I am disgusted with our party. I pray to god we get fresh blood in 16

[Toro]

And when I call Obama a Marxist, what ideology does that indicate I believe in? Whether or not I "advance" my cause, my calling Obama a Marxist tells you nothing about my own views other then they aren't left.

You are an ardent libertarian. Therefore, your cognitive biases mean you are more likely to interpret policies and beliefs that confirm your strident libertarian biases. Highly ideological people look at the world moreso in black and white rather than different shades of gray. Thus, if someone contradicts your ideology, you are more likely to see that person as a Marxist or a communist rather than as a social democrat or liberal.

This is a trap of ideology. Ideologues of all stripes do this.

And on the question, so the best you can come up with on his actual policies are not Marxist is rhetoric in a speech which means nothing in terms of his policies, which actually disincent the rhetoric you cited in this speech. Check and mate, Mate.

No. You are viewing the world out of context, which is common for strident ideologues. Obama is a progressive so his legislation will be progressive. That's not a surprise. Social Democrats in Europe do the same thing. That doesn't mean they are Marxists or Communists.

If you want specific legislation, Obama has passed free trade agreements with Colombia, Panama and South Korea. Communists don't negotiate free trade agreements with other capitalistic countries.

Obama gets win as Congress passes free-trade agreements - The Washington Post

Obama extended the Bush tax cuts to the poor and middle class. Proposing a 3.8% tax hike on the wealthiest is hardly Marxist. If that's your definition, then all hail the great communist Ronald Reagan who raised taxes as governor and President!

 

[Dragon]

These aren't all "planks."

None of them were planks. Nothing in the Communist Manifesto is a plank. However, all of them are points of belief for genuine Communists, or anyway Communists at that time (while Marx was still alive).

Regardless of the terminology, you referenced the Communist Manifesto as source of real Commie beliefs, which in a way it is. So I went to it. There you are, straight from the horse's mouth. Now man up and admit that Obama is no Marxist.

One liberal fallacy frequently used is "Soviets were communists, therefore everything Soviets do is communism."

Liberals very rarely succumb to fallacious thinking about Communism. They are far more rational about it than either conservatives or Communists. You display some examples of fallacious thinking yourself all through this post. Anyway, the Communist Manifesto predates the Soviet Union by decades.

Abolition of private property - Our system of property taxes accomplishes exactly this

Crap. "Abolition" means "wiping out of existence." Private property still exists. Hence no abolition. You're full of it.

Abolition of land ownership and diversion of all rents to public purposes - Two words, New London.

One ex-commercial town that's become a university town. Land ownership still exists (see again the meaning of "abolition.") You're full of it.

A heavy progressive, graduated income tax. (I support this. Obama does not.) - Of course he does. Show where he as advocated flattening taxes. He endlessly proposes tax the rich.

Yeah, at 39%, the same rate that Clinton imposed. Along with "abolition," perhaps you should clarify for yourself the meaning of the phrase "heavy progressive, graduated income tax." In 1952, the top marginal rate was 91%. Now THAT was a heavy progressive, graduated income tax. What we have now, or had under Clinton, or have proposed, is not.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance. - Again path to it. The death tax is coming back and he's pushing to ensure it does.

Again, you need to clarify for yourself the meaning of the word "abolition." Currently, estate taxes are 35% with a $5 million exemption. Proposed, the exemption would drop to $1 million and the rate go up to 55%. That is not "abolition."

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants. - Again a mainstream Democratic policy.

Link.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state. - Laughable, with the Fed and regulation this is exactly the path he's on.

So we have no private banks, or he proposes that we do away with them? That's where communists are coming from. Seems to me that he implemented a big bank bailout a couple years back. That ain't hardly Commie, bro.

Nationalization of the media. - Please. His administration has endlessly attacked Fox because they aren't in his pocket

Along with "abolition" and "graduated income tax," you need to look up the word "nationalization." That which is nationalized becomes public property and is no longer privately owned. We don't have that, and it isn't proposed.

Nationalization of means of production. - LOL, big government growing manipulation of the markets and business though taxes and regulation clearly growing leaps and bounds.

Again, look up the word "nationalization." A big problem having discussions with you, I've found, is that you consistently lump together a word with its third cousin twice removed as if they meant the same thing. They don't.

Establishment of "industrial armies." - What policy or position are you referring to that he's opposed this?

It would be like conscription of people for industrial purposes, the way Stalin did in the 1930s when trying to industrialize Russia.

Abolition of town and country and distribution of population across the country. - Ditto.

It's clear enough. E.g., take the population of New York City and spread it across the states of NY, NJ, and whatever others is required.

In none of these could you give an Obama policy or position which is counter to them.

That's because I count on any person who is both observant and obvious to see for themselves that he does not support any of these things. Clearly, in your case, I'm dealing with someone who is either unobservant or not honest. I lean towards the latter explanation, but believe that you are lying to yourself rather than to me.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

NO, it's Obama's fault that he failed to create policies that encouraged growth after a crash.

Nonsense.

It’s Congress’ responsibility to draft legislation to address economic issues. The Executive may make proposals, but those proposals don’t become law without Congress. Ideally Congress and the president work together to implement legislation, as Bush and the democrats did in 2008, fortunately. But republican obstructionism in the Senate starting in 2009 and absolute inaction by the House starting in 2011 made any needed follow-up recovery policy impossible.

In the end it really doesn’t matter: the economy will heal in its own time, in its own manner, regardless what politicians do in the short term. But whatever the case, it’s partisan idiocy to argue Obama’s to blame for the crash or the slow pace of recovery.

 

[JoeB131]

NO, it's Obama's fault that he failed to create policies that encouraged growth after a crash.

Nonsense.

It’s Congress’ responsibility to draft legislation to address economic issues. The Executive may make proposals, but those proposals don’t become law without Congress. Ideally Congress and the president work together to implement legislation, as Bush and the democrats did in 2008, fortunately. But republican obstructionism in the Senate starting in 2009 and absolute inaction by the House starting in 2011 made any needed follow-up recovery policy impossible.

In the end it really doesn’t matter: the economy will heal in its own time, in its own manner, regardless what politicians do in the short term. But whatever the case, it’s partisan idiocy to argue Obama’s to blame for the crash or the slow pace of recovery.

Some day, barry's got to pull up his big boy pants and take responsibility for his own economy... Some day, little Johnny.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

NO, it's Obama's fault that he failed to create policies that encouraged growth after a crash.

Nonsense.

It’s Congress’ responsibility to draft legislation to address economic issues. The Executive may make proposals, but those proposals don’t become law without Congress. Ideally Congress and the president work together to implement legislation, as Bush and the democrats did in 2008, fortunately. But republican obstructionism in the Senate starting in 2009 and absolute inaction by the House starting in 2011 made any needed follow-up recovery policy impossible.

In the end it really doesn’t matter: the economy will heal in its own time, in its own manner, regardless what politicians do in the short term. But whatever the case, it’s partisan idiocy to argue Obama’s to blame for the crash or the slow pace of recovery.

This is a strange argument. It has some truth to it but I have one bone to pick.

The democrats took over congress in 2006 and the economy crashed 2 years later. Yet Bush got all the blame.

Now Obama gets a pass because congress became split?

 

[JoeB131]

NO, it's Obama's fault that he failed to create policies that encouraged growth after a crash.

Nonsense.

It’s Congress’ responsibility to draft legislation to address economic issues. The Executive may make proposals, but those proposals don’t become law without Congress. Ideally Congress and the president work together to implement legislation, as Bush and the democrats did in 2008, fortunately. But republican obstructionism in the Senate starting in 2009 and absolute inaction by the House starting in 2011 made any needed follow-up recovery policy impossible.

In the end it really doesn’t matter: the economy will heal in its own time, in its own manner, regardless what politicians do in the short term. But whatever the case, it’s partisan idiocy to argue Obama’s to blame for the crash or the slow pace of recovery.

This is a strange argument. It has some truth to it but I have one bone to pick.

The democrats took over congress in 2006 and the economy crashed 2 years later. Yet Bush got all the blame.

Now Obama gets a pass because congress became split?

Good point.

 

[francoHFW]

Half the dupes say Obama is a Communist, half he's a Fascist corporate tool. Half say he's a war mongerer, half say he's a pussy muslim.What a bunch of brainwashed morons...

 

[rdean]

Before the 60's, when the liberals left the Republican Party and all the Southern Conservatives, switched from Democrat to Republican, the Republican Party was a great party. They started NASA and put together our highway system. HUGE infrastructure projects. The economy was going in leaps and bounds and Eisenhower presided over a tax rate of 90% on the wealthiest Americans. Did they go to another country because they didn't like the tax rates? No, they worked harder and helped build a strong and vibrant Middle Class.

They did so much for the country. People forget how great Republicans used to be.

Now, it's "Let them die" and "corporations are people my friend". Pitiful. Simply pitiful.

 

[MarcATL]

Bill Bennett knows Newt personally and says he has problems. This gives me pause because I've considered Bennett a respectable man and usually trust his judgment.

I remember Newt as speaker and thought he did a good job. Problem is Bennett says he knows Newt personally and listed a few characteristics that bother me. I got a sense of some of them but just wrote it off as personality glitches when put on the spot. Bill however says they are part of Newts core. Ie self agrandizing and grandiose ideas beyond the ones we have heard about. He thinks as many here have said that if Newt wins the nomination the election will become about his past.

How did our party get relegated to such shitty choices? Obama should be so fucking easy to beat yet at every turn its all about the negativity of our party.

Perry can't debate to save his life. And yes I know were not electing a debater n chief but if he can't sell himself on the stage against Obama the public won't vote for him.

Pauls foreign policy is nuts.

Santorum is too extreme for this election cycle. The country doesn't want to go from far left to far right.

Newt can't outrun his past long enough to talk about current events.

Bachmann just turns me off personally.

Huntsman sounds centered but I honestly don't know anything about the man. And if I don't the public at large won't have a clue.

That leaves Romney, the KING FLIP FLOPPER.


WTF


I like Santorum and Bachmanns ideas but it won't fly in this election so WTF is a person to do? Sitting out or writing in a name is a sheer waste because it could lead to another Obama term. He has to go so I guess I just have to bite my tongue and vote for whoever gets the nomination. This is beginning to feel just like 08 and it straight pisses me off.

I know I'll probably get flamed for this post but I don't care. I don't have a job secure from this shitty economy and I desperately need change.

Seems that reality is starting to set in, SMACKING the far rightwingers dead in the face.

I guess that's a good thing.

 

[MarcATL]

Speaking as a working person, I don't think I can use any more of Obama's help, thank you very much.

Yeah because it is Obama's fault the economy crashed under Bush.

NO, it's Obama's fault that he failed to create policies that encouraged growth after a crash.

Crashes happen. They are part of the eb and flow of the economy. Heck, this is fifth recession I've lived through. You have a crash, the deck gets reshuffled, everyone moves on. But this time, Obama has just imposed one stupid policy after another that keeps us from moving forward.

You're business is struggling? Here's a huge new health care mandate to make employing people more expensive! Rely on cheap oil to run your company? Well, I'll start a war in Libya that will jack up the price for a year! And here's a slew of new regulations you have to comply with... Ummm, errr, why are you packing up your shit and moving to China?

When the CEO of Coke says a communist dictatorship has a more business friendly environment than the US, that should be a big red flag we have a problem.

Which is obvious to everyone but Barry...

Uhm, American corporation have BEEN migrating to China and other foreign countries en mass for over a decade now.

You're partisan straps are showing.

 

[kaz]

And when I call Obama a Marxist, what ideology does that indicate I believe in? Whether or not I "advance" my cause, my calling Obama a Marxist tells you nothing about my own views other then they aren't left.

You are an ardent libertarian

You apparently don't know any libertarians because libertarians call me a liberal. I'm with them on social issues and use of the military, but economic I'm no ideologue. Some examples. Not that they mean I carry them as far as our current government, but examples of things I support having to a degree government being involved in:

1) Environmental regulations
2) Truth in advertising requirements
3) National Parks and Forrests
4) Disclosure of hiring practices (I'm OK with discrimination, but it should be disclosed to prospective employees and customers)
5) Anti-trust laws to facilitate free markets

This is actually an accurate use of the term "General Welfare" in the Constitution because they benefit all citizens equally. Hence "General." Welfare is not General Welfare because it benefits some citizens and punishes others. That is what they meant. While I want all government limited, I am far more flexible with State powers and far more then that with local. At least then we have a choice over where we want to live. With Federal power, there is none.

Therefore, your cognitive biases mean you are more likely to interpret policies and beliefs that confirm your strident libertarian biases.

That government is a poor solution to any problem and should be the last and not first solution to a problem is supported by all empirical data and hardly a "bias." Sorry.

Highly ideological people look at the world moreso in black and white rather than different shades of gray.

You look at the two parties in DC and say "I" don't see shades of grey. They see black and white between themselves and the other party where there is no difference. Your eyesight's not too good.

And you complain I call you a Democrat when every post I've ever seen from you defends Democrats and attacks Republicans. Which means I'm black and white. Got it.

No. You are viewing the world out of context, which is common for strident ideologues. Obama is a progressive so his legislation will be progressive. That's not a surprise. Social Democrats in Europe do the same thing. That doesn't mean they are Marxists or Communists.

A lot of the Euro "socialists" are communists. Take off the rose colored glasses. You think you're onto something with my passing at your red herring. The difference is that European socialists who are not Communists are not anti-capitalist on principle, they just want government areas to run a lot more of their lives then I do. But then they leave the market to operate relatively freely beyond that. There are also a lot of anti-capitalists who are Communists. Obama is anti-Capitalist. He told me that in his endless campaign commercials against Hillary where he vowed to destroy financial services, energy companies and companies in general. I live in North Carolina, a battleground state. And you should do some reading into his past and his association with Marxists.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Hey kaz, show us where Obama is in favour of abolition of all private property, nationalization of the media, nationalization of the "means of production," etc., etc., etc.

I responded to his post and these points, but note your argument. You guys are politically active. You follow politics closely. You jump in and scoff when I say he's a Marxist. Yet when I ask you for policies your great leader has which are clearly counter to Communist, you have to sit on our asses and say "show me" where this or that policy is Communist. If he's not a Communist, that should be simple for you. You guys are tag teaming me and citing the Manifesto, yet none of you can answer my simple question. Show actual policies or positions of his which are not Marxist. Yet none of you can do it. You're clearly showing my point.

Kaz, as usual, has it backward. He has to offer substantiative evidence before the opposition has to refute it.

Until Kaz can offer solid evidence of "Obama is in favour of abolition of all private property, nationalization of the media, nationalization of the 'means of production,' etc., etc., etc", the Kaz's position is fail.

 

[Toro]

You apparently don't know any libertarians because libertarians call me a liberal. I'm with them on social issues and use of the military, but economic I'm no ideologue. Some examples. Not that they mean I carry them as far as our current government, but examples of things I support having to a degree government being involved in:

1) Environmental regulations
2) Truth in advertising requirements
3) National Parks and Forrests
4) Disclosure of hiring practices (I'm OK with discrimination, but it should be disclosed to prospective employees and customers)
5) Anti-trust laws to facilitate free markets

This is actually an accurate use of the term "General Welfare" in the Constitution because they benefit all citizens equally. Hence "General." Welfare is not General Welfare because it benefits some citizens and punishes others. That is what they meant. While I want all government limited, I am far more flexible with State powers and far more then that with local. At least then we have a choice over where we want to live. With Federal power, there is none.

Fair enough. My mistake.

That government is a poor solution to any problem and should be the last and not first solution to a problem is supported by all empirical data and hardly a "bias." Sorry.

No it is not. That's ridiculous. I would agree that the private sector usually finds a better solution but that it always finds a better solution is NOT supported by the empirical data.

The fact that you are on the Internet communicating with telecommunications technology - both created with heavy inputs from government - is more than a little ironic.

And you complain I call you a Democrat when every post I've ever seen from you defends Democrats and attacks Republicans. Which means I'm black and white. Got it.

You'd be wrong.

Besides, when I say that "Democrats are not communists," I'm not defending Democrats per se. I'm correcting stupidity.

A lot of the Euro "socialists" are communists. Take off the rose colored glasses. You think you're onto something with my passing at your red herring. The difference is that European socialists who are not Communists are not anti-capitalist on principle, they just want government areas to run a lot more of their lives then I do. But then they leave the market to operate relatively freely beyond that. There are also a lot of anti-capitalists who are Communists. Obama is anti-Capitalist. He told me that in his endless campaign commercials against Hillary where he vowed to destroy financial services, energy companies and companies in general. I live in North Carolina, a battleground state. And you should do some reading into his past and his association with Marxists.

Democratic socialism is the prevailing left-wing political movement in Europe. Democratic socialism is not communism. Communists are not democratic socialists. There is a big, big difference. So there are no democratic socialists in Europe who are communists.

By definition, a communist is anti-capitalist but an anti-capitalist isn't necessarily a communist. And it depends what you mean by "anti-capitalist" anyways. A communist believes in the government controlling the credit system, and they don't mean regulations in private hands nor GSEs guaranteeing mortgages either. They mean the government owning it. I work in the financial system, and I know of no one who believes we shouldn't have at least some regulation. Most people I know think there should be more regulation in some areas of finance (and less in others).

I don't care what Obama did way in the past. FFS, Reagan was a union-promoting Democrat. Was he when he was President? I come from a place where we had governments trying to implement real socialism, where they nationalized resources and bought farmland and businesses out of ideology, not necessity, and where they wanted to nationalize credit. And from what I see, Obama and the Democrats - though incompetent - certainly aren't socialists, let alone communists.

 

[JoeB131]

Uhm, American corporation have BEEN migrating to China and other foreign countries en mass for over a decade now.

You're partisan straps are showing.

And what has Obama been doing to slow it down?

I mean, it's like the guy won't even admit this is kind of a problem.

 

[bravoactual]

That should do for starters.

These aren't all "planks." One liberal fallacy frequently used is "Soviets were communists, therefore everything Soviets do is communism."

Abolition of private property - Our system of property taxes accomplishes exactly this as we rent land, cars, other property from the government and own nothing. You don't pay the property tax, they take it away. And the taxes are going up and they are taxing more things. And businesses even moreso. What has Obama done to oppose this?

Abolition of land ownership and diversion of all rents to public purposes - Two words, New London. This is exactly what's happening. What has Obama done to oppose this?

A heavy progressive, graduated income tax. (I support this. Obama does not.) - Of course he does. Show where he as advocated flattening taxes. He endlessly proposes tax the rich.

Abolition of all rights of inheritance. - Again path to it. The death tax is coming back and he's pushing to ensure it does.

Confiscation of the property of all emigrants. - Again a mainstream Democratic policy. Show where Obama has opposed what his fellow Democrats propose.

Centralization of credit in the hands of the state. - Laughable, with the Fed and regulation this is exactly the path he's on.

Nationalization of the media. - Please. His administration has endlessly attacked Fox because they aren't in his pocket like the liberal media and bring up the Fairness doctrine which is a government tool to restrict non-liberal pro government views. What has he done to allow media freedom?

Nationalization of means of production. - LOL, big government growing manipulation of the markets and business though taxes and regulation clearly growing leaps and bounds. What has he done to roll it back? Nothing, he's pushing pedal to the floor.

Establishment of "industrial armies." - What policy or position are you referring to that he's opposed this?

Abolition of town and country and distribution of population across the country. - Ditto.

In none of these could you give an Obama policy or position which is counter to them. You just wave your hand and say he can't believe these. The guy is freaking President and you can't come up with a single thing he actually does or pushes that is clearly counter to Communist. All you can say is that he's not there yet. You have zero.

RePuBliCons are now, and have always been a fact challenged group.

 

[Dragon]

The democrats took over congress in 2006 and the economy crashed 2 years later. Yet Bush got all the blame.

Now Obama gets a pass because congress became split?

What this means is that in neither case can we adopt a simplistic "it happened under his watch" argument to put all the blame on the president.

Personally, I have never blamed Bush for the Lesser Depression because I know what made it inevitable: the return in the 1980s to the same sort of government policy that made the Great Depression inevitable decades earlier. And the architect of that transition was neither Bush nor Obama, but Ronald Reagan. Bush and Obama, along with Bush's father and Clinton, are to blame for failing to reverse that change, which would have saved us from the deluge. But none of them were responsible for initiating it.

I do blame Bush for the increased deficits under his presidency, for good reason. I blame him for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. I blame him for the expansion of government surveillance power and the asserted power of the government to detail people without civil liberties protections merely by accusing them of involvement in terrorism. I blame Obama for failing to reverse these policies. I blame Obama for adopting an overly corporate-friendly attitude in his administration and so failing to take the action we need to restore the middle class. I blame him for talking the talk without walking the walk. I blame him for appointing Geithner as Sec. of Treasury, for retaining Bernanke at the Fed, for choosing Rahm Emanuel as his CoS.

In short, I blame each man for what he has done wrong, not for things that merely happened while he was president by some sort of divine-ruler magic.

 

[kaz]

That government is a poor solution to any problem and should be the last and not first solution to a problem is supported by all empirical data and hardly a "bias." Sorry.

No it is not. That's ridiculous. I would agree that the private sector usually finds a better solution but that it always finds a better solution is NOT supported by the empirical data.

Go back to my wording. I said it should be the "last and not the first solution to a problem." Last doesn't mean the way you rephrased it, it means you go to government when you've exhausted all other solutions. That isn't the same as there is never a solution where you go to government. Private markets only work when there is a competitive market driven by consumer choice. When that is not possible, then and only then do you go to government. Some examples:

1) Societal infrastructure. It is not practical to have competing militarizes, roads, police departments, prisons, et al., so yeah, private markets suck at doing that.

2) Final say. Things like land ownership, broadcasting on airwaves, civil courts and criminal courts need a final arbiter, only government can do that.

3) Natural monopolies. Controlling access to water and having one set of power lines and phone lines need to be regulated by government. Note over time natural monopolies change. Phones for example depend less and less on having any wire network.

The fact that you are on the Internet communicating with telecommunications technology - both created with heavy inputs from government - is more than a little ironic.

Not so much. Government, the military, was involved in the conception of the internet, which Al Gore isn't aware of was in the 60s and not actually his creation. He was referring to the Web. Funny the inventor of the web doesn't know the difference between the Web and the Internet. But hey. The government also put money into building bandwidth. To give them more credit then that and claim it wouldn't have happened without them is dubious to say the least. And the money government spent was taken from the marketplace and directed to that purpose.

 

[kaz]

And you complain I call you a Democrat when every post I've ever seen from you defends Democrats and attacks Republicans. Which means I'm black and white. Got it.

You'd be wrong.

Besides, when I say that "Democrats are not communists," I'm not defending Democrats per se. I'm correcting stupidity.

Actually again taking you back to my wording, I said every post I've seen you write. You, rw and Jake claim to be Republicans, but I never see any of you ever criticize Democrats or support Republicans. I did not say you never did, I said I never saw it. Granted I don't post as much as you, but I've seen a pretty good body of your posts at this point.

You can argue as a message board you tend to get more activists on the "right" and they are more extreme, but I'd counter with ditto on the lefties on the board and yet I see you backing them up.

 

[kaz]

Democratic socialism is the prevailing left-wing political movement in Europe. Democratic socialism is not communism. Communists are not democratic socialists. There is a big, big difference. So there are no democratic socialists in Europe who are communists.

By definition, a communist is anti-capitalist but an anti-capitalist isn't necessarily a communist. And it depends what you mean by "anti-capitalist" anyways. A communist believes in the government controlling the credit system, and they don't mean regulations in private hands nor GSEs guaranteeing mortgages either. They mean the government owning it. I work in the financial system, and I know of no one who believes we shouldn't have at least some regulation. Most people I know think there should be more regulation in some areas of finance (and less in others).

I agree with what you say regarding anti-capitalists. But actually if you read the actual planks of the manifesto, you see two things. First, it's a recipe for dominating a country in every possible way. Second, it's eerie how it is the Democratic party agenda. I'm willing to get a lot more specific in that, but the reason I approach it as I do is I want to debate it with someone who knows what they are talking about and has a critical mind. So far I get people like Jake who say no they're not, nanny boo boo.

I don't care what Obama did way in the past. FFS, Reagan was a union-promoting Democrat. Was he when he was President? I come from a place where we had governments trying to implement real socialism, where they nationalized resources and bought farmland and businesses out of ideology, not necessity, and where they wanted to nationalize credit. And from what I see, Obama and the Democrats - though incompetent - certainly aren't socialists, let alone communists.

Reagan and Obama are good points. I agree you can't say so and so did X in the past ergo they do X today. Reagan is an excellent example of someone who changed course. No reason to deny his prior views, but clearly they were not his views later in his life.

On the other hand, you raised European socialism. I'm pointing out that Obama's influence earlier in his career is actually Marxist and his policies are anti-capitalist and he's continued down that same path. It's actually pretty applicable to that discussion since unlike Reagan he didn't change course. That a Communist would use capitalist rhetoric (your point on his saying to buy stocks) is actually pretty common for Communists, who manipulate people. They say when they murder the people to further their own power it's for the people as well. Rhetoric without policy to go with it is meaningless.

 

[Dragon]

I agree with what you say regarding anti-capitalists. But actually if you read the actual planks of the manifesto, you see two things. First, it's a recipe for dominating a country in every possible way. Second, it's eerie how it is the Democratic party agenda.

Neither of those is true. But I'm not really interested in defending Communism. I'm just interested in pointing out that anyone who sincerely believes that the Democratic Party advocates Marxism demonstrates himself incapable of making logical distinctions.

On the other hand, you raised European socialism. I'm pointing out that Obama's influence earlier in his career is actually Marxist and his policies are anti-capitalist and he's continued down that same path. It's actually pretty applicable to that discussion since unlike Reagan he didn't change course.

There is no evidence that Obama has EVER advocated a Marxist position. If one person in his administration (Van Jones) used to, and if Obama has some tangential association with another as a community organizer (William Ayers), that proves nothing except that Obama is capable of making logical distinctions -- something that anyone who thinks on this basis that Obama himself is a Marxist demonstrates himself incapable of doing.

To clarify: A position that shares with Marxism being skeptical of unfettered capitalism is not, on that basis, Marxist. A person who has associated in some way with people who are, or once were, Marxists, is not himself on that basis a Marxist. A person is a Marxist if and only if he advocates actual Marxist positions (NOT positions sharing a superficial characteristic with Marxism), and only if he does so HIMSELF (NOT if he has associates who do).

I have associates and even personal friends who are Christian. I am not a Christian. Same with people who have associates who are Marxists. You need to learn to make these logical distinctions if you want to be taken seriously.