quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 23, 2008 14:21:45 GMT -5
You guys are just being silly now. The point isn't that Obama is already a socialist. The point is that ideologically, his solution for EVERYTHING is to have the government do it. Granted, Bush has had too much of that thinking as well, but that isn't the issue now. Government is inherently inefficient. The goal should be to minimize government as much as possible, while still providing the necessary services -- law enforcement, road construction and repair, National security and defense etc... Obama's viewpoint is entirely different. Regardless of whether you approve of this or that particualr policy isn't the issue. Obama's view is to promote "good ideas" through the use of government. That taken to its logical conclusion is socialism. No no no you are just wrong plain and simple. There is absolutely zero chance that a McCain administration or an Obama administration turns the country into a socialist country. How is Obama's solution for EVERYTHING to have the government do it? It isn't. You're just wrong. Wrong. Promoting good ideas through government does not logically conclude in socialism. That doesn't even make any sense. The issue isn't that you don't like Obama's policies or that you don't think they're good for the country. It's that you either misunderstand or mischaracterize the positions, not citing any evidence, then come on here and write these inflammatory posts that simply aren't true.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 23, 2008 13:32:34 GMT -5
You're right, I should have been more specific.
Obama's plan mandates that children be covered (not necessarily by the government).
There is no general mandate that adults have to have health insurance.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 23, 2008 13:16:07 GMT -5
In no particular order, he is going to make sure that everyone has health care. Government mandated coverage -False. His plan is not government mandated coverage.
So essentially he wants to expand the public school system to beyond 12th grade. That certainly sounds like socialized higher level learning. -As in public universities? Like the university of Florida? Those socialist gators!
He wants to eliminate poverty ... not just from America, but from the World! That certainly reeks of socialism, since in that case it doesn't even stop at our borders. -A) not stopping at our borders has nothing to do with whether or not it is socialism B) Wanting to eliminate poverty does not 'reek of socialism.' It would be how you do it that is socialism or not. What about how he wants to eliminate poverty is socialism?
Virtually every single thing Obama says involves government interaction. -A man running for President, and virtually everything he says is about government!?!?! Insane!
Please, when throwing junk like that around, at least decide on a definition of socialism that isn't 'everything you don't like about what you think Obama might consider doing.'
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 23, 2008 11:13:07 GMT -5
I posted something like this in a different thread, probably not the best place. "Spreading the Wealth" does not equal socialism. Socialism is not just helping out people who can't or won't help themselves. Bush tax cuts and supply side economics are about spreading the wealth. Who is complaining about that being socialist? Tax is spreading the wealth. Why does it bother some people more when poor people (and of course numbers are never cited) lie about their income to get food stamps than when corporations or rich people dodge taxes or cheat billions out of the American taxpayer? (example: www.alternet.org/waroniraq/60950/)What about McCain buying up everyone's mortages? Is that not socialism? Does the sincerity of your outrage or truthfulness/hypocrisy of your attacks even matter?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 22, 2008 15:46:56 GMT -5
isn't the whole theory of supply side economics and the bush tax cuts a way of 'spreading the wealth?'
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 22, 2008 12:01:44 GMT -5
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 21, 2008 11:27:26 GMT -5
Now I think that what Biden said is a pretty stupid thing to say on a campaign trail, whether or not the general idea of what he's saying is correct. But what exactly about that undermines Obama's message?
I do think that Palin is in fact undermining McCain, not just disagreeing. By staking an opposite position on main points of his campaign, she's not supporting the policy ideas that the administration she is going to be a part of would like to implement. I think to say that is merely disagreeing and not undermining is a selective interpretation of the words. However, this is not to say that even if you'd agree it's undermining that it is horrible for the campaign or the end of the world, it's not. Just that this Drudge-shock headline is bunk.
Also not exactly sure how this is fear-mongering. Normally fear-mongering works by saying that something bad would happen if the other guy is elected, not your own administration. Stupid? Yes. Fear-mongering? Ehh
As far as Palin's future political career, I brought it up because I don't see what direction she would really take it on a national level [edited: "don't see what direction" not exactly what I meant. More like unsure of"]. Her 'freshness' to national politics has been a great charge to the Republican base, but she has proved to have little in the way of ideas about how things work outside of state-level politics (and not in an 'insider elite' way, in a practical way). She no doubt might have a future as an Alaskan senator, and she would be a good red meat Republican. As far as 2012, I think a LOT would have to change for her to be ready.
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 21, 2008 10:44:46 GMT -5
One thing Sarah Palin's NOT doing at her rallies? Undermining her own running mate. You keep talkin', Joe Biden. You keep it up, you might just be able to talk your way into this being a close election. Yeesh. www.slate.com/id/2202658/Is she guaranteed at least a solid chance of a strong political future due to the love she gets from the base, or is this an all or nothing chance for her? If not elected, where does she go from here (politically, not think tank or punditry land...)?
|
|
quickplay
Silver Hoya (over 500 posts)
Posts: 733
|
Post by quickplay on Oct 5, 2008 20:47:07 GMT -5
"I have no problem with the Palin concerns. I do have a problem with people who belittle Palin as a VP choice but think Obama is truly qualified to be president." Giga, you got it right. What makes one 'qualified' to be president? Obviously experience counts, but isn't what that person has done with their experience more important? Looking at McCain vs. Obama, wouldn't it be more important to vote based on the policies they'd implement? Just focusing on Obama, he has clear, detailed policy (whether or not you like them or agree with them not being the point). He obviously has the intellect, he has proved to have a strong grasp of domestic and foreign affairs. What exactly is it that makes him 'unqualified?' And this isn't bait, this is a serious question. Comparing Sarah Palin to Barack Obama isn't even close. Call me a snob, call me elitist, but I don't think anyone who is serious about politics on any level can honestly see her nomination as anything more than a cynical joke. She has demonstrated that she's spent her life without any curiosity of the world outside of Alaska. Not just to focus on how little she knew about national politics at the time of her nomination, but I would think that the average 9th grader, given 5 weeks of tutoring under the upper crust of the Republican Party, would have a better understanding of the issues and ability to think on their feet than she has shown. I don't understand the argument that she met expectations therefore she was fine in the debate. She's running for vice president. She could barely answer a single question. She showed contempt for the basic rules of the debate, happy and proud to ignore the rules. If a party had a 5 year old as their nominee, would it be fair to judge them on how well you should expect a 5 year old to do? Her performance should be based on how well she did as someone who would be vice president. If they win, she's going to actually have to perform at her job. Playing culture wars might help you win a campaign, but what do you do when you're actually in the position and have to make the decisions? Can any serious person on the planet think that she's ready to be vice president, let alone president? And fine, go ahead and tie that in with Obama. Why, specifically, do you think he's unqualified to be president?
|
|