With DeLay, the question is, “What kind of an asshole isn’t he?” He pretty much runs the asshole gamut.
First person to post a goatse link gets slapped!
DeLay’s an asshole, but he’s not a very smart one, as everyone knows.
Well, that’s a slightly different kettle. The OP’s report is of someone being accused of “secretly” being Marxist. If you simply call someone socialist, it’s a less murky accusation; presumably you’re basing on the same positions and actions that everyone else can see, and everyone has the ability to judge for themselves how accurate the charge is.
Senator Clinton has done some things and proposed others that might fairly be called socialistic. Her American Health Choices Plan will cover every American - 47 million currently uninsured people. That’s certainly fair to characterize as socialistic. Whether that makes her a socialist is for the reader to decide.
So you would think, but it ain’t necessarily so.
I don’t really want to regurgitate somebody else’s idiocy, but as you say there’s quite a gap between “socialistic” and “socialist.” And I’m not talking about people saying her health care plan has socialistic elements, which it does, like many other government programs. I’m talking about somebody who said she was a socalist who was going to take over the media and throw her opponents in jail if elected. She hadn’t done anything to indicate she was going to do that, because she was hiding her true nature until she gets elected, but apparently it’s just obvious that she’ll do those things. She did have Vince Foster bumped off, after all.
I hear now that Obama’s actual name is Barack Muhammad Hussein Obama, at least acording to some right-wing nut cases. I guess the Hussein middle name by itself wasn’t enough to whip the sheep into a frenzy.
Some 'tard named Bill Cunningham, “B” list talk radio bottom feeder
No, sir. Just because socialists would enthusiastically endorse it (so far as it goes, art of the possible and all that) does not make it a socialistic program. If it maintains any role for the health insurance companies, if it even allows for their survival, it arguably is not. As Michael Moore pointed out prior to the Iowa Caucus, Edwards is the only front-runner who wholeheartedly endorses a single-payer system (and even that is not terribly socialistic compared with, say, Britain’s National Health system, and Britain is by no means a socialist country).
Obama and HRC are actually rather vanilla-bourgeois by comparison.
That’s just silly. Everyone knows that the secret Marxists are infiltrating the Republican party. The Democratic party is full of secret Nazis.
Frenzied sheep? What a weird image. I don’t think I’m going to sleep well tonight.
I say we sent DeLay a copy of John Birch Society Blues.
So, is Medicare socialistic in your book? And Mitt must be a Marxist also, considering what he signed into law in Massachusetts. Who knew?
So . . . there’s no use trying to sell you any? 
Sure, Medicare is socialistic, in that it tends towards a system in which assets are subject to social control rather than individual determination or market forces.
Your second sentence makes two leaps. It switches from socialism to Marxism, and it switches from a program which has elements of the philosophy to the proponent of that program wholly adopting that philosophy. In other words, the distinction I was careful to maintain in previous posts, you have either ignored, misunderstood, or deliberately shat upon.
Mitt Rommeny may well have signed a program into law that had socialist elements to it, or could be fairly characterized as socialistic, without being a socialist, just as Hilary Clinton can support programs that have socialist elements or could be fairly characterized as socialistic without herself being a socialist.
I have to disagree with the second half of that sentence. In his efforts to secure a permanent majority for the Republicans, DeLay managed to dance on the fine line between legal and illegal activity for an awful long time before he stepped over and got caught. It takes some smarts to do that.
You wrote
if you are saying that anyone advocating anything that you would call socialistic (which seems to be anything less than a totally free market) might be called a socialist - depending on the reader, you would need to apply the same insinuation you applied to Clinton to Mitt, Obama, and close to the entire US congress. (Ron Paul might be pure.) My comment associating Mitt with Marxism is hyperbole, of course. I was twitting DeLay. I know you disagree with his statement, but he is in your party.
But your comment on Hillary (who I don’t support) sounds a lot like the comments I heard in my youth - Sen. X supports some of the same things the Russkies do. If he is a Commie is up for the reader to decide. Only a particularly brain dead reader could conclude that she is a socialist based on any evidence I know of.
I would just like to make it clear for any future discussions that when I use the term “socialism”, I mean “government ownership of the means of production”. I see the term being bandied about for things like medicare, when that is actually a form of wealth redistribution. Socialists may or may not redistribute wealth.
The Ba’ath Party, for example, was socialist in Iraq. But Saddam kept for himself the vast majority of wealth from production. Very little was redistributed.
Philosophically, socialism is based on the principle of denying the validity of property rights. Wealth redistribution is based on the principle of recognizing the validity of coercion in the pursuit of egalitarianism.
Tom DeLay is a kettle of ass.
I can’t believe anyone cares enough what he thinks enough to pit him for it.
Isn’t ANY government spending “socialistic” under that definition? All spending by a democratically elected body funded by taxation of any form takes assets from individual determination and spends them though a form of social control. It becomes a meaningless definition, doesn’t it?