Yet Another Test for Obama

[lazarus]

We have a socialist at the helm,not a democrat or republican.

Barack Obama is not a democrat? You reasoning has taken you into an cul de sac.

[bonnie]

I just heard on the radio our commandeer in chief is to busy concerning the pirates and one of our citizens held hostage

[Key Guy]

Quote:

We have a socialist at the helm,not a democrat or republican.

Sorry, Bonnie. He's a democrat. That's why he as elected overwhelmingly by democrats, that's why the vast majority of democrat reps and senators support his bills and policies.

Democrats are closet socialists. At least Obama had the guts to strip away the typical political garble and come out of the closet.

[bonnie]

Quote:

We have a socialist at the helm,not a democrat or republican.

Sorry, Bonnie. He's a democrat. That's why he as elected overwhelmingly by democrats, that's why the vast majority of democrat reps and senators support his bills and policies.

Democrats are closet socialists. At least Obama had the guts to strip away the typical political garble and come out of the closet.

He ran as a democrat and that is why he was elected.

During the election of Bush I worked with legal immigrants.

We were chatting at break time and the comment was made that other countries were really hoping Gore won.

I asked one gal why,what did they care.

Answer was one that democrats in the bunch got really upset over.

The answer was that the democatic party is the closest to their own socialist beliefs.

It is what they know and are comfortable with. And do see capitalism as a threat.

[lazarus]

Democrats are closet socialists. At least Obama had the guts to strip away the typical political garble and come out of the closet.

Not sure about "closet" but the word socialist is such a pejorative here that folks are scared to use it. In Europe its not really as big a deal. Believe it or not the US has adopted a lot more socialism than its willing to admit, some good some bad.

There is a strong tradition in Europe of Christian social democratic parties whose policies are much like the Democrat party in the US.

You may not like Obama's policies but to try to brand him as an "other" by calling him socialist has limited mileage.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: KeyGuy

Democrats are closet socialists. At least Obama had the guts to strip away the typical political garble and come out of the closet.

Not sure about "closet" but the word socialist is such a pejorative here that folks are scared to use it. In Europe its not really as big a deal. Believe it or not the US has adopted a lot more socialism than its willing to admit, some good some bad.

There is a strong tradition in Europe of Christian social democratic parties whose policies are much like the Democrat party in the US.

You may not like Obama's policies but to try to brand him as an "other" by calling him socialist has limited mileage.

Can you tell me why stating that I believe what Obama is politically is branding him?

No I don't like his policies but not sure what mileage you believe I am expecting to gain.

Being a socialist is not a crime,even here. One major problem I have with Obama is his socialism had to be hidden.In effect I believe he lies as to who he is.

Personally I am not so sure he would have lost being honest.

We are not Europe. European's have not had the benefit since the inception of their country to have a free market. The fact that the uS is slowing sliding it's way to socialism does not escape the attention of many of us.

America was founded on different and unique principals.

[lazarus]

Can you tell me why stating that I believe what Obama is politically is branding him?

It started in the Presidential campaign. It was an attempt to define Obama in a negative light as a way demonizing getting folk not to vote for Him. By calling Obama socialist you are seeking to instill fear and create a negative impression about what he has done or will do. You have used words like tyranny which have not place in the social democracies of Europe.

Its like saying someone is a communist or like saying someone is a Fordite. Remember Mccarthism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism

It had long been a practice of more conservative politicians to refer to liberal reforms such as child labor laws and women's suffrage as "Communist" or "Red plots."[6] This tendency increased in the 1930s in reaction to the New Deal policies of President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Many conservatives equated the New Deal with socialism or Communism, and saw its policies as evidence that the government had been heavily influenced by Communist policy-makers in the Roosevelt administration.[7] In general, the vaguely defined danger of "Communist influence" was a more common theme in the rhetoric of anti-Communist politicians than was espionage or any other specific activity.

Quote:

European's have not had the benefit since the inception of their country to have a free market.

Neither has the USA. How can there be a free market if the people are not free.

[bonnie]

Quote:

It started in the Presidential campaign. It was an attempt to define Obama in a negative light as a way demonizing getting folk not to vote for Him. By calling Obama socialist you are seeking to instill fear and create a negative impression about what he has done or will do. You have used words like tyranny which have not place in the social democracies of Europe.

By calling Obama a socialist I am calling him what I believe him to be. it is not a crime so why hide your ideology if you are Obama.

Quote:

Its like saying someone is a communist or like saying someone is a Fordite. Remember Mccarthism.

Given what I have read of Obama and what has shaped his ideology communism and those that embraced communism were according to Obama, influential in shaping what he became as an adult as well as marxist and socialized.

Is he a communist? He didn't appear to have any objections to that ideology.

As far as I am concerned Obama is a socialist beyond a doubt. If that is somehow derogatory that is his problem,not mine.

Quote:

Neither has the USA. How can there be a free market if the people are not free.

Maybe you need to live in MN if you are looking for freedom if it is lacking where you are at.

Can you raise your children as you see fit? Attend or pastor the church in the religion of your choice? Educate your children with the facility of your choice?Buy what you choose as long as you have worked and have the money? Choose the DR and medical community you want? Marry who you choose as long as she will have you?

Exactly what freedoms are you missing.

Perfect no? But the US is the only country I know that is expected to be perfect,without fault

[Key Guy]

Socialism: Taking assets from one sector of the community and giving it to another against the will of the people. Opposite: Individualism.

Tyranny: When the gov't forces its people to be lead against their will. Opposite: Constitutional republic.

Enemy of both: the US Constitution and Bill of Rights

See how closely related the two are?

Does God's Word support either? Last time I checked, the tyrannical gov'ts of Egypt, Babylon, Syria, Persia and Rome was used as a punishment, not a blessing, on the Israelites. Sadly, the Jews have suffered for generations by being subjected to tyrannical gov'ts ever since, with the exception of a very few.

[Woody]

Socialism: Taking assets from one sector of the community and giving it to another against the will of the people. Opposite: Individualism.

Tyranny: When the gov't forces its people to be lead against their will. Opposite: Constitutional republic.

Enemy of both: the US Constitution and Bill of Rights

See how closely related the two are?

Does God's Word support either? Last time I checked, the tyrannical gov'ts of Egypt, Babylon, Syria, Persia and Rome was used as a punishment, not a blessing, on the Israelites. Sadly, the Jews have suffered for generations by being subjected to tyrannical gov'ts ever since, with the exception of a very few.

Good Post KeyGuy

[carolaa]

I don't care which party is making unprecedented power grabs,acting outside the scope of the presidency targeting men that have not broken any law.

Nor do I think it matters much who is in the presidency once the ground work has been successfully laid. One president and only one has been successfully doing just that.

Yes, you're absolutely right. GWB has successfully laid the groundwork for all that you said.

[bonnie]

Originally Posted By: bonnie

I don't care which party is making unprecedented power grabs,acting outside the scope of the presidency targeting men that have not broken any law.

Nor do I think it matters much who is in the presidency once the ground work has been successfully laid. One president and only one has been successfully doing just that.

Yes, you're absolutely right. GWB has successfully laid the groundwork for all that you said.

No not quite. GWB is accountable for what he did right and what he did wrong. Obama has gone far beyond what anyone has seen.

Bush was not very conservative but he was not a socialist.

Wiretapping caused a lot of consternation during the Bush years.

Was it right or wrong and could it have been abused. I am sure it could have. I would expect that Obama would have abandoned that. But nope,he know thinks it a good idea.

GWB never targeted private citizens with the power of the presidency. Never created such drama,outrage and shock at something he had already passed on.Never put private citizens at risk for the nut jobs that threatened these men and their families.

GWB never fired a CEO of a private company.

GWB never went around the world apologizing for America. Of course that was great according to some.

Bush never bowed before the Saudia throne and then lied and said no he was just picking something up. No one can see that clip and even give the benefit of the doubt. If he felt it correct to bow before another,why the need to lie.

I do not recall Bush lying about his conduct while greeting the pope.

No one really seems to have the outrage currently for the large sum of money going from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to retention bonuses. These people should be vilified and threatened I would think.

Oh a novel idea,give the money back,after all it is taxpayer money NO.

But aside from what you would like to believe or do believe that Bush did, not a little angst over the length that Obama is taking this? Bush is now gone and Obama is the one leading down a dangerous path.

How long will the Obama faithful blame Bush and absolve Obama for same and more.

Isn't this carrying the distaste for personal responsibility a bit far??

[bonnie]

It is so odd to see SDA's that will champion a man because Bush did it first or laid the groundwork. Wasn't his song "hope and change"??

What we will face in time cannot be avoided,even with Obama as president. Especially his far reaching into private lives.

Because we cannot avoid it it does not mean we champion those that will keep taking freedoms bit by bit

[lazarus]

Quote:

Exactly what freedoms are you missing.

Perfect no? But the US is the only country I know that is expected to be perfect,without fault

I was referring to American history

Historically Americans have not all been free. In fact they were sometimes commodities in the market place. America has only had true freedom for its people for the last 40+ years.

[lazarus]

Socialism: Taking assets from one sector of the community and giving it to another against the will of the people. Opposite: Individualism.

That's really a simplistic and therefore misleading definition.

[Key Guy]

Originally Posted By: KeyGuy

Socialism: Taking assets from one sector of the community and giving it to another against the will of the people. Opposite: Individualism.

That's really a simplistic and therefore misleading definition.

Yeah... I didn't go to college so my views are simple, to the point, no gray areas. I probably should be deported or something.

[lazarus]

No not quite. GWB is accountable for what he did right and what he did wrong. Obama has gone far beyond what anyone has seen.

Bush was not very conservative but he was not a socialist.

Wiretapping caused a lot of consternation during the Bush years.

Was it right or wrong and could it have been abused. I am sure it could have. I would expect that Obama would have abandoned that. But nope,he know thinks it a good idea.

GWB never targeted private citizens with the power of the presidency. Never created such drama,outrage and shock at something he had already passed on.Never put private citizens at risk for the nut jobs that threatened these men and their families.

GWB never fired a CEO of a private company.

GWB never went around the world apologizing for America. Of course that was great according to some.

Bush never bowed before the Saudia throne and then lied and said no he was just picking something up. No one can see that clip and even give the benefit of the doubt. If he felt it correct to bow before another,why the need to lie.

I do not recall Bush lying about his conduct while greeting the pope.

How does thousands of dead, as a result of a mistaken pursuit for WMD, stack up against that supposed list of misdemeanors.

It's sad to see what you think is important and worthy of condemnation and what is not. Doesn't Proverbs say something about hands that shed innocent blood?

[there buster]

Quote:

How does thousands of dead, as a result of a mistaken pursuit for WMD

There were numerous reasons for going to war in Iraq, not just 'the pursuir for WMD.' Repeating a falsehood does not make it true.

And as far as "shedding innocent blood," is an indication of shallow reasoning.

Shakespeare disposed of this in Henr V.

"So, if a son that is by his father sent about

merchandise do sinfully miscarry upon the sea, the

imputation of his wickedness by your rule, should be

imposed upon his father that sent him: or if a

servant, under his master's command transporting a

sum of money, be assailed by robbers and die in

many irreconciled iniquities, you may call the

business of the master the author of the servant's

damnation: but this is not so: the king is not

bound to answer the particular endings of his

soldiers, the father of his son, nor the master of

his servant; for they purpose not their death, when

they purpose their services."

Using your reasoning. Proverbs would have condemned Moses for the deaths of Israelites when they battled the Amelekites; Joshua, Saul, David, Solomon, in every battle where Israelites lost their lives.

Quote:

It's sad to see what you think is important and worthy of condemnation and what is not. Doesn't Proverbs say something about hands that shed innocent blood?

It's even sadder to see sloppy reasoning used to imply a defect of character in another.

And how ironic, that you should have posted this:

Quote:

Fox has turned your brain into mashed potato.

[bonnie]

Quote:

How does thousands of dead, as a result of a mistaken pursuit for WMD, stack up against that supposed list of misdemeanors.

It's sad to see what you think is important and worthy of condemnation and what is not. Doesn't Proverbs say something about hands that shed innocent blood?

About the same as they have in every war in recorded history.

Maybe that is the reason those that have experienced war state "war is hell"

By your example the revolutionary war, civil war,WW1-11 should not have been fought or any war since. Thousands of dead.

At least you can say mistaken pursuit. The WMD were hardly the only reason as I think you probably know.

How many more thousands would have died under the sadistic regime of Saddam and his vicious, animalistic sons. Those probably don't count tho. How many had died previously under this animal in years leading up to that?

You have said the following on more than one occasion. Perhaps you would be courteous enough to explain. Tell me what is important and what is not?

{It's sad to see what you think is important and worthy of condemnation and what is not. Doesn't Proverbs say something about hands that shed innocent blood}?

[Taylor]

You know what struck me funny....I wonder how many registered Republicans that voted for Bush, and for his Father etc voted this time for Obama? I also wonder how many registered Democrats voted for McCain? It would be interesting and probably rather amusing to find out.

[Woody]

I voted for Ross Perot previously ... but this time ... I preferred Palin/McCain.

(Does that count?)

[lazarus]

And how ironic, that you should have posted this:

Quote:

Fox has turned your brain into mashed potato.

Don't get bent out of shape because I've called Redwood names. I have said worse things about him. He's said worse things about me but we're cool even though he's a right wing nut!