PDA

View Full Version : Obama's socialist history



LWW
06-07-2012, 08:31 AM
Let the denials begin. (Obama’s Third-Party History - Stanley Kurtz - National Review Online http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz#)

Soflasnapper
06-07-2012, 08:49 AM
I briefly 'joined' the New Party, the Reform Party, the Libertarian Party, and maybe some I don't recall also. But I've always been a Democrat, and voted that way.

eg8r
06-07-2012, 09:09 AM
Was he joining all these parties for the free pin?

eg8r

LWW
06-07-2012, 10:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was he joining all these parties for the free pin?

eg8r </div></div>

As he as explained before ... he will always slavishly defend the regime.

Soflasnapper
06-07-2012, 10:33 AM
I related my personal experience, and said nothing about Obama.

What, you missed that?

Soflasnapper
06-07-2012, 10:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Was he joining all these parties for the free pin?

eg8r </div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

It's the same reason a Democrat seeks the NY Liberal Party's endorsement and support, and a GOP candidate seeks the NY Conservative Party's endorsement and support.

Follow the money.

LWW
06-07-2012, 12:44 PM
There is a difference between asking for support and being a member.

Soflasnapper
06-07-2012, 03:50 PM
Dems and the GOPrs in NY take the Liberal and Conservative Party nomination (respectively) and appear on the ballot in two places, often.

It's not that one must renounce any other party to 'join' another, which typically involves all of sending them $25.00 or something.

In any case, what O did or didn't do in a state Senate race in Illinois is of minor consequence to his record as president. Trying to dredge such matters up is a sign that his record is not socialist. Did he take the public option route, or the Medicare for all with a buy-in, or SINGLE PAYER (the Holy Grail for liberals on national health care), as the left would have preferred (any of them)? Did he keep majority ownership of GM, or did he sell off most of that stock to a minority share now?

Leftist have a huge gripe with his non-leftist policies, including not nationalizing the banks and firing the capitalist criminals running them and putting them in jail by prosecuting their crimes. Do leftists do favors for Wall Streeters?

Most of the inner party disgust with Obama is from the left. (Self-described moderate Democrats support him at an 80% level.)

eg8r
06-07-2012, 06:03 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Trying to dredge such matters up is a sign that his record is not socialist.</div></div>His healthcare bill is all you need to see that he is a socialist. To know that he did not get the single payer system that he really wanted is enough to know that he is a socialist. To know that he allowed the Reps to strongarm him into renewing the tax cuts is enough to know he is a socialist without a spine.

eg8r

LWW
06-08-2012, 12:23 AM
You still love made up stats I see.

Soflasnapper
06-08-2012, 12:32 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You still love made up stats I see. </div></div>

Sometimes I may misremember them, but I don't make up things or bluff. I understand why you think others do what you do, but you should know better by now that I don't engage in that.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Even if you credit the endlessly repeated, self-serving Republican axiom that the man long-time “centrists” like me consider maybe a bit too “centrist” has in fact “jerk[ed] his party to the left,” there’s this little matter of his high popularity among self-described “moderate Democrats” (he has an 81% job approval rating among them at present according to Gallup), and the additional fact that most of the intra-party grumbling about Obama always has been and continues to be from the Left. These are well-known facts </div></div>

See here. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/124922/Presidential-Approval-Center.aspx?ref=interactive) (Scroll down using the right hand scroll bar to see this breakout)

Gayle in MD
06-08-2012, 02:01 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Trying to dredge such matters up is a sign that his record is not socialist.</div></div>His healthcare bill is all you need to see that he is a socialist. To know that he did not get the single payer system that he really wanted is enough to know that he is a socialist. To know that he allowed the Reps to strongarm him into renewing the tax cuts is enough to know he is a socialist without a spine.

eg8r </div></div>

What a twisted, misrepresentation of the actual events, facts, disregard for correct definitions, and all of the accompanying circumstances.

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Soflasnapper
06-08-2012, 03:44 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Trying to dredge such matters up is a sign that his record is not socialist.</div></div>His healthcare bill is all you need to see that he is a socialist. To know that he did not get the single payer system that he really wanted is enough to know that he is a socialist. To know that he allowed the Reps to strongarm him into renewing the tax cuts is enough to know he is a socialist without a spine.

eg8r </div></div>

Your post is enough to see you have no idea what socialism is, or what socialists advocate.

eg8r
06-08-2012, 07:16 PM
LOL, one of these days you will wake up. I just hope it happens sooner rather than later.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-08-2012, 07:29 PM
Perhaps some examples may explain the difference. (Perhaps not.)

In this country, the elderly receive health care insurance mainly from Medicare. There are secondary health insurances for that group, but they piggy-back onto Medicare.

This may be called socialized medical INSURANCE for that group. That's the Canadian model, but for all, not just the elderly-- single-payer-- which it's fair to call socialized insurance. However, in Canada, the government doesn't own all the hospitals, employ all the doctors, etc.-- those are mainly private sector providers. The same is true with Medicare here. Medicare, or the government in another guise, does not own the providers or employ them.

That is NOT socialized health care, which is when the PROVISION of the health care is OWNED by the state. The hospitals would be owned by the state, the doctors would work directly for the state, etc. The British health care system IS such a directly state-owned provision system, as I recall.

Heavy regulations of a private system do not make that system socialized, either. After FDR's bank holiday, and creation of the FDIC deposit insurance system, the banks were more heavily regulated, but remained in private hands. We did not socialize banking, but rather, regulated it.

The Affordable Health Care Act REGULATED insurance, but did not even socialize insurance (that would have been single-payer), and it certainly did not socialize the health care system. Not even close.

I know this, even in my sleep.

eg8r
06-10-2012, 01:24 AM
LOL, you can call it what you want but those of us living in reality call it socialism and that is exactly what Obama would like to implement.

eg8r

Soflasnapper
06-10-2012, 12:12 PM
Those examples having gone over your head apparently, try this final one.

The Veterans Administration is pure socialized medicine, as the providers, the hospitals, the docs and nurses, all are actually employed or owned by the federal government. That's a socialized medical system, interwoven with a socialized medical insurance system. We have that now, to no great wailing and gnashing of teeth. And that is obviously not what the ACA does. It doesn't even get to the socialized insurance program that Medicare amounts to.

Tell me, would you argue with a foreign language teacher that what a word means, according to him, is not what it means?

Because evidently the actual meanings of technical terms of the economy are likewise a foreign language to you, which you clearly do not understand.

You can't fight <s>city hall</s> the dictionary, without being foolish.

eg8r
06-10-2012, 05:11 PM
LOL, call it what you want. Because what he actually got and whether the meshes exactly with the definition of "government run" are slightly off for the time being doesn't mean he is not a socialist and hoping to move the country in that direction. To go to an entirely socialist agenda would be too big of a mountain to climb but he took some really big steps to move in that direction. Think of it like he is laying the foundation.

eg8r