So what do you think about this?
 

Remember, way, way, way, way back say in June of 2008. McCain started saying Obama was a socilaist. Of course, it was the spawn of the evil, bloods#^&#^&#^&#^&#^&g republicans, looking for a last chance effort to defeat the annointed one.
Well, how do you feel about this in just the FIRST FEW WEEKS!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663


Go on, tell me its necessary. Thats what the Dems live for, they have succeeded in developing a base on "you need us, you cant do it alone" and now Obama is telling the country the same thing.

I don't know, I suppose you'll tell me I did not get it, but here goes.

The article puts forth the proposition that our society is moving toward a European style socialist government?

You think this is true and will prove ruinious for the country. Moreover, you believe that we should now, more than ever, embrace conservative principles?

I will die before becoming a socialist.

Worked for Goebbels.

I don't think we can have both a recovery and a resurgance of the republican party. Obama will get the credit if the stimulus works, or if we are near the bottom and can only come up. Recovery is far more likely than a collaspe of the republic.

you underestimate the portion of the public that is educated and working. I was at a party this weekend with a number of parents age 36-42, all with kids around 4-8yrs old. This is a group that said they've always voted democrat and were outraged by Obamas stimulus and the fact that they keep getting screwed by taxes and never get any money thrown their way. They all pay their mortages and save for their kids college. So what have the Dems done for them? Nothing and they finally see it.

ps Goebbels was a NAZI, as in National Socialists party.

Man, this could have been said by the big O himself!

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." --Adolf Hitler

The article you linked to cleary states that the path towards socialism started under President Bush, not Obama in just the past two weeks.

Damn PDA interface, can't edit worth a damn.

But I don't think Obama is proposing anything more socialistic than we've already seen at some point in time this century. The notion that he's a socialist and "oh here we go" doesn't seem all that fair considering most believe that some serious government spending isn't necessary to help bring economic recovery.

Hell, isn't like 40 percent of the stim bill for tax cuts?

Since when do socialists cut taxes?

A rather bland rant - needs salt. Can't ya throw something in there about welfare people?

Heres some more ammo, its written by a republican so you can ignore it...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...oly/index.html

He's just going for some snicker value and not making any real points. The idiological bone he's trying to pick has been used by so many Dem's and Repub's alike that I don't think it's reasonable to declare ownership by one party.

But it's common for Liberals to argue the nuance while Conservative pundits have tended to view things in stark black and white terms.

This is the rub.

Castellanos is basing his little ditty on the regulation=bad mantra established by Ronald Reagan. Unfortunately, history has proven time and time again that a free market left unchecked will lead to excess and abuse.

As evidence of this I cite the present tense.

We're in a cycle where more regulation is exactly what we need to restore public and investor confidence in our (not really) free markets. It's up to the people to keep the pendulm from swinging too far, but if Obama does, it will show in the next election, just like it did with the dysfunctional, arrogant and completely lost Republican party.

-spence

do you think we can afford to wait 4 years?

If we're socialists, what am I eligible for free? I'll go down and get some.

just look at the bailout details!

This is the Canadian version of socialized medicine:
Comprehensive coverage of all necessary hospital and medical services.
Wow!

If I go down to get my sore throat looked at today the little sign says, "Payment is expected at time of services."

The only thing I'll get from the bailout is a reduction in payroll tax and a tax credit of $1000 of my own money. This notion that we are on the verge of adopting socialism is a crock of sh_t.

you sound disappointed!

I play "big bill roulette" with my accountant every April just like everyone else.
I don't think people should lose everything they've worked for because they don't have health insurance. I think health care is a human right.

Hopefully once there's mandatory health care there's mandatory health, and tax those who don't meet the health standards.

so freedom goes right out the door?

Unhealthy people are drain on society. They get sick more. They cost companies more. They cost insurance more.

Logan's Run anyone???

how about people with risky occupations or hobbies?

mountain climbers, surfcasters, bikers, they should pay extra too, no? How many injuries do you have from those? they cost us a lot too.
Come to think of it, my sister is a fitness trainer, she always has knee and muscle issues, all fitness people should pay more too.

perhaps we should tax fatty foods as well?
Maybe chinese people get sicker than whites, maybe we should segregate races as well?

Likwid. um. yeah. you lost me.
How about genes? Nebe and I are built a bit differently than you, should be be paying more for a health tax b/c we're not 165lbs?

I'm a big proponent of mandatory health care for minors. I know some parents will abuse it, tough. Kids deserve it. I'm also a huge proponent of making it more affordable for employers AND people to just go buy it.

how about socio-economic status? The poor are generally less healthy than tha ffluebnt. Higher degrees of alcolism, unhealthy eating and smoking. So we can charge the poor more?
Or more likely, we'll give the poor a "health exception" which lowers their tax and then tack the extra money on the infamous "5 percent" of the people that make more than $150K year, thus having them pay for it!

Jim;
I think across the board.
Free for kids
Cheaper for everyone

my reply is for likwid
the new master of the aryan race of athletes and health people

My life insurance premium is high because of skiing and sailing.

2 compressed discs
2 massive scars on my shins.
1 broken finger
2 concussions (har har gogo jokes)

If she has work done on them her insurance premiums will go up as it is.

Maybe we should.

Do they? You tell me.
Race has nothing to do with your health.

Is it not true that people of some races are more likely to suffer from certain health issues? What about discriminating against women because of higher instances of certain cancers or bone diseases?

Jimmy, the well-to-do and the well-heeled actually do indulge in some very risky behaviors of all types - they're just more discrete about it.

Even you would have to admit there's a pretty long list of Republican ex-Senators caught indulging themselves in questionable behavior involving young pages, airport restrooms, etc...:yak6:

At least when a Democrat is caught in a sex scandal, it's heterosexual in nature...