The fact that you believe they are doing this says little for your powers of observation and analysis.
It’s hyperbole. Check it out some time.
How so?
You accuse a group of utilizing sweeping generalizations, while at the same time using the term “Obamabot”, presumably to paint supporters of the president as mindless automotons … and there is no ringing of the irony bell in that pointy little head of yours?
With a little googling, I found this book excerpt mentioning socialism being considered an aspect of the Antichrist as far back as the 1870s ( an attitude common on the Right today ) :
So yes, it’s been a bogeyman for a very long time.
Funny. Obama doesn’t look Jewish.
He’s one of those sneaky Muslim Jews.
<borat>He must have shifted his shape!</borat>
And they all look alike, anyway, so what’s the diff?
Say it loud - “I’m Red and I’m proud!”
Interesting poll - only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism:
Scary…
Threats to one’s ideology usually are.
Wait I’m confused. I thought she believed in redistributing corporate oil profits to the people of Alaska.
Part of the problem here is that as the definition of “socialist” expands beyond “government control of production” and into “government use of public funds (usually raised via taxation) for public goods”, you’re going to find more people willing to label themselves socialist because the latter sounds not terribly unreasonable (especially since all governments at all times do it to some degree).
The problem with expanding the definition of socialism is it makes more people WILLING to be socialists.
The original intent, I’m sure, was to label increased taxation and services as “socialism” in order to tar it with the negative associations of public ownership of industries and production. Instead, it seems like the people doing this have managed to make socialism more attractive by tying it to an idea that has a lot of perceived good things going for it (like roads, public schools, national parts, etc).
Welcome to the dark side of redefinition of words to get your way. Suddenly you have a lot of people saying “hey, if ‘socialism’ means the government pays for more public services from taxes, they have a pretty damn good track record of that if you don’t cherry-pick failures. I guess I’m a socialist.”
Don’t even argue that. I point at the military, the interstate highway system, the post office, etc. I don’t care that they might not be perfect or as good as privately funded operations might be, because I’m Joe Average and what I see is that they’re working smooooth and AOK for the most part–I can drive anywhere, I can mail a letter across the country in two days for less than a buck, etc.
As noted in post #4, for the past 40 years the American right has been dishonestly redefining “socialism” to mean not only public ownership of the means of production, but also public provision of public goods.
And all they have achieved thereby is to make the word “socialism” less odious to the American people. 
As someone who spent the Reagan years insisting that I was a liberal, and that liberalism was a perfectly valid U.S. political tradition, I suppose that I’m now going to have to start doing the same with socialist.
If UHC is socialist, then, by golly, I’m a socialist.
I figure that by the year 2160, or possibly a bit later, you and I will be in sync. 
Try running on the Socialist ticket.
The biggest lie ever put over on the American populace is that the n word was is race based. It’s been my opinion that we’re all pretty much n’s. The epithet was handy in the prewar South as a way for poor whites (who were often worse off than the slaves) to think of themselves as better off than somebody. Keep dem tenant farmers full 'a pride.
In that we will both most likely be dead, yeah.
Not sure if I’d strictly define it as socialistic. But it is certainly anti-choice and anti-freedom.
Yeah, i know that if i were poor and without health insurance, i’d hate to lose the choice and the freedom to go bankrupt over a minor injury.