Obama is not a Socialist

May I contradict your second argument?"Since a Socialist is someone who advocates or practices socialism, if Barack Obama is not proven to be completely barren of socialist inclinations or completely without a history of advocating socialist policies, Con automatically wins the debate."The same argument can be said for nearly anything, but is not necessarily the truth. History does not determine present. A person could change their political, economic, religious, or any status given enough time.Bad Example: Joe approves of totlitarinism, which is an aspect of communism... but he's not communist... he's a Facist XDOn a more serious note, Good/Normal example: Joe supports the idea to nationalize certain industries, but he is not supportive of Class Abolotion, Redistribution of Wealth, and other such socialist aspects. Thus means he simply supports one aspect of a certain belief that one group of people share. This doesn't make him part of it.I believed in working hard 12 hours a day, and beating my self to death, practicing till I died... but that didn't stop the Gaming Club from rejecting my application to them =PAnyhow, moving on with the argument."Privatizing Profits and Socializing Losses"A true socialist would have nationalized these corporations if anything, or attempted at it. On the nationalizing subject, he would try to absolutely nationalized hundreds, of compaines and corporations at an attempt to create more jobs. But why would he cancel the Keystone pipeline project. A national project that would have created many jobs, this is a forefront Socialist policy, and there would be little other opposition against it. BankingJust because one has great confidence, or supports one aspect of something, doesn't mean they totally disregard everything else. Obama has yet to nationalize all, or even a noticable amount of banks in America. Most of these Banks are still their own Banks, and not under Obama.Health CareForcing people to buy Health Insurance isn't exactly Socialist standings. Socialists would nationalize the hospitals, making them all public. Making them practically free of charge, but would make people spend that moeny through taxes. I'm pretty sure that we're not paying taxes for all those hospitals out there, and I'm also sure that I had to pay that outrageous sum of money for my dislocated toe last month, but like I said, I'm probably getting off-topic again. Also switching documents from paper to digital is progressive reform, hardly a hardacore socialist program. Every nation gradually progresses, and in the process of progress, jobs are lost and gain. Great Britain destroyed hundreds of jobs when it introduced factories during the Industrial Revolution.EducationSuporting Public Education, and nationalizng the schools are two different things. There are many public schools around the area, and I doubt you can say that each one is exactly the same. I go to a good school with plenty of equipment, and good teachers and clean facilites. But a mere 20 miles off, is another school. This school is also public, but it has next to no equipment, horride teachers, and the infastructure is literally falling apart. Nationalizing would mean the government would pay for all the equipment, all the facilites and all the infastructures. This once again would come out of taxpayer's money, but I belive recently we've been cutting education funds, not increasing it.Equal ChanceI maybe should have elborated here. Say you have a wealth higher middle class child, and a low class child. Now both would go to public school, and both would recieve education, but, the higher class children would have the money to attend extra-ciricular activites, to go to private schools, to get the vacines and such to keep them healthy. The lower class child can only take hold of what he learns in school. Under socialism, they would probably attempt to cut the cost of many extra-circular activites, they would like I said nationalize the school and hospitals.Abolotion of ClassOf course this is highly unlikely to happen overnight as you have stated in your arugments for Healthcare, but if Obama was truly a socialist, he would have made obvious progression twoards class equality. No special treatment for the higher class, or the middle class, or the lower class. He would have somwhere along the line, try to advocate some sort of equality. And what is the best way to acheive equatity? This comes all rushing back to Nationalizing Industries. Because if people all recieve the same things, from the same sources, they will have equal opopurtunity to move up and down depending soley on their skills.