23 States now have complete Republican control

a reply to: nwtrucker

There are always going to be power/money grabbers, whether they be Statists, Merchants or Lords. Especially when it comes to medicine. Desperate people, pay and since it looks bad to have people dying in the street from influenza and other easily treatable illnesses, the only way to get rich off it is to continue to charge ridiculous amounts of money (and yes research is very expensive and does require investment for vaccines etc but let's not fool ourselves that all the money is justified just because of that) and put the bill on the taxpayer ultimately. Single payer would bring about some cost decrease... but I am tired, you deserve a much longer reply... but it's going to have to wait lol.

a reply to: olaru12

P.S. Sorry 'bout all the cliches :-)

originally posted by: Kali74

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Can you please state what exactly, in explicit detail makes Harry Reid a Socialist?

I guess that's a no. Exactly as expected.
Goodnight.

Kali, I have just shown you Reid's position on health care and his desire for single-payer and instead of acknowledging that yes Reid endorses single payer, you insisted on the reasons why single payer would be a good thing. Great way to obfuscate the facts. I also posted where he stated he would retire wherever there was Universal health care and Cuba came to mind. If that doesn't tell you something....
but then Michael Moore declared the Cuban health system to be the best in the world, and went on to use the capitalist system to make mega bucks off his socialist ideals.
But then, most of the very public advocates of socialism do tend to be wealthy, and got that way with Capitalism.

The President, Michael Moore, Harry Reid, and Hillary all know single-payer is part of Universal socialist health care.
news.investors.com...

Why people who advocate for one form of socialism or another refuse to admit it is anyone's guess. I think it's a technique to try to trick people and obfuscate the agenda

A lot of right wingers love to throw around the term "socialist" to describe anything they don't like or don't understand, without really understanding what socialism is. Sharing a belief that Karl Marx shared does not make one a socialist, anymore than agreeing with a single passage in the bible makes one Christian. I am willing to bet that the vast majority of people have never actually lived in a socialist country, or a country that has a large amount of socialist influence or institutions. They only parrot back what their favorite pundit rants about, and that's the extent of their knowledge.

For the record, I have lived a total of 10 years in Europe, which has both socialist countries, as well as mixed bag economies/governments that incorporate socialist institutions along side free market/capitalist ones, and the picture is far different than is often portrayed by both the left and right.

Anyway, Republicans have taken over congress. So are we to look forward to a repeat of the late 90's, when the right will spend all it's energy attacking the Democrat in the White House instead of doing anything useful? A congress more concerned about exposing the president's sex life than addressing the growing problems in this country and beyond? So basically, biz as usual. More Tea Party tantrums shutting down the government and blaming it on everyone else. More blind opposition of good ideas simply because they come from the other side. More mudslinging and vitrol directed at anyone who dares oppose them. Yawn.

Well, the right is always claiming they are for small government and less interference, yet they are constantly obsessed with regulating what goes on inside people's bedrooms and bodies. So, it will be interesting to watch what they do over the next few years. 4 states and Washington D.C. have legalized marijuana, something the right has blindly and rabidly opposed for decades. Many more states have legalized gay marriage. Gay marriage and legal marijuana were voted on and passed by the people in those states. Conservatives are always claiming to support states rights. So, I am curious to see if they are going to put their money where their loud mouths are and accept the choices of the people in those states, or do what they always have: fight to overturn voter selected bills because those states have voted on things against the beliefs of the GOP. If the right starts attacking or trying to stop marijuana legalization, gay marriage, or birth control at the state level, then they will have established themselves as fascist hypocrites.

a reply to: Kali74

More

However, while disapproval of ObamaCare is very widespread, the critic camps are poles apart concerning what should be done. According to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Democratic Socialists of America, the Congressional Progressive Caucus, and other leading lights of the far Left, the real problem with ObamaCare is that it does not go far enough; the “solution,” they say, is to go all the way to socialized medicine. But they don’t have the conviction and courage to be that honest, so they say we must resurrect the “single payer/public option” alternative that was defeated during the 2009-2010 battle over ObamaCare in Congress. For millions of Americans, the terms “single payer” and “public option” do not carry the same negative connotations as “socialized medicine,” which, of course, is why they were adopted as code words.

www.thenewamerican.com...

So let's just be done with this issue already? I am getting tired of this business with advocates of socialism pretending it's not what it really is.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

A lot of right wingers love to throw around the term "socialist" to describe anything they don't like or don't understand, without really understanding what socialism is.

No, I'm sorry you are just completely wrong on this point. And we DO know what socialism is. We are throwing the word around because socialists have come out of the closet and are up front. And yes we DON'T like socialism. Period, end of story.

Well, the right is always claiming they are for small government and less interference, yet they are constantly obsessed with regulating what goes on inside people's bedrooms and bodies.

Don't care as long as you don't hurt other people doing your thing. Regulating stuff? That is Progressives who love Statism. They impose their views and ideologies on everyone and use government as force.
Progressives expanded the Police State, Progressives gave us TSL gropeville, Progressives have given us mandated school lunches everyone hates, Progressives gave us higher taxes, attacks on free speech, Progressives mandated purchasing expensive health insurance that now even fewer people can afford, Progressives have given us nationalized education with Common Core and data tracking of our children.

So pullease spare us the "republicans are fascist haters of women and gays" stuff.

From a certain ignorant and ill-informed viewpoint, the Presidential Veto is also a "made up power" since apparently, contrary to the Constitution and 223 years of American history, suddenly for some reason the President of the United States is supposed to function like some sort of Congressional lapdog, only doing what the Congress explicitly tells him he may can do.

"Here, let me quote an extremist Republican blog to explain what socialism is."

LOL, some of you guys, you just beat anything anyone's ever seen. What a hoot!

Words have meaning.

Socialism, for example, means 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. Dictionary.com

Another way of saying it: socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. (Wikipedia)

It doe's not mean "government social programs intended to help people."

It is not synonymous with the hackneyed "welfare state."

Take a basic online economics course or even a history course for goodness sake.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus



No, I'm sorry you are just completely wrong on this point. And we DO know what socialism is. We are throwing the word around because socialists have come out of the closet and are up front. And yes we DON'T like socialism. Period, end of story.

Obviously you people don't know or understand socialism, if you think single payer health care makes one "socialist". And of course, people always hate and fear what they do not understand. I do not like socialism, but that is because I actually understand what it is, and have lived in countries where a lot of socialism exists. And while I do not like socialism, it is certainly not the most evil form of government and economics in existence, nor is it the greatest threat to this country.

The most evil form of government, that leads to the most evil and sickest form of society, is, in my experience, theocracy. My experience in a theocratic society (my time spent in Saudi Arabia) was the worst, and is the form of government and social rule I fear the most in this country. People who scream about a nation or congress "ruled by god and the bible" are basically theocrats, and are cut from the same cloth theocrats in the Middle East are. Theocracy is dangerous because not only does it base it's rule on outdated mythologies with little to no basis in reality, it also seeks to create societies of faithful ignorance and fear. Theocracies also reject science and progress whenever it conflicts with the outdated stone age mores and doctrines of whatever faith they follow.

Socialism is where the state owns or controls all means of production. In socialist mixed economies and systems (like those in Europe, for example), the government has enormous reach and involvement in ways you could never mention.

Sorry, but if you think anything the democrats have done even remotely comes close to socialism, you really have no understanding of what socialism is. Even in my very liberal state (Seattle even had a real live socialist on its city council) we have nothing even close to what governments do in Europe. Not even in the same ball park.

The European countries I have lived in had universal healthcare, however, they also had very robust private medical industries right along side them that were not state run. If those systems were truly socialist, there would be no private healthcare. Or private anything, for that matter.

It seems we need to define basic terms:

A government is that system by which the power to control people and resources is maintained and administered. That power can be vested either in an individual (resulting in totalitarianism), a group (oligarchy) or in the community (democracy) or in officials appointed or elected by some or all of the community (republic).

It's ridiculous to state that anyone who believes in the system of American government that we've had in place all of our lives and indeed for 223 years is suddenly a "statist" merely for believing in the rule of law.

Paradoxically, we often see those who use these terms to denigrate others actively advocating for the government to enforce actions that they believe in.

This later is called Republicanism.

a reply to: Gryphon66

suddenly for some reason the President of the United States is supposed to function like some sort of Congressional lapdog, only doing what the Congress explicitly tells him he may can do.

No, in Reagan's famous words, "There you go again" bloviating an opinion which is not based in fact. This President has been remarkably vocal about his plan and desire to go around Congress and take action as he pleases. Since you have been busy tonight telling OTHERS to read the Constitution, I beg of you to do the same. You need to take your own advice and begin to understand the reason for separation of powers and checks and balances. The President has certain enumerated powers and so does Congress.
And no, our government is not suddenly statist. It has been a process whereby statists have used the system to get what they want through the legislative powers of Congress, through Executive Orders, and through judicial activism.
Progressives embraced the statist totalitarian model since Wilson.
The President himself stated how wonderful FDR was.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

We have elements of socialism in the US. It would be ludicrous to deny it. Just because we are not a full-blown socialist state doesn't mean elements of it aren't in place. I have posted many times about Fabian socialism, how it is implemented in increments.
I am truly sorry you don't understand that. Socialism uses other people's money. How do they get that money? Like Soros does, through the Capitalist system and taxing those who work to make a living.
Marx said that socialism is a bridge to communism. Please understand that there are shades of gray in between the black and white. Marxists know that socialism is the bridge between capitalism and communism.

Recognizing this, the early communists in Russia instituted what they called a "transitional" system. Socialism was established as a temporary bridge, to get the society from its prior feudal system to a future communist ideal.
But socialism actually has the opposite effect. Instead of reducing government, it establishes an all-powerful (and ever increasingly powerful) central government, a totalitarian system in which anyone suspected of dissent is imprisoned in a labor camp, usually never to be heard from again.

Such a government will never -- never -- hand over "power to the people." Once you've tasted raw, total power, you can't let go. It consumes you.


Read more: www.americanthinker.com...
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

The goal of socialism is communism.
Vladimir Lenin

www.brainyquote.com...

laissez-fairerepublic.com...


and now I'm done arguing with people who will not see.

originally posted by: ThirdEyeofHorus



Don't care as long as you don't hurt other people doing your thing. Regulating stuff? That is Progressives who love Statism. They impose their views and ideologies on everyone and use government as force.
Progressives expanded the Police State, Progressives gave us TSL gropeville, Progressives have given us mandated school lunches everyone hates, Progressives gave us higher taxes, attacks on free speech, Progressives mandated purchasing expensive health insurance that now even fewer people can afford, Progressives have given us nationalized education with Common Core and data tracking of our children.

So pullease spare us the "republicans are fascist haters of women and gays" stuff.

Ummm...say again? LMAO. Are you serious? "Progressives" gave us a police state? Now I know you can't be taken seriously, because you really have no clue what you are talking about.

1. It was a CONSERVATIVE government that created and touted the Patriot Act, one of the biggest violations of the constitution ever produced.

2. It was a CONSERVATIVE government that created the war on drugs, and the DEA. The War on drugs has destroyed more lives than the drugs themselves ever could, and the DEA is one of the most fascist agencies in existence.

3. It was a CONSERVATIVE president that attempted to create a constitutional amendment denying gay people the right to marry.

4. It was a CONSERVATIVE government that created and built up the War on Terror, another huge engine of personal rights violations.

So forgive me if I do not believe that the right is content to leave people be. Libertarians are the only party I know that truly believes in live and let live, and the only party that truly respects individual and state rights.

I'll start believing that conservatives do not hate gays, women, homeless, minorities, non-Christians, the poor, and science when they stop voting for, or promoting, policies and laws that are anti gay, anti women, anti-poor, anti-minority, anti-science, or exclusively pro Christian. Until then, I will continue to judge them based on their own actions, rhetoric, and platforms, which continue to be hate filled rants and assaults against everyone who is not a good American Christian.

Ronald Reagan, now there's a character, huh?

He issued 381 Executive Orders during his eight-year term more than any modern President except Eisenhower.

Approved the illegal sale of arms to Iran in order to provide illegal funds to rebel forces directly ignoring a Congressional mandate.

I am absolutely certain that the Constitution does not enumerate a power to the President to break the law.

Yet, Republicans hold up this man a some paragon of virtue and the founder of their modern party.

That actually makes a lot of sense to me, as Reagan also initiated the modern American debt, employed professional liars in his cabinet and administration, and should have been jailed for high crimes and misdemeanors.

If President Obama is guilty of crimes, he should be impeached and then tried for his crimes. If the Republicans don't have the guts or the courage of their convictions on Day One of their new Congress, they should stop the crap, get to work and do their danged jobs for a change.

Oh, by the way, someone mentioned FDR above ... who just happens to come in time after time as one of the top three most popular and influential Presidents, along with Washington and Lincoln. Reagan usually comes in 8th or 10th place or even lower. Historical Rankings of Presidents of the United States

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

Again, you prove my point. That you have zero understanding of socialism, beyond whatever you read in some conservative blog, or various quotes taken out of context. The fact that you say "socialism is using other people's money" shows your knowledge does not go beyond what some conservative pundit tells you is so. That you have not actually done any real research or study into it.

Socialism:

Socialism

In socialism, there is no "other people's money" because all money and means of production is state owned. Having socialist elements in a society does not make a society even remotely socialist. Anymore than celebrating Christmas makes a person religious. Having small, scattered numbers of socialists at the local level, or having some socialist beliefs, does not make one a socialist.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

You might be caught in the MSM/ultra-Academic endless loop trap.

a reply to: xuenchen

Alternatively,Skadi knows what words and concepts actually mean and others just think they can make stuff up as they go along.

You know, like Republican bloggers, pundits, lackeys ... I'm sure you know a few of them Xuenchen.

Here's the usual pattern: false or ignorant claim, bogus claim gets corrected, claimant weakly tries to discredit known facts, etc., claimant gets nailed down repeatedly with fact after fact and tries desperately to change the subject.

a reply to: ThirdEyeofHorus

I elaborated on single payer health care to show why it is not socialist. You continue to define a man as a socialist based on one single aspect that you incorrectly label. Is there something more that defines Harry Reid as a Socialist or not? It is you that employs obfuscation and on a continual basis at that. You choose to define Socialism as you have either been brainwashed to believe or choose to remain willfully ignorant of.

Have you ever thought to look back in history and examine the the writings and circumstances in which Socialism was born? Just a hint... you need to study, in depth and objectively, the French Revolution. Maybe I'll do a thread so that people can examine Socialism from it's birth and not what others, with their own motivations, bastardize it as.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

You some valid points. Yet label the right 'facist'.

Spend time fighting the President? LOL

Now there a piece of hypocrisy !

One only has to look at the Democrat tactics against any Republican President. Both Bushes, Reagan. How about Newt and Cheney. LMAO.

The clear cut advantage that the Dems have using the media as a Democrat mega-phone has kept far more lefties in
power than any 'right wing' tactic.

Despite that advantage, enough people saw the results of a largely unfettered left agenda and said 'no more'. The mandate IS to fight Obama's proclivity to by-pass congress with E.O.s and back door deals with the U.N., Isis, etc.

I agree with you that the 'socialist' label is overused.

Basic education and it's tradition, socialist by definition, hasn't been attacked by the right in any form whatsoever and is largely supported.

But honestly, The U.S. version of Socialism is far more intrusive than any European equivalent.

The European version evolved over time.

The U.S. version is being rammed down our throats by a Federal gov't that 'knows' we need to be ruled over whether we like it or not.

None of Obama and Co.'s efforts where ever mandated beyond 'change'. The Affordable Care Act, Immigration issues, on and on.

You are now paying the price for that arrogance.

Fight Obama? YES. That's the mandate....Deal with it.

Public education is "socialist" now?

God in heaven.

And straight out of Rush Limbaugh's mouth: the Congress wasn't elected to govern, or to work for the People, but merely to "fight Obama."

....

Magnificent.