I didn’t call it socialized medicine. Did you see those parentheses? Nonetheless, socialized medicine and an individual mandate are two completely different things.
They are, but you just said the health care reform law - which is based on proposals advanced by conservatives in the '90s, like the individual mandate - is an incremental step toward socialized medicine.
If you lived in Zimbabwe as a white farmer, I would not be surprsed if you referred to the black power structure doing evil things to you and (white) people like you. That is a better analogy than your vague reference to “blacks that run the governments.” There is a very specific context to his words that you seem intent of ignoring.
Have you any examples of Wright talking about whites, in general, as superior to or inferior to blacks? Have you any examples of Wright drawing a moral comparison between black people and white people? So far, we have his single speech ranting about the actions of the people who have run this country for 250 years and its impact on people of color.
I think you are eager to find issues where they do not really exist.
White supremacists like William Luther Pierce? Or White supremacists like Strom Thurmond? Pierce would be a troubling association. Thurmond, not so much, and only if the person echoed Thurmond on matters of race.
You have still failed to demonstrate that Obama shares any of the socialist goals of people with whom he worked, (often in rather tangential ways), while he was a community organizer.
Obama’s version of “spread the wealth” is pretty mainstream for the Democratic Party going back to Wilson and, probably to Cleveland. I don’t consider Grover Norquist to be a reliable judge of who is actually a Socialist and you have not provided any examples of Obama’s tainted ideas. Citing “socialized medicine,” (that just happens to remain administered by private, for-profit corporations), is simply not factually based. We’re back to yelling “commie” in the 1950s.
You are aware that the health care reform law is more than just the individual mandate…right? As a separate issue the individual mandate is a bad idea no matter who favors it. Are you trying to prove something by stating that republicans came up with the idea? Most republicans are, ultimately, heading down the same path as the democrats…just at a slower rate.
I am. Are you saying the other parts are socialized medicine? The bill also includes a requirement that insurers spend 85 percent of their premium revenue on care, a stipulation that insurers can’t kick people off because of pre-existing conditions, allows kids to stay on their parents’ plans until they’re 26, and creates public exchanges for purchasing health insurance. Are you saying those are incremental steps toward socialized medicine? The most controversial and “socialized” part is the mandate- to the point that Obama was opposed to it before being elected, and came around to the idea because his staff looked to the example of Massachusetts and was convinced the mandate was the only way to make it work. And the mandate was proposed repeatedly by conservatives in the '90s and even the late '80s.
I was pointing out that what you said about the health care law is ridiculous. If you want to argue that both parties have socialist tendencies, feel free - you hinted that’s the direction you’re going in but didn’t use the word “socialist” - but I don’t think many people outside of the vestiges of the Tea Party will find it convincing.
Commies! Err, I mean…SOCIALISTS!
I was thinking more of the federal subsidies, medicaid expansion, government imposed minimum standards, elimination of copay for certain benefits, guaranteed issue, and all the other government controls on the industry. All premium increases must be approved by HHS. This is close to government takeover by another name.
I don’t think it is ridiculous at all. How much more would the government have to be involved before you would call it an incremental step toward socialized medicine?
I think it speaks volumes for the argument that you can’t actually bring yourself to call it a government takeover or socialized medicine even though you evidently want to.
I think you can call anything an incremental step toward anything if you try hard enough. It expands Medicare, but for the most part this is just additional regulation on the health insurance industry.
And what, exactly, is that context? Do you really think a comment is racist only if it specifically draws a moral comparison between races or judges one race as superior? If I say that black people are stupid I have not drawn a comparison between black people and anyone else…the comparison is implied. Are you a racist for saying black people like fried chicken and watermelon? You know, yet will not admit, that many comments are racist without drawing a comparison between races.
Hmmm…I thought you would have used Byrd as a better example. Pierce would be a troubling association because he held these views until the day he died…much like Wright holds his racist views currently. You are trying to compare that with someone who had a different view 40 years ago?
You are simply in denial. You absolutely refuse to accept that a person can be judged by the company he keeps while assuming, falsely, that the radicals in his life are tangential to the development of his political philosophy. As I mentioned upthread Obama appointed Van Jones as his green jobs Czar even though he is a self described Communist who considers environmentalism to be a vehicle for social justice (among many other kooky ideas). I also mentioned Carol Browner. Do you think those were both accidents?
I think your response speaks volumes for my argument that you have nothing of substance to say.
I don’t need to be in denial. Your claims are based on loose associations and twisting things out of context.
You are going to extraordinary lengths to portray a rather middle of the road capitalist who is well inside the boundaries of typical Democratic Party lines for policies regarding social, political, or military programs as some sort of wild-eyed revolutionary because he happened to know a few people, at work or in church, who were farther to the Left than your comfort zone can tolerate, even though his behavior demonstrates that whatever influence they might potentially have had on him seems to have failed to stick.
Certainly, a person “can” be judged by the company one keeps–however it is a pretty poor method of judgment when all the other evidence points in a different direction.
This is close to being an incremental step toward an argument. 
If you were wondering, I have noticed that you did not respond to this:
So do you think both parties are socialist?
Or this:
Any response to how regulation on health insurance is a government takeover? Or do you have some more witticisms?
You didn’t ask a question…you just made a statement. Don’t think I didn’t notice that you failed to respond at all to my post upthread.
No, I think both parties have statist tendencies. One more than the other. The end result is very similar though.
If government can completely control an industry then there is very little difference between this and a government takeover. If Uncle Sam can tell you what you can charge, what you must offer, and who you must do business with, then what is the real difference. Industry becomes a tool of the state.
To which you didn’t respond.
If the end result is so similar and both parties have the same tendencies, what is the relevance all of this nonsense about Obama being connected to Marxists and having socialist tendencies?
It’s not completely controlling the industry. Requiring an industry to meet specific conditions is nothing like complete control. The government sets standards for all kinds of industries without controlling them.
Would be good if banking were more tightly regulated than potato chips.
Whatever his relationships before he was in office, I don’t see how anyone can look at Obama’s decisions in office and see anything (as far as policy goes) other than a pretty conventional Democrat. What has he done that Bill Clinton would not have done?
I hope the Republicans are pinning their hopes for the 2012 election on bringing up Obama’s association with Rev. Wright. That and where Obama was born. Keep harping on those crucial points guys!
Have you been following this thread? The point I originally made is that the press didn’t seem all that interested in looking into any story that would damage Obama’s reputation. Let’s face it…Obama has to be the least vetted presidential candidate in recent memory. The press dragged their collective feet on any unflattering stories and any damaging information was waved away as “not newsworthy”.
Yes, the end result may be the same but one party is sprinting toward the precipice while the other party is walking slowly. One party may be convinced to turn around but the other cannot be convinced.
Forcing a company to do business with people and dictating how much they must spend on care, while forcing them to ask permission from the feds to raise their rates. That may sound like regulation to you but it sounds like control to me.
Yes, and we had a protracted discussion of how extremely incorrect that was because many damaging stories have received extensive coverage.
Right, ‘sprinting’- although you said a couple of posts ago that Obama can only go incrementally. My question is that if the entire party is moving in this direction (as you’ve said a couple of times), why do Obama’s relationships with Wright or Jones matter?
I can see that.
The Republicans have enough ammo by highlighting Obama’s failures over the past few years. What can Obama run on really? I’ve read the only thing they can do is run an extremely negative campaign. We’ll see…