George Zimmerman declared not guilty of second-degree murder

[Chocolate Shake Man]

As to your second point, I am not necessarily suggesting that Zimmerman was bloodthirsty. Nevertheless, despite calling the police, he was certainly happy to try to take matters into his own hands as he continued to pursue Martin even after the police told him not to so he was certainly prepared to take action with or without the police.

You're over-looking an important fact.  He took "matters into his own hands" because Trayvon was on top of him, beating his head into the ground.  Would Zimmerman still be happily firing away at Trayvon had he not been attacked?  Doubtful.  But thanks for proving my initial point!

No - he took matters into his own hands well before that, which is the crucial point. He took matters into his own hands when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was pursuing Martin when Martin was running away and when Zimmerman said yes, the dispatcher told him to stop but he kept going. So the question that you're asking is the wrong question, in my opinion because it seems to me that despite being told to do otherwise by the police, Zimmerman quite eagerly entered into a conflict in which he was already very much prepared to "fire away" as you put it.

[Awesoman]

As to your second point, I am not necessarily suggesting that Zimmerman was bloodthirsty. Nevertheless, despite calling the police, he was certainly happy to try to take matters into his own hands as he continued to pursue Martin even after the police told him not to so he was certainly prepared to take action with or without the police.

You're over-looking an important fact.  He took "matters into his own hands" because Trayvon was on top of him, beating his head into the ground.  Would Zimmerman still be happily firing away at Trayvon had he not been attacked?  Doubtful.  But thanks for proving my initial point!

No - he took matters into his own hands well before that, which is the crucial point. He took matters into his own hands when the dispatcher asked Zimmerman if he was pursuing Martin when Martin was running away and when Zimmerman said yes, the dispatcher told him to stop but he kept going. So the question that you're asking is the wrong question, in my opinion because it seems to me that despite being told to do otherwise by the police, Zimmerman quite eagerly entered into a conflict in which he was already very much prepared to "fire away" as you put it.

I don't dispute Zimmerman should have stayed put after the phone call and let the police deal with it.  The conflict could have very much been avoided.  Had the prosecution not over-charged the case, Zimmerman probably could have been proven guilty.  But there is no evidence in this case that Zimmerman had any initial intent to use his gun on Trayvon.  Because again, he wouldn't have phoned the police in the first place.  He would have just shot him.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I don't dispute Zimmerman should have stayed put after the phone call and let the police deal with it.  The conflict could have very much been avoided.  Had the prosecution not over-charged the case, Zimmerman probably could have been proven guilty.  But there is no evidence in this case that Zimmerman had any initial intent to use his gun on Trayvon.  Because again, he wouldn't have phoned the police in the first place.  He would have just shot him.

Maybe this is a matter of debate, but to me, when you walk around your neighbourhood with loaded gun, it suggests to me that you do intend to use it whether you call the police or not. Personally, I think the call was more of a matter of, "I just wanted to call you so that we're clear that I am saying in advance that this guy I am about to shoot is suspicious looking, therefore under the laws of this state I am legally within my rights to do what I'm about to do." Without that call, there would have been far more question as to whether Zimmerman suspected there to be an unlawful threat so it certainly worked in Zimmerman's favour. But, I am well aware that that's interpretation on my part. But it is as much an interpretation as your own statements regarding the police call.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

Racial stereotyping is disgusting, we should all know this, and agree that Zimmerman should never be allowed to suspect anyone based on race.

HOWEVER.

In this case, the neighborhood had been targeted by (this is fact, not stereotyping) several African American burglars.
You tell me, if you see a teenager walking in a gated community he was not allowed to be in, after dealing with several
robberies, wouldn't you want to make sure he was under control?

My take on this: Zimmerman was dumb to follow him, but I can understand why he did. I believe he only shot because he was attacked.
Many say he created the conflict but... why was Martin even in the GATED COMMUNITY? I think this is why he was declared not guilty.

Was he right to shoot? No.

Was he right to follow? Well, under the law, yes.

Was he right to suspect him? Maybe not, but you couldn't even tell me that some of us wouldn't have a thought in the back of our minds.
Gangs do exist, and he wasn't supposed to be in the area. I know that could be considered a stereotype, but sometimes it's better to be safe then sorry.

Martin's father's girlfriend lived there. He was "allowed" to be there. It's not like there were 15 people living in this gated community - it had 260 townhouses, where 20% of the population was black. If I lived in a neighbourhood where there were robberies committed by white people and then saw a white person walking around at night, my first instinct wouldn't be to assume that they are dangerous.

I realized this seconds after my post and edited it.

Also, in this world it's sometimes smart to assume most strangers are dangerous.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

No one would ever call the police before intending to shoot someone. Unless they are doing it for a reason, and intend to take the blame.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Also, in this world it's sometimes smart to assume most strangers are dangerous.

Well, I disagree with that sentiment, personally but I can certainly see how in the United States that viewpoint circulates significantly. I don't have time to go into too much detail about it tonight, but I will say quickly that the United States is probably quite unique in terms of industrialized countries in for the level of paranoia and fear of others. It is a country of people who have largely been conditioned, mostly through state and media propaganda, to be constantly afraid. From an outsider's perspective, the level of fear that emanates from the country is bizarre and would be amusing if it weren't so consistently dangerous.

No one would ever call the police before intending to shoot someone. Unless they are doing it for a reason, and intend to take the blame.

Quite on the contrary. People often call the police before shooting home intruders. Take a look at this story:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/01/oklahoma-mother-calls-911-asks-for-permission-before-shooting-intruder-dead-video/

In fact, here is a wiki on how to deal with intruders which suggests that very procedure:

http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-With-an-Intruder-in-Your-Home

[rab2591]

pretty good read:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1idm1y/til_george_zimmerman_was_a_democrat_voted_for/cb3nna5

"Zimmerman claimed to be trying to follow from a safe distance just so police would have a chance to question Martin. There had been break ins and what George did really isn't any different than what other neighborhood watches have done in the past. Martin didn't like being followed so he gave Zimmerman the slip, hid in the shadows, waiting for Zimmerman to pass, and then Martin approached Zimmerman from behind, initiated the confrontation and broke Zimmerman's nose. No evidence or testimony has ever contradicted this."

[Awesoman]

pretty good read:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1idm1y/til_george_zimmerman_was_a_democrat_voted_for/cb3nna5

"Zimmerman claimed to be trying to follow from a safe distance just so police would have a chance to question Martin. There had been break ins and what George did really isn't any different than what other neighborhood watches have done in the past. Martin didn't like being followed so he gave Zimmerman the slip, hid in the shadows, waiting for Zimmerman to pass, and then Martin approached Zimmerman from behind, initiated the confrontation and broke Zimmerman's nose. No evidence or testimony has ever contradicted this."

A pretty good read, but I think the poster is going a little overboard in suggesting that Zimmerman was completely innocent.  I agree with the verdict given to him but, as discussed in this very thread, he could have packed it up and went home after alerting the police.  No one would have died and no one would have idiotically compared Trayvon to Emmett Till.  In any case, I don't believe either individual should be entirely praised or scorned for their actions that night.  Frankly I'm rather indifferent to either individual.  My frustration lies in the circus that followed when this story went national; once again we get bombarded with more irrational, unobjective and overly emotive bloviating from the same predictable political and racial sheep.  Nothing new, and no step towards any true progress as a people.

[Awesoman]

It is a country of people who have largely been conditioned, mostly through state and media propaganda, to be constantly afraid. From an outsider's perspective, the level of fear that emanates from the country is bizarre and would be amusing if it weren't so consistently dangerous.

Ironically, you could very well make the same case with just about any country.  Except maybe Canada.  :-)

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

It is true, most people outside of the US probably have a very different view of this situation...

[guitarfool2002]

But bullshit is bullshit and should be called out as such when it gets too thick, and that's what this post is about. Paranoia and fear of others...what? Before going too far, let me add a few items that just happened in my general area, for consideration before we start into another teeth-gnashing session on America's unique conditioned paranoia and fear of others and all of that crap.

First, some good news: There is a teen from the Lancaster area named Temar Boggs who is being hailed rightfully so as a hero for something he and a friend had done. This is Temar:


This is the story of what he did, with links to the follow-ups:
http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/872026_Lancaster-teen-Temar-Boggs-hailed-as-a-hero-in-5-year-old-s-abduction.html

To sum up, he and a friend were helping move a couch in an apartment complex when a man asked if they had seen a little girl who had been missing from the area. They said no, then noticed a lot of police cars and activity in the neighborhood, people searching for the girl.

In his words "We got all of our friends to go look for her. We made our own little search party", and began looking for her in the area. Eventually Temar got on a bike someone else had been riding and he and his friend began biking around, thinking it would be better to search that way.

He did not know the girl or her family.

So eventually they see a car...driving suspiciously. When the car started to approach an area where there were police set up, the driver turned around, and instead began turning down back streets.

Temar and his friend must have realized something was wrong with this scene, it was suspicious and the driver was driving the car in a suspicious manner, so they began following him on their bikes.

Eventually they caught a glimpse of a little girl in the car with what looked like an older man.

The older man after driving through various cul-de-sacs and smaller streets saw Temar and his friend following him, and they made eye contact. He pushed the girl out of the car, and drove off.

The girl ran to Temar, asking for her Mommy, and Temar began to bike back toward the place he was staying, but then decided it was safer to carry her, so he gave the bike to his friend Chris to steer back as Temar carried the girl back to where an emergency worker could be called.

The driver of that car who had abducted the little girl turned out to be a convicted sex offender who had served 20 years in prison for committing a crime on another little girl with some of the same eerie details such as taking her for an ice cream. He was released after those 20 years and was required to register under Megan's Law.

Yet this piece of sh*t couldn't avoid his old ways and committed basically the same crime with the same details as the one he had just served 20 years for committing. The girl identified him and kidnapping/sexual assault charges were filed against him:

http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/873103_Sex-offender--73--charged-in-kidnapping-and-sexual-assault-of-5-year-old-girl.html

Temar and his buddy Chris are legitimate heroes, the girl's family calls him "an angel" for doing what he (and they) did to save the girl.

They were alerted that a girl was missing, they went searching for her. The search went nowhere on foot, so they hopped on bikes, forming their own search party.

They saw a car driving suspiciously around their neighborhood, one that was out of place and driving in an odd manner. So they began following that car. That pursuit eventually led to making eye contact, startling the driver, and led to him pushing the girl out, which unfortunately did not save her from a vicious assault, but could have saved her life if not more suffering at the hands of this piece of sh*t sex offender guy...who is now in custody and won't be harming another little girl.

If I could do something for Temar and Chris, I would, even if it were a handshake and a "well done, thank you." They are the heroes.

But consider that, those reading who have kids or grandkids or nieces/nephews they love, such so-called American "paranoia and fear of others" is sometimes necessary in cases where young children like this poor girl are targeted, abducted, assaulted, and too often murdered by the likes of all manner of 'convicted sex offenders' like the driver in this story who took this girl from her own neighborhood. So if taking an extra step in telling your kids that there are some really bad people out there who might want to hurt you, and being extra careful with your kids in public places or even in your own front yard means us Americans are being too paranoid and untrusting of our fellow man, which is somehow "dangerous", then I for one will accept any label those who seek to judge as "paranoid" can apply.

Or perhaps such trust in the goodness of man is best applied afar in a classic sense of "do as I say but not as I do". Or perhaps they or anyone close to them have never been the victim of a crime and have not seen firsthand the fear such a crime can create and affect in that person for years to come, as some of us have.

So if that's the case, the willingness to trust in the goodness of our fellow man and stop all of the dangerous paranoia that we as Americans have been "conditioned" by the grand conspiracy of the corporate-run media will go down as yet more ideological horseshit that is far from the reality many of us paranoid Americans face or have faced personally.

Oh, and consider that these two teens whose action of taking the initiative to search for a missing girl they did not know and following a suspicious person driving in their neighborhood potentially led to saving her life and arresting the man who had taken and assaulted her.

And, the big morality question hypothetically asked in conclusion: If that driver who turned out to be a sex offender, fearing that his life was in danger being followed by two teenagers on bikes, whether he had the girl or not, had somehow attacked them physically or even somehow tried to run them down with his car, but the two teens had fought back and beat the sh*t out of him in self-defense, who would then be facing the assault charges related to that specific confrontation?

This story turned out positive if not uplifting because these two teens did a great thing here, yet what many might think was the wrong thing to do by following the car instead of simply "calling the police".

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

Great story, and this just proves my point.
Fear is a natural, healthy response. These kids sensed danger and acted, saving a life. Your point at the end is interesting, I'd say that they would be fine considering the circumstances surrounding the situation. However, you really do need to let authorities act, a huge mistake on Zimmermans part. In his situation I can understand why he acted though, and these kids probably had one chance to save her so they acted.

All in all, the American "fear" is more than healthy, it's vital. Suspicion can be racially charged, but it doesn't have to be. It's always safe to be extra careful with strangers.

[rab2591]

pretty good read:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1idm1y/til_george_zimmerman_was_a_democrat_voted_for/cb3nna5

"Zimmerman claimed to be trying to follow from a safe distance just so police would have a chance to question Martin. There had been break ins and what George did really isn't any different than what other neighborhood watches have done in the past. Martin didn't like being followed so he gave Zimmerman the slip, hid in the shadows, waiting for Zimmerman to pass, and then Martin approached Zimmerman from behind, initiated the confrontation and broke Zimmerman's nose. No evidence or testimony has ever contradicted this."

A pretty good read, but I think the poster is going a little overboard in suggesting that Zimmerman was completely innocent.  I agree with the verdict given to him but, as discussed in this very thread, he could have packed it up and went home after alerting the police.  No one would have died and no one would have idiotically compared Trayvon to Emmett Till.  In any case, I don't believe either individual should be entirely praised or scorned for their actions that night.  Frankly I'm rather indifferent to either individual.  My frustration lies in the circus that followed when this story went national; once again we get bombarded with more irrational, unobjective and overly emotive bloviating from the same predictable political and racial sheep.  Nothing new, and no step towards any true progress as a people.

What could Zimmerman be charged with? The poster admits that getting out of the car could've been poor judgement, but according to the facts/testimony, Zimmerman did not break any law.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It is a country of people who have largely been conditioned, mostly through state and media propaganda, to be constantly afraid. From an outsider's perspective, the level of fear that emanates from the country is bizarre and would be amusing if it weren't so consistently dangerous.

Ironically, you could very well make the same case with just about any country.  Except maybe Canada.  :-)

That's entirely untrue. The United States is unique in constructing since WWII a forever-changing enemy that is out to destroy American life as we know it - from the trumped up fear mongering that surrounded Cold War propaganda to the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein, the US citizen has been made to live in fear of a largely manufactured threat. Despite the fact that the US has a larger military facility than just about every country in the world combined, they nevertheless feel in danger by countries like Grenada, whose population at the time was roughly 100,000. Reagan justified his illegal attack on Nicaragua on the grounds that they were a two-days drive from Texas and therefore could very easily undermine security. Illegal wars were essentially fought out by the pretense that the target of the war would get us eventually so we just had to get them first. And this goes on and on - today, illegal domestic spying is carried out in the name of preventing possible threats from outsiders. Gun culture too is driven by this same notion of fear - fear of both the criminal element and fear of a tyrannical government.

Someone above suggested that this type of fear is healthy. I would put it in slightly different terms - it is not so much healthy but rather crucial for those who are in power so that they can maintain that power. For just about everyone else it is both dangerous and disempowering.

[drbeachboy]

pretty good read:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/1idm1y/til_george_zimmerman_was_a_democrat_voted_for/cb3nna5

"Zimmerman claimed to be trying to follow from a safe distance just so police would have a chance to question Martin. There had been break ins and what George did really isn't any different than what other neighborhood watches have done in the past. Martin didn't like being followed so he gave Zimmerman the slip, hid in the shadows, waiting for Zimmerman to pass, and then Martin approached Zimmerman from behind, initiated the confrontation and broke Zimmerman's nose. No evidence or testimony has ever contradicted this."

A pretty good read, but I think the poster is going a little overboard in suggesting that Zimmerman was completely innocent.  I agree with the verdict given to him but, as discussed in this very thread, he could have packed it up and went home after alerting the police.  No one would have died and no one would have idiotically compared Trayvon to Emmett Till.  In any case, I don't believe either individual should be entirely praised or scorned for their actions that night.  Frankly I'm rather indifferent to either individual.  My frustration lies in the circus that followed when this story went national; once again we get bombarded with more irrational, unobjective and overly emotive bloviating from the same predictable political and racial sheep.  Nothing new, and no step towards any true progress as a people.

Not necessarily innocent, because everything that he did up to the actual shooting was legal. We all confront people in the street constantly whether in a good way and in a bad way sometimes. It's those judgments that we make that determine the good or bad outcomes. In either case, those judgments are not illegal to make. So, criminally,  all that he could be charged with was the shooting and nothing more. This is why I keep stating that the jury instructions are what helped Zimmerman get acquitted. Those instructions were only for the possible illegal actions, i.e. the actual shooting.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/873103_Sex-offender--73--charged-in-kidnapping-and-sexual-assault-of-5-year-old-girl.html

Temar and his buddy Chris are legitimate heroes, the girl's family calls him "an angel" for doing what he (and they) did to save the girl.

They were alerted that a girl was missing, they went searching for her. The search went nowhere on foot, so they hopped on bikes, forming their own search party.

They saw a car driving suspiciously around their neighborhood, one that was out of place and driving in an odd manner. So they began following that car. That pursuit eventually led to making eye contact, startling the driver, and led to him pushing the girl out, which unfortunately did not save her from a vicious assault, but could have saved her life if not more suffering at the hands of this piece of sh*t sex offender guy...who is now in custody and won't be harming another little girl.

You're leaving a crucial bit out, which is that that Boggs and Garcia began following the man after spotting a girl "who matched the missing child's description." I assume the missing girl's description was more than simply "white female." I agree that this was indeed a courageous and heroic act by Boggs and Garcia and as a father of a nearly 3 year old girl, I am overjoyed that at the very least this girl was spared from what was probably a far worse and more grisly fate. But identifying a victim of a crime and proceeding is an altogether different kettle of fish than seeing a man walking in the rain and assuming from that that he's "up to know good." One is based on evidence, the other is based on paranoia.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

It is a country of people who have largely been conditioned, mostly through state and media propaganda, to be constantly afraid. From an outsider's perspective, the level of fear that emanates from the country is bizarre and would be amusing if it weren't so consistently dangerous.

Ironically, you could very well make the same case with just about any country.  Except maybe Canada.  :-)

That's entirely untrue. The United States is unique in constructing since WWII a forever-changing enemy that is out to destroy American life as we know it - from the trumped up fear mongering that surrounded Cold War propaganda to the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein, the US citizen has been made to live in fear of a largely manufactured threat. Despite the fact that the US has a larger military facility than just about every country in the world combined, they nevertheless feel in danger by countries like Grenada, whose population at the time was roughly 100,000. Reagan justified his illegal attack on Nicaragua on the grounds that they were a two-days drive from Texas and therefore could very easily undermine security. Illegal wars were essentially fought out by the pretense that the target of the war would get us eventually so we just had to get them first. And this goes on and on - today, illegal domestic spying is carried out in the name of preventing possible threats from outsiders. Gun culture too is driven by this same notion of fear - fear of both the criminal element and fear of a tyrannical government.

Someone above suggested that this type of fear is healthy. I would put it in slightly different terms - it is not so much healthy but rather crucial for those who are in power so that they can maintain that power. For just about everyone else it is both dangerous and disempowering.

Well considering recent *COUGHSOCIALISTCOUGH* reforms, we have a good reason to fear certain people in power...  

[Chocolate Shake Man]

It is a country of people who have largely been conditioned, mostly through state and media propaganda, to be constantly afraid. From an outsider's perspective, the level of fear that emanates from the country is bizarre and would be amusing if it weren't so consistently dangerous.

Ironically, you could very well make the same case with just about any country.  Except maybe Canada.  :-)

That's entirely untrue. The United States is unique in constructing since WWII a forever-changing enemy that is out to destroy American life as we know it - from the trumped up fear mongering that surrounded Cold War propaganda to the weapons of mass destruction of Saddam Hussein, the US citizen has been made to live in fear of a largely manufactured threat. Despite the fact that the US has a larger military facility than just about every country in the world combined, they nevertheless feel in danger by countries like Grenada, whose population at the time was roughly 100,000. Reagan justified his illegal attack on Nicaragua on the grounds that they were a two-days drive from Texas and therefore could very easily undermine security. Illegal wars were essentially fought out by the pretense that the target of the war would get us eventually so we just had to get them first. And this goes on and on - today, illegal domestic spying is carried out in the name of preventing possible threats from outsiders. Gun culture too is driven by this same notion of fear - fear of both the criminal element and fear of a tyrannical government.

Someone above suggested that this type of fear is healthy. I would put it in slightly different terms - it is not so much healthy but rather crucial for those who are in power so that they can maintain that power. For just about everyone else it is both dangerous and disempowering.

Well considering recent *COUGHSOCIALISTCOUGH* reforms, we have a good reason to fear certain people in power...  

Fear? To what end? To the point where we assume that they are tyrannical Stalinists? I agree that recent government acts have been heinous and worthy of serious investigation. But to characterize them as something they are not (which is typically what happens in the discourse - see any of Bean Bag's posts) can only serve to undermine what could be serious investigations.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

Take my comment as a joke based in fact, I understand that it's a big proposition to state that any leader could be guilty of such a radical act, but recently it's beginning to go too far... The "Completely Equal" States of America..."

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Take my comment as a joke based in fact,

Fair enough.

I understand that it's a big proposition to state that any leader could be guilty of such a radical act,

It isn't really. Here, we might agree. Power seems to carry with it, inherently, violence and force. Therefore, the more powerful, the more violent and the more forceful. This seems to be historically accurate. What you see as "beginning to go too far" has really been always a crucial aspect of power and while there are matters with the Obama administration that are truly troubling, I do not think the facts are there to suggest that he's uniquely different in this regard.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

To that I definitely agree, he's certainly not alone in these regards. However, he is taking "two steps forward, no steps back" as far as this policy, which can almost clearly be defined as a socialist reform.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

To that I definitely agree, he's certainly not alone in these regards. However, he is taking "two steps forward, no steps back" as far as this policy,[

I'm not certain which policies you're referring to. There is certainly one policy I can think of where that's correct - namely, the Holder v. Humanitarian Law project.

which can almost clearly be defined as a socialist reform.

It can almost clearly not be defined as socialist reform, if you are at all familiar with what socialism is.

[Bean Bag]

http://lancasteronline.com/article/local/872026_Lancaster-teen-Temar-Boggs-hailed-as-a-hero-in-5-year-old-s-abduction.html

So if that's the case, the willingness to trust in the goodness of our fellow man and stop all of the dangerous paranoia that we as Americans have been "conditioned" by the grand conspiracy of the corporate-run media will go down as yet more ideological horseshit that is far from the reality many of us paranoid Americans face or have faced personally.

Great story Gfool.  It's may be impossible to know what was in GZ's heart and how it all happened -- which is why the right verdict was met, based on the ridiculous charges -- but it's the PARANOIA that has emerged (right on cue!) in the aftermath is what is clearly evident.


Who's paranoid now b!tches!




The reason for stoking and manufacturing the above paranoia is what intrigues me most.  Being played for fools, the country is.  By whom?  And to what end?  

This story turned out positive if not uplifting because these two teens did a great thing here, yet what many might think was the wrong thing to do by following the car instead of simply "calling the police".

Despite the rhetoric of the modern day Left cooughcough   -- the great American spirit is not one of paranoia.  We're brave and we take matters into our own hands.  Because we understand reality.  Reality is tough stuff.  And it's a cold, hard fact -- the police CANNOT PROTECT YOU.

[FatherOfTheMan Sr101]

Sorry, I worded that wrong...

I'm referring to the Affordable Care Act, which is defined as a Socailst policy.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Sorry, I worded that wrong...

I'm referring to the Affordable Care Act, which is defined as a Socailst policy.

Defined by who? I ask because the Affordable Health Care Act is about as far from socialism as you can get. Again, knowing what socialism is is instructive here. But certainly a policy which largely placed heath care under the umbrella of power controlled by private corporations (namely private insuarance companies and Big Pharma) cannot be seriously called socialist. As author Paul Street put it, the Obama health care plan (largely a re-writing of Mitt Romney's own state health care initiative, itself based on the proposals of the conservative Heritage Foundation), ensured that "the corporate and financial oligarchy" were "free to extort massive profits that drive health care costs to the breaking point for individuals, families, communities, non-profits, small businesses, and government." The mischaracterization of this very clearly right-wing pro-Big Business health care plan is a striking example of the kind of fear mongering I've been talking about.