Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (11143)	11/7/2009 11:04:21 AM
From: Magnatizer	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

You are correct. He is far worse than a simple radical. He is a Marxist with a possible lean toward Leninism. 1) Czars who are now controlling pay of private business employees 2) Enlisting the assistance of ACORN to help rig elections 3) Seizing control of private enterprise and then blocking attempts by those forced to take loans to free themselves of the Govt oversight burden. 4) Attempting to seize control (one payer system) of our healthcare system 5) Attempting to seize more control over our lives through the use of the junk global warming science. Come on 2012, you can't get here soon enough!

To: Lane3 who wrote (11143)	11/7/2009 11:04:35 AM
From: Magnatizer	Respond to of 42652

You are correct. He is far worse than a simple radical. He is a Marxist with a possible lean toward Leninism. 1) Czars who are now controlling pay of private business employees 2) Enlisting the assistance of ACORN to help rig elections 3) Seizing control of private enterprise and then blocking attempts by those forced to take loans to free themselves of the Govt oversight burden. 4) Attempting to seize control (one payer system) of our healthcare system 5) Attempting to seize more control over our lives through the use of the junk global warming science. Come on 2012, you can't get here soon enough!

To: Lane3 who wrote (11143)	11/7/2009 11:04:53 AM
From: Magnatizer	Respond to of 42652

You are correct. He is far worse than a simple radical. He is a Marxist with a possible lean toward Leninism. 1) Czars who are now controlling pay of private business employees 2) Enlisting the assistance of ACORN to help rig elections 3) Seizing control of private enterprise and then blocking attempts by those forced to take loans to free themselves of the Govt oversight burden. 4) Attempting to seize control (one payer system) of our healthcare system 5) Attempting to seize more control over our lives through the use of the junk global warming science. Come on 2012, you can't get here soon enough!

To: Lane3 who wrote (11143)	11/8/2009 11:29:16 AM
From: wlcnyc	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

What is the the/your definition of a radical for purposes of classification? I am not agreeing or disagreeing with either of you, but am seriously asking how you define one. I have looked it up in dictionaries and on Wikipedia and find that by any definition, the classification may or may not apply to Obama. It basically seems to depend on one's opinion of Obama's agenda - based on his actions and words. Bill

To: Lane3 who wrote (11143)	11/9/2009 9:55:47 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

"Answer me this: Is his desire to take over the auto industry radical? Is his desire to take over the healthcare industry radical? Is his desire to eliminate media which is not echoing his approved party line radical?" If the first of those were true, it might reasonably be classified as radical. ... Nationalized health care is SOP in industrialized countries. The countries with socialized medicine are going away from it. They seem to think it is ineffective. In Iraq it was SOP to rape and murder for the pleasure of the rulers and to maintain fear. So according to your argument it is not radical. Sorry, your argument fails. As for going after the media, that's common around the world and across the political spectrum. Likewise, anything in common practice cannot be radical. So depravity is ok as long as a few people are doing it. Gotcha. I still hold out hope for you. Your arguments sound like the ones that must have been common to justify what was happening in Germany during the 1930's.

To: Lane3 who wrote (11143)	11/16/2009 3:21:19 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

If the first of those were true, it might reasonably be classified as radical. The others, no. Nationalized health care is SOP in industrialized countries But it isn't SOP in the US. "Radical" can be measured in different contexts. For example someone proposing state recognition of gay marriages in Utah or Texas in 1980 might be considered radical, but if it was in San Francisco today, or even in 1980, then not so much. Nationalizing health insurance is a radical change for the US, even if it isn't a radical change when measured at the level of all wealthy countries, or the world as a whole. Likewise, anything in common practice cannot be radical. Again that applies on different levels. Banning handguns might not be extremely radical across the world, but it would be radical in the US. Also even when your measuring on a level where it is common practice, if its mostly new and a departure from the previous norm then it could still be considered radical. (I can't think of a good real world example of this specific case, but imagine that most nations had a strong equivalent of 2nd amendment rights and they tossed them out and started to ban handguns 6 months to a year ago, it would now be common practice but its a decisive break from the past, and hasn't really become the real norm yet, so it could still be a radical idea even though it is now in place.