It's much easier and much more to the point to just say socialist. I could use Marxist if you prefer.

 

First, these words aren’t synonymous. “Communist” isn’t either.

 

Then lets talk about the issues:

 

Obama wants healthcare centralized in the government.

 

Obama wants government-required retirement plans mandatory on all employers and government matching funds, presumably fueled by government taxation.

 

He has discussed federalizing education.

 

He has called for the redistribution of wealth.

 

He wants to penalize what he calls excessive profits with punitive taxation by the government, and presumably the government gets to determine what they consider excessive.

 

TB&G, the dude is a socialist. That's not a scare word, its a definition of the issues.

 

How do these four issues (I’m omitting the federalism issue) make him a socialist? Is four the magic number of non-conservative issues needed to be marked a socialist? Should these issues be debated on their own merits, or should they always be lumped into a single term that isn’t to be debated? What term, then, should we use for a person who advocates the undoing of the market and nationalization of the economy?

First, these words aren’t synonymous. “Communist” isn’t either.

 

 

 

How do these four issues (I’m omitting the federalism issue) make him a socialist? Is four the magic number of non-conservative issues needed to be marked a socialist? Should these issues be debated on their own merits, or should they always be lumped into a single term that isn’t to be debated? What term, then, should we use for a person who advocates the undoing of the market and nationalization of the economy?

C'mom Habib! This guy is an out and out socialist. Anybody who starts talking about nationalizing parts of the public realm is a socialist. Is every name a bad name? Or are there intentions only good until you apply a name to them?

I'm quoteing this twice because you addressed why you didn't like the use of the work do describe Obama but you didn't say anything that would lead me to believe that it was an inaccurate label.

 

Maybe you have such objections to the use of the word because you are fearful that if Americans learn what I believe to be his real leanings they won't vote for him.

 

You can quote it however many times you want...I prefer substance to labels. I am not fearful of anything such as you mention. I'd just like to see issues discussed without the socialist labeling fear-mongering tactic.

Because I'd rather focus on the issues rather than use words for the purpose of trying to make one fearful without knowing the issues.

 

Then your views are socialistic. This country was founded on hard work with no government assistance. With recent times we have become a country that is willing to help out people, but not to the point were government is in charge of our lives to the point freedom is lost. That is the view of the left of the Democractic Party, that is socialism, control of the economy, your money through taxation and having people dependent on government instead of theirselves.

 

My above quote shows my socialist views? Prefering focusing on the issues to labeling makes my views socialist? Please tell me how.

Then lets talk about the issues:

 

Obama wants healthcare centralized in the government.

 

Obama wants government-required retirement plans mandatory on all employers and government matching funds, presumably fueled by government taxation.

 

He has discussed federalizing education.

 

He has called for the redistribution of wealth.

 

He wants to penalize what he calls excessive profits with punitive taxation by the government, and presumably the government gets to determine what they consider excessive.

 

TB&G, the dude is a socialist. That's not a scare word, its a definition of the issues.

 

I don't debate any of those issues that you discuss. I'd say they are pretty accurate. My problem is the continual use of the label socialist that gets thrown around in P/R. It's overused...why? My only response to that is fear-mongering that some people like to do.

I know you guys left the original topic in the dust quite some time ago, but for the record, my opinion is that what John McCain said vs. what Mrs. Obama said are totally apples and oranges.

I know you guys left the original topic in the dust quite some time ago, but for the record, my opinion is that what John McCain said vs. what Mrs. Obama said are totally apples and oranges.

 

Guilty...sorry for being part of the problem on the thread-jacking.

I don't debate any of those issues that you discuss. I'd say they are pretty accurate. My problem is the continual use of the label socialist that gets thrown around in P/R. It's overused...why? My only response to that is fear-mongering that some people like to do.

 

Ok, then you come up with a word that describes his political ideology and philosophy and I will use that. How about "Obamism?"

The dictionary defines socialist as an advocate or supporter of socialism. Socialism is defined as, any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

It looks like a fair title for him. If it is scary to people they should look into his politics. But maybe that is what the Democrats don’t want people to do.

Ok, then you come up with a word that describes his political ideology and philosophy and I will use that. How about "Obamism?"

 

Hearsay...you are missing the point! You don't call him a socialist every time you mention his name! I actually don't recall you using the word at all.

Hearsay...you are missing the point! You don't call him a socialist every time you mention his name! I actually don't recall you using the word at all.

 

I do, and will continue to do so. I feel it's part of my duty as a voting citizen of this country to make sure everyone knows exactly who their voting for. If that means I have to call Obama a Socialist every time he comes up in conversation, then so be it.

I don't debate any of those issues that you discuss. I'd say they are pretty accurate. My problem is the continual use of the label socialist that gets thrown around in P/R. It's overused...why? My only response to that is fear-mongering that some people like to do.

 

If it's accurate then how is it fear mongering?

Hearsay...you are missing the point! You don't call him a socialist every time you mention his name! I actually don't recall you using the word at all.

 

Again if accurate why not use it? If it's who he is then shouldn't he proudly wear the label?

 

If the use of a word that accurately describes a candidate can be described as fear mongering then maybe, just maybe we should be afraid of the candidate.

 

I know the thought of an Obama presidency scares me.

It's fear-mongering if you use a word that historically has a negative connotation to it - one that many who are less educated do not understand. It's fear-mongering if you make a candidate seem one dimensional by using the same word over and over and over.

 

I am more than willing to consider the issues. I just don't like the use of scare tactics.

I have noticed that most Republican politicians desperately want to be identified as conservatives. Most extremely liberal Democrats want to be known as "progressives," liberal Democrats prefer the label "moderate," even though they are not.

 

The only elected national government representative that does not run from the "socialist" label is Vermont's Bernie Sanders. Other socialists, like Maxine Waters, insist on being identified as "progressives."