Yes, Obama is a Communist

[El Laton Caliente]

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/08/03/all-in-the-political-family

[El Jefe]

Damn, the more you learn about this administration, the worse you realize it is.

[N/A]

Damn, the more you learn about this administration, the worse you realize it is.

Hey, just tell yourself he is a marxist carpetbagger, and then nothing will surprise you.

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m3u6ehXjNJ1rsx4gno1_500.jpg

[5.56NATO]

http://www.reformation.org/frank-marshall-davis-obama.html

[Syph]

If Obama is a communist, I'm King George III. Just because Obama is more left-wing than a Republican doesn't mean he is a communist. He is very middle of the road in the grand scheme of political affiliations. If you thought Eisenhower was a liberal Republican, you have no idea.

As for his mentor being a communist, he has taken little from the USSR in terms of his current policies. It's quite obvious he ignored his mentor's more extermist leanings.

[N/A]

If Obama is a communist, I'm King George III. Just because Obama is more left-wing than a Republican doesn't mean he is a communist. He is very middle of the road in the grand scheme of political affiliations. If you thought Eisenhower was a liberal Republican, you have no idea.

As for his mentor being a communist, he has taken little from the USSR in terms of his current policies. It's quite obvious he ignored his mentor's more extermist leanings.

Sans the October Revolution, he knows how to institute marxism by degrees. Which explains how you do not know that the water is near boiling in Great Britain.

[5.56NATO]

If Obama is a communist, I'm King George III. Just because Obama is more left-wing than a Republican doesn't mean he is a communist. He is very middle of the road in the grand scheme of political affiliations. If you thought Eisenhower was a liberal Republican, you have no idea.

As for his mentor being a communist, he has taken little from the USSR in terms of his current policies. It's quite obvious he ignored his mentor's more extermist leanings.

If by middle you mean marxism on the left and communism on the right.

[El Laton Caliente]

Well, King George, just because Obama hasn't disolved Congress and suspended the US Constitution does not mean communism is not his perfered form of government. Had he tried to do so when he entered office he would not have lasted a week.

What he (his handlers) is doing is implimenting the Cloward–Piven strategy using Saul Alinski tactics. He has to unmake the represenitive republic before his "fundimental transformatiom".

[Syph]

Sans the October Revolution, he knows how to institute marxism by degrees. Which explains how you do not know that the water is near boiling in Great Britain.
You are a fool to think anything of the sort. It's this kind of cynicism that cause the McCarthy fiasco and similar show trials worthy of Soviet comparison. As for the "water being near boiling" in the UK, you are sadly mistaken, our government is destroying many of the socialist institutions that made our nation great to pursue Thatcher/Reagan's wet dream. If we were going to slip into marxism it would of happened already.

Oddly, this is the case of you ignoring all the past historical evidence, all communist societies started with war or revolutions. Nations born in violence tend to be violent.


If by middle you mean marxism on the left and communism on the right.
Left is marxism, right is capitalism. It is better described as a compass: north is authoritarianism, south is libertarianism, west is marxism, east is capitalism. This is mapped to the 2012 election (http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012).

[El Laton Caliente]

With the best armed public in history, the USA would be difficult to impossible to take by force unlesss the revolution is popular and the USA's public is not going to back communism in any great numbers. "Transformation" must therefore be incrimental and that is what the current crop of progressive communists in the White House is doing.

I think you missed the point of the centerist remark...

[N/A]

You are a fool to think anything of the sort. .

So says the British socialist who thinks socialism is the way of the future.
:proudusa:

[El Jefe]

You are a fool to think anything of the sort. It's this kind of cynicism that cause the McCarthy fiasco and similar show trials worthy of Soviet comparison. As for the "water being near boiling" in the UK, you are sadly mistaken, our government is destroying many of the socialist institutions that made our nation great to pursue Thatcher/Reagan's wet dream. If we were going to slip into marxism it would of happened already.

Oddly, this is the case of you ignoring all the past historical evidence, all communist societies started with war or revolutions. Nations born in violence tend to be violent.


Left is marxism, right is capitalism. It is better described as a compass: north is authoritarianism, south is libertarianism, west is marxism, east is capitalism. This is mapped to the 2012 election (http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012).

Damn, you get just a little more condescending and hateful each time you post here. Nice work. :slap:

[Warthogg]

"Transformation" must therefore be incrimental and that is what the current crop of progressive communists in the White House is doing.



True since 1913. Every single president and congress, without exception, has eroded our freedoms. We the American sheeple have allowed this to happen.:baaa:


Wart

[N/A]

Damn, you get just a little more condescending and hateful each time you post here. Nice work. :slap:

He's just mad because we don't take him seriously. What he forgets in his rant, is that all the nations taken over were being run by dictators...i.e. kings, emperors, warlords, et cetera...and the only way to wrest power from them was by force. It is the same way America was born, we wrested power from a dictator by force. Funny, we didn't become communist.

The difference with America is that we don't have a dictator for life, so we can vote our marxists in, we don't have to force them on the people.

[O.S.O.K.]

Great.... another syphilis infection.

[Oswald Bastable]

You are a fool to think anything of the sort. It's this kind of cynicism that cause the McCarthy fiasco and similar show trials worthy of Soviet comparison. As for the "water being near boiling" in the UK, you are sadly mistaken, our government is destroying many of the socialist institutions that made our nation great to pursue Thatcher/Reagan's wet dream. If we were going to slip into marxism it would of happened already.

Oddly, this is the case of you ignoring all the past historical evidence, all communist societies started with war or revolutions. Nations born in violence tend to be violent.

So, if you have a capitalist society where the majority work for a living and have the opportunity to get ahead through their hard work, and they are happy with that system and the way it works, how does one convert it into a socialist/marxist system where they will continually work to support those who have no desire to work and get ahead?

Historical evidence my be fine as regards a basically agrarian society caught up in violent revolution fomented by agitators looking for power (because, let's face it...the only reason to foment revolution is to gain power) but how is a powerful capitalist country undermined to the point where marxism can become the prevailing dogma?

There is no historical precedent for that, to this point.

So what would it take?

And if you think it isn't happening (hasn't been happening) throughout all the west and the US since the rise of marxism...then you are the fool.

[Syph]

So, if you have a capitalist society where the majority work for a living and have the opportunity to get ahead through their hard work, and they are happy with that system and the way it works, how does one convert it into a socialist/marxist system where they will continually work to support those who have no desire to work and get ahead?
Firstly, I believe the the "majority" that support capitalism have the wool pulled over their eyes. They have been conned hook, line and sinker in believing that the American dream becomes reality for most when there are very few people who get anywhere close. The idea has been exported across the world and allowed the rich in previously fairer societies to take a bigger piece for themselves.

The factors outside a person's control prevent the idea of a libertarian level playing field from being realised: bad genes, bad parenting, poor diet, bad local schools are important factors outside their control. Socialist reforms ensure that person has a comfortable minimum quality of life provided by those who have extremely good luck.


Historical evidence my be fine as regards a basically agrarian society caught up in violent revolution fomented by agitators looking for power (because, let's face it...the only reason to foment revolution is to gain power) but how is a powerful capitalist country undermined to the point where marxism can become the prevailing dogma?
This isn't about promoting pure marxism, it has been proven to fail time and time again. This is about integrating socialist principles to moderate the blindly destructive forces of capitalism and give the reigns of the machine from the dissociated executive to be spread evenly through the workforce.

Obama is clearly not doing anything of the sort. He's extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich, made several new free trade deals, promoted NDAA and promoted the architects of the financial meltdown into powerful positions.


And if you think it isn't happening (hasn't been happening) throughout all the west and the US since the rise of marxism...then you are the fool.
The UK has been a hot bed for the social reform that modern socialism craves and yet it is in the position of backpedalling rather than an acceleration towards the marxist dream. There is a huge gap between the fantasy and the reality, McCarthy couldn't tell the difference either...

[El Jefe]

Firstly, I believe the the "majority" that support capitalism have the wool pulled over their eyes. They have been conned hook, line and sinker in believing that the American dream becomes reality for most when there are very few people who get anywhere close. The idea has been exported across the world and allowed the rich in previously fairer societies to take a bigger piece for themselves.

The factors outside a person's control prevent the idea of a libertarian level playing field from being realised: bad genes, bad parenting, poor diet, bad local schools are important factors outside their control. Socialist reforms ensure that person has a comfortable minimum quality of life provided by those who have extremely good luck.


This isn't about promoting pure marxism, it has been proven to fail time and time again. This is about integrating socialist principles to moderate the blindly destructive forces of capitalism and give the reigns of the machine from the dissociated executive to be spread evenly through the workforce.

Obama is clearly not doing anything of the sort. He's extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich, made several new free trade deals, promoted NDAA and promoted the architects of the financial meltdown into powerful positions.


The UK has been a hot bed for the social reform that modern socialism craves and yet it is in the position of backpedalling rather than an acceleration towards the marxist dream. There is a huge gap between the fantasy and the reality, McCarthy couldn't tell the difference either...

Anfd who were these supposed architects? I doubt you can name them, nor will you ever own up to the real problems.

[Syph]

Anfd who were these supposed architects? I doubt you can name them, nor will you ever own up to the real problems.
The major offender is Robert Hormats who was Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs. He had a big stake in their reckless policy of investment. robert Rubin and Larry Summers were also poor choices.

As for the "real problems" I assume you mean the borrowers, rather than regulators or lenders. This is a backward way to look at it, if you make cigarettes readily available to ex-smokers then of course you are going to convince them to smoke. The lenders should have restrained their greed and lent to people who made a sensible investment. If they were forced to lend then the regulation was retarded, but ultimately its stupid to throw a succulent ham at a pack of dogs and expect anything better then a load of dog shit.

[Oswald Bastable]

Firstly, I believe the the "majority" that support capitalism have the wool pulled over their eyes. They have been conned hook, line and sinker in believing that the American dream becomes reality for most when there are very few people who get anywhere close. The idea has been exported across the world and allowed the rich in previously fairer societies to take a bigger piece for themselves.

The factors outside a person's control prevent the idea of a libertarian level playing field from being realised: bad genes, bad parenting, poor diet, bad local schools are important factors outside their control. Socialist reforms ensure that person has a comfortable minimum quality of life provided by those who have extremely good luck.

Didn't answer the question. If logic and reason fail you so completely that you find the need to answer a question that hasn't been asked, then you've no point (other than misdirection) in continuing the discourse.


This isn't about promoting pure marxism, it has been proven to fail time and time again. This is about integrating socialist principles to moderate the blindly destructive forces of capitalism and give the reigns of the machine from the dissociated executive to be spread evenly through the workforce.

Obama is clearly not doing anything of the sort. He's extended the Bush tax cuts for the rich, made several new free trade deals, promoted NDAA and promoted the architects of the financial meltdown into powerful positions.

Didn't answer the question. If logic and reason fail you so completely that you find the need to answer a question that hasn't been asked, then you've no point (other than misdirection) in continuing the discourse.

[El Jefe]

The major offender is Robert Hormats who was Vice Chairman of Goldman Sachs. He had a big stake in their reckless policy of investment. robert Rubin and Larry Summers were also poor choices.

As for the "real problems" I assume you mean the borrowers, rather than regulators or lenders. This is a backward way to look at it, if you make cigarettes readily available to ex-smokers then of course you are going to convince them to smoke. The lenders should have restrained their greed and lent to people who made a sensible investment. If they were forced to lend then the regulation was retarded, but ultimately its stupid to throw a succulent ham at a pack of dogs and expect anything better then a load of dog shit.

Uh yeah, if you get fined millions for not making dicey loans, guess what? You'll make them, you have no choice. Obama just fined I believe it was Bank of America, over 60 million for not handing out enough loans to the under privileged. The fault lies with those who make the demands, not with those who, to stay in business, follow through with said demands.

You obviously don't have clue one what occurred here, yet you've formed hard opinions and placed blame. WTF, kid? :lol2:

[Syph]

Didn't answer the question. If logic and reason fail you so completely that you find the need to answer a question that hasn't been asked, then you've no point (other than misdirection) in continuing the discourse.
Well when you throw loaded questions at me, I ignore them like any logical person. Your questions just falls short of "have you stopped beating your wife?". Your questions are similarly loaded with the false assumption that socialism supports those with no desire to work and that a society has to be undermined for marxist ideas to succeed.

So Oswald, have you stopped beating your wife?


Uh yeah, if you get fined millions for not making dicey loans, guess what? You'll make them, you have no choice. Obama just fined I believe it was Bank of America, over 60 million for not handing out enough loans to the under privileged. The fault lies with those who make the demands, not with those who, to stay in business, follow through with said demands.
It seems that there is a single subtlety between the US and UK crises. There was no regulation across the pond, whereas the US had a terrible piece of legislation to counter the resistance to social housing.


You obviously don't have clue one what occurred here, yet you've formed hard opinions and placed blame. WTF, kid? :lol2:
The case in the UK was slightly different, our vulnerability to your high risk markets was caused by casino capitalism in our investment banks. I've assigned the blame appropriately given my geography. The US government had a big role to play in the formation of the US bubble, however, the sale or mortgages between banks as Collateral Debt Obligations made it so difficult to predict the approaching black clouds.

[N/A]

:proudusa:Actually, I kind of hope our crass capitalism destroys European socialism.....

[El Laton Caliente]

:proudusa:Actually, I kind of hope our crass capitalism destroys European socialism.....

We will not get the chance, they have already destroyed it themselves...

[El Jefe]

We will not get the chance, they have already destroyed it themselves...

Circling the bowl.

[Oswald Bastable]

Well when you throw loaded questions at me, I ignore them like any logical person. Your questions just falls short of "have you stopped beating your wife?". Your questions are similarly loaded with the false assumption that socialism supports those with no desire to work and that a society has to be undermined for marxist ideas to succeed.

There was nothing loaded in my questions; they were speculative in nature. But it would appear you've not the wit to engage in anything of so cerebral a nature, that the highest point your intellect reaches is the straw man.

[El Laton Caliente]

It seems that there is a single subtlety between the US and UK crises. There was no regulation across the pond, whereas the US had a terrible piece of legislation to counter the resistance to social housing.


The case in the UK was slightly different, our vulnerability to your high risk markets was caused by casino capitalism in our investment banks. I've assigned the blame appropriately given my geography. The US government had a big role to play in the formation of the US bubble, however, the sale or mortgages between banks as Collateral Debt Obligations made it so difficult to predict the approaching black clouds.

Jimmy Carter and his Dem controlled Congress put the Community Reinvestment Act into Law. Bubba Clinton and the Dem controlled Congress greatly expanded it and gave the act teeth. Sen. Chris Dodo (D) and Rep. Barney Frank (D) who are the two senior Dems on the Senate and House Banking Committees have blocked any attempts to repair the damage.

The result of this was the mortgage companies and the banks were forced to make about 10% to 15% of their loans to people who could not pay them back. Additionally, there was at least one program were the banks could not by law even check or ask if the information on the loan application was correct (nicknamed "liar loans").

The banks knew they were holding bad loans they needed out from under; enter London's unregulated derivatives market. They rolled the bad loans into derivatives, insured the loans (on margins that if there was a major collapse the insurance could not cover the losses) and suddenly they had A+++ mortgage backed securities. This went fine until the extra loans, easy money and speculators drove property costs up, formed a predicted bubble and collapsed property prices.

This same scenario is now playing out with government debt. When national and state governments start defaulting, the derivatives based on government debt will collapse and the whole house of cards comes down. There is currently about $700 trillion dollars of derivatives based on $70 trillion in debt, it has to reset...