Tuesday, October 07, 2008

OBAMA ADMITS HE'S A SOCIALIST!!!

Shortly before 10:00 p.m., E.D.T., the Democrat nominee for President, Barack Don't-mention-my-middle-name Obama admitted that he's a socialist.

He said that health care is a "right." Of course, that means that the government should take my money to care for those who are less responsible.

This alone should disqualify this dilletante from public office in the United States of America.

6 comments:

Catchmeintherye said...

This is a pretty stupid comment on many levels.

Firstly, you object to the government taking your money and handing it to those who are not responsible with it, well gee whizz, your government has kind of been doing that for the Wealthy Elite for quite some time now, you might want to check that out, the same banking elite that has brought your country to the edge of ruin and helped diminish your status as World Leaders, a mantle that is fast slipping, but this is Socialism only for the rich though, the Middle ('working class'..scary word for you i know) Class needs to hold its head above water in the capitalist system however.

Health care is indeed a right, it's enshrined in the UN Human Rights charter, but again.. you are probably of the position that the United States should isolate itself with draconian law and diplomacy, that's fine i guess, we'll wait for you at the bell curve.

Thirdly, it's pretty rich attacking Obama for citing Healthcare as a right but not calling out John McCain on what would be one of the single most Socialist Policys ever seen in the United States and that is the nationalisation of house mortages, but not only that, actually lowering the cost of those mortgages to suit todays crumbling market values, that not only makes John McCain a Socialist, but one of the most prolific in the history of Socialism if he indeed goes through with his word.

Viva la Revolution John!

Doug said...

That's okay, because McCain admitted he was a socialist about a half hour earlier when he advocated nationalizing the mortgage loan industry.

This is a fine set of losers we have to choose from this year

hoobie said...

Didn't Macain say he was going to bailout homeowners who can't handle the debt service? My money is going to those who are less responsible.

So, both candidates are Socialists.

Tell the whole story.

Alter of Freedom said...

Healthcare is not a right. Since we do not teach our young people anyhting about our Bill of Rights anymore I will not hold anyone at fault for believing that it is. Fact remains it is not.

This goes to the point about judges as well that never seems to come up in a debate. If you believe healthcare is a "right" then you support a Supreme Court who would loosely interpret the Constitution and in fact would not be judical but would be legislative from the bench. This is not the role of our Courts and never has been, but we have seen a trend that appears to be growing that would have our judicial do things that we may want our legislative to do but cannot because there is no concensus to get it done.

I posted this morning how I thought Mccain lost a great opportunity last night at www.alteroffreedom.blogspot.com in terms of the debate.

Kurt said...

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”
-- Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776

It certainly is a challenge to one's unalienable Rights of Life and Happiness, as well as Safety, if one does not have adequate health care - both preventive and corrective.

Consider as an example, which should be very much of interest to the PRO LIFE community, the U.S. ranks 29th worldwide in infant mortality. How much of that is due to the mother / infant not having access to adequate health care????

And do keep in mind that everyone is put at risk if public health (general health, of everyone) is allowed to fail. Diseases are often infectious, public health measures and prevention of dangerous health practices endanger wide sectors, whole geographic regions and at times the whole nation.

But wait - "alter of freedom" claims health care is not in our Bill of Rights, so it can't be a right. Consider the right of the disabled to be provided with comparable secondary education facilities, or the right of girls to have some reasonable funding for their athletic programs at public universities. Or consider broader rights such as that of African American children to attend the same schools as white children, or the right of any person in this country to be seen and medically stabilized in any Emergency Room in this country. How did these rights come to be accepted and formally established? Is there something special about this point in history? So that it is reasonable to expect that expansion will now cease and the list will be considered complete for decades to come? Or such that the "Right to Education" belongs on the list, but the "Right to Health Care" does not? Or is it just a matter of how people are accustomed to thinking, combined possibly with their fears and prejudices?

Perhaps healthcare is not a “right,” but instead more a “moral responsibility for an industrialized country.” Sometimes this is derived from humanitarian principles -- children should not go hungry, so we create childhood nutrition programs. Here, we are no longer talking about our rights as individuals; instead, think collectively about what we all deserve simply by virtue of being human. These are our “human rights,” which are quite different from our constitutional rights as individual citizens. I think it is immoral for someone's access to healthcare, politics, or justice to be dependent on how good a capitalist he or she is. And therefore, we should use the government to ensure that people from all economic classes are treated equally in this sense. In other words, a person’s access to medical care should not turn on just how skilled he is as an economic creature. While some of us are smarter, taller, and quicker than others, as human beings we are equal.

Kurt D.

James Young said...

It's amazing, Kurt, that you should be able to quote the Declaration of Independence yet have so little understanding of what it actually says. A testament to the quality of government schools, I suppose. You might, for example, recall that one of the DRAFTERS of the Declaration, Benjamin Franklin, is quoted as saying that "Those who would trade freedom for a little temporary security deserve neither freedom nor security." And you apparently confuse the right to pursue Happiness --- meaning property --- with the right to ACHIEVE Happiness, about what I'd expect from your prior comments.

Of course, what you posit is precisely what the Founders rebelled against, a "multitude of New Offices, and ... swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance."

As for your response to AoF, only one of the "rights" which you proclaim --- "that of African American children to attend the same schools as white children" --- is actually based in the Constitution. And at that, it's not a "right to education"; it's a right to "equal protection of the laws," U.S. Const., amend. XIV, Section 1. The rest of those "rights" which blithely emanate from your keyboard have no more constitutional or natural law substance than, well, anything else that emanates from your keyboard. They are established by legislative fiat, and can just as easily removed.

As for whether the Government should provide health care to those who make bad decisions (or anyone else, for that matter, but mainly those who make bad decisions) by taking at the point of a gun from those who do not the fruits of their labor, it's truly touching that you believe it to be a "moral responsibility for an industrialized country."

I would suggest that you keep your morals to yourself. If you want to subsidize people who make bad decisions, feel free to do so. My guess is that you could do it much more efficiently than the government, in any case. Do not, however, steal from me to indulge your moral pretensions.

Furthermore, kindly educate yourself as to the difference between "rights" and government handouts. What you propose is a government handout.

That is socialism, pure and simple. Which, by the way, was the original point.