Obama, the one-term president

[ViperOverLord]

You mean what has he done with the force of Marxism besides his socialistic policies?

- Well he has seeked to control the media content; control the message.

- He wanted to make health insurance compulsory.

- I don't think he's so stupid as to think that he will create a full revolution in his short window as president within a country like the USA. Clearly he subscribes to Marxism to a significant degree.

Poor viper, you bought into the anti-Obama sales campaign. What's currently termed "Obamacare" looks nothing like what he proposed. What he proposed looked a little more like medicare and medicaid, except that you didn't need to be 65 or an unwed mother to get it.

Nor is Obama a Marxist. What he is, is a man who believes Capitalism works best when men have ethics; without those ethics, a good dose of federal oversight is required. He also agrees that it's difficult to get the federal oversight that's required when lobbyists buy our representation, a supply/demand system that works to get people re-elected but never fixes what's wrong with our country. If you read his books, you'd know that.

If you didn't buy into the hype, you'd realize that big businesses want an elitist, not a capitalist system; they want a system where they have all the money and all the power and the rest of us can go to the dogs. And they're good at buying up newspapers to call anyone who tries to make the public aware of this trend, "socialist," and "Marxist." As a society, middle-class and lower class Americans are no longer "the great unwashed," we're now "the poor brainwashed."

I enjoyed your post Stahr

I did not enjoy your post NotYou

[notyou2]

That's OK, apparently your delusional and it's showing.

[Frigidus]

You mean what has he done with the force of Marxism besides his socialistic policies?

- Well he has seeked to control the media content; control the message.

- He wanted to make health insurance compulsory.

- I don't think he's so stupid as to think that he will create a full revolution in his short window as president within a country like the USA. Clearly he subscribes to Marxism to a significant degree.

Poor viper, you bought into the anti-Obama sales campaign. What's currently termed "Obamacare" looks nothing like what he proposed. What he proposed looked a little more like medicare and medicaid, except that you didn't need to be 65 or an unwed mother to get it.

Nor is Obama a Marxist. What he is, is a man who believes Capitalism works best when men have ethics; without those ethics, a good dose of federal oversight is required. He also agrees that it's difficult to get the federal oversight that's required when lobbyists buy our representation, a supply/demand system that works to get people re-elected but never fixes what's wrong with our country. If you read his books, you'd know that.

If you didn't buy into the hype, you'd realize that big businesses want an elitist, not a capitalist system; they want a system where they have all the money and all the power and the rest of us can go to the dogs. And they're good at buying up newspapers to call anyone who tries to make the public aware of this trend, "socialist," and "Marxist." As a society, middle-class and lower class Americans are no longer "the great unwashed," we're now "the poor brainwashed."

I enjoyed your post Stahr

I did not enjoy your post NotYou

Good analysis Viper

[ViperOverLord]

That's OK, apparently your delusional and it's showing.

I'm not delusional. You can't even admit that Obama has implemented socialist policies. That's delusional.

[john9blue]

That's OK, apparently your delusional and it's showing.

How embarrassing! You'd better cover up your delusional quickly, VOL.

[Nobunaga]

... Call Obama what he is and be personally attacked. Pretty standard I suppose, from a desperate group who simply refuse to see what is happening.

... Those defending the president as non Marxist, defend the current administration's stated desire to convert all bank stock owned by the fed into common stock. This move would give our government near complete control over the flow of money in the United States, removing control from individual investors.

... Defend for me the administration's foundation in our laws, by what laws they acted to deprive bondholders in the GM bailout and reward the union at GM with 4 times the cash, for a much smaller claim? This is not law; in fact it flies in the face of US law, but this is "the proletariat taking control of the means of production" (Marx), and you government school educated halfwits are just too damned ignorant to see it for what it is.

... Defend these actions, and be specific.

... (something tells me we'll hear nothing but crickets on this one).

...

[Baron Von PWN]

You mean what has he done with the force of Marxism besides his socialistic policies?

- Well he has seeked to control the media content; control the message.

- He wanted to make health insurance compulsory.

- I don't think he's so stupid as to think that he will create a full revolution in his short window as president within a country like the USA. Clearly he subscribes to Marxism to a significant degree.

Poor viper, you bought into the anti-Obama sales campaign. What's currently termed "Obamacare" looks nothing like what he proposed. What he proposed looked a little more like medicare and medicaid, except that you didn't need to be 65 or an unwed mother to get it.

Nor is Obama a Marxist. What he is, is a man who believes Capitalism works best when men have ethics; without those ethics, a good dose of federal oversight is required. He also agrees that it's difficult to get the federal oversight that's required when lobbyists buy our representation, a supply/demand system that works to get people re-elected but never fixes what's wrong with our country. If you read his books, you'd know that.

If you didn't buy into the hype, you'd realize that big businesses want an elitist, not a capitalist system; they want a system where they have all the money and all the power and the rest of us can go to the dogs. And they're good at buying up newspapers to call anyone who tries to make the public aware of this trend, "socialist," and "Marxist." As a society, middle-class and lower class Americans are no longer "the great unwashed," we're now "the poor brainwashed."

So because Obama didn't get his full version of ObamaCare passed that somehow makes it less Marxist? Also, please don't talk to me like I'm some kind of idiot. I know what got proposed and I know what got passed. He wanted healthcare for everyone regardless of income and instead he passed the requirement that everyone buy it. I know what the f happened.

Also you're the one drinking the kool aid. If Obama was worried about the ethics of health care he would have focused on tort reform. He did not do that. He wanted people like your self to buy the 'hype' that this was an ethical manner. No, this government control, this is not 'oversight'. You cannot definitively say that any effective oversight has been added. I would say its worse because he created hundreds of agencies with undefined power and a willingness to constantly pass the buck when the time comes.

I also find it funny that you can't even admit to yourself that you are subscribing to socialist principles. You somehow resent the label even as you advocate Obama's socialism. How sad. I agree that you clearly are the poor brainwashed.

Viper is every country with state run health-care marxist? Is every person who proposes state run health care a Marxist? or even simply a Socialist?

[ViperOverLord]

Viper is every country with state run health-care marxist? Is every person who proposes state run health care a Marxist? or even simply a Socialist?

If you're willing to concede that state ran health care is a socialist/Marxist principle then I'll consider answering that question. If you can't make that concession then I see no reason to answer these questions.

[Baron Von PWN]

... Call Obama what he is and be personally attacked. Pretty standard I suppose, from a desperate group who simply refuse to see what is happening.

... Those defending the president as non Marxist, defend the current administration's stated desire to convert all bank stock owned by the fed into common stock. This move would give our government near complete control over the flow of money in the United States, removing control from individual investors.

... Defend for me the administration's foundation in our laws, by what laws they acted to deprive bondholders in the GM bailout and reward the union at GM with 4 times the cash, for a much smaller claim? This is not law; in fact it flies in the face of US law, but this is "the proletariat taking control of the means of production" (Marx), and you government school educated halfwits are just too damned ignorant to see it for what it is.

... Defend these actions, and be specific.

... (something tells me we'll hear nothing but crickets on this one).

...

Or we take the position that those moves are not Marxist. I will admit those certainly sound Socialist, not knowing the specifics I can't say for sure. However Socialist=/= Marxist. Obama is engaged in tinkering, he's changing a little something here and there. It isn't the kind of massive overhaul advocated by Marxism, he hasn't done anything extremely radical. Everything he is doing are reforms within the system.

I can't comment on the legality of the stories you mention Nobunga as I'm not a lawyer and I've never heard of those two specific things you are mentioning. However I'm sure if there are legal issues they would have been sued by now. (Maybe he is being sued I don't know). I will say this they do not sound Marxist to me. Perhaps leftist populism at best.

[ViperOverLord]

... Call Obama what he is and be personally attacked. Pretty standard I suppose, from a desperate group who simply refuse to see what is happening.

... Those defending the president as non Marxist, defend the current administration's stated desire to convert all bank stock owned by the fed into common stock. This move would give our government near complete control over the flow of money in the United States, removing control from individual investors.

... Defend for me the administration's foundation in our laws, by what laws they acted to deprive bondholders in the GM bailout and reward the union at GM with 4 times the cash, for a much smaller claim? This is not law; in fact it flies in the face of US law, but this is "the proletariat taking control of the means of production" (Marx), and you government school educated halfwits are just too damned ignorant to see it for what it is.

... Defend these actions, and be specific.

... (something tells me we'll hear nothing but crickets on this one).

...

Or we take the position that those moves are not Marxist. I will admit those certainly sound Socialist, not knowing the specifics I can't say for sure. However Socialist=/= Marxist. Obama is engaged in tinkering, he's changing a little something here and there. It isn't the kind of massive overhaul advocated by Marxism, he hasn't done anything extremely radical. Everything he is doing are reforms within the system.

I can't comment on the legality of the stories you mention Nobunga as I'm not a lawyer and I've never heard of those two specific things you are mentioning. However I'm sure if there are legal issues they would have been sued by now. (Maybe he is being sued I don't know). I will say this they do not sound Marxist to me. Perhaps leftist populism at best.

Marxist Priciniple (1 of) 3. Advocacy of proletarian revolution — In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of inequality between humankind would dissolve.

Just because your hero, Lenin won power through a bloody revolution does not require that such drastic measures are necessary to incorporate Marxist prinicples. We have a little thing called The Consitution that prevents Obama from unilaterally implementing all of his designs. Just because he has made concessions for the sake of political expediency does not make him not a Marxist.

Clearly Obama has embraced the "collective ownership" concept even if he has not made a push to ban private ownership. Again, political expediency would dictate that that would be political suicided in the American system. But he has implemented Marxist designs and those that are accepting them and pretending that he is not a socialist are just frogs in the boiling water. He's slowly turning up the heat while they deny it and they boil to death.

[Baron Von PWN]

Viper is every country with state run health-care marxist? Is every person who proposes state run health care a Marxist? or even simply a Socialist?

If you're willing to concede that state ran health care is a socialist/Marxist principle then I'll consider answering that question. If you can't make that concession then I see no reason to answer these questions.

Sure its an idea supported by Socialists and Marxists and it is a socialist/marxist idea. I live in a country with state run health-care and I think its extremely beneficial, I've also been exposed to free market health-care (it felt like they were more interested in padding the bill than me getting better) and I rather get state run thanks. Does proposing such an Idea make someone a Socialist or a Marxist?

An important distinction between Socialists and Marxists. Socialists recognize the role of the free market and wish to make reforms within a free market capitalist system, to make it more forgiving to the working and middle classes the system needs. Marxist do not recognize the role of the free market and find it detrimental, they want to tear it down and create a single class.

[Baron Von PWN]

... Call Obama what he is and be personally attacked. Pretty standard I suppose, from a desperate group who simply refuse to see what is happening.

... Those defending the president as non Marxist, defend the current administration's stated desire to convert all bank stock owned by the fed into common stock. This move would give our government near complete control over the flow of money in the United States, removing control from individual investors.

... Defend for me the administration's foundation in our laws, by what laws they acted to deprive bondholders in the GM bailout and reward the union at GM with 4 times the cash, for a much smaller claim? This is not law; in fact it flies in the face of US law, but this is "the proletariat taking control of the means of production" (Marx), and you government school educated halfwits are just too damned ignorant to see it for what it is.

... Defend these actions, and be specific.

... (something tells me we'll hear nothing but crickets on this one).

...

Or we take the position that those moves are not Marxist. I will admit those certainly sound Socialist, not knowing the specifics I can't say for sure. However Socialist=/= Marxist. Obama is engaged in tinkering, he's changing a little something here and there. It isn't the kind of massive overhaul advocated by Marxism, he hasn't done anything extremely radical. Everything he is doing are reforms within the system.

I can't comment on the legality of the stories you mention Nobunga as I'm not a lawyer and I've never heard of those two specific things you are mentioning. However I'm sure if there are legal issues they would have been sued by now. (Maybe he is being sued I don't know). I will say this they do not sound Marxist to me. Perhaps leftist populism at best.

Marxist Priciniple (1 of) 3. Advocacy of proletarian revolution — In order to overcome the fetters of private property the working class must seize political power internationally through a social revolution and expropriate the capitalist classes around the world and place the productive capacities of society into collective ownership. Upon this, material foundation classes would be abolished and the material basis for all forms of inequality between humankind would dissolve.

Just because your hero, Lenin won power through a bloody revolution does not require that such drastic measures are necessary to incorporate Marxist prinicples. We have a little thing called The Consitution that prevents Obama from unilaterally implementing all of his designs. Just because he has made concessions for the sake of political expediency does not make him not a Marxist.

Clearly Obama has embraced the "collective ownership" concept even if he has not made a push to ban private ownership. Again, political expediency would dictate that that would be political suicided in the American system. But he has implemented Marxist designs and those that are accepting them and pretending that he is not a socialist are just frogs in the boiling water. He's slowly turning up the heat while they deny it and they boil to death.

Or there is no conspiracy and he isn't a Marxist. I find it amusing you think Lenin is my hero. You know I think it's pretty clear you are set on thinking of him as a Marxist as anything I or anyone else will counter you will reply "He's just being politically expedient! Really though he's a Marxist and wants to destroy Capitalism."

[ViperOverLord]

Viper is every country with state run health-care marxist? Is every person who proposes state run health care a Marxist? or even simply a Socialist?

If you're willing to concede that state ran health care is a socialist/Marxist principle then I'll consider answering that question. If you can't make that concession then I see no reason to answer these questions.

Sure its an idea supported by Socialists and Marxists and it is a socialist/marxist idea. I live in a country with state run health-care and I think its extremely beneficial, I've also been exposed to free market health-care (it felt like they were more interested in padding the bill than me getting better) and I rather get state run thanks. Does proposing such an Idea make someone a Socialist or a Marxist?

An important distinction between Socialists and Marxists. Socialists recognize the role of the free market and wish to make reforms within a free market capitalist system, to make it more forgiving to the working and middle classes the system needs. Marxist do not recognize the role of the free market and find it detrimental, they want to tear it down and create a single class.

It's true that by definition there are differences between Socialism and Marxism. And at this point it would probably be more technically correct to call Obama a Socialist and not a Marxist. I don't think Obama is trying to make 'one class' (though he may be attempting to lay the groundwork). But he clearly subscribes to Marxist principles. Still, I would never put my faith in a group creating 'one class.' The result is oppression of success and freedoms and politically speaking there is not 'one class.' I think the USSR more than sufficiently proved that.

Also to answer your question, I think that nationalized health care is a Socialist ideal and if a country is willing to control healthcare and education then there is no limit to what else they are willing control. I think you would find degrees of Socialism amongst the countries that have socialized medicine, but I would not pretend that that is not an everchanging dynamic.

Regarding the free market system as it relates to Marxism; we have seen examples in which Obama has disregarded the importance of free market equilibrium and instead favored socio-economic redistribution. So yes in that sense Obama is subscribing to Marxist principles.

[ViperOverLord]

Or there is no conspiracy and he isn't a Marxist. I find it amusing you think Lenin is my hero. You know I think it's pretty clear you are set on thinking of him as a Marxist as anything I or anyone else will counter you will reply "He's just being politically expedient! Really though he's a Marxist and wants to destroy Capitalism."

Focusing on one tongue n cheek comment instead of the points is not very productive. I was sort of joking. I have no idea to what degree you support Marxism or if you fancy Lenin. But I do know that you skipped over a lot of points to make the point that I'm trying to discredit your political inclination as a means to discredit your argument. I would not do that though. On the contrary, I respect people that are upfront about their political slants. I appreciate a professed Socialist over one that supports Socialism and yet cannot admit that in deed that is what they are doing.

[Baron Von PWN]

Or there is no conspiracy and he isn't a Marxist. I find it amusing you think Lenin is my hero. You know I think it's pretty clear you are set on thinking of him as a Marxist as anything I or anyone else will counter you will reply "He's just being politically expedient! Really though he's a Marxist and wants to destroy Capitalism."

Focusing on one tongue n cheek comment instead of the points is not very productive. I was sort of joking. I have no idea to what degree you support Marxism or if you fancy Lenin. But I do know that you skipped over a lot of points to make the point that I'm trying to discredit your political inclination as a means to discredit your argument. I would not do that though. On the contrary, I respect people that are upfront about their political slants. I appreciate a professed Socialist over one that supports Socialism and yet cannot admit that in deed that is what they are doing.

One line is focusing on it? I basically dismissed the whole comment right there, and addressed your post. Seriously what did I ignore? You quote something, say Lenin is my Hero, then say Obama is hidding his Marxism for political expediency.

The rest of my post is the response. Basically I'm saying it doesn't matter what I say you will still think of Obama as a Marxist. Any counter argument I give you can rationalize as Obama is being politically expedient and hiding his Marxism. All i'm saying is as someone who studies the Soviet Union and the East bloc extensively he doese not look like a Marxist.

[Phatscotty]

Obama did say, and I quote "...I sought out the radicals, the marxist professors...."

that counts for something.

[Night Strike]

... Call Obama what he is and be personally attacked. Pretty standard I suppose, from a desperate group who simply refuse to see what is happening.

... Those defending the president as non Marxist, defend the current administration's stated desire to convert all bank stock owned by the fed into common stock. This move would give our government near complete control over the flow of money in the United States, removing control from individual investors.

... Defend for me the administration's foundation in our laws, by what laws they acted to deprive bondholders in the GM bailout and reward the union at GM with 4 times the cash, for a much smaller claim? This is not law; in fact it flies in the face of US law, but this is "the proletariat taking control of the means of production" (Marx), and you government school educated halfwits are just too damned ignorant to see it for what it is.

... Defend these actions, and be specific.

... (something tells me we'll hear nothing but crickets on this one).

...

Or we take the position that those moves are not Marxist. I will admit those certainly sound Socialist, not knowing the specifics I can't say for sure. However Socialist=/= Marxist. Obama is engaged in tinkering, he's changing a little something here and there. It isn't the kind of massive overhaul advocated by Marxism, he hasn't done anything extremely radical. Everything he is doing are reforms within the system.

I can't comment on the legality of the stories you mention Nobunga as I'm not a lawyer and I've never heard of those two specific things you are mentioning. However I'm sure if there are legal issues they would have been sued by now. (Maybe he is being sued I don't know). I will say this they do not sound Marxist to me. Perhaps leftist populism at best.

Forcing people to buy something simply because they are alive is VERY radical. It's possibly the most radical government power grab into a person's life in the history of the US.

GM bondholders DID sue for their proper paybacks in bankruptcy, but the bankruptcy judge threw it out because he wanted to follow Obama's plan rather than the law.

[ViperOverLord]

Or there is no conspiracy and he isn't a Marxist. I find it amusing you think Lenin is my hero. You know I think it's pretty clear you are set on thinking of him as a Marxist as anything I or anyone else will counter you will reply "He's just being politically expedient! Really though he's a Marxist and wants to destroy Capitalism."

Focusing on one tongue n cheek comment instead of the points is not very productive. I was sort of joking. I have no idea to what degree you support Marxism or if you fancy Lenin. But I do know that you skipped over a lot of points to make the point that I'm trying to discredit your political inclination as a means to discredit your argument. I would not do that though. On the contrary, I respect people that are upfront about their political slants. I appreciate a professed Socialist over one that supports Socialism and yet cannot admit that in deed that is what they are doing.

One line is focusing on it? I basically dismissed the whole comment right there, and addressed your post. Seriously what did I ignore? You quote something, say Lenin is my Hero, then say Obama is hidding his Marxism for political expediency.

The rest of my post is the response. Basically I'm saying it doesn't matter what I say you will still think of Obama as a Marxist. Any counter argument I give you can rationalize as Obama is being politically expedient and hiding his Marxism. All i'm saying is as someone who studies the Soviet Union and the East bloc extensively he doese not look like a Marxist.

Not true you ignored my point that Obama will never be a Marxist by your definition because of Constitutional constraints. You also ignored my point that Obama has embraced "collective ownership" to a significant degree even if he has not otherwise abolished private ownership.

Also it's worth noting that Marx said the protelariate would revolt. Just because Obama has not governed a complete revolution from his perch of power, does not make him a Marxist. His job as a Marxist could be to simply sew the seeds of revolution or "change."

As for the Eastern/Soviet Bloc; can I say it is or isn't something Marx would have advocated? I'd have to research it further. But for the sake of argument we could say he would not advocate that state. My original point is that the Marxism is destined to fail because it ignores man's lust for power.

[ViperOverLord]

Obama did say, and I quote "...I sought out the radicals, the marxist professors...."

that counts for something.

This is the direct quote from his book:

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully; The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Wasn't it Stahrgazer that argued I needed to read his book to know he is not a Marxist? Wasn't it NotYou that gleefully said it was a good post. But why judge a man by his background and his actions. As long as he doesn't say he's a Marxist clearly he isn't! Yea right.

[Baron Von PWN]

Or there is no conspiracy and he isn't a Marxist. I find it amusing you think Lenin is my hero. You know I think it's pretty clear you are set on thinking of him as a Marxist as anything I or anyone else will counter you will reply "He's just being politically expedient! Really though he's a Marxist and wants to destroy Capitalism."

Focusing on one tongue n cheek comment instead of the points is not very productive. I was sort of joking. I have no idea to what degree you support Marxism or if you fancy Lenin. But I do know that you skipped over a lot of points to make the point that I'm trying to discredit your political inclination as a means to discredit your argument. I would not do that though. On the contrary, I respect people that are upfront about their political slants. I appreciate a professed Socialist over one that supports Socialism and yet cannot admit that in deed that is what they are doing.

One line is focusing on it? I basically dismissed the whole comment right there, and addressed your post. Seriously what did I ignore? You quote something, say Lenin is my Hero, then say Obama is hidding his Marxism for political expediency.

The rest of my post is the response. Basically I'm saying it doesn't matter what I say you will still think of Obama as a Marxist. Any counter argument I give you can rationalize as Obama is being politically expedient and hiding his Marxism. All i'm saying is as someone who studies the Soviet Union and the East bloc extensively he doese not look like a Marxist.

Not true you ignored my point that Obama will never be a Marxist by your definition because of Constitutional constraints. You also ignored my point that Obama has embraced "collective ownership" to a significant degree even if he has not otherwise abolished private ownership.

Also it's worth noting that Marx said the protelariate would revolt. Just because Obama has not governed a complete revolution from his perch of power, does not make him a Marxist. His job as a Marxist could be to simply sew the seeds of revolution or "change."

As for the Eastern/Soviet Bloc; can I say it is or isn't something Marx would have advocated? I'd have to research it further. But for the sake of argument we could say he would not advocate that state. My original point is that the Marxism is destined to fail because it ignores man's lust for power.

A Marxist wouldn't care about constitutional restraints of a document created to protect ruling classes (to use marxist rethoric). If he was truly a Marxist he wouldn't care about the present system as he would want to replace it. If it proved impossible through constitutional means he would gather the means to do so in other ways. If he was trying to sow the seeds of revolt in the Marxist sense he would do the opposite of what he is doing and push to deregulate as much as possible and thus worsen the conditions of the proletariat to the point they could no longer tolerate the situation. The very fact he would choose to operate within the American democratic system suggests strongly against Marxism.

The quote from the book: he is discussing the ways he thought in his youth. Beleive it or not people change over time and don't believe everything their profs told them in University. A good example would be Christopher Hitchens he was a full blown Marxist in his younger days but now he is a rather conservative commentator but he was a Marxist in university so I guess he's just pretending too.

I didin't say he isin't a marxist cause he hasn't explicitly said so. I've said his actions, proposals and rhetoric are inconsistent with a Marxist viewpoint.

[heavycola]

Viper is every country with state run health-care marxist? Is every person who proposes state run health care a Marxist? or even simply a Socialist?

If you're willing to concede that state ran health care is a socialist/Marxist principle then I'll consider answering that question. If you can't make that concession then I see no reason to answer these questions.

Dude, we've had a national health service in the UK for decades. It survived Thatcher, the most free-market, right-wing prime minister in recent history, because no prime miniser woudl touch it. It's not socialism - although it would of course be a feature of any socialist country.
Like I said before, you can look at it as a kind of population insurance, if that makes you feel better.

I need to make a new thread.

[Nobunaga]

"Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the “champions” of “Chicago’s democratic left” and a long-time socialist activist. Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored."

"In its broadest sense, democratic socialism could refer to any attempts to bring about socialism through democratic means as opposed to violent insurrection."

... That last bit addresses the "lack of revolution" topic brought up here.

...

[Baron Von PWN]

"Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the “champions” of “Chicago’s democratic left” and a long-time socialist activist. Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored."

"In its broadest sense, democratic socialism could refer to any attempts to bring about socialism through democratic means as opposed to violent insurrection."

... That last bit addresses the "lack of revolution" topic brought up here.

...

Nice evidence for a lack of Marxism.

[Woodruff]

Obama did say, and I quote "...I sought out the radicals, the marxist professors...."

that counts for something.

Absolutely...it counts for the fact that he tries to get different viewpoints on issues. That's a great quality.

[bradleybadly]

Maybe Obama doesn't want to get re-elected. It wouldn't be the normal way politics go for a sitting president, but maybe he would like the role of being an ex-president going around the world lecturing. Al Gore has enjoyed lecturing and speaking around the world, why not Obama?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... -2012.html