917 runs Russia today.

Here's a question for the Brain Trust. Who is at the top of the mafia food chain in the US?

urgle burgle
04-17-2010, 01:45 PM
ben

SteelCityMom
04-17-2010, 01:58 PM
Here's a question for the Brain Trust. Who is at the top of the mafia food chain in the US?

Jerry Jones...it has to be Jerry Jones.

Or Oprah.

SteelCityMom
04-17-2010, 02:05 PM
Yeah, I'm still waiting for steeltwink or the "teacher" (I forget which) to "explain" all of that to we, the "uninformed".

Those that try to "explain" the "difference" usually go something like this… “socialism is an economic system, while communism is an economic and a political system”. In their minds, that constitutes a “difference”. Even a casual examination of that explanation reveals a continuum. Better stated, “socialism” and “communism” reside on the same continuum. And in the historical context, they are stages on that continuum.

When we speak of “communism”, we generally think of the sovs as “the model”. They were they original commies after which the “others” fashioned themselves to a greater or lesser extent. The “USSR” “was” the union of soviet socialist republics. “Socialist” “was” the operative word.

We tend to think of “communism” as totalitarian, which is correct. Communism resides at the totalitarian end of the socialist continuum, as does nazism and the other total implementations of socialism.

I generally refer to bho as a stalinist because that is the closest description to the arrogant narcissistic communist personality that he is, and folks get all wee weed up when I point out the character “traits” he shares with a certain dead Austrian.

To say “he's implementing all these socialist policies and then will call him a communist in the same breath” is actually a correct use of both terms.

I get your point, and I know that Socialism is basically nothing but an offshoot of Communism. But their ideals and the way the two systems are run are quite different, as are the people who claim either side as their political affiliation.

Understand that just because two different political parties start in similar places, does not mean they end up there in the long run.

Take the Democratic and Republican parties as an example. The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1792. Supporters usually identified themselves as Republicans, but sometimes as Democrats. The term "Democratic Republican" was also used by contemporaries, but mostly by the party's opponents. It was the dominant political party in the United States from 1800 to 1824, when it split into competing factions. Since then, both offshoots have been drifting away from each other on the political spectrum.

Nowadays, if you call a card carrying Republican a Democrat, it's an extreme insult to them, and they have very different ideals as to how they feel the country should be run. This was the point I was eluding to. Going by how the Socialist party and Communist party run their governments, it's impossible for Obama to be both.

MasterOfPuppets
04-17-2010, 05:36 PM
Here's a question for the Brain Trust. Who is at the top of the mafia food chain in the US?

tony siragusa....:noidea:

Vincent
04-17-2010, 11:02 PM
I get your point, and I know that Socialism is basically nothing but an offshoot of Communism. But their ideals and the way the two systems are run are quite different, as are the people who claim either side as their political affiliation.

As marx created the disease, let us frame discussion of the disease around his stated views. With no respect intended to marx, he said that socialism was to displace capitalism en route to communism. They are not "off shoots" of each other or mutually exclusive in any way. They are two points on the same continuum. Communism is the totalitarian implementation of socialism.

SteelCityMom
04-17-2010, 11:12 PM
As marx created the disease, let us frame discussion of the disease around his stated views. With no respect intended to marx, he said that socialism was to displace capitalism en route to communism. They are not "off shoots" of each other or mutually exclusive in any way. They are two points on the same continuum. Communism is the totalitarian implementation of socialism.

Right, I know what you mean...and wasn't disagreeing with that part of your thinking. But Socialist and Communist...over the years...have become two different entities altogether. The founder of the ideals (Marx) may have meant for them to flow into each other, but as far as the political parties today who implement their policies...they don't feel like they do anymore. That's why communist would be offended to be called a socialist like Hitler was. Political parties change over time and drift away from each other quite often.

Vincent
04-17-2010, 11:45 PM
That's why communists would be offended to be called a socialist like Hitler was.

You hit on a very good point Madam. While all the European socialists were calling each other pretenders back in the 30s, Uncle Joe surveyed socialism's malaise and sought to distance his regime as the higher distillation of socialism. He coined the term "fascist" to brand the nazis and Italians as lesser socialist regimes not fit to be considered along side the purity of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. That Joe was such a stitch!

And being the rubes we are, we've misused the term ever since.

ricardisimo
04-18-2010, 03:30 AM
I'd just like to quickly point out that the $500 hammer which Mr. Quagliaroli mentioned is a Reagan-era reference... you know, the Republican god of smaller government and privatization. I guess those ideas didn't work out too well there.

Also, before he died, Marx said quite clearly "I am not a Marxist." This was not only a sign of wit on his part, but I think it supports the claims of some who say that Marx was more of a critic working firmly within the realm of capitalism, rather than a full-blown communist like his cohort Engels. It's an odd point to make, but it might interest some.

Finally, doesn't it seem like all of our arguing about economic systems is useless filler designed to make us feel like we know something? Some variety of state capitalism is the rule here and everywhere else in the world. Costs are socialized, benefits are privatized, and economies are planned, not "free".

Normally military spending is the primary engine (us), but sometimes it's oil (OPEC nations) or some dominant cash crop (Colombia, Cuba), or government service sector industries like schools, the highway system and prisons, etc. (most of Western Europe). My only point is that all of the world's economies seem pretty planned to me, and the more planned the wealthier the nation, by and large.

That is not to say that the people in these countries are benefiting from the planning. That seems to be a completely separate issue, where you will have poorer countries with more equal wealth distribution, and richer nations that are highly stratified... or you will find the opposite. :noidea: It seems to be unrelated.

The long and the short of it is that - surprise, surprise - Obama is a state capitalist.

steelerohio
04-18-2010, 11:38 AM
The article mentioned that the Obamacare has no single payer sytem... Wasn't that his goal from the get go and he ended up being debated out of having that in the final bill?

ricardisimo
04-18-2010, 01:03 PM
The article mentioned that the Obamacare has no single payer sytem... Wasn't that his goal from the get go and he ended up being debated out of having that in the final bill?

I don't remember him or his people ever once using the words "single-payer". He was supposedly considering a "public option", to compete with private insurance and thereby drive prices down, but he dropped that about five minutes after he was elected.

Vincent
04-18-2010, 01:25 PM
The long and the short of it is that - surprise, surprise - Obama is a state capitalist.

After some glue I agreed with every word of your post except this. bho is anything but a capitalist. bho is a card carrying communist that happened to be elected president of a state planned capitalist economy. Ergo the fireworks.

I don't remember him or his people ever once using the words "single-payer". He was supposedly considering a "public option", to compete with private insurance and thereby drive prices down, but he dropped that about five minutes after he was elected.

At this stage of the saga, "single-payer" doesn't resonate, so the politburo leaves that message to the markets that accept it. A Jan Schakowsky of Illinois is the single payer loudmouth in chief.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/UfOWnZ82Pm4&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/UfOWnZ82Pm4&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Surely this is why we have aluminum baseball bats.

ricardisimo
04-18-2010, 01:29 PM
You can tell a tree by its fruit. bho has been surrounded by communists since his “birth”. His “father” was a communist. His “mother” was a communist. His mentors were communists. He entered politics through the “new party”. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/10/archives_prove_obama_was_a_new.html Everybody he appoints is either far left or outright communist.

If it quacks like a duck…

Tim Geithner: An international banker who cut his teeth at Kissinger Associates, working under Henry himself, Brent Scowcroft, and Lawrence Eagleburger. Beet-red commie, to be sure.

Robert Gates: A CIA and NSC lifer who was offered the position of United States Director of National Intelligence by none other than George W. Bush. Card-carrying Soviet, without a doubt.

Eric Holder: Represented Chiquita Banana, whom the US found to be paying the United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia to beat up and assassinate labor organizers in Colombia. They got off with a slap on the wrist. Clearly a Marxist apparatchik.

Tom Vilsack: Monsanto's best friend, and GM foods booster. So much so that he was named "Governor of the Year" by the Biotechnology Industry Organization, the lobbying arm of Monsanto, ADM and others. How do you spell "Roosky"?

Gary Locke: He's half Chinese, which makes him all-Commie in our book, right?

Ken Salazar: Homophobe and Gang of 14 Democrat. Clearly just biding his time until he gets the call from Moscow.

Kathleen Sebelius: Opposed to same-sex marriage, and "repealed a 1933 state law prohibiting civilian ownership of machine guns and other firearms restricted by the National Firearms Act of 1934." Obviously, she just wants all of the Red Party faithful in Kansas to be armed when they get the call from Premier Obama.

Ray LaHood: Just window dressing... don't be fooled.

Steven Chu: See Gary Locke above (times two!)

I'm sure there's more, but do I really need to go on? We've become the Union of Soviet American Republics!!!!!

Vincent... please.

ricardisimo
04-18-2010, 01:30 PM
After some glue I agreed with every word of your post except this. bho is anything but a capitalist. bho is a card carrying communist that happened to be elected as president of a state planned capitalist economy. Ergo the fireworks.

The glue works best in conjunction with some quaaludes. Trust me on this.

Godfather
04-18-2010, 03:22 PM
The article mentioned that the Obamacare has no single payer sytem... Wasn't that his goal from the get go and he ended up being debated out of having that in the final bill?

He never even attempted single payer or universal coverage. He did want a public option but as soon as anyone objected he folded like Tony Romo in a big game.

urgle burgle
04-18-2010, 05:05 PM
I don't remember him or his people ever once using the words "single-payer". He was supposedly considering a "public option", to compete with private insurance and thereby drive prices down, but he dropped that about five minutes after he was elected.

oh b-rad wants a single payer system, beyond a shadow of a doubt. that is what this bill is trying to lay the foundation for. he knew he couldnt pull a single payer off at first whack. give the radical, community organizer a little credit. and in a sense you right, this go around with the bill, he, or his people didnt utter that dreaded phrase. they just kept it to themselves.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Video-proof-Obama-wants-a-single-payer-system-52699182.html

Godfather
04-18-2010, 05:13 PM
oh b-rad wants a single payer system, beyond a shadow of a doubt. that is what this bill is trying to lay the foundation for. he knew he couldnt pull a single payer off at first whack. give the radical, community organizer a little credit. and in a sense you right, this go around with the bill, he, or his people didnt utter that dreaded phrase. they just kept it to themselves.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Video-proof-Obama-wants-a-single-payer-system-52699182.html

I'm not so sure about that. Having this big a Congressional majority is very rare, and if they didn't get single payer this time there's a good chance O will die of old age before there's another opportunity.

Plus, in about ten years when Obamacare is universally acknowledged as a failure, it's going to be very hard to pin the blame on anyone else, so the D's will have zero credibility on health care and the R's will be able to run on an agenda of real health care reform.

GBMelBlount
04-18-2010, 09:25 PM
Defining socialism is complex, Llewellyn says, but it starts with a simple goal: Socialists want to introduce democratic features into the economy to reduce inequality.

Reducing inequality?

Does this mean anything other than the government taking what has been earned and belongs to one group and giving it to another group who did nothing to earn it, simply because the government deems the other other group deserving?

theapostle
04-21-2010, 01:13 AM
:toofunny:

Let's ask the card carrying communists: http://brooksbayne.com/post/491102800/communist-party-usa-calls-for-marxist-revolution

Then the reality of his involvement in politics as a Socialist: http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/04/obama-file-101-whos-been-fibbing-then.html

But don't let facts get in the way.

The Communists are being honest by not only accepting Obama, but knowing that he's crucial to their agenda. CNN is being intellectually dishonest. How many radicalized leftists, Marxists, Maoists, Socialists and Communists work for, or advise Obama? Do a search for that information sometime.

You could find self-described conservatives that would disavow Reagan. It wouldn't be hard to find a crazy person who would deny Obama. CheNN has an agenda to try and convince people that Obama is a centrist. Which is the most laughable garbage proposed.

Sorry, kids, but Obama is, in fact, Marxist. You can cry "foul" all day long, stomp your feet, or pitch a fit, but it doesn't change reality.

Read something other than CheNN and MSNBChe for information, as they'll only feed you propaganda. There's plenty of independent information out there.

ricardisimo
04-21-2010, 05:22 AM
Anyone want to venture a guess as to who theapostle really is (note the post count)? I like how he found two whackos from the blogosphere to post as objective foils to those commies at CNN. Which means, in all likelihood, that one of the blogs is his own, and he found a fellow kook in New Zealand, so he doesn't feel quite as lonely.

revefsreleets
04-21-2010, 09:02 AM
:toofunny:

Let's ask the card carrying communists: http://brooksbayne.com/post/491102800/communist-party-usa-calls-for-marxist-revolution

Then the reality of his involvement in politics as a Socialist: http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/04/obama-file-101-whos-been-fibbing-then.html

But don't let facts get in the way.

The Communists are being honest by not only accepting Obama, but knowing that he's crucial to their agenda. CNN is being intellectually dishonest. How many radicalized leftists, Marxists, Maoists, Socialists and Communists work for, or advise Obama? Do a search for that information sometime.

You could find self-described conservatives that would disavow Reagan. It wouldn't be hard to find a crazy person who would deny Obama. CheNN has an agenda to try and convince people that Obama is a centrist. Which is the most laughable garbage proposed.

Sorry, kids, but Obama is, in fact, Marxist. You can cry "foul" all day long, stomp your feet, or pitch a fit, but it doesn't change reality.

Read something other than CheNN and MSNBChe for information, as they'll only feed you propaganda. There's plenty of independent information out there.

Correction: Obama is a far-left liberal, who PERSONALLY shares many socialist views, perhaps even a few Communist views, but, as all politicians in the US soon realize, is being forced to GOVERN from a more centrist position.

By definition, since he's completely owned by the PRIVATE banks, corporations and healthcare industries, he can't really stray far from THEIR agenda, regardless of whatever his own personnel beliefs may be. Ergo, he may BE a Socialist, but he has to govern as a left-leaning moderate.

MACH1
04-21-2010, 11:19 AM
Anyone want to venture a guess as to who theapostle really is (note the post count)? I like how he found two whackos from the blogosphere to post as objective foils to those commies at CNN. Which means, in all likelihood, that one of the blogs is his own, and he found a fellow kook in New Zealand, so he doesn't feel quite as lonely.

Once again attack the person not the facts. Typical.

urgle burgle
04-21-2010, 01:04 PM
I'm not so sure about that. Having this big a Congressional majority is very rare, and if they didn't get single payer this time there's a good chance O will die of old age before there's another opportunity.

Plus, in about ten years when Obamacare is universally acknowledged as a failure, it's going to be very hard to pin the blame on anyone else, so the D's will have zero credibility on health care and the R's will be able to run on an agenda of real health care reform.

no....he read the TEA leaves on this one. pun intended. he found out the huge problem he had pushing his obamacare through this time, without the single payer. it was, essentially, a trial balloon. if he had went with the single payer, there would have been a larger outcry on him being a "socialist", and he wouldnt have been able to pass it even with reconciliation. b-rads in it for the long haul. he doesnt care if it takes 10 yrs longer to implement his vision of America. lay the foundation, and the rest will follow. its going to be incredibly difficult to repeal and replace this monstrosity, so eventually the bennies will have kicked in, people will be "happy and full", and they will want to add to what was started, for many reasons.

ricardisimo
04-21-2010, 06:06 PM
Once again attack the person not the facts. Typical.

You would never do anything like that, would you? I find it interesting that you, of all people, like using this line so much. It's like revs calling other people trolls.

GBMelBlount
04-21-2010, 06:09 PM
The role of the government is to provide a safe environment to conduct business, not to take from one and give to the other.

Another gem.

GBMelBlount
04-21-2010, 06:18 PM
"Every time an expansion of the public's right has been put forward, Republicans have called it extreme, communistic and socialistic. It's a repeated tactic because they can't defeat the idea."


Can't defeat the idea of public rights?

What is a public right?

Is it something the government DECIDES everyone should have and then forces one group to pay for so the others can have it too for free?

Is social security a public right?

I guess one could at least make an argument for forced public rights being a worthy cause if the results weren't often so disastrous.

Social security. It sure started out nice. Now, I would imagine there are people who are being forced to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars into it, ostensibly for their own retirement security, that will never see a dime in return...

...also, the government completely deceived the citizens and broke all of it's promises regarding social security.

I would imagine if a private company lied and deceived people in a similar manner people would jailed.

Problem with "public rights" is that you have greedy, unethical and self serving people in Washington defining "public rights", seizing money to pay for it, lining their own pockets, mismanaging the programs, changing the rules and breaking their promises, raising costs, reducing quality and piling up massive debt in the meantime that our children and grand children will be forced to pay for even though they had nothing to do with it.

Shouldn't a child being born without being shackled with tens of thousands of dollars in government debt each, that they had nothing to do with, be a public right?

So I am not sure why one would say the idea of public rights is a tough idea to defeat...or am I missing something.

ricardisimo
04-21-2010, 06:31 PM
no....he read the TEA leaves on this one. pun intended. he found out the huge problem he had pushing his obamacare through this time, without the single payer. it was, essentially, a trial balloon. if he had went with the single payer, there would have been a larger outcry on him being a "socialist", and he wouldnt have been able to pass it even with reconciliation. b-rads in it for the long haul. he doesnt care if it takes 10 yrs longer to implement his vision of America. lay the foundation, and the rest will follow. its going to be incredibly difficult to repeal and replace this monstrosity, so eventually the bennies will have kicked in, people will be "happy and full", and they will want to add to what was started, for many reasons.

But (and I can't stress this enough) his health care law sucks precisely because it is profit-oriented. There's no "social" aspect to it. The costs and risks are privatized, as are the profits and benefits. There's some part of the equation I'm missing... why would a closet socialist push a staunchly for-profit health care system if what he wants is to lay the groundwork for some glorious socialist future?

I suppose there's some logic to it, like arguing that the New Deal would never have happened without the Depression. So, he's pushed a thoroughly crappy, industry-friendly health care package so as to demolish US health care and thereby pave the way for some future socialized system? Is that how the logic might go? That's some foresight on his part!

MACH1
04-21-2010, 06:38 PM
You would never do anything like that, would you? I find it interesting that you, of all people, like using this line so much. It's like revs calling other people trolls.

How typical of you.

What I said to you before still stands.

urgle burgle
04-21-2010, 07:16 PM
But (and I can't stress this enough) his health care law sucks precisely because it is profit-oriented. There's no "social" aspect to it. The costs and risks are privatized, as are the profits and benefits. There's some part of the equation I'm missing... why would a closet socialist push a staunchly for-profit health care system if what he wants is to lay the groundwork for some glorious socialist future?

I suppose there's some logic to it, like arguing that the New Deal would never have happened without the Depression. So, he's pushed a thoroughly crappy, industry-friendly health care package so as to demolish US health care and thereby pave the way for some future socialized system? Is that how the logic might go? That's some foresight on his part!

its easy logic. if that is all he can get at the moment, he will take it. my feeling is his ideology is not on how you get there, as long as you get there. the ends justify the means, even if it means going into bed with entities that may frustrate your "sensiblities." of course it is possible those "sensibilties" hes offended by could fund many a future election, and other necessities. hes said, in the past, his desire for a single payer system. he comprimises with his left and center to get obamacare through. as that system fails, it will be easier to pass other parts that rely heavily on govt. intervention. some things can be very simple, if you dilute all the other mishmash out of it.

ricardisimo
04-21-2010, 09:42 PM
some things can be very simple, if you dilute all the other mishmash out of it.

This is a perfect statement. People should really reflect on that. I think that if they did (and if you did) everyone would come to the realization that in a political system funded almost exclusively by corporate campaign contributions, the only "viable" candidates are going to be pro-corporate capitalists. The corporate elite might be morally challenged, but they are not stupid. They are funding the right candidates for their causes.

Everything else is mishmash, as you call it.

GBMelBlount
04-22-2010, 06:31 AM
This is a perfect statement. People should really reflect on that. I think that if they did (and if you did) everyone would come to the realization that in a political system funded almost exclusively by corporate campaign contributions, the only "viable" candidates are going to be pro-corporate capitalists. The corporate elite might be morally challenged, but they are not stupid. They are funding the right candidates for their causes.

Everything else is mishmash, as you call it.

Good point Ricardisimo.

Do you feel that the politicians are any less morally challenged, greedy or self serving than the corporate elite?

revefsreleets
04-22-2010, 09:10 AM
You would never do anything like that, would you? I find it interesting that you, of all people, like using this line so much. It's like revs calling other people trolls.

If you're attempting to point out irony, why not use yourself as an example? Like saying you are NOT anti-Semitic....or saying Nixon was a liberal....or that Justice Stevens is a conservative....or....well, you get the picture.

'Cuz I have you pegged right up at "10" on the bat-shit-crazy-o-meter....

But, as I've stated before, crazy people are fun to have on message boards. They definitely make it interesting...

xfl2001fan
04-22-2010, 11:02 AM
If I'm a card carrying socialist...and I see a guy that's (little by little) actually pushing my agenda...I might be willing to BS/Lie/Half-Truth around denying a guy is supporting my cause...because socialism (as a word) has a negative connotation...and so I instead indicate that the guy isn't my guy. This will allow for the sheeple to continue to blindly follow Obama and his agenda...which supports the socialist agenda (long term.)

urgle burgle
04-22-2010, 11:56 AM
This is a perfect statement. People should really reflect on that. I think that if they did (and if you did) everyone would come to the realization that in a political system funded almost exclusively by corporate campaign contributions, the only "viable" candidates are going to be pro-corporate capitalists. The corporate elite might be morally challenged, but they are not stupid. They are funding the right candidates for their causes.

Everything else is mishmash, as you call it.

so how would you suggest we change the system? people that are uber rich fund their own campaings with there money only? same problem. we allow everybody to run who has five bucks and a pack of smokes? that is still doable. people do that. but how are they going to afford to get their message out. and then you have the problem of sorting throught the thousands of candidates. tax funded elections only? then they will shill to the govt. go with a laze fair type of system where anarchy reigns? in your world that would acceptable. but then we would collapse in a few years. im all ears, give me/us a better system..then we can discuss that.

ricardisimo
04-22-2010, 02:07 PM
Good point Ricardisimo.

Do you feel that the politicians are any less morally challenged, greedy or self serving than the corporate elite?

I think politicians are almost by definition the greasiest people on the planet. Moral culpability for fraud, graft, greed, and even outright theft should lie at the top, and if the suits are funding that sort of behavior, then they are "mostly" responsible on some level. Still, it's difficult in any way to shift the slightest blame away from our elected officials, who have taken oaths of public duty and fealty which the suits have not.

ricardisimo
04-22-2010, 02:12 PM
so how would you suggest we change the system? people that are uber rich fund their own campaings with there money only? same problem. we allow everybody to run who has five bucks and a pack of smokes? that is still doable. people do that. but how are they going to afford to get their message out. and then you have the problem of sorting throught the thousands of candidates. tax funded elections only? then they will shill to the govt. go with a laze fair type of system where anarchy reigns? in your world that would acceptable. but then we would collapse in a few years. im all ears, give me/us a better system..then we can discuss that.

Irony of ironies, the more money that is spent on campaigns and elections, the lower the turnout tends to be. It makes sense, when you think about it. People smell through the BS when their candidates are marketed to them in exactly the same manner as their toothpaste, breakfast cereal and sports cars.

So, we have publicly-funded elections that cost 1% of what they cost now. Everyone is on the same field. No ads, no posters, no BS. Regularly scheduled debates, Q&As and meet-and-greets, and that's it. It's up to the people themselves to investigate what's out there, rather than being up to the boob tube to sell President Pepsi to us.

urgle burgle
04-22-2010, 02:53 PM
Irony of ironies, the more money that is spent on campaigns and elections, the lower the turnout tends to be. It makes sense, when you think about it. People smell through the BS when their candidates are marketed to them in exactly the same manner as their toothpaste, breakfast cereal and sports cars.

So, we have publicly-funded elections that cost 1% of what they cost now. Everyone is on the same field. No ads, no posters, no BS. Regularly scheduled debates, Q&As and meet-and-greets, and that's it. It's up to the people themselves to investigate what's out there, rather than being up to the boob tube to sell President Pepsi to us.

so will the 1% be mandated, taken from the taxes already given? we have that box on tax returns and i doubt many use it. or, sorry, the dollar or so box, whatever. you say no ads, no posters, no BS. nice concept. not workable. you think we have a low turn out now? we will have less then. a lot of the country wont know any real specifics without a small tidbit here and there. most wont do the research, especially if there are a billion candidates. try dividing that 1% or so among all candidates without them being able to drum up money, that wont even cover the flights to different states, i doubt. i would like a better system, but i want one that is feasible.

GBMelBlount
04-22-2010, 03:08 PM
I think politicians are almost by definition the greasiest people on the planet. Moral culpability for fraud, graft, greed, and even outright theft should lie at the top, and if the suits are funding that sort of behavior, then they are "mostly" responsible on some level. Still, it's difficult in any way to shift the slightest blame away from our elected officials, who have taken oaths of public duty and fealty which the suits have not.

Well said. I have to agree with the spirit of your post ricardisimo but I am not sure to the level where I would "mostly" blame the suits.

I think that liberals and conservatives agree on a lot of the problems, the difference is in what we generally believe is the best solution.

Blaming freedom and free markets for all of our problems and allowing the government to seize control as a panacea is simply putting the fox in charge of the hen house imo.