A good summary of the Obama presidency

[AndyDufresne]

Well let's get the terms right. Obama is first and foremost a progressive, statist, utopist with marxist (class warfare) tendencies. (He's actually more fascist that marxist, but the technical differences between the two in economic policy are not imporant enough to suffer the comments of the stupid. Tecnically speaking he didn't have to have a government takeover of the coal industry - for example - but through regulations simply make it impossible for a new coal fires power plant to ever open without bankrupting the company.)

When such people go into full steam ahead mode, real liberals get nervous. After all, there is a little "libertarian" in every liberal.

♫ See that guy with the red suspenders
Driving that car with the bright red fenders
I know he's one of those heavy spenders
Get that Communist Joe

He's fillin' my gal with propaganda
And I'm scared she will meander
Don't want to take a chance that he'll land her
Get that Communist Joe

He's a most revolting character
And the fellas hate him so
But with the girls this character
Is a Comrade Romeo

Since my love he's sabotaging
And the law he has been dodging
Give him what he deserves, jailhouse lodging
Get that Communist Joe (Get that Shmo, Joe)♫

Get That Communist, Joe: The Kavaliers [1954]


--Andy

[Frigidus]

You do know that Oliver Stone is liberal, right? Does that mean you've finally acknowledged that Obama is not a marxist, communist, socialist, etc.?

Well let's get the terms right. Obama is first and foremost a progressive, statist, utopist with marxist (class warfare) tendencies. (He's actually more fascist that marxist, but the technical differences between the two in economic policy are not imporant enough to suffer the comments of the stupid. Tecnically speaking he didn't have to have a government takeover of the coal industry - for example - but through regulations simply make it impossible for a new coal fires power plant to ever open without bankrupting the company.)

When such people go into full steam ahead mode, real liberals get nervous. After all, there is a little "libertarian" in every liberal.

It fascinates me the sort of conspiracy theories some people will come up with to validate their preconceived/hand-fed notions. This stuff is somehow more ridiculous than the 9-11 troofers.

[tzor]

It fascinates me the sort of conspiracy theories some people will come up with to validate their preconceived/hand-fed notions. This stuff is somehow more ridiculous than the 9-11 troofers.

What "conspiracy theory?" Obama is an open book. He wants to do what he tells you he wants to do. (Sometimes, he's inable to do what he wants to do, but he tries it anyway.)

Because he tried to be a "blank book" many liberals put their own views onto him. Only now are they starting to realize that he's not what they imagined him being. He's different.

[Woodruff]

It fascinates me the sort of conspiracy theories some people will come up with to validate their preconceived/hand-fed notions. This stuff is somehow more ridiculous than the 9-11 troofers.

What "conspiracy theory?" Obama is an open book. He wants to do what he tells you he wants to do. (Sometimes, he's inable to do what he wants to do, but he tries it anyway.)

Because he tried to be a "blank book" many liberals put their own views onto him. Only now are they starting to realize that he's not what they imagined him being. He's different.

Anyone paying attention realized long ago that he's not what they elected. However, what he IS is certainly not a Marxist or Fascist.

[BigBallinStalin]

Fascism advocates a state-controlled and regulated mixed economy; the principal economic goal of fascism is to achieve autarky to secure national self-sufficiency and independence, through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[10] It promotes regulated private enterprise and private property contingent whenever beneficial to the nation and state enterprise and state property whenever necessary to protect its interests.[10] It supports criminalization of strikes by employees and lockouts by employers because it deems these acts as prejudicial and detrimental to the national community and therefore to society as an entirety.[11] Fascism promotes such economics as a "third position" alternative to capitalism and Marxism, as fascism declares both as being obsolete.[12]

[saxitoxin]

You do know that Oliver Stone is liberal, right? Does that mean you've finally acknowledged that Obama is not a marxist, communist, socialist, etc.?

Well let's get the terms right. Obama is first and foremost a progressive, statist, utopist with marxist (class warfare) tendencies. (He's actually more fascist that marxist, but the technical differences between the two in economic policy are not imporant enough to suffer the comments of the stupid. Tecnically speaking he didn't have to have a government takeover of the coal industry - for example - but through regulations simply make it impossible for a new coal fires power plant to ever open without bankrupting the company.)

When such people go into full steam ahead mode, real liberals get nervous. After all, there is a little "libertarian" in every liberal.

I don't personally buy this, however, it's a more reasonable and sane response to the question of Obama's Marxism than "he had a neighbor in third grade who liked to listen to Joan Baez."

So, I might disagree with tzor but I considered and contemplated this position first before deciding to disagree - leaving open the possibility I could be convinced pending further argument - versus the other version of the Marxist theory which I rejected out of hand.

[thegreekdog]

You do know that Oliver Stone is liberal, right? Does that mean you've finally acknowledged that Obama is not a marxist, communist, socialist, etc.?

Well let's get the terms right. Obama is first and foremost a progressive, statist, utopist with marxist (class warfare) tendencies. (He's actually more fascist that marxist, but the technical differences between the two in economic policy are not imporant enough to suffer the comments of the stupid. Tecnically speaking he didn't have to have a government takeover of the coal industry - for example - but through regulations simply make it impossible for a new coal fires power plant to ever open without bankrupting the company.)

When such people go into full steam ahead mode, real liberals get nervous. After all, there is a little "libertarian" in every liberal.

I don't personally buy this, however, it's a more reasonable and sane response to the question of Obama's Marxism than "he had a neighbor in third grade who liked to listen to Joan Baez."

So, I might disagree with tzor but I considered and contemplated this position first before deciding to disagree - leaving open the possibility I could be convinced pending further argument - versus the other version of the Marxist theory which I rejected out of hand.

I do think he's a statist, given the past four years. However, also given the past four years in office, the President is hardly progressive or someone with marxist tendencies. Of course, if we pay attention to conspiracy-theory type items, we could come to that conclusion, but I sure don't. I also don't pay attention to rhetoric, which is what the president himself uses in his "class warfare" characteristics.

As I've indicated previously, everything this president has done and signed has indicated to me he is a statist and a crony capitalist. Nothing he has done or signed as president indicates he's a socialist, marxist, or progressive. Oliver Stone has seen the light. Others have not. Perhaps if he wins reelection we will see some socialist or Marxist tendencies, but I doubt it. The wealthy (whether corporate or union or other) have far too much control over politics for Barack Obama to be anything more than someone who advances the interests of the wealthy.

[BigBallinStalin]

You do know that Oliver Stone is liberal, right? Does that mean you've finally acknowledged that Obama is not a marxist, communist, socialist, etc.?

Well let's get the terms right. Obama is first and foremost a progressive, statist, utopist with marxist (class warfare) tendencies. (He's actually more fascist that marxist, but the technical differences between the two in economic policy are not imporant enough to suffer the comments of the stupid. Tecnically speaking he didn't have to have a government takeover of the coal industry - for example - but through regulations simply make it impossible for a new coal fires power plant to ever open without bankrupting the company.)

When such people go into full steam ahead mode, real liberals get nervous. After all, there is a little "libertarian" in every liberal.

I don't personally buy this, however, it's a more reasonable and sane response to the question of Obama's Marxism than "he had a neighbor in third grade who liked to listen to Joan Baez."

So, I might disagree with tzor but I considered and contemplated this position first before deciding to disagree - leaving open the possibility I could be convinced pending further argument - versus the other version of the Marxist theory which I rejected out of hand.

I do think he's a statist, given the past four years. However, also given the past four years in office, the President is hardly progressive or someone with marxist tendencies. Of course, if we pay attention to conspiracy-theory type items, we could come to that conclusion, but I sure don't. I also don't pay attention to rhetoric, which is what the president himself uses in his "class warfare" characteristics.

As I've indicated previously, everything this president has done and signed has indicated to me he is a statist and a crony capitalist. Nothing he has done or signed as president indicates he's a socialist, marxist, or progressive. Oliver Stone has seen the light. Others have not. Perhaps if he wins reelection we will see some socialist or Marxist tendencies, but I doubt it. The wealthy (whether corporate or union or other) have far too much control over politics for Barack Obama to be anything more than someone who advances the interests of the wealthy.

"The wealthy," huh? You're starting to sound like a class warfare kinda guy...


Are you Marxist/socialist?

I bet you are. I can smell the Manifesto on you.

[Woodruff]

As I've indicated previously, everything this president has done and signed has indicated to me he is a statist and a crony capitalist. Nothing he has done or signed as president indicates he's a socialist, marxist, or progressive. Oliver Stone has seen the light. Others have not. Perhaps if he wins reelection we will see some socialist or Marxist tendencies, but I doubt it. The wealthy (whether corporate or union or other) have far too much control over politics for Barack Obama to be anything more than someone who advances the interests of the wealthy.

"The wealthy," huh? You're starting to sound like a class warfare kinda guy...

You don't believe that the wealthy have a great deal (I would also say "far too much") of control over national politics in the United States?

[Phatscotty]

As I've indicated previously, everything this president has done and signed has indicated to me he is a statist and a crony capitalist. Nothing he has done or signed as president indicates he's a socialist, marxist, or progressive. Oliver Stone has seen the light. Others have not. Perhaps if he wins reelection we will see some socialist or Marxist tendencies, but I doubt it. The wealthy (whether corporate or union or other) have far too much control over politics for Barack Obama to be anything more than someone who advances the interests of the wealthy.

"The wealthy," huh? You're starting to sound like a class warfare kinda guy...

You don't believe that the wealthy have a great deal (I would also say "far too much") of control over national politics in the United States?

[Woodruff]

As I've indicated previously, everything this president has done and signed has indicated to me he is a statist and a crony capitalist. Nothing he has done or signed as president indicates he's a socialist, marxist, or progressive. Oliver Stone has seen the light. Others have not. Perhaps if he wins reelection we will see some socialist or Marxist tendencies, but I doubt it. The wealthy (whether corporate or union or other) have far too much control over politics for Barack Obama to be anything more than someone who advances the interests of the wealthy.

"The wealthy," huh? You're starting to sound like a class warfare kinda guy...

You don't believe that the wealthy have a great deal (I would also say "far too much") of control over national politics in the United States?

Well we know YOU don't think that, because you're voting for increasing the wealthiest individuals' control over national politics in the United States.

[Phatscotty]

As I've indicated previously, everything this president has done and signed has indicated to me he is a statist and a crony capitalist. Nothing he has done or signed as president indicates he's a socialist, marxist, or progressive. Oliver Stone has seen the light. Others have not. Perhaps if he wins reelection we will see some socialist or Marxist tendencies, but I doubt it. The wealthy (whether corporate or union or other) have far too much control over politics for Barack Obama to be anything more than someone who advances the interests of the wealthy.

"The wealthy," huh? You're starting to sound like a class warfare kinda guy...

You don't believe that the wealthy have a great deal (I would also say "far too much") of control over national politics in the United States?

Well we know YOU don't think that, because you're voting for increasing the wealthiest individuals' control over national politics in the United States.

I lulz how you pretend to speak for everyone! What happened to speaking for the Republican Party?

...for Woodruff the Obama Lover eyes only...

show

[BigBallinStalin]

As I've indicated previously, everything this president has done and signed has indicated to me he is a statist and a crony capitalist. Nothing he has done or signed as president indicates he's a socialist, marxist, or progressive. Oliver Stone has seen the light. Others have not. Perhaps if he wins reelection we will see some socialist or Marxist tendencies, but I doubt it. The wealthy (whether corporate or union or other) have far too much control over politics for Barack Obama to be anything more than someone who advances the interests of the wealthy.

"The wealthy," huh? You're starting to sound like a class warfare kinda guy...

You don't believe that the wealthy have a great deal (I would also say "far too much") of control over national politics in the United States?

That's not my point.

The problem with the 'class warfare' perspective is that it treats "the wealthy" as a homogenous group of people with one aim, one desire, and no differences among them that matter. It implies that they all collude (which isn't true given that interest group politics is in no way smooth). It leads to an 'us v. them' mentality which is counter-productive. It's not helpful. It's inaccurate.

TGD seems to unwittingly be totting the reasoning of the Marxian class analyst.

[Woodruff]

...for Woodruff the Obama Lover eyes only...

You have zero morality.

And the result of your vote will make America FUBAR and bury the next generation in debt slavery.
Bravo

You're the one voting for him, not me.

[Phatscotty]

As I've indicated previously, everything this president has done and signed has indicated to me he is a statist and a crony capitalist. Nothing he has done or signed as president indicates he's a socialist, marxist, or progressive. Oliver Stone has seen the light. Others have not. Perhaps if he wins reelection we will see some socialist or Marxist tendencies, but I doubt it. The wealthy (whether corporate or union or other) have far too much control over politics for Barack Obama to be anything more than someone who advances the interests of the wealthy.

"The wealthy," huh? You're starting to sound like a class warfare kinda guy...

You don't believe that the wealthy have a great deal (I would also say "far too much") of control over national politics in the United States?

That's not my point.

The problem with the 'class warfare' perspective is that it treats "the wealthy" as a homogenous group of people with one aim, one desire, and no differences among them that matter. It implies that they all collude (which isn't true given that interest group politics is in no way smooth). It leads to an 'us v. them' mentality which is counter-productive. It's not helpful. It's inaccurate.

TGD seems to unwittingly be totting the reasoning of the Marxian class analyst.

maybe he is correctly pointing out Marxism?