Obama is a Socialist.

[spurster]

Look at what those socialists Yoni is talking about are doing now.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/09/bu...my/09econ.html

U.S. May Take Ownership Stake in Banks

Article Tools Sponsored By
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS and MARK LANDLER
Published: October 8, 2008

WASHINGTON — Having tried without success to unlock frozen credit markets, the Treasury Department is considering taking ownership stakes in many United States banks to try to restore confidence in the financial system, according to government officials.

...

[101A]

"government of the people, by the people, for the people"

If the majority want socialism, the US becomes socialist.

That is the ideal of America. Government determined by the people, serving the people in the capacity they desire.

You think that is a tacit approval of complete wealth distribution and Socialixm/Marxism???

Is that what the you think?

Go read a Federalist paper, fool.

Read ANYTHING by John Locke!!

Direct Democracy was NEVER considered for this great nation; , the founders only wanted LAND OWNERS voting - and then wanted those choices filtered through representative and electors!

The whole damned Cons ution, and especially the Bill of Rights was designed to PROTECT individuals from the ing Government - meaning the tryranny of the majority!!!!

Good ing God you don't know what the you are talking about!!!!!

[101A]

Of course I understand. I'm not socialist in any form at the federal level. I'm very much a minimalist at the federal level. The socialist style programs are disgustingly inefficiently run, and their hybrid socialist/capitalist nature guarantees they will always cause problems.

That comment was in regards to "go find a ing boat." You denigrate it as not an American ideal, but the true ideal of America is that the people choose what the government has power over. An overwhelming number of people support welfare, wic, social security, medicare, etc. They support some forms of socialist enterprises within the government. The American ideal is that those programs continue to move forward.

If you don't want to do what the majority (and in many cases vast majority) want, YOU should "find a ing boat".

FAIL (again).


The United States Cons ution

Read that. (I'll wait)

[Soul_Patch]

Yoni watches too much Fox news...I sware to god, if i watched that channel even for an hour, id think the entire world was fixing to end tomorrow.

What is the deal with conservatives and fear mongering.

[Soul_Patch]

I think i found a good example of a day's worth of Fox News, summed up in about 2 minutes.

This is probably on repeat on yoni's ipod all day

[Findog]

Didn't McCain just propose buying up every single bad mortgage in the country?

Who's the socialist?

[101A]

Didn't McCain just propose buying up every single bad mortgage in the country?

Who's the socialist?

He did, but I think it's ALREADY in the bailout package.

We are ed.

[smeagol]

He did, but I think it's ALREADY in the bailout package.

We are ed.

We are ed, but not because of the bailout.

We are ed because of many years of "living on credit".

Party is over and the tab needs to be picked up. Bailout or no bailout.

[101A]

We are ed, but not because of the bailout.

We are ed because of many years of "living on credit".

Party is over and the tab needs to be picked up. Bailout or no bailout.

True that.

[Hook Dem]

Exactly, plus he's not going to abolish democracy. You can vote him out in 4 years if he's truly sucking.
Not to mention that Congress won't pass everything he proposes. Especially if it's staunch socialist programs.

LOL A democratic congress wont pass everything he proposes???? Get real!

[Hook Dem]

After reading the political forum, I have come to the conclusion that 101A is the most intellegent poster here!

[ElNono]

LOL A democratic congress wont pass everything he proposes???? Get real!

Of course not. Who do you think pay for those congressman's campaigns? Is not Obama or the government. Is the same lobby groups that pay Republicans. The same insurance companies that would get screwed over with Obama's health plan. The same rich folks that got the bailout passed. The same oil co's that push for more drilling and less alternative fuels.

He might be able to pass a thing or two by force of public opinion, but eventually we'll go back to same old tricks.

[Hook Dem]

Of course not. Who do you think pay for those congressman's campaigns? Is not Obama or the government. Is the same lobby groups that pay Republicans. The same insurance companies that would get screwed over with Obama's health plan. The same rich folks that got the bailout passed. The same oil co's that push for more drilling and less alternative fuels.

He might be able to pass a thing or two by force of public opinion, but eventually we'll go back to same old tricks.

LOL You truly don't understand what a democratic controlled congress would do. Vote your conscience though!

[fyatuk]

Go read a Federalist paper, fool.

Read ANYTHING by John Locke!!

Direct Democracy was NEVER considered for this great nation; , the founders only wanted LAND OWNERS voting - and then wanted those choices filtered through representative and electors!

The whole damned Cons ution, and especially the Bill of Rights was designed to PROTECT individuals from the ing Government - meaning the tryranny of the majority!!!!

Good ing God you don't know what the you are talking about!!!!!

Actually, I know a great deal about what I'm talking about. The Cons ution designed the generic form of the government and vague lists of powers of each branch and didn't go too much into specifics.

It was purposely designed vague to allow for changing needs and desires by the American people. The founding fathers had their own opinions, as you point out, but they did NOT put it in the Cons ution. They knew times changed.

Get off your high horse. If you want to make an argument against socialism, start at the Tenth Amendment and force federal socialists to justify those programs under the powers enumerated within the Cons ution. There are several things that probably should have required an Amendment to become law. That's a much better argument than "Read the federalist papers!" or "It's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind".

You make your own argument worthless by bringing up the "right to vote" thing. That's another thing that was not defined in the Cons ution, ensuring that it was easy to change. Those people were brilliant in what they decided to make permanent and what to leave maleable.

The Founding Fathers wanted a government to represent the interests of the people. If you are arguing against that, you have a serious problem.

[ElNono]

LOL You truly don't understand what a democratic controlled congress would do. Vote your conscience though!

Excuse me? What party controls Congress right now? I thought it was the Democrats. We just had a major socialist bill in the 'bailout' there not 3 weeks ago. It wouldn't pass without Republican consent. Are you reading the news?

And I can't vote. Love being a spectator though!

[boutons_]

"It wouldn't pass without Republican consent"

but it DID pass with Repug consent. your point?

[ElNono]

"It wouldn't pass without Republican consent"

but it DID pass with Repug consent. your point?

Go back and read what we were arguing about. Then answer your own question.

[101A]

LOL A democratic congress wont pass everything he proposes???? Get real!

Look at both Carter and Clinton's presidencies: BOTH started with Dem. congresses; both got put in their place. Now, Obama comes from the Senate, and isn't some small-state southern Hick, but still; Pelosi won't cede all the power just because.

[Hook Dem]

Excuse me? What party controls Congress right now? I thought it was the Democrats. We just had a major socialist bill in the 'bailout' there not 3 weeks ago. It wouldn't pass without Republican consent. Are you reading the news?

And I can't vote. Love being a spectator though!

Wrong! The democrats could have passed it on their own but didn't because Madam Pelosi gave those ,who were in election contest, permission to vote against it! Politics at it's best! They didn't want to pass it on their own because an election is coming up!

[JoeChalupa]

Fact is that republicans including McCain voted for the bail out too.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

both parties are guilty. no such thing as almost pregnant.

[101A]

Actually, I know a great deal about what I'm talking about. The Cons ution designed the generic form of the government and vague lists of powers of each branch and didn't go too much into specifics.

It was purposely designed vague to allow for changing needs and desires by the American people. The founding fathers had their own opinions, as you point out, but they did NOT put it in the Cons ution. They knew times changed.

Get off your high horse. If you want to make an argument against socialism, start at the Tenth Amendment and force federal socialists to justify those programs under the powers enumerated within the Cons ution. There are several things that probably should have required an Amendment to become law. That's a much better argument than "Read the federalist papers!" or "It's not what the Founding Fathers had in mind".

You make your own argument worthless by bringing up the "right to vote" thing. That's another thing that was not defined in the Cons ution, ensuring that it was easy to change. Those people were brilliant in what they decided to make permanent and what to leave maleable.

The Founding Fathers wanted a government to represent the interests of the people. If you are arguing against that, you have a serious problem.

At least you mention the 10th ammendment...there's the rub, isn't it. If that wasn't used as toilet paper for the past 150 years; the discussion would be academic. That ammendment, alone, should have precluded the constant power grab that the federal govt. has been making ever since; and certainly would have made a Socialist, federal economy an academic discussion. If the founders wanted the Federal Govt. SO maleable, why did they include that? The consitution assumed a relatively weak govt. to help preside over the "United" States which had allied themselves. The Cons ution did not allow for what has happened; it simply has been ignored.

[101A]

Fact is that republicans including McCain voted for the bail out too.

""

[smeagol]

Fact is that republicans including McCain voted for the bail out too.

Fact is there is nothing wrong with voting for the bailout.

[fyatuk]

At least you mention the 10th ammendment...there's the rub, isn't it. If that wasn't used as toilet paper for the past 150 years; the discussion would be academic. That ammendment, alone, should have precluded the constant power grab that the federal govt. has been making ever since; and certainly would have made a Socialist, federal economy an academic discussion. If the founders wanted the Federal Govt. SO maleable, why did they include that? The consitution assumed a relatively weak govt. to help preside over the "United" States which had allied themselves. The Cons ution did not allow for what has happened; it simply has been ignored.

Yep, Lincoln, an otherwise exemplary man, killed the 10th Amendment for all intents and purposes. I said earlier in this thread that I, personally, prefer minimalism in terms of strength of the federal government. I'm a State's Rights Social Democrat.

I've asked federal socialists to justify those programs and they usually resort to justifying them under the "promote the general welfare" of the Preamble. I keep telling them that doesn't classify since the 10th Amendment refers to enumerated powers which are listed within the actual Articles, and not the Preamble which is nothing more than a mission statement. I'm still waiting for quality reasons to allow them on the federal level, without requiring an Amendment to enumerate those powers for the federal government (which shouldn't be hard to pass since public opinion is pretty much on the side of many of the current socialist programs).