I know what you said about the judiciary Bob. I said I had made a mistake, I was thinking Congress while I was reading judiciary. Sometimes it happens.
Yes, it does, Denise, and I've done this sort of thing myself. If I've given you the impression that I haven't, I'm sorry, but all that I had at the time was your actual text to go on, and when you said you had made a mistake, it wasn't clear to me which mistake you were speaking about. Sorry to say, but from my point of view there are actually several.
But maybe someone needs to explain the difference to Judge Sotomayor.
Actually, several Republican Senators attempted to do exactly that during the hearings. I watched them get their presumption handed back to them, politely, on a silver platter in each instance. Judge Sotomajor clearly knew the difference and had abided by it. If you watched the entire version of the quote the Republicans were splashing about on the net, you would have seen that they had taken it out of context, and you might have wondered why they would have done something like that.
Inasmuch as Obama advocates impliments policies for redistribution of wealth, he is a socialist.
Would that have applied to President Bush, when he pushed through the original stimulus package, too? Does that make President Bush and all the Republicans who voted for that plan socialists as well? Wealth was certainly redistributed there. How about when the Republicans pushed through their tax cuts, and redistributed money from the public treasury into the pockets of the wealthy? Surely that was redistribution of the wealth as well? You should be curious about the terms of some of those loans.
You should want to know when the Republican congress arranged for us to pay off the principle of those loans. Yes you should. Because that would certainly affect the distribution and redistribution of wealth in this country, now wouldn't it?
Or is it simply that you didn't mind that sort of redistribution enough to call it Socialism or communism for the entire length of the last administration? Perhaps your heart simply goes out to millionaires and Billionaires before it goes out to people who don't have shelter or food. And about healthcare, it hasn't apparently struck you that if there is a reservoir of TB in the undertreated or untreated population of this country, that you're vulnerable to that disease, too. As you are to any number of other diseases.
The first attempt to pass health care legislation was by Teddy Roosevelt.
Apparently close to 100 years is not enough time for the Republicans to consider the legislation. It is hardly enough time for them to keep it buried to the benefit of the insurance and medical industries.
Inasmuch as Obama advocates and impliments government takeover of private banks and industries, he is a communist.
He has done neither. If the government is going to bail somebody out with a loan, the taxpayers wanted to make sure that the loan was secured and not another "giveaway to the rich who got us into this mess in the first place." I put this in quotes because it captures the spirit of what people were thinking and saying at the time the bailout bills were under consideration. "No free rides," was another statement often heard.
What were you saying at that time, Denise? I really don't remember. Was it anything like that? The mood of the country was that we wanted those companies to be accountable for the public money they were taking. I recall this fairly clearly, do you?
To make these bailouts feel serious to the companies, many in the congress insisted that they essentially be a purchase of stock. If the company went south, the stock and that investment was gone. If there was a recovery, the taxpayers got paid back, perhaps with a little left over.
It was supposed to be an investment in America.
It was all supposed to be a very Capitalist venture, an investment.
Now, of course, the Republicans have turned the plan on its head to make it sound bad. And of course, you are willing to go right along with them.
If Obama hadn't made the investment and the Companies had failed, you would criticize him for being a Communist for not supporting Capitalist institutions in their time of crisis. There is no course the President could have taken that the Republicans could not have found a way to turn into the same accusation. Not only does the President not meet the actual definition, but the Republicans have continued their war on the meaning of the English language. "Communist" is a word that has long since been rendered meaningless by Joe MacCarthy. "Torture" is a word that has been rendered meaningless in our time by the Republican denial of it's use by Americans, then its report that what was being used wasn't really torture, and so on.
And he can say he doesn't want a single payer plan till the cows come home. He HAS said it several tmes in the past.
Golly, the fact that it isn't in any of the plans on paper is kinda suspicious isn't it? That must mean that he's planning to use it. After all, he's used the word out loud, and we all know that Out loud is the same as being Written into Law. Or if it doesn't get written into law, maybe he'll put it into one of those signing statement and get it into law that way.
Oh, sorry, I forgot, It was the Republican President that kept trying to get around the constitution that way. And you were so furious about his doing that — no, sorry, I forgot, it was me who was upset about that. I don't recall you saying anything critical about that stuff at the time.
I guess I'm sort of confused. It doesn't particularly matter what a Republican does, but a Democrat is only to be credited with the most terrible and offensive of intention, even without proof. What gives here.
Sincerely, Bob Kaven