A new prospective--I am happy with any group that is against the switch to Socialism! [Archive]

carter08

10-19-2009, 05:20 PM

please tell me where i said someone struggling to pay their bills should be responsible for the poor.

someone with an over abundance money should be kind enough to help out and not complain if it isn't hurting their ability to live pleasurably.

also, please tell me where in my post there was any semblance of seriousness.

the theory of socialism, the idea that we are all equal and work to help everyone and not just ourselves is great. but ya know, people are selfish. some people are lazy and won't work, some people want to keep all their wealth to themselves, some people struggle to stay afloat. i wish we could have a perfect form of socialism, but we can't. the end.

Pick6

10-19-2009, 05:27 PM

Perfect solution, get a job, or 2 if you need, maybe even 3. I've done it. It sucks, but it can be done with out hand outs. I want to keep my money and spend it the way I see fit, not how someone else see's fit.

wimbo_pro

10-19-2009, 05:33 PM

Socialism runs counter to everything that made this country great. Even in theory, its a disgusting thought.

JasperDog94

10-19-2009, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by carter08
someone with an over abundance money should be kind enough to help out and not complain if it isn't hurting their ability to live pleasurably. I agree. The problem is the government cannot mandate this. In most socialist countries the ones ensuring "fairness" seem to live a better lifestyle than everyone else. Funny how that works.

We are all created with equal rights. Some just choose to do more with those rights. To be sure life is not fair, but you can either complain about it and ask for a handout or do something about it yourself. I choose the latter.

rockdale80

10-19-2009, 07:26 PM

Originally posted by wimbo_pro
Socialism runs counter to everything that made this country great. Even in theory, its a disgusting thought.

Unless you are benefitting from it then it is ok, right?

Gobbla2001

10-19-2009, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by carter08

someone with an over abundance money should be kind enough to help out and not complain if it isn't hurting their ability to live pleasurably.

hell yes :clap:

But on their own... I loved your key words in that sentence: "Kind enough"... no "forced enough"...

I know there has been discussion about people believing the stories of the bible recently... most do, but some believe that the stories may be made-up, only to be used as lessons... well here's a lesson:

God told Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit, and they did...

Moral of the story? God either knew they might or that they would, but he left that decision up to them...

My step-dad was laid off one month ago from a company he worked at for 18 years... That job was pretty much all he knew, it would be hard for him to do anything different I think... but three weeks ago, after submitting his resume at about 20 different places, he called up an old customer he had at his previous job and took a job for WAY less money doing something he had no clue how to do... but he took it just to make some security money until he could find something better... Just today he went into work and that old customer (now his current boss) told him he had an interview later today for a different division of the plant... he interviewed and now is most-likely going to be a supervisor making more money than he did at his last job of 18 years, with a pretty large ceiling... there's something to be said about people who just flat out work, even if it's for way less and something they know little about...

thing is he didn't have to work now... he was just laid off a month ago and had 4 months of severence pay left from his old company... he could have sat on his ass for 5 months making his normal salary until it ran out, then wondering what to do next...

but he's not the kind to sit on his ass and wait to win the lotto while not even buying a ticket...

Gobbla2001

10-19-2009, 07:46 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Unless you are benefitting from it then it is ok, right?

decent money for everyone-wise, bailout-wise, "fair"ness-wise socialism works a great deal...

tell me where freedom works in socialism and I'll sell you a cold-beer in hell...

Move The Chains

10-19-2009, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Pick6
Perfect solution, get a job, or 2 if you need, maybe even 3. I've done it. It sucks, but it can be done with out hand outs. I want to keep my money and spend it the way I see fit, not how someone else see's fit. X2.... only problem with that right now is.... you can hardly get 1 job... much less 2 or 3.

turbostud

10-19-2009, 08:33 PM

http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A9G_bF4NE91KC6oAopKjzbkF/SIG=12q8f1tfv/EXP=1256088717/**http%3A//firstfriday.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/socialism_explained.jpg

rockdale80

10-19-2009, 08:48 PM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
decent money for everyone-wise, bailout-wise, "fair"ness-wise socialism works a great deal...

tell me where freedom works in socialism and I'll sell you a cold-beer in hell...

I dont even understand the first line above...

Was is socialism last year or the year before, because nothing has changed? You yourself are a product of government intervention yet you slap the hand that feeds you. Come on gobbla...you are smarter than that.

IHStangFan

10-19-2009, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by carter08
please tell me where i said someone struggling to pay their bills should be responsible for the poor.

someone with an over abundance money should be kind enough to help out and not complain if it isn't hurting their ability to live pleasurably.

also, please tell me where in my post there was any semblance of seriousness.

the theory of socialism, the idea that we are all equal and work to help everyone and not just ourselves is great. WRONG.....
With this mindset...where's the motivation to succeed and excel? Why would I bust my hump to be the best I could be, and be financially stable if only to have to give it to somebody who doesn't have the drive, education, etc. to do it for themselves? Working my butt off and achieving only to put my excess "into the pot" so that it can be distributed evenly is not my idea of "freedom" or the "pursuit of happiness". I work hard for what I have, and I don't mind saying......I ain't sharing. Call me selfish if you want to, but I am where I am today because I have EARNED it.

Socialism/Communism......one breeds the other. I'm a fan of neither.

Gobbla2001

10-19-2009, 09:44 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
I dont even understand the first line above...

Was is socialism last year or the year before, because nothing has changed? You yourself are a product of government intervention yet you slap the hand that feeds you. Come on gobbla...you are smarter than that.

You're not going to get me on the "was it socialism when Bush did it last year or the year before?" junk... In the last couple of years my opinions have changed greatly... I've started paying more attention to what freedom is a little more...

Do we have too much government intervention now? Hell yah we do and I see it growing... did we have way too much government intervention the past 8 years? yah we did and it grew... have we had it long before this year and the past 8 years? yes we have...

Time makes more converts than reason... I've started to pay more attention to reason the past couple of years... I want America to hold onto the freedom left and try to get back even more...

rockdale80

10-19-2009, 11:14 PM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
You're not going to get me on the "was it socialism when Bush did it last year or the year before?" junk... In the last couple of years my opinions have changed greatly... I've started paying more attention to what freedom is a little more...

Do we have too much government intervention now? Hell yah we do and I see it growing... did we have way too much government intervention the past 8 years? yah we did and it grew... have we had it long before this year and the past 8 years? yes we have...

Time makes more converts than reason... I've started to pay more attention to reason the past couple of years... I want America to hold onto the freedom left and try to get back even more...

So what has changed? Why is it socialism now?

wimbo_pro

10-20-2009, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Unless you are benefitting from it then it is ok, right?

Sounds like you want others who have done better than you to give you their stuff. Good luck with that.

IHStangFan

10-20-2009, 12:08 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
So what has changed? Why is it socialism now? We're not there yet.....but you can't honestly tell me that you don't see the pattern and where this country is being steered. Some people are so blinded by their political stance that they can't see past the "are you taking a shot at my president and his administration" crap and see what's really going on. I don't consider myself bias one way or the other...but when government starts trying to do certain things i.e. take over of big business, insurance, healthcare, etc.....it's alarming.....or at least...it SHOULD be. I personally find it alarming that some out there are such followers and swallow whatever the president (whoever it may be at any given time) sells that they seem to lose site that a president is nothing more than a representative of the people elected by the people. "of the people, by the people, for the people" .....I believe is the phrase. Some seem to have lost sight of the fact that this country is NOT the president's personal playground and he should NOT be able to do whatever he wants w/ it as he pleases.

Now I'm rambling...but you get my point....and NO...I'm NOT just talking about Obama.

Farmersfan

10-20-2009, 08:32 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
You mean like taking tax payer money and bailing out failed enterprises?

Big difference! Enterprise in America provide a return to the American people. It provides jobs, commerce and growth. The other side of the comparison provide nothing except a void that sucks up our resources. There is a huge difference. Neither is desirable and both should be stopped but I look at them in terms of the lesser of two evils. If we were forced to have one I would vote to bail out failed enterprises every single time. Most "Thinking" people would......

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by wimbo_pro
Sounds like you want others who have done better than you to give you their stuff. Good luck with that.

Really? You dont think it could be anything else? What if I told you that I do "ok" financially? Would that change anything?

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
Big difference! Enterprise in America provide a return to the American people. It provides jobs, commerce and growth. The other side of the comparison provide nothing except a void that sucks up our resources. There is a huge difference. Neither is desirable and both should be stopped but I look at them in terms of the lesser of two evils. If we were forced to have one I would vote to bail out failed enterprises every single time. Most "Thinking" people would......

Wrong. A handout is a handout and a welfare check is a welfare check. It doesnt matter who it is made out to.

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by IHStangFan
We're not there yet.....but you can't honestly tell me that you don't see the pattern and where this country is being steered. Some people are so blinded by their political stance that they can't see past the "are you taking a shot at my president and his administration" crap and see what's really going on. I don't consider myself bias one way or the other...but when government starts trying to do certain things i.e. take over of big business, insurance, healthcare, etc.....it's alarming.....or at least...it SHOULD be. I personally find it alarming that some out there are such followers and swallow whatever the president (whoever it may be at any given time) sells that they seem to lose site that a president is nothing more than a representative of the people elected by the people. "of the people, by the people, for the people" .....I believe is the phrase. Some seem to have lost sight of the fact that this country is NOT the president's personal playground and he should NOT be able to do whatever he wants w/ it as he pleases.

Now I'm rambling...but you get my point....and NO...I'm NOT just talking about Obama.

My question was, what has changed in the last 10 months that has made it socialism. Even if the healthcare bill passed does that mean that we are a socialistic country all of the sudden? Does a country that provides basic civic services to its citizens automatically receive a socialist label? I think doing things like bailing out corporations is more socialist than providing healthcare. I understand your point, but it is absolutely not true that we are a socialistic country. If Obama were a republican then we wouldnt have the stir and controversy that we have now.

JasperDog94

10-20-2009, 10:31 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
If Obama were a republican then we wouldnt have the stir and controversy that we have now. Yeah, because we all know that there was absolutely no stirring or controversies the previous 8 years...right?

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Yeah, because we all know that there was absolutely no stirring or controversies the previous 8 years...right?

That depends on if you actually claim Bush as your own. Your call.

JasperDog94

10-20-2009, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
My question was, what has changed in the last 10 months that has made it socialism. What has changed in the last 10 months is the speed at which we are advancing the cause of socialism. In the past 10 months we have seen the biggest socialist (not stimulus) bill ever passed, the president of the United States firing the head of a privately owned company and handing that ownership to the government, and now the biggest attempt to socialize medicine in the history of our country. Not to mention the fact that Obama was in favor of the bailouts Bush signed. (BTW - Most conservatives I know were against that policy.)

All of this in the past 10 months and you wonder why people are scared of the rise of socialism in our country?

JasperDog94

10-20-2009, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
That depends on if you actually claim Bush as your own. Your call. That has nothing to do with it. You implied that the only reason there was this controversy was because Obama was a democrat. I say that's bologna. The Bush presidency didn't get off the ground without controversy (see Florida) and controversy continued until the day he left office. Scratch that...the controversy still continues to this day.

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
That has nothing to do with it. You implied that the only reason there was this controversy was because Obama was a democrat. I say that's bologna. The Bush presidency didn't get off the ground without controversy (see Florida) and controversy continued until the day he left office. Scratch that...the controversy still continues to this day.

Maybe not controversy, but I would be willing to bet that the "socialist" term wouldnt have followed him.

JasperDog94

10-20-2009, 10:43 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Maybe not controversy, but I would be willing to bet that the "socialist" term wouldnt have followed him. That's because if he were a true conservative (notice that I didn't say republican) he would be for less government...not more.

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
What has changed in the last 10 months is the speed at which we are advancing the cause of socialism. In the past 10 months we have seen the biggest socialist (not stimulus) bill ever passed, the president of the United States firing the head of a privately owned company and handing that ownership to the government, and now the biggest attempt to socialize medicine in the history of our country. Not to mention the fact that Obama was in favor of the bailouts Bush signed. (BTW - Most conservatives I know were against that policy.)

All of this in the past 10 months and you wonder why people are scared of the rise of socialism in our country?

If the US as a country is going to give a company tax payer money then we should have no say so in how that company is ran? As soon as we hand over money to them then it is no longer privately owned...

Or would you rather it be like the bank bailouts that resulted in banks using the government money they received to buy more banks? Effective right?

JasperDog94

10-20-2009, 10:50 AM

Originally posted by rockdale80
If the US as a country is going to give a company tax payer money then we should have no say so in how that company is ran? As soon as we hand over money to them then it is no longer privately owned...

Or would you rather it be like the bank bailouts that resulted in banks using the government money they received to buy more banks? Effective right? You would do yourself a big favor by reading what I have written. Never have I once said that the bailouts were a good idea. Privately owned institutions should be held accountable to their stockholders...not the government. If the company makes enough bad decisions and must go bankrupt, then let them go bankrupt and sell their assets. Another better run company will buy them up and correct the mistakes that were made. The more the government gets involved the more complicated things get.

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 10:52 AM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
You would do yourself a big favor by reading what I have written. Never have I once said that the bailouts were a good idea. Privately owned institutions should be held accountable to their stockholders...not the government. If the company makes enough bad decisions and must go bankrupt, then let them go bankrupt and sell their assets. Another better run company will buy them up and correct the mistakes that were made. The more the government gets involved the more complicated things get.

I wont disagree with that point, but having accountability for use of tax money isnt necessarily socialism either...

turbostud

10-20-2009, 11:31 AM

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by turbostud
Isnt controlling the media socialism. Thats what Hugo Chavez does.

Wow....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Farmersfan

10-20-2009, 12:13 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Wrong. A handout is a handout and a welfare check is a welfare check. It doesnt matter who it is made out to.

You are talking in circles. Do you support handouts or do you denounce handouts????? It seems to me you are FOR giving freebies to people who don't succeed as much as others but totally denounce giving freebies to companies that don't succeed as much as others. Again I emphasize that a saved company will provide employment and commerce that benefits the entire country if even a very small amount. What benefit comes from enabling unambitious people?

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 12:21 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
You are talking in circles. Do you support handouts or do you denounce handouts????? It seems to me you are FOR giving freebies to people who don't succeed as much as others but totally denounce giving freebies to companies that don't succeed as much as others. Again I emphasize that a saved company will provide employment and commerce that benefits the entire country if even a very small amount. What benefit comes from enabling unambitious people?

A saved company? Like the banks that used government money to buy more banks? You have expanded my point about something as basic as healthcare to include everything. So I want you to stop assuming you know what I am saying and take it for face value. I think healthcare is something as essential as education and provided to all. Keep riding the government teat FF.

turbostud

10-20-2009, 12:23 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Wow....:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Wow? you dont know? or you dont want to answer the question?

"President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference."

"Very rarely did we communicate
through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.
Link (http://ballew74.newsvine.com/_news/2009/10/18/3396251-white-house-admits-we-control-news-media)

I would call that a change towards socialism in the last 10 months.

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 12:28 PM

Originally posted by turbostud
Wow? you dont know? or you dont want to answer the question?

"President Obama's presidential campaign focused on "making" the news media cover certain issues while rarely communicating anything to the press unless it was "controlled," White House Communications Director Anita Dunn disclosed to the Dominican government at a videotaped conference."

"Very rarely did we communicate
through the press anything that we didn't absolutely control," said Dunn.
Link (http://ballew74.newsvine.com/_news/2009/10/18/3396251-white-house-admits-we-control-news-media)

Controlling the media is not the same thing as controlling what is said to the media. Come on buddy...you can do better than that. This is not a new practice.

IHStangFan

10-20-2009, 12:34 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
My question was, what has changed in the last 10 months that has made it socialism. Even if the healthcare bill passed does that mean that we are a socialistic country all of the sudden? Does a country that provides basic civic services to its citizens automatically receive a socialist label? I think doing things like bailing out corporations is more socialist than providing healthcare. I understand your point, but it is absolutely not true that we are a socialistic country. If Obama were a republican then we wouldnt have the stir and controversy that we have now. let me reiterate......I did not say we were a socialistic country.....I said it appears that's where we are being steered at this point.....that we are headed down that path.

And as far as your little comment about Bush.....oh yes we would. I thought I made it clear...it's not a "Obama -vs- Bush" thing w/ me....it's a "I don't care who you are Mr. President....do the right thing" thing. Why are you Obamanites so hung up on the whole "well Bush..." stuff? We're not talking about Bush....Obama is the president....we're talking about what HE'S doing....and if it WAS Bush trying to do the things Obama is doing....I'd be calling him out too.

wimbo_pro

10-20-2009, 12:35 PM

I think this conversation has gotten all scrambled up in what the definition of socialism, communism (Chavez and the media), and free markets are all about. Many of our allies have socialist governments, but are staunch democracies. Chavez is not.

Farmersfan

10-20-2009, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
A saved company? Like the banks that used government money to buy more banks? You have expanded my point about something as basic as healthcare to include everything. So I want you to stop assuming you know what I am saying and take it for face value. I think healthcare is something as essential as education and provided to all. Keep riding the government teat FF.

I am talking about healthcare also. You repeatedly rebuff statements that anyone makes concerning the new healthcare bill taking from the rich and giving to the poor with statements about the BIG COMPANIES getting welfare and it not being any different. You then use the same welfare programs for big business to show the failings of the Bush administration when it serves you and then to ligitimize the Obama admin when that also serves your purpose. I am truly interested in your thoughts. It seems to me you really, really dislike the handouts to big business but you advocate handouts to poor people. Yet you tell me welfare is welfare and there isn't any difference in the two. Where do you really stand?

And what government teat have I ever ridden?????

Gobbla2001

10-20-2009, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
So what has changed? Why is it socialism now?

what is "it"? did I get mixed up in a topic without knowing (honest question)? or are you hinting "why gripe now? where have you been the past 8 years?"...

Where have I been? I spent the first part of it defending Bush... got tired of it but didn't want Kerry elected so I continued to blindly defend Bush... the last couple/few years my opinions began changing...

Bush was our president from when I was 18 until just this year, those are young years where the mind is still growing and maturing as it understands more...

As I said in the reply, a quote from Thomas Paine "Time makes more converts than reason"... so much time thinking what you have is what you'll get or what you want makes you go down the road... it'll all you know...

but when I started paying attention to reason, I decided that Bush, Clinton, Bush 2 (hopefully the last), Obama and the majority of our congressmen/women and senators aren't in-line with TRUELY believing that freedom is a great thing...

Freedom is just a novelty word now... the same senators and congressmen that discuss freedom as what makes this country great go into their work and pass bills etc... that does nothing but chip away at it...

Over these past 2-3 years I've decided that I'm going to take a constitutional, freedom-based approach to my political beliefs...

Most republicans it seems are just full of crap... most democrats actually know what they want and you're lucky to have them, r80... but it's not what I want and it's not what our founders would have wanted IMO...

So there's where I'm at... my mind has grown, I've thought more for myself... I've turned off that Sean Hannity crap full of nothing but tired, wore-out lines and have read, read and read... and have dug deep down to find what I truely believe... I think I've found it...

You believe one thing, I believe another... you won't change my mind and I doubt I could change yours... but I'm no Bush-fanatic, or Rush-lover and am sure as hell not Hannitized... so don't bring that "where were you" to the table... I've just now found my identity in all of this...

turbostud

10-20-2009, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Controlling the media is not the same thing as controlling what is said to the media. Come on buddy...you can do better than that. This is not a new practice.
What? LOL, spin spin and more spin. Nothing but double talk. Controlling the message is controlling the media. The media shouldn't being conveying their message, BUT REPORTING FACTS.
by controlling what facts were available, by controlling who speaks to the media and what they could say they were able to control - what was reported.

turbostud

10-20-2009, 02:00 PM

No the White House is not trying to control anything..:rolleyes:

Link (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/18/white-house-escalates-war-fox-news-1925819282/)

The White House is calling on other news organizations to isolate and alienate Fox News as it sends out top advisers to rail against the cable channel as a Republican Party mouthpiece.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."

"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."

No controlling going here... move along......

Poor George Stephanopoulus didnt even have the minerals to speak up. Sad.

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 02:07 PM

Originally posted by Farmersfan
I am talking about healthcare also. You repeatedly rebuff statements that anyone makes concerning the new healthcare bill taking from the rich and giving to the poor with statements about the BIG COMPANIES getting welfare and it not being any different. You then use the same welfare programs for big business to show the failings of the Bush administration when it serves you and then to ligitimize the Obama admin when that also serves your purpose. I am truly interested in your thoughts. It seems to me you really, really dislike the handouts to big business but you advocate handouts to poor people. Yet you tell me welfare is welfare and there isn't any difference in the two. Where do you really stand?

And what government teat have I ever ridden?????

HEALTHCARE = EDUCATION

In my eyes anyway. It is a basic necessity that I think should be afforded to everyone. Government assistance, if used properly, I have no issue with. Government assistance that is abused is what I take issue with. Taking bailout money to buy another smaller bank is not what it was meant for or to do...

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by turbostud
What? LOL, spin spin and more spin. Nothing but double talk. Controlling the message is controlling the media. The media shouldn't being conveying their message, BUT REPORTING FACTS.
by controlling what facts were available, by controlling who speaks to the media and what they could say they were able to control - what was reported.

This has been going on for years. It is not something new to the current administration. Do you not remember everyone being up in arms about this when Bush was doing the same thing? Were you?

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 02:11 PM

Originally posted by Gobbla2001
what is "it"? did I get mixed up in a topic without knowing (honest question)? or are you hinting "why gripe now? where have you been the past 8 years?"...

Where have I been? I spent the first part of it defending Bush... got tired of it but didn't want Kerry elected so I continued to blindly defend Bush... the last couple/few years my opinions began changing...

Bush was our president from when I was 18 until just this year, those are young years where the mind is still growing and maturing as it understands more...

As I said in the reply, a quote from Thomas Paine "Time makes more converts than reason"... so much time thinking what you have is what you'll get or what you want makes you go down the road... it'll all you know...

but when I started paying attention to reason, I decided that Bush, Clinton, Bush 2 (hopefully the last), Obama and the majority of our congressmen/women and senators aren't in-line with TRUELY believing that freedom is a great thing...

Freedom is just a novelty word now... the same senators and congressmen that discuss freedom as what makes this country great go into their work and pass bills etc... that does nothing but chip away at it...

Over these past 2-3 years I've decided that I'm going to take a constitutional, freedom-based approach to my political beliefs...

Most republicans it seems are just full of crap... most democrats actually know what they want and you're lucky to have them, r80... but it's not what I want and it's not what our founders would have wanted IMO...

So there's where I'm at... my mind has grown, I've thought more for myself... I've turned off that Sean Hannity crap full of nothing but tired, wore-out lines and have read, read and read... and have dug deep down to find what I truely believe... I think I've found it...

You believe one thing, I believe another... you won't change my mind and I doubt I could change yours... but I'm no Bush-fanatic, or Rush-lover and am sure as hell not Hannitized... so don't bring that "where were you" to the table... I've just now found my identity in all of this...

My question was not why gripe now. It was "what has changed"? What has Obama done to make this country socialist? It has nothing to do with where you were 8 years ago because you didnt involve yourself with similiar debates a few years ago. I do use that on others though that defended the prior administration because Obama has kept the status quo.

JasperDog94

10-20-2009, 02:21 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
My question was not why gripe now. It was "what has changed"? What has Obama done to make this country socialist? It has nothing to do with where you were 8 years ago because you didnt involve yourself with similiar debates a few years ago. I do use that on others though that defended the prior administration because Obama has kept the status quo.

Here's your answer...

Originally posted by JasperDog94
What has changed in the last 10 months is the speed at which we are advancing the cause of socialism. In the past 10 months we have seen the biggest socialist (not stimulus) bill ever passed, the president of the United States firing the head of a privately owned company and handing that ownership to the government, and now the biggest attempt to socialize medicine in the history of our country. Not to mention the fact that Obama was in favor of the bailouts Bush signed. (BTW - Most conservatives I know were against that policy.)

All of this in the past 10 months and you wonder why people are scared of the rise of socialism in our country?

JasperDog94

10-20-2009, 02:22 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
... Obama has kept the status quo. That is almost laughable...Obama is doing anything but keeping the status quo. His agenda is the most radical agenda of any president in his first 10 months.

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Here's your answer...

:hand:

turbostud

10-20-2009, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
This has been going on for years. It is not something new to the current administration. Do you not remember everyone being up in arms about this when Bush was doing the same thing? Were you?

Show me a link where someone from the Bush administration said they controlled the "media".

Dunn didn't say they controlled the "message". She said they control the MEDIA. That is a VERY big difference.

Every WH and politician in general try to control "their" message. Controlling the "free press" violates liberty and freedom.

She has been chosen and appointed by Obama temporarily to "communicate". Her communication is frightening that she is not only bragging about this control but that the WH is allowing her to float this out there.

Our news media needs to wake up and decide that they don't want to be controlled no matter how much they like/dislike the guy.

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 02:34 PM

Originally posted by turbostud
Show me a link where someone from the Bush administration said they controlled the "media".

Dunn didn't say they controlled the "message". She said they control the MEDIA. That is a VERY big difference.

Every WH and politician in general try to control "their" message. Controlling the "free press" violates liberty and freedom.

She has been chosen and appointed by Obama temporarily to "communicate". Her communication is frightening that she is not only bragging about this control but that the WH is allowing her to float this out there.

Our news media needs to wake up and decide that they don't want to be controlled no matter how much they like/dislike the guy.

Dont go outside....:hand:

turbostud

10-20-2009, 02:36 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Dont go outside....:hand:
Yea I know Crazy Al's Global Warming theory might fall on me.:doh::D

JasperDog94

10-20-2009, 02:38 PM

This is RD80s response when presented with irrefutable facts...

Originally posted by rockdale80
:hand:

Originally posted by rockdale80
Dont go outside....:hand:

Originally posted by rockdale80
the sky is falling...

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by turbostud
Yea I know Crazy Al's Global Warming theory might fall on me.:doh::D

I just wonder what Obama will own tomorrow....

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
This is RD80s response when presented with irrefutable facts...

Or my response to ignorance. Do you really believe that Obama now controls the media? Wow....

JasperDog94

10-20-2009, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Or my response to ignorance. Do you really believe that Obama now controls the media? Wow.... You asked what had changed in the past 10 months. I gave you three examples. You responded with :hand: .

Obama's own people said they controlled the media. THEIR OWN WORDS. You respond with "the sky is falling :hand: "

You pretend to be objective, but when presented with facts you respond with cliches and :hand: . I will be the first to admit that I didn't like many of the Bush policies, but that is not the case with hardcore Obama supporters like yourself.

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
You asked what had changed in the past 10 months. I gave you three examples. You responded with :hand: .

Obama's own people said they controlled the media. THEIR OWN WORDS. You respond with "the sky is falling :hand: "

You pretend to be objective, but when presented with facts you respond with cliches and :hand: . I will be the first to admit that I didn't like many of the Bush policies, but that is not the case with hardcore Obama supporters like yourself.

I am a hardcore Obama supporter because I dont buy into the paranoia hype? Your three examples are a far cry from socialism.

1)Why is it so socialistic and more socialist than other stimulus packages?
2)Would you prefer the government just hands out money to businesses with no strings attached?
3)Obama was a senator. At best he is one of 535 parts responsible.

JasperDog94

10-20-2009, 03:22 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
I am a hardcore Obama supporter because I dont buy into the paranoia hype? Your three examples are a far cry from socialism.

1)Why is it so socialistic and more socialist than other stimulus packages?
2)Would you prefer the government just hands out money to businesses with no strings attached?
3)Obama was a senator. At best he is one of 535 parts responsible. 1. This was the largest bill ever passed by congress in the name of "stimulus". The bill was littered with stipulation upon stipulation for any states that signed on to use this money. These stipulations gave the federal government more control over local governments. That's why Texas opted not to apply for much of the money. (rightfully so)

2. I would prefer the government not to hand out money to privately owned corporations at all...but if you've been reading my posts you should already know that.

3. The bank bailout was signed after the election, which was when Obama came out in support of the bailout...before he was sworn into office. He made sure that everyone knew he wanted it passed. I was totally against Bush (and Obama) for this bailout.

4. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FIRED THE PRESIDENT OF A PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY!!!

5 Not to mention the president pushing for more government run (socialized) healthcare.

I just don't see how anyone cannot see that this is socialism.

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
1. This was the largest bill ever passed by congress in the name of "stimulus". The bill was littered with stipulation upon stipulation for any states that signed on to use this money. These stipulations gave the federal government more control over local governments. That's why Texas opted not to apply for much of the money. (rightfully so)

2. I would prefer the government not to hand out money to privately owned corporations at all...but if you've been reading my posts you should already know that.

3. The bank bailout was signed after the election, which was when Obama came out in support of the bailout...before he was sworn into office. He made sure that everyone knew he wanted it passed. I was totally against Bush (and Obama) for this bailout.

4. THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES FIRED THE PRESIDENT OF A PRIVATELY OWNED COMPANY!!!

5 Not to mention the president pushing for more government run (socialized) healthcare.

I just don't see how anyone cannot see that this is socialism.

Ok. You win. We are socialistic now.:rolleyes:

JasperDog94

10-20-2009, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Ok. You win. We are socialistic now.:rolleyes: Not yet, but if the current administration has their way we soon will be.

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by JasperDog94
Not yet, but if the current administration has their way we soon will be.

You are 100% correct. Sorry for being unobjective and a hardcore supporter of Obama. You havent heard me say anything but good things about the guy, right? :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

IHStangFan

10-20-2009, 04:54 PM

Originally posted by rockdale80
Or my response to ignorance. Do you really believe that Obama now controls the media? Wow.... do you believe the government DOESN'T sway the media one way or the other? If not....why is it that Fox is usually considered "right" and CNN "left". The media is a propaganda tool. Each side has their own "outlet".

No....the administrations aren't up there pushing buttons and doing the reporting, but don't you find it funny that the above mentioned seem to lean one way or the other? Do you think that's just coincidence?

You want unbias news.....watch the BBC, LOL.

:doh:

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 05:17 PM

Originally posted by IHStangFan
do you believe the government DOESN'T sway the media one way or the other? If not....why is it that Fox is usually considered "right" and CNN "left". The media is a propaganda tool. Each side has their own "outlet".

No....the administrations aren't up there pushing buttons and doing the reporting, but don't you find it funny that the above mentioned seem to lean one way or the other? Do you think that's just coincidence?

You want unbias news.....watch the BBC, LOL.

:doh:

It is all biased. I wont argue that. I take the issue and delve into it deeper than what a pundit says. ;)

Old Cardinal

10-20-2009, 05:44 PM

To Rockdale 80: we all have compassion for the poor and want them to have the opportunity to participate in the-- Great American Dream....It is just that Socialism is a first cousin to Communism: and taking from the hardworking productive to give to those that in many cases lack drive and initiative pulls the whole system down to way below the common denominator.

I would rather visit the shelters in my area weekly and teach folks to have hope and give guidance as to how to participate in jointly building the wealth for themselves and all individuals of this great nation.

rockdale80

10-20-2009, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by Old Cardinal
To Rockdale 80: we all have compassion for the poor and want them to have the opportunity to participate in the-- Great American Dream....It is just that Socialism is a first cousin to Communism: and taking from the hardworking productive to give to those that in many cases lack drive and initiative pulls the whole system down to way below the common denominator.

I would rather visit the shelters in my area weekly and teach folks to have hope and give guidance as to how to participate in jointly building the wealth for themselves and all individuals of this great nation.

Are you a doctor? Can you provide them healthcare while you are "teaching" about hope?