Obama's Great Leap Forward

[Ernst Junger]

The difference is Nixon was all talent and no charisma, while Obama is all charisma and no talent.

 

[MachZer0]

A definition without tenets? Check post 295, it's not hard to find.

I saw it before. Not really much there in the way of a definition.

 

[NightHawkeye]

The difference is Nixon was all talent and no charisma, while Obama is all charisma and no talent.

ROTFL ... thanks for the morning laugh.

 

[Vylo]

NHE adds "progressives" to the list. No big surprise there.

Marxists, communists, socialists, progressives. What other political persuasions?

So you moved the goalposts a second time after I showed you to be wrong again.

 

[BleedingHeart]

George Bush is a progressive?

 

[Vylo]

George Bush is a progressive?

He is when you change definitions to match your concepts I guess.

 

[NightHawkeye]

So you moved the goalposts a second time after I showed you to be wrong again.

LOL ... I may regret asking, but what exactly did you show to be wrong? I simply asked you what other political persuasions, and you provided specific examples. I asked the question in good faith and you provided an honest answer. It's all good.

So far, we have examples of Marxists, communists, socialists and progressives using FORWARD as campaign slogans.

The birds of a feather are: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Nixon, Bush II and Obama. So ... we know Obama by the company he keeps. Yes?

 

[NightHawkeye]

And, surprise, we can add Hitler ...

Vorwärts! Vorwärts! 2. slideshow (translated) - YouTube

 

[Vylo]

LOL ... I may regret asking, but what exactly did you show to be wrong? I simply asked you what other political persuasions, and you provided specific examples. I asked the question in good faith and you provided an honest answer. It's all good.

So far, we have examples of Marxists, communists, socialists and progressives using FORWARD as campaign slogans.

The birds of a feather are: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Nixon, Bush II and Obama. So ... we know Obama by the company he keeps. Yes?

You said no one but marxists used the slogan, I demonstrated that to be false. You then decided to add them to some other group, and also outright lie and call people were are blatantly not marxist in any fashion to be so. You are using at as a buzzword as so many do. When confronted with the "how are they marxist/socialist/communist", I always get met with blank stares and empty rhetoric. Because they aren't marxist, they aren't socialist. Even those in actual socialist parties are baffled by this. They are corporatist to the core.

 

[NightHawkeye]

You said no one but marxists used the slogan ...

I don't believe I said that.

I demonstrated that to be false.

Yes, but if I didn't say what you thought I said ...

You then decided to add them to some other group, and also outright lie and call people were are blatantly not marxist in any fashion to be so. You are using at as a buzzword as so many do. When confronted with the "how are they marxist/socialist/communist", I always get met with blank stares and empty rhetoric. Because they aren't marxist, they aren't socialist. Even those in actual socialist parties are baffled by this. They are corporatist to the core.

I merely observe and comment on the obvious, Vylo.

Can we discuss the associations and similarities between Bush and Obama now? Bush was certainly a big-spending, big-government dude. He wasn't quite in Obama's league since it took eight years for him to run up as much debt as Obama has in three years. Some have declared Bush a wannabe tyrant. Others have declared Obama a wannabe tyrant. Such are the characteristics of a progressive.

I suppose the next question would be: "What is a progressive?" And, secondarily, what progress are they marching "forward" toward?

 

[Vylo]

Others have declared Obama a wannabe tyrant. Such are the characteristics of a progressive.

That is your definition of the characteristics of a progressive.

A progressive is what the word sounds like, someone who desires progressive through political change.

 

[NightHawkeye]

That is your definition of the characteristics of a progressive.

A progressive is what the word sounds like, someone who desires progressive through political change.

LOL ... I suppose the irony of your circular definition is not something you've recognized ... yet.


Let's look at a little history ... Progressive Era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of social activism and political reform that flourished from the 1890s to the 1920s. One main goal of the Progressive movement was purification of government, as Progressives tried to eliminate corruption by exposing and undercutting political machines and bosses. Many (but not all) Progressives supported prohibition in order to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons. At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena. A second theme was achieving efficiency in every sector by identifying old ways that needed modernizing, and emphasizing scientific, medical and engineering solutions.
...
Disturbed by the waste, inefficiency, corruption and injustices of the Gilded Age, the progressives were committed to changing and reforming every aspect of the state, society and economy. Significant changes enacted at the national levels included the imposition of an income tax with the Sixteenth Amendment, direct election of Senators with the Seventeenth Amendment, Prohibition with the Eighteenth Amendment, and women's suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
​

Hope and change ... sounds a lot like Obama, LOL. All the change desired by "progressives" requires big-government. That's just a fact ... and that doesn't look like it will be ending well this time either ... at least not for the minority of us who still pay income taxes.

 

[Leere]

LOL ... I suppose the irony of your circular definition is not something you've recognized ... yet.


Let's look at a little history ... Progressive Era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of social activism and political reform that flourished from the 1890s to the 1920s. One main goal of the Progressive movement was purification of government, as Progressives tried to eliminate corruption by exposing and undercutting political machines and bosses. Many (but not all) Progressives supported prohibition in order to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons. At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena. A second theme was achieving efficiency in every sector by identifying old ways that needed modernizing, and emphasizing scientific, medical and engineering solutions.
...
Disturbed by the waste, inefficiency, corruption and injustices of the Gilded Age, the progressives were committed to changing and reforming every aspect of the state, society and economy. Significant changes enacted at the national levels included the imposition of an income tax with the Sixteenth Amendment, direct election of Senators with the Seventeenth Amendment, Prohibition with the Eighteenth Amendment, and women's suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
​

Hope and change ... sounds a lot like Obama, LOL. All the change desired by "progressives" requires big-government. That's just a fact ... and that doesn't look like it will be ending well this time either ... at least not for the minority of us who still pay income taxes.

It's amazing how many straws you're willing to grab at.

 

[NightHawkeye]

It's amazing how many straws you're willing to grab at.

Hi, Leere.

Straws?

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

According to Lenin, Marxism is comprised of three main source components:



Specifically, the materialism Obama does seem to have- Based upon his own spending habits, to say nothing about his wife's shopping sprees. Interestingly enough, though, this is not the materialism Marx/Lenin spoke of.



While Obama does seem to go for the eternally evolving bit, the fact of the matter is he's not fond of revealing information or "knowledge" about anything. Moreover, he has not really done anything that contradicts himself; in other words, he does not believe in the Marx philosophy of contradiction, E.G. dialectics.


Obama, when on the campaign trail, has done quite a bit of economical criticism. Not so much this this time around, because the reigns have been firmly in his hands, but the critique is still there. Marxist critique literally looks like this:



I.E., the true Marxist looks to undermine Capitalism- But by destroying large companies, industries, etc., and boosting the individual worker and small business. Obama, however, has done just the opposite; enacting laws that make it harder to be in business for oneself.

The claim that Obama is a Marxist is looking shaky.


Now we move on to socialist politics. There can be no doubt that Obama is socialist, correct? Well, let's see what the Marxist ideology has to say about this aspect.



Now, Obama has certainly set in motion what needs to take place for there to be "class struggle;" there is no denying that! However, he does not encourage criticism of his policies- Marxism encourages the seeking out of ulterior motives and "interest of class" behind everything. A true Marxist holds the philosophy and theory of Marx above everything; but Obama has lifted himself to the messianic, not Marx.

Obama, in short, is no Marxist. So what is he? Some might say that he is Socialist, and indeed, he has done things which can be described as "socialist." However, when one looks at the more common definition of socialism:



Obama does not want accountability- Not for those who support him, and certainly not for himself. He does not want a system wherein he is able to be removed anytime a majority decides; he has enough issues with the concept of free elections four years apart! Obama's not working for a true socialist society...



If Obama is not Marxist OR Socialist, but seems to implement certain aspects of both, what the heck is he?!

It was suggested that he is Facist, so let us look at that claim.



It would seem, by these points of platform, that Obama fails at Fascism as well. He does not believe in private property or free trade- He has stated his opinions on free trade many times in the past, as well as in his books. He appointed not one, but two SCotUS judges who have publicly stated that the concept of "private property" is "an antiquated notion." Moreover, he fails the "sacrifice" section, because he is nearly entirely motivated by economic wants and desires.

So... What is he?

Communist is the next cry, usually, so we'll look at that.



Communism took the ideas of Marxism and Socialism and instituted an additional feature: State control, an element of Fascism. The idea, of course, is that the state itself is fair and balanced and wonderful, giving equally to everyone. However, to achieve that dream... Well, I'm getting ahead of myself. Here are the three phases for Communism:



There are also tenets of a Communist society. See if you recognize any of these in some of the things which have been enacted over the past term:

• Central banking system
• Government controlled education
• Government controlled labor
• Government ownership of transportation and communication vehicles
• Government ownership of agricultural means and factories
• Total abolition of private property
• Property rights confiscation
• Heavy income tax on everyone
• Elimination of rights of inheritance
• Regional planning

While Obama does not even fit the idea of Communism to a T, it is a far closer fit than claiming a pure Marxist, Socialist or even Fascist stance.

This is why I like you You actually show that you know what you're talking about, even if I disagree with your conclusion

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Well, I'd rather look to the future and work to the dreams and goals that might help the human condition rather then look back to the 19th century and want the conditions we had then. But that's just me. And many others.

The problem is you HAVE to look to the past in order to learn how best to work your future. History has taught us lessons on most everything, but we never study it and look at it on the left, because we get just as uppity as the righties about our moral/ideological superiority and act like our ideas are foolproof.

Looking to the future is GREAT, and necessary...but NOT at the cost of avoiding the past. Don't let regressive righties fool you into thinking history is worthless.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

Obamacare is not favorable to capitalism.

Actually, yes it is.

‘Socialist’ Obamacare has been good for capitalist health insurance companies | Cynthia Tucker

Subverting existing bankrptcy laws is not favorable to capitalism.

In what way are you speaking? Give specific examples.

Buying out an auto company is not favorable to capitalism.

Yes, it is. It's crony capitalism at its finest. He saved the auto companies from bankruptcy and oblivion and allowed them to continue making oodles and oodles of profit.

How is that NOT good for capitalism?

Cap and trade is not favorable to capitalism.

Which is why free market capitalists created it, right?

Bankrupting a private industry is not favorable to capitalism.

So, all those capitalists that use the argument against bailouts that bankruptcy of private industries actually help the economy are just full of it?

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

He is when you change definitions to match your concepts I guess.

Unfortunately, the right commandeered the term "progressive" to add to their big scary boogeyman closet, like Marxist, Socialist, Communist, etc.

That's why so many people of those ideological persuasions tend to be afraid to admit it openly. The right has turned them into meaning evil, terrible things that must be stopped at all costs - ironically close to Hitler's justification for murdering Jews, socialists, communists, gypsies, etc.

 

[SmellsLikeCurlyFries]

LOL ... I suppose the irony of your circular definition is not something you've recognized ... yet.


Let's look at a little history ... Progressive Era - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Progressive Era in the United States was a period of social activism and political reform that flourished from the 1890s to the 1920s. One main goal of the Progressive movement was purification of government, as Progressives tried to eliminate corruption by exposing and undercutting political machines and bosses. Many (but not all) Progressives supported prohibition in order to destroy the political power of local bosses based in saloons. At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena. A second theme was achieving efficiency in every sector by identifying old ways that needed modernizing, and emphasizing scientific, medical and engineering solutions.
...
Disturbed by the waste, inefficiency, corruption and injustices of the Gilded Age, the progressives were committed to changing and reforming every aspect of the state, society and economy. Significant changes enacted at the national levels included the imposition of an income tax with the Sixteenth Amendment, direct election of Senators with the Seventeenth Amendment, Prohibition with the Eighteenth Amendment, and women's suffrage through the Nineteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
​

Hope and change ... sounds a lot like Obama, LOL. All the change desired by "progressives" requires big-government. That's just a fact ... and that doesn't look like it will be ending well this time either ... at least not for the minority of us who still pay income taxes.

Uhm...the self-proclaimed "goal" of the right is changing and reforming every aspect of the state, society, and economy in order to institute a complete free market (they claim), small government (they claim), and rights for everyone (they claim).

So the definition you gave of "progressive" and the portions you emphasized apply to the right and, more recently, the Tea Party.

 

[NightHawkeye]

Actually, yes it is.
‘Socialist’ Obamacare has been good for capitalist health insurance companies | Cynthia Tucker

Crony capitalism at it's finest. I believe Mach though was talking about actual free-market capitalism.

Yes, it is. It's crony capitalism at its finest. He saved the auto companies from bankruptcy and oblivion and allowed them to continue making oodles and oodles of profit.

How is that NOT good for capitalism?

He he he ... so you do understand the concept of "crony capitalism".

Crony capitalism destroys free-market capitalism ... moves it toward monopolies.

Which is why free market capitalists created it, right?

You mean staunch capitalists like, Al Gore?

Al Gore invests millions to make billions in cap-and-trade software

So, all those capitalists that use the argument against bailouts that bankruptcy of private industries actually help the economy are just full of it?

Huh? Thought you understood "crony capitalism", where the government picks the winners and the losers.

Whe the government pushes companies into bankruptcy, that is every bit as much "crony capitalism" as when the government decides which companies to bail out. To quote the VP, "... the President has a big stick". The problem is that he sticks it where it doesn't belong.