We were talking about what you assume “Hillarycare” to have been, and your unsupported (and unsupportable) assertion that it’s “far left”. The use of the word “socialist” (which you also refuse to discuss further) is your own choice. Sheesh.
Check up a bit farther, Elvis. I provided a link to the definition I was using.
I hope you’re enjoying that house of mirrors. Perhaps you can find your way out someday.
Would you care to read my link and answer my question, or would you rather just post glib responses?
http://members.tripod.com/~GOPcapitalist/polsp.html
http://www.imuna.org/manual/app_a.html#S
Here’s a few more links, though I doubt you’ll read them. If you read these, can you honestly say that Hillarycare does not fit the definition of socialism?
**
But that’s true of any politician. During the last presidential debates, I got the impression that Bush was an isolationist. 9/11 changed all of that.
Getting elected cools one’s idealism quickly, once one discovers that there’s harsh resistance to the platform. In order not to totally alienate “the other side” you have to soften your stance.
**
Again, true of any politician. Calling kettles black is standard for every pot who runs for office.
**
Again, this is something rather common. I used to work for a state agency. When the new govenor took office, all of the people appointed by the last govenor lost their jobs-- all of them career civil servants with families to support. They weren’t even really angry about it. They knew what would happen if their candidate lost. That’s just the way it is.
Now, as to whether that’s the way it should be, is another question entirely.
**
Playing devil’s advocate, it may have been that they believed the charges to be completely valid. Just because they proved to be untrue does not necessarily make it a “cover up.”
**
Unless Jesus runs for office, I doubt highly we’ll ever find a politician with no dirty secrets.
Maybe, just maybe, they WEREN’T politicians?
Just asking…
Meh, I’m sure someone will claim the loaves and the fishes was an accounting trick.
LA, you’ve stuck yourself in and endless DO loop here - applying a word and challenging others about its meaning. Note, also, that you have mysteriously dropped your use of the word “far” - but that’s sort of the point, unfortunately. The popular will was, and is, largely behind what she was starting to do - and you can call it whatever you like as long as you don’t call it extreme. And, you can condemn such an approach if you like on a policy basis, but not by singling out a person you happen to hate as thereby creating a reason for such a special hatred. All you did is throw a few words around obviously intended as invective. We value thought and reasoning here.
Get it now? My patience with you is through, so I hope so.
Your patience with me is through? If that doesn’t deserve a big fat :rolleyes:, then I don’t know what does.
First off, I’d like you to point out to me where in this thread I said or implied that I hate Hillary Clinton.
Second, I suggest you read Sam Stone’s second post in this thread (I would have said reread, but I don’t think you’re really reading anything that anyone in this thread is saying). His examples illustrate why your “if it’s popular, then it’s not extreme” idea is ludicrous.
Third, all I’ve been trying to say this entire time is that Hillary is not centrist. Let me say that one more time so it will hopefully sink into your thick skull: Senator Hillary Clinton is not centrist.. Hillarycare is an excellent example of this. It is a highly socialistic idea, which is a far left (there, I used it again) idea, showing how far from the center she actually is. BTW, I linked to Dictionary.com’s definition of socialistic quite a while ago, which is the defintion I’ve been using. This just further shows that you’re not actually reading this thread.
Finally on a personal note, I don’t think you and I have ever crossed paths before, but I can now see why you’ve been pitted so many times.
Even if her health plan was far left… so what? Does that make it bad or something?
Clinton’s plan was probably pretty mild compared to what we already have in Canada, and we haven’t become devotees of Marx and Engels.
Well, most of us.
In any case, the U.S. is a sufficiently wealthy nation that it must be possible to extend basic medical care to all citizens without stomping all over capitalism. personally, I favour the so-called “two-tier” approach, where basic care is extended to everyone, but more elaborate treatments can be paid for by individuals.
I never said it made it or her bad. All I said is that it makes her not a centrist.
What precisely has health care to do with ownership of means of production?
Methinks the one who didn’t read your links was you.
My opinion is that one issue doesn’t make you left-leaning or right-leaning, much less far left or right.
I’m what would normally be called centrist (although GWB makes me look otherwise) and I support socialized medicine. I also support gun owners and small dogs… does this make me a member of the republican mainstream or a PETA member?.
Where you fit on the right/left scale is determined by adding all you views together and dividing by two… sort of.
Okay, I obviously read the second link wrong. I thought it spoke about redistribution of wealth.
You got me there.
Following your arguments, the Roman Empire was a socialist system, because wealth was redistributed by means of -dare I say the word- taxes. That alone should demonstrate the absurdity of seeing redistribution of wealth as THE key characteristic of socialism.
Here’s what Merriam Webster has to say. You will find it very enlightening:
Main Entry: so·cial·ism
Pronunciation: 'sO-sh&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1837
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
As such, you hopefully see that not redistribution of wealth, but rather ownership and administration of means of production and distribution of goods is the key.
I was under the impression that the Clinton health care plan would have grouped Americans into purchasing blocs to get group rates from private insurers. Am I right on this? That sounds considerably less socialistic that a single-payer system.
I would characterize the (economic) Center as favoring the optimal level of socialism.
If you favor school vouchers, you’re solidly on the right, and yet you’re a socialist! Not as big a socialist as one who favors the current system, but a bigger socilaist than one who would charge admission at the schoolhouse door.
Maybe the breakdown goes something like this:
0% - 10% socialism = Far Right
10% - 20% socialism = Right
20% socialism = Center
20% - 30% socialism = Left
> 30% socialism - Far Left
Maybe by US standards, but you’d probably find a European conservative at about where you classify left. It was a conservative who cointed the phrase “social market” -and developed the underlying system in Germany
OliverH, I want to thank you for squashing my ignorance as to what socialism really is.
Since you seem to be a shoot-from-the-hip kind of guy, maybe you will answer a question which I posed to ElvisL1vis a several times, yet which he failed to answer.
Do you believe Hillary Clinton to be a centrist?
That was not your question. You asserted that she’s “far left” and a “socialist”, with some vehemence, and I said she is not - apparently you now agree.
But since you’re asking this new question, I’ll answer that yes, universal health care is in the centrist range.