A good summary of the Obama presidency

[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?

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?

Maybe you're an unmitigated troll?

[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.

maybe he is correctly pointing out Marxism?

♫ 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]

[john9blue]

good thread. i hope juan sees it.

[thegreekdog]

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.

I used the term "wealthy" as a catch-all for a variety of special interests (in fact, I listed a few of them). Frankly, special interest groups necessarily have to have wealth in order to influence government.

Plus, you were being sarcastic.

[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.

I used the term "wealthy" as a catch-all for a variety of special interests (in fact, I listed a few of them). Frankly, special interest groups necessarily have to have wealth in order to influence government.

Plus, you were being sarcastic.

+10 for TGD

All others: 0

[thegreekdog]

I think the others should lose points. They've all read my posts these past few years. They should have known better.

[john9blue]

um, wait... which posts in TGD and BBS' exchange were sarcasm?

[thegreekdog]

um, wait... which posts in TGD and BBS' exchange were sarcasm?

BBS saying I was a marxist or engaging in class warfare.

Probably the rest too, but who knows?

[BigBallinStalin]

um, wait... which posts in TGD and BBS' exchange were sarcasm?

Oh snap, you got da aids.jpg

[tzor]

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?

I certainly don't believe it. In fact it's fun to watch T. Boone Pickens failing at national politics in the United States. IT'S A GAS!

[Woodruff]

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?

I certainly don't believe it. In fact it's fun to watch T. Boone Pickens failing at national politics in the United States. IT'S A GAS!

What do you think that the Koch Brothers, the Walton family, Rupert Murdock, and George Soros are up to with the lobbying organizations they're funneling money through, exactly? And that's aside from the regular corporations involved, as well as other lobbying groups.