heh

[olevetonahill]

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11036329_413999132136934_1766768814133783187_n.jpg ?oh=1984b5e7b0867faf292d8380725c665c&oe=560EF9FE

[BoulderSooner79]

And yet you'll be calling her Madam President in less than 2 years (out of respect for the office, of course).

[REDREX]

Lets hope not

[SoonerorLater]

And yet you'll be calling her Madam President in less than 2 years (out of respect for the office, of course).

You well may be right. What your saying does line up with my USA 'to hell in a hand basket' hypothesis.

[TAFBSooner]

Lets hope not

Then go switch registration to Democrat (temporarily) and vote for Sanders in the primary. We've got a better chance of keeping her out of the White House in the spring than in November.

[REDREX]

Bernie would be worse----If that's possible

[olevetonahill]

And yet you'll be calling her Madam President in less than 2 years (out of respect for the office, of course).

Naw ever since Slick willey i have absolutely NO respect for that office!and very little if any for the Congress and Scotus bunch of retards.

[TAFBSooner]

Bernie would be worse----If that's possible

I get it, there just aren't as many doofus pictures of Bernie floating around as there are of Hillary.

Establishment Dems are so afraid of Sanders that they're floating Al Gore to step in if Hillary flames out.

[REDREX]

I get it, there just aren't as many doofus pictures of Bernie floating around as there are of Hillary.

Establishment Dems are so afraid of Sanders that they're floating Al Gore to step in if Hillary flames out.---I think the establishment Dems would love to see Bernie elected----At least he admits to being a Socialist

[TAFBSooner]

---I think the establishment Dems would love to see Bernie elected----At least he admits to being a Socialist

Establishment Dems <> socialist.

Establishment Dems don't even equal democratic socialist. Establishment Dems are "cozy" with Wall Street. And they are NOT happy with Bernie Sanders.

[REDREX]

Establishment Dems <> socialist.

Establishment Dems don't even equal democratic socialist. Establishment Dems are "cozy" with Wall Street. And they are NOT happy with Bernie Sanders.---Barack is a Socialist and they seem to like him

[champions77]

Establishment Dems <> socialist.

Establishment Dems don't even equal democratic socialist. Establishment Dems are "cozy" with Wall Street. And they are NOT happy with Bernie Sanders.

I guess one would have to research what "establishment" means these days. I do know that the Democratic Party has made a significant movement to the left in the past few years. Even ole Hillary moved some to the left in order to keep up with the avowed socialist Bernie Sanders. She has probably even been surprised at the interest in his campaign. To the Democratic Party, there is no concern anymore about being viewed as being too radically left. Anything goes anymore. BHO being the first President to enlist outspoken Communists in his cabinet.

I can recall when "Liberal" became a name that Democrats ran from. It became such a negative connotation that they replaced it with "Progressive". With the Democrats now having millions that don't object to "Socialist", and a lesser amount not finding "Communist" objectionable, it is probably only a matter of time until more candidates that identify themselves as "Socialists" run for public office down the road.

And to think that some would try and paint the GOP as moving to the radical fringes of the right. That is pretty amazing when you consider that the last conservative to run for President in the GOP was Ronald Reagan, his term ending in January 1989. Since then only moderates have run for President in the GOP. IMO that movement to the left has been one of the reasons that they GOP has struggled so much in Presidential elections. If the perception of GOP voters is that they would be going to the polls only to vote for Democratic Lite, then millions have chosen to stay home.

[TAFBSooner]

---Barack is a Socialist and they seem to like him

Obamacare isn't socialist. In fact it created a vast new captive market for the insurance companies. It's more like oligopolistic capitalism.

Yes establishment Dems like Barack, but no, he isn't a socialist, or at least not much of one. Just contrast with Sanders, who is a Democratic Socialist. The establishment Democrats don't like him very much a'tall.

Oh, and a system of giveaways for the benefit of the banksters isn't socialism.

[REDREX]

Obamacare isn't socialist. In fact it created a vast new captive market for the insurance companies. It's more like oligopolistic capitalism.

Yes establishment Dems like Barack, but no, he isn't a socialist, or at least not much of one. Just contrast with Sanders, who is a Democratic Socialist. The establishment Democrats don't like him very much a'tall.

Oh, and a system of giveaways for the benefit of the banksters isn't socialism.---With All the new people on food stamps and welfare he is off to a fine start----not to mention all the freebies he has proposed

[champions77]

Obamacare isn't socialist. In fact it created a vast new captive market for the insurance companies. It's more like oligopolistic capitalism.

Yes establishment Dems like Barack, but no, he isn't a socialist, or at least not much of one. Just contrast with Sanders, who is a Democratic Socialist. The establishment Democrats don't like him very much a'tall.

Oh, and a system of giveaways for the benefit of the banksters isn't socialism.

The only part of "Capitalism" that BHO agrees with is crony capitalism that I can tell. With all due respect, if BHO could get by with more socialism, then he would. You can't change the country overnight, but he has to be proud of where this country has gone in six plus years both economically and socially.
I think if you really knew BHO, you would know that he wished he could take this country much father to the left, radically farther. How would I know this? Because of his mentors, the ones he chose to associate himself with throughout his life. All far left radicals. Frank Marshall Davis? A card carrying communist. Bill Ayers, you know that guy down the street? I think you know his past with the radical leftist group the Weathermen.
Tinker even to you the term "socialist" is hard to swallow, you are just not quite ready to go there. But I can assure you that if given the opportunity, BHO would very much like to take this country to a place no one could fathom just a few years ago.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The whole of America is just sitting by in stunned silence, not wanting to do anything that will precipitate economic chaos.

[TAFBSooner]

The only part of "Capitalism" that BHO agrees with is crony capitalism that I can tell. With all due respect, if BHO could get by with more socialism, then he would. You can't change the country overnight, but he has to be proud of where this country has gone in six plus years both economically and socially.
I think if you really knew BHO, you would know that he wished he could take this country much father to the left, radically farther. How would I know this? Because of his mentors, the ones he chose to associate himself with throughout his life. All far left radicals. Frank Marshall Davis? A card carrying communist. Bill Ayers, you know that guy down the street? I think you know his past with the radical leftist group the Weathermen.
Tinker even to you the term "socialist" is hard to swallow, you are just not quite ready to go there. But I can assure you that if given the opportunity, BHO would very much like to take this country to a place no one could fathom just a few years ago.

You're right, I know "government ownership of the means of production" is an unworkable economic system (see Union, Soviet).

On economic matters, Obama has used a "whatever works" approach. He took over the Wall Street banks and two automakers (which at least smacks of socialism), but then relinquished public ownership. Obamacare expanded the availability of medical care to more citizens, by using both private insurers and private providers. I would have to say that's a mixed approach.

Against that, you cite two influences on his life as your main argument that Obama "wants to" turn the US more socialist.

Please cite what Obama has done (or attempted to do) economically or in other ways related to socialism. (There are lots of things you could list that you don’t like that Obama has done/attempted that aren’t related to economics – some of which I would agree with! But here I ask that you keep it to socialist/not socialist issues. Also, “welfare state” is not really synonymous with “socialism.” Obama has to a degree expanded the welfare state. That may be a reason you don’t like him, but it doesn’t make him socialist.)

[champions77]

You're right, I know "government ownership of the means of production" is an unworkable economic system (see Union, Soviet).

On economic matters, Obama has used a "whatever works" approach. He took over the Wall Street banks and two automakers (which at least smacks of socialism), but then relinquished public ownership. Obamacare expanded the availability of medical care to more citizens, by using both private insurers and private providers. I would have to say that's a mixed approach.

Against that, you cite two influences on his life as your main argument that Obama "wants to" turn the US more socialist.

Please cite what Obama has done (or attempted to do) economically or in other ways related to socialism. (There are lots of things you could list that you don’t like that Obama has done/attempted that aren’t related to economics – some of which I would agree with! But here I ask that you keep it to socialist/not socialist issues. Also, “welfare state” is not really synonymous with “socialism.” Obama has to a degree expanded the welfare state. That may be a reason you don’t like him, but it doesn’t make him socialist.)

Obama is on record as stating that he wants a single payer healthcare system. And as poorly conceived as the ACA is, with failure a distinct possibility, he may get his way. He has promoted additional federal government control in most every aspect of our lives. He has turned the EPA into a gestapo like organization and expanded the clean water act into land seizure opportunities. He has promoted Cap and Trade legislation that would be a monumental increase of scope and authority over Americans. He is on record as believing that the US Constitution is a "flawed" document, and it contains too many limitations on the power and authority of the US Government. Thank God I say to that.
Tinker as I type this I am on hold with the IRS (hold time between 30 and 60 minutes) as I received a notice of a change of address of my business (there should be none) and they will change it if I do not contact them.
Compare the words and ideas of a true free market economist like Milton Friedman to BHO, or the persons he has appointed. You will find very little in common with them.
Maybe I should turn things around and as you what decisions or policies that BHO has embraced or employed during his Presidency makes you convinced that he is solidly in the camp of Free Market Capitalism?
Switching gears, do the lies that this man has told to promote his agenda bother you? That the great communicator has to resort to lies and deceptions in order to get his legislation passed through Congress and convince the American people that it was in their best interest?

[TAFBSooner]

Obama is on record as stating that he wants a single payer healthcare system. And as poorly conceived as the ACA is, with failure a distinct possibility, he may get his way. He has promoted additional federal government control in most every aspect of our lives. He has turned the EPA into a gestapo like organization and expanded the clean water act into land seizure opportunities. He has promoted Cap and Trade legislation that would be a monumental increase of scope and authority over Americans. He is on record as believing that the US Constitution is a "flawed" document, and it contains too many limitations on the power and authority of the US Government. Thank God I say to that.
Tinker as I type this I am on hold with the IRS (hold time between 30 and 60 minutes) as I received a notice of a change of address of my business (there should be none) and they will change it if I do not contact them.
Compare the words and ideas of a true free market economist like Milton Friedman to BHO, or the persons he has appointed. You will find very little in common with them.
Maybe I should turn things around and as you what decisions or policies that BHO has embraced or employed during his Presidency makes you convinced that he is solidly in the camp of Free Market Capitalism?
Switching gears, do the lies that this man has told to promote his agenda bother you? That the great communicator has to resort to lies and deceptions in order to get his legislation passed through Congress and convince the American people that it was in their best interest?

Oh, he11 yeah, lying presidents offend me. Trouble is, that leaves Jimmy Carter as the only one in my living memory that is somewhat acceptable. YMMV :-)

As I said, Obama's economic policies tend to be mixed, or "whatever works." In other words I don't believe he is "solidly in the camp of Free Market Capitalism," but neither is he socialist. (Or do you have a "one-drop rule" for classifying politicians as socialists?)

Our Constitution is a human endeavor, so of course it's flawed. "Best Constitution Ever," which is likely but not certainly true, is not the same as perfect. For example, the shenanigans put in place to protect the interests of the Slave Power were worse than just flaws, although to our credit we have since removed them. . . . Please cite the context in which he made that remark.

I hate the increasing trend to abusive actions like land seizures, asset forfeiture, no-knock police raids, etc. These span all levels of government and both parties, which make it very hard to put a stop to them. It's a knock on Obama that he hasn't put a stop to them, or at least used the bully pulpit to try. If they are used for the government to hoover up private economic assets for the government to manage, I guess they could be rated as socialism.

There are many reasons to criticize Obama, but I don't think it's accurate to call him a socialist.

[champions77]

Oh, he11 yeah, lying presidents offend me. Trouble is, that leaves Jimmy Carter as the only one in my living memory that is somewhat acceptable. YMMV :-)

As I said, Obama's economic policies tend to be mixed, or "whatever works." In other words I don't believe he is "solidly in the camp of Free Market Capitalism," but neither is he socialist. (Or do you have a "one-drop rule" for classifying politicians as socialists?)

Our Constitution is a human endeavor, so of course it's flawed. "Best Constitution Ever," which is likely but not certainly true, is not the same as perfect. For example, the shenanigans put in place to protect the interests of the Slave Power were worse than just flaws, although to our credit we have since removed them. . . . Please cite the context in which he made that remark.

I hate the increasing trend to abusive actions like land seizures, asset forfeiture, no-knock police raids, etc. These span all levels of government and both parties, which make it very hard to put a stop to them. It's a knock on Obama that he hasn't put a stop to them, or at least used the bully pulpit to try. If they are used for the government to hoover up private economic assets for the government to manage, I guess they could be rated as socialism.

There are many reasons to criticize Obama, but I don't think it's accurate to call him a socialist.

Ahh running from the tag socialist. If he abhors socialism, he sure has appointed a good number of socialist/communist to his cabinet positions/czars, and associated with a few through the years. I would really hate to see where he would take us if he had unfettered power to do as he pleases us. I think he truly believes that a central government knows best for us. That only if he had complete control of everything, then he would show us how great things could be. After all, he believes that individual freedom leads to bad decisions, and all would be better if the feds could direct us and control us in our lives. For the socialist utopia to be really effective, it takes control of everything. Cap and Trade, as a result of this phony climate change debate, allows the feds to control our thermostats, how we travel, how we heat and cool our homes. Experts say it would result in the biggest tax increase in history.
TAFB I won't call you naïve because I respect what you have to say. And I think you believe in free speech, which brings up another problem, why does the left have such a problem with free speech? Political correctness I believe is one of the greatest forms of censorship. That cannot be good. What's next, a state run media that kowtows to what the feds want you to see and hear? Some would say we already have that.
All very dangerous, and I think a direct threat to our liberties. Funny you don't see the right wanting to limit your free speech, your guns, your religion? Slowly but surely this nation is changing. I would hope that these changes are concerning you too.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Couple of excellent, and patient posts by Champions77. I've a hunch that most, if not all of your points have been bouncing off the cranium of TAFB, and prolly will continue to do that.

[FaninAma]

Couple of excellent, and patient posts by Champions77. I've a hunch that most, if not all of your points have been bouncing off the cranium of TAFB, and prolly will continue to do that.

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.Kpu4A2oWtUyAUJZIsxcljg&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fteaching.colostate.edu%2Ftips%2Ft ip.cfm%3Ftipid%3D71
The deomcrats don't want hillary as their nominee but they have nobody with the name recognition to replace her at the top of the ticket and without some celebrity-type name recognition they will have a very hard time getting their low-information voters to come out and vote for somebody as white, male and milquetoast as Sanders or O'Malley.

[TAFBSooner]

http://tse1.mm.bing.net/th?&id=JN.Kpu4A2oWtUyAUJZIsxcljg&w=300&h=300&c=0&pid=1.9&rs=0&p=0&url=http%3A%2F%2Fteaching.colostate.edu%2Ftips%2Ft ip.cfm%3Ftipid%3D71
The deomcrats don't want hillary as their nominee but they have nobody with the name recognition to replace her at the top of the ticket and without some celebrity-type name recognition they will have a very hard time getting their low-information voters to come out and vote for somebody as white, male and milquetoast as Sanders or O'Malley.

Well, then, since you don't want Hillary to be elected, and there's no chance Sanders will win if nominated, you should temporarily switch registration to D and vote for Sanders in the primary.