Calling 'health care' a socialist move proves my point. It's a bleeping GIVEAWAY to PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES. Calling is 'socialist' doesn't make it so. You could call me a rhododendron and it doesn't mean I'll start pollinating.

Originally Posted by djplong

Calling 'health care' a socialist move proves my point. It's a bleeping GIVEAWAY to PRIVATE INSURANCE COMPANIES. Calling is 'socialist' doesn't make it so. You could call me a rhododendron and it doesn't mean I'll start pollinating.

You do not understand "socialism" thats your problem.

For Bucco,Cashman and others....A question was asked and I answered it simple as that. It does not matter where my information comes from its FACT that cannot be argued or debated. You can't attack the FACTS so you attack the messenger....good strategy.

Originally Posted by waynet

For Bucco,Cashman and others....A question was asked and I answered it simple as that. It does not matter where my information comes from its FACT that cannot be argued or debated. You can't attack the FACTS so you attack the messenger....good strategy.

It matters as a fact of LAW Wayne when you use copyrighted material and do not attribute the author, so as always you are blowing smoke...it does matter and it is a firm violation of this forums regulations !

so a question is asked ,I answer it,you don't like the answer so now your going to accuse me of plagerism. Talking about changing the threads subject!
And by the way I never said this was my list. First my source is no good now my facts are no good because I do not give a source. Why should I give a source when you don't like it anyway?

Originally Posted by waynet

so a question is asked ,I answer it,you don't like the answer so now your going to accuse me of plagerism. Talking about changing the threads subject!
And by the way I never said this was my list. First my source is no good now my facts are no good because I do not give a source. Why should I give a source when you don't like it anyway?

Just check the rules of THIS board and be careful and then drop it !!!

Originally Posted by cashman

You do not understand "socialism" thats your problem.

From dictionary.com:

Socialism - 1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

The health care package doesn't seem like community ownership of the insurance companies who are going to be the beneficiaries.

Originally Posted by djplong

From dictionary.com:

Socialism - 1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

The health care package doesn't seem like community ownership of the insurance companies who are going to be the beneficiaries.

You do not understand what socialism is.

Originally Posted by djplong

From dictionary.com:

Socialism - 1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

The health care package doesn't seem like community ownership of the insurance companies who are going to be the beneficiaries.

I would think that you could be "SOCIALIST" in your politics and thinking without meeting the true definition of the dictionary !!!!

Originally Posted by Bucco

I would think that you could be "SOCIALIST" in your politics and thinking without meeting the true definition of the dictionary !!!!

I'm not asking this just to be contrary, Bucco...but how could your politics be socialist, yet not be supportive of the definition of what a socialist is?

If you want to replace "socialist" with "liberal" or "progressive", I can see how that could be. But political ideologies like "socialism" or "communism" are not interchangeable with either of those terms.

The Liberal and progressive agenda is Socialism.

As I have said before it is very strange that Democrats do not understand this.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

I'm not asking this just to be contrary, Bucco...but how could your politics be socialist, yet not be supportive of the definition of what a socialist is?

If you want to replace "socialist" with "liberal" or "progressive", I can see how that could be. But political ideologies like "socialism" or "communism" are not interchangeable with either of those terms.

Only you would use sematics to defend this President !

Originally Posted by cashman

The Liberal and progressive agenda is Socialism.

As I have said before it is very strange that Democrats do not understand this.

Originally Posted by Bucco

Only you would use sematics to defend this President !

If the objective is simply to inflame parties in the discussion, on both sides, keep on using whatever terms you wish to describe candidates, elected officials or legislation.

But if anyone wants to conduct a somewhat intelligent debate, at the very least the correct terms should be used, terms that can be defined and represent reasonably accurately the conduct of officials or parties or the laws they enact.

Originally Posted by Villages Kahuna

If the objective is simply to inflame parties in the discussion, on both sides, keep on using whatever terms you wish to describe candidates, elected officials or legislation.

But if anyone wants to conduct a somewhat intelligent debate, at the very least the correct terms should be used, terms that can be defined and represent reasonably accurately the conduct of officials or parties or the laws they enact.

I have never called the President a socialist ! I HAVE and will continue to do so, point out that ALL....100% of his training and experience has been steeped in socialist causes and people !

Not my intent to inflame.....just tired of the defense of this man who with his congress is causing stituations that will require ANY congress of any ilk to spend session after session to correct ALL FOR POLITICAL GAIN !

Anyone intelligent who looks at What Obama is saying and doing
will come to the conclusion that he is moving the Country Quickly
and ideologically toward Socialism and the Democrats are blindly
assisting him by giving him the votes he needs to do so.