Personally I agreed with those who stated that Bush wasn’t running again, and it’s clear that some Republicans were not happy with some of his decisions and while I didn’t agree with the 700 million bailout, I don’t think helping the rich keep their wealth is socialism. I also don’t think that extending unemployment benefits for people that are being hard hit by this economy is socialism. They did actually work at one point in time.

How socialistic Obama will end up being is going to be a different scenario, there were those who did state that often during the campaign, but considering most of the people he’s selecting and the fact that it’s already being pushed to “lower expectations” of what he’s going to accomplish, I think those who really wanted him to lean more towards socialism are going to be disappointed.

I found it ironic that those who identify themselves as socialists were not thrilled with Obama as a candidate or his positions.

“The argument seems to be that since both Democrats and Republicans are advancing socialist agendas, maybe it’s a good idea if they agree to a truce.”

Truce about what? I don’t get that.

The post was exactly what I wrote – the way in which the word has been bandied about makes it a word without meaning as far as using it as a derogatory label – unless the people using it in a derogatory way are enjoying eating their own.

As for whether or not it’s accurate, I’m happy to leave that to others to figure out.

Pls. feel free to post your thoughts at the original post on WLST too.