Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Obama holds a variety of conflicting political views that make up no coherent philosophy. He has no problem with cognitive dissonance, so being internally consistent doesn't matter to him.
He loves Big Government and believes it should micromanage and control business as well as individuals, and will tax (and borrow) whatever it takes to accomplish that (e.g., Obamacare). Like all politicians nowadays, the long-term viability of the economy, and the nation, is not important--shell games to keep the system from collapsing while he is in office is the only thing that matters.
If you have read his (ghost-written) book and other books about his past and personality, you'll also have noted a strong anti-colonial and anti-America bias that rails against the role America has traditionally played on the world stage. This was the viewpoint of his primarily South African father, who identified himself as a socialist.
Yet Obama thinks he fully deserves ultimate power and privilege and celebrity--despite having virtually no experience in business, government or even academia (note that the Harvard Law Review position was a popularity contest, not an academic award, and 40% of all graduates at the time received his *** laude honors). He is politically savvy enough (or his handlers are) to know he must "pay off" the Big Business and Big Money interests that finance campaigns--thus we have the trillion-dollar corporate bailouts of Big Banking and others; huge tax giveaways (on top of total exemption from taxes) to companies like G.E.; and continuation of the Free Trade fiasco that profits a handful of ultra-rich at the expense of the entire American Middle Class. Of course the multiple foreign wars must be continued and expanded without goals or definition of what "winning" might entail, to feed the insatiable appetite of the military-industrial complex.
Labels are not always useful when dealing with things like politicians, who are not intellectual enough to have internally consistent, thought-out philosophies on anything other than maximizing their own power. For instance, a true intellectual would have trouble resenting America's heavy-handed world power-projection while at the same time starting yet another senseless war in a primarily Muslim country like those in which he was raised.
Labels are not always useful when dealing with things like politicians, who are not intellectual enough to have internally consistent, thought-out philosophies on anything other than maximizing their own power.
As I see it, the problem is with your capacity to understand Obama. Much of it has to do with your issues with his approach, however. Or, so I can hope. With the assumptions you operate upon, no pragmatist would qualify as an intellectual in your opinion, and all ideologues would. Amazing.
When a person utters the words 'spread the wealth' and then stacks his administration with marxist, communist and socialist czars and makes every attempt to 'spread the wealth', he's a socialist.
When a person utters the words 'spread the wealth' and then stacks his administration with PEOPLE THAT I BELIEVE ARE marxist, communist and socialist czars ALTHOUGH I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE REAL DEFINITION OF ANY OF THESE TERMS MEAN and IN MY OPINION makes every attempt to 'spread the wealth', he's a socialist IMO.
I added a few words to make this acceptable to most because you did not provide any proof of any of your accusations.
I am so embarassed as a conservative/libertarian in this country calling Obama a socialist. He is far from it.
Yes, he is a socialist. He may not advocate pure and complete socialism, but his agenda is clearly heading us toward a socialist environment.
He believes government should be big enough and powerful enough to take care of the people. He believes in wealth redistribution. He believes in nationalization of the health care industry. The GM bailout is very close to socialism - government control of industry.
He also believes in government controlling all aspects of industry including pricing and what products they can produce, so he stops just short of complete government ownership of industry.
Obama believes in equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity.
Obama holds a variety of conflicting political views that make up no coherent philosophy. He has no problem with cognitive dissonance, so being internally consistent doesn't matter to him.
He loves Big Government and believes it should micromanage and control business as well as individuals, and will tax (and borrow) whatever it takes to accomplish that (e.g., Obamacare). Like all politicians nowadays, the long-term viability of the economy, and the nation, is not important--shell games to keep the system from collapsing while he is in office is the only thing that matters.
If you have read his (ghost-written) book and other books about his past and personality, you'll also have noted a strong anti-colonial and anti-America bias that rails against the role America has traditionally played on the world stage. This was the viewpoint of his primarily South African father, who identified himself as a socialist.
Yet Obama thinks he fully deserves ultimate power and privilege and celebrity--despite having virtually no experience in business, government or even academia (note that the Harvard Law Review position was a popularity contest, not an academic award, and 40% of all graduates at the time received his *** laude honors). He is politically savvy enough (or his handlers are) to know he must "pay off" the Big Business and Big Money interests that finance campaigns--thus we have the trillion-dollar corporate bailouts of Big Banking and others; huge tax giveaways (on top of total exemption from taxes) to companies like G.E.; and continuation of the Free Trade fiasco that profits a handful of ultra-rich at the expense of the entire American Middle Class. Of course the multiple foreign wars must be continued and expanded without goals or definition of what "winning" might entail, to feed the insatiable appetite of the military-industrial complex.
Labels are not always useful when dealing with things like politicians, who are not intellectual enough to have internally consistent, thought-out philosophies on anything other than maximizing their own power. For instance, a true intellectual would have trouble resenting America's heavy-handed world power-projection while at the same time starting yet another senseless war in a primarily Muslim country like those in which he was raised.
Excellent post. Duplicity is the best description of his position on wars.
Yes, he is a socialist. He may not advocate pure and complete socialism, but his agenda is clearly heading us toward a socialist environment.
He believes government should be big enough and powerful enough to take care of the people. He believes in wealth redistribution. He believes in nationalization of the health care industry. The GM bailout is very close to socialism - government control of industry.
He also believes in government controlling all aspects of industry including pricing and what products they can produce, so he stops just short of complete government ownership of industry.
Obama believes in equality of outcome as opposed to equality of opportunity.
There is no doubt that he is a socialist.
Name a politician who doesn't believe in, and has engaged in wealth redistribution.
He continues to invest (spend) this country further and further into debt.
His health care plan will transfer control of the industry away from the private sector to the government.
He is fine with the lower financial class paying $4.00+ for gas and having higher food costs.
He can't "spike the ball" with Osama - but was content on spiking the football on the GOP.
He uses big business for political purposes.
He has done virtually nothing to decrease unemployment.
forget the label, demonstrated actions tell the story
To argue over the label to affix to Obama's collar is irrelevant to his demonstrated actions.
Looking at who he surrounds himself with and his strategy to bypass congress and pass regulations vs legislation. clearly places Obama and friends' brand of society and politics squarely in the dust pile that needs to be swept, vacuumed, bleached and excised out of existence.
To argue labeling concerns as the hook upon which to hang approval or rejection of Obamaworld while ignoring demonstrated actions is the mark of a poor magic trick that attempts to befuddle those perceived to be helpless morons.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
forget the label, demonstrated actions tell the story
