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.
To argue over the label to affix to Obama's collar is irrelevant to his demonstrated actions.
.
Correct. The facts are that he supports the growth of our already bloated government. He believes in a huge powerful government. And he believes in a nanny state.
Ron Paul is believed to be a “fiscal conservative” and if you ask him he will tell you that he has never voted for an earmark. That statement is 100% correct. What Paul does is to make sure that the earmarks he wants are put into a bill, and then he votes against the bill. Its the best of all possible worlds. He gets to bring home the bacon on a local basis and makes the anti-earmark claim on a national basis.
In fiscal 2009 Ron Paul sponsored or co-sponsored 23 earmarks totaling $80,775,750 ranking him the 33rd highest out of 435 representatives. (source: Open Secrets):
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.
Very good post and spot on. Reps to you for telling the truth, no matter how much the liberals don't like it.
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.
It's hard to believe that anyone in this thread has read das Kapital. Anyone familiar with Marxism would laugh at the thought that Obama is a Marxist. His actions fly in the face of virtually everything a Marxist would desire. Even a Democratic Socialist would balk at Obama's corporatism. A Marxist would never be elected POTUS, and if they did, they would act nothing like Obama.
By the way, I highly doubt that MORebelWoman has read even the first section of das Kapital, especially since she followed it up with "many other books" as a way to deflect the question.
He seems to want to keep his cake and eat it too.
He's a typical socialist, some are more equal than others. (he and his friends)
No, it's not. You have an incredibly twisted understanding of socialism, and it is fundamentally inaccurate if you compare it to the works of any socialist thinker. "Everything through the government is socialism" is one of the most incorrect things I've ever heard spoken on this forum. Socialism is concerned first and foremost with the means of production, and public ownership over the means of production. America is predicated on private ownership over the means of production, and we are increasingly privatized.
In the age of the internets, you have to wonder why anyone would think that Obama is a socialist. Intellectually disingenuous, willfully ignorant, or intellectually lazy. Take your pick.
All it takes is a google search and in seconds flat you have your answers. Look what socialist websites have to say about Obama
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.
