Is Obama a Socialist?

[grinner666]

IRRELEVANT!?!?!
I quote grinner666; "I have yet to see a law REGULATING anybody's fat intake". I believe that I have shown you such a law and you have admitted that such exists therefore your original contention is wrong. Aside from that regulations are coming out of Washington itself that regulate what our children can eat. New York was easy to find in order to prove the point!

My deepest, most heartfelt apologies for not appending the word "federal" to an argument in a thread that had, UNTIL your post, consisted wholly of discussion regarding whether the head of the FEDERAL government was a socialist. I shall now edit my post; hopefully it will meet with your rather-more-strict-than-usual (i.e., trying-desperately-to-save-your-failed-argument) literary standards:

First, I have yet to see a FEDERAL law REGULATING anybody's FEDERAL fat intake; dietary advice from your FEDERAL government can be treated like dietary advice from your horsey FEDERAL Aunt Mabel who never saw a FEDERAL eclair she didn't like. It can be paid attention to or ignored as you wish. From the majority of FEDERAL kids I've seen lately, I'd be willing to say that by and large, the FEDERAL government's FEDERAL advice is being FEDERALLY ignored. So kindly calm down with the FEDERAL "regulate our fat intake" FEDERAL hyperbole.

Thank you.

*sigh*

I never said there were any laws regulating anyone's fat intake. My exact phrase was: "I find it ironic that the government wants to get involved with our daily lives and regulate our fat intake, yet they didn't impose regulations - such as make the $500,000 protective pressure valve gauge - a requirement on offshore rigs."

(Notice the use of the word: WANTS)

What *I* find ironic ... no, hilarious ... is that you're bringing up a proposed bill from the 109th Congress ... which took place from 2005 to 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_U...tates_Congress), in the middle of Dubya's administration, and trying to use that as evidence that somehow Barack Obama is a socialist. Nice bit of misdirection there, it took me all of thirty seconds' research to straighten out.

So in point of fact, the word should be "wantED", unless you have some other piece of proposed legislation, from THIS year, to pull out of your a ... hat. And frankly, blaming legislation PROPOSED before Obama ever took the office of the president, by a Senator who's been in government since 1969, and been an elected official since 1974, on Obama is not only unconvincing, it seems to me more than just a little sleazy.

I will also note that the bill you use as your shining example of Obama's socialist tendencies never even got out of committee, so you can't even honestly say that he ... a freshman senator with basically no influence outside his one vote ... supported it.

As to your second "point," it is not "irony" to complain that Obama is trying to control what we eat (he isn't, and even if he was, in federally-funded schools, the federal government has every right to control what the money it gives to a school is spent on), and then complain that he didn't provide enough control on the oil industry. It's complaint, and illogical complaint at that.

Arguing that Obama is a socialist because his administration (I've said it before and will continue saying it) dropped the ball on this matter is insanity; socialists want government control of the means of production and distribution. On the other hand, arguing that the oil industry needs less controls is equally, and demonstrably, nuts.

Please make your position on this matter more clear, because at this point you are still sounding like an "I want the government to protect me but I don't want anybody to have to pay for it" teabagger.

[DuncanONeil]

Touched a nerve did I. Yes the thread may be about the political leanings of the current Socialist in Chief, but the message was a clear statement about the existence of any law. That statement was demonstrated false!
Perhaps the rest of the below message is more appropriate than could be expected. Perhaps you somehow channeled a future self and saw the actual results of the Obama Legacy, where everyone and everything is the property of the Government. That picture is pretty scary!

My deepest, most heartfelt apologies for not appending the word "federal" to an argument in a thread that had, UNTIL your post, consisted wholly of discussion regarding whether the head of the FEDERAL government was a socialist. I shall now edit my post; hopefully it will meet with your rather-more-strict-than-usual (i.e., trying-desperately-to-save-your-failed-argument) literary standards:

First, I have yet to see a FEDERAL law REGULATING anybody's FEDERAL fat intake; dietary advice from your FEDERAL government can be treated like dietary advice from your horsey FEDERAL Aunt Mabel who never saw a FEDERAL eclair she didn't like. It can be paid attention to or ignored as you wish. From the majority of FEDERAL kids I've seen lately, I'd be willing to say that by and large, the FEDERAL government's FEDERAL advice is being FEDERALLY ignored. So kindly calm down with the FEDERAL "regulate our fat intake" FEDERAL hyperbole.

Thank you.



What *I* find ironic ... no, hilarious ... is that you're bringing up a proposed bill from the 109th Congress ... which took place from 2005 to 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_U...tates_Congress), in the middle of Dubya's administration, and trying to use that as evidence that somehow Barack Obama is a socialist. Nice bit of misdirection there, it took me all of thirty seconds' research to straighten out.

So in point of fact, the word should be "wantED", unless you have some other piece of proposed legislation, from THIS year, to pull out of your a ... hat. And frankly, blaming legislation PROPOSED before Obama ever took the office of the president, by a Senator who's been in government since 1969, and been an elected official since 1974, on Obama is not only unconvincing, it seems to me more than just a little sleazy.

I will also note that the bill you use as your shining example of Obama's socialist tendencies never even got out of committee, so you can't even honestly say that he ... a freshman senator with basically no influence outside his one vote ... supported it.

As to your second "point," it is not "irony" to complain that Obama is trying to control what we eat (he isn't, and even if he was, in federally-funded schools, the federal government has every right to control what the money it gives to a school is spent on), and then complain that he didn't provide enough control on the oil industry. It's complaint, and illogical complaint at that.

Arguing that Obama is a socialist because his administration (I've said it before and will continue saying it) dropped the ball on this matter is insanity; socialists want government control of the means of production and distribution. On the other hand, arguing that the oil industry needs less controls is equally, and demonstrably, nuts.

Please make your position on this matter more clear, because at this point you are still sounding like an "I want the government to protect me but I don't want anybody to have to pay for it" teabagger.

[steelish]

What *I* find ironic ... no, hilarious ... is that you're bringing up a proposed bill from the 109th Congress ... which took place from 2005 to 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/109th_U...tates_Congress), in the middle of Dubya's administration, and trying to use that as evidence that somehow Barack Obama is a socialist. Nice bit of misdirection there, it took me all of thirty seconds' research to straighten out.

So in point of fact, the word should be "wantED", unless you have some other piece of proposed legislation, from THIS year, to pull out of your a ... hat. And frankly, blaming legislation PROPOSED before Obama ever took the office of the president, by a Senator who's been in government since 1969, and been an elected official since 1974, on Obama is not only unconvincing, it seems to me more than just a little sleazy.

I will also note that the bill you use as your shining example of Obama's socialist tendencies never even got out of committee, so you can't even honestly say that he ... a freshman senator with basically no influence outside his one vote ... supported it.

As to your second "point," it is not "irony" to complain that Obama is trying to control what we eat (he isn't, and even if he was, in federally-funded schools, the federal government has every right to control what the money it gives to a school is spent on), and then complain that he didn't provide enough control on the oil industry. It's complaint, and illogical complaint at that.

Arguing that Obama is a socialist because his administration (I've said it before and will continue saying it) dropped the ball on this matter is insanity; socialists want government control of the means of production and distribution. On the other hand, arguing that the oil industry needs less controls is equally, and demonstrably, nuts.

Please make your position on this matter more clear, because at this point you are still sounding like an "I want the government to protect me but I don't want anybody to have to pay for it" teabagger.

Did I mention Obama's administration when replying to that post?

I DIDN'T. Nor did I say that the current administration's "dropped ball" indicates Socialism. FYI, please see my previous post in response to tyrannyoferos above, especially that last statement that begins with "Take note"

As TantricSoul has pointed out previously, sometimes threads ebb and flow and occasionally stray off topic as people respond to specific comments within a post. I'm terribly sorry if you have difficulty following along. I'm also quite apologetic (on your behalf) to others who may find offense with your unnecessary comments within your posts.