"If you've got a business, you didn't build that."

[bubba]

So, if not a ist believing in an ism, what is he? I know what his actions are, and in a way I have found to describe 0's policies:

"If there are 9 guys on a diamond shaped field throwing, catching, and hitting a leather covered hard ball, they aint playing football no matter what you want to tell me."

If you read the communist goals for America entered into the congressional record in 1963 you will see that no matter what he is calling it, he is enacting marxist / communist policies that have but only one discernable and planned result......

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by bubba

So, if not a ist believing in an ism, what is he?

Bubba--

MOO, the president is the worst sort of politician -- an opportunist who will do / say what ever he can to stay in power just for the sake of staying in power.

While I am inclined to oppose their policy preferences and their broader arguments about the role of government in our everyday lives, I believe there's a legitimate place in American politics for patriotic leftists. Historically, America has been its best when debate over controversial issues has been driven by contrasting viewpoints.

I think that the current president is subverting this tradition to serve his own personal ambition.

YMMV.

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Dusty--

The craft of history is dominated by social historians who are informed by materialist theory. This contingent regularly kicks around the question "Why is there no socialism in the United States?" By contrast, in those circles where "traditional" forms of historical inquiry still thrive, an enduring theme is the essentially consistent nature of American national politics and policy in which--for worse and for better--political, economic, and social elites get their way much more often than not. When one views contemporary American politics from these perspectives, what some see as "Marxism" emerges as a weird marriage of left of center Progressivism and left wing populism cloaked in a threadbare mantle of empty radical rhetoric.

IMO, we undermine our intellectual credibility and political effectiveness when we call the president a socialist or a communist. Not only does this dog not hunt, it gladly bites the hand that feeds it. A Marxist genuinely interested in fomenting class warfare would not be making appeals to the middle class. Nor would he be co-opting organized labor for campaign contributions and votes while standing mute during the two most significant labor disputes of his administration. Nor would he promote policies that bail out the banking and automotive industries. Nor would he be talking about fixing democratic capitalism. Nor would he redefine GWOT as primarily an exercise of law enforcement. Nor would he be constantly touching the third rail of identity politics. Nor would he be talking about America being at the cross roads of history. Nor would he be paraphrasing (badly and unconvincingly) Reagan, FDR, and Hamilton.

I understand what you are saying,Mr. Sigaba, but the shift of the pendulum has to start somewhere. Given 4 or 10 years down the road when the effects and what I would term as consequences of this administrations policies reach fruition, then a marxist would be able to take that luxury. In the meantime, IMO, that is the road we are going down. And soon enough, there won't be any turning back, and the ideals for marxisim thrive.

I think he also is spewing enough disinformation and incongruencies (hypocracies) about what he says and what he does, so none really have any idea from one speech to the next exactly what the hell is going on, especially those that might not be so into following political events.

[Richard]

He said this:

The point is, is that when we succeed, we succeed because of our individual initiative, but also because we do things together.

But that seems to have been lost in the current rising tide of on-going election year hyperbole and polemics.

I'm done with the effin' palaverin'...I just wanna vote.

And so it goes...

Richard

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Brush Okie

Give me a break. He is a commie pure and simple. He panders to who he needs to to get elected all the while tearing down the foundation of this country to rebuild it into a socialist paradise. You are taking something simple and complicating hit, dancing around and justifying it. He is a Marxist pure and simple. Look at his record and who he was around in college. Look at his wife's record and her political views. Additionally he is a racist.

Precisely how does offering a different analysis of a politician constitute justifying that politician's thought and behavior?

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

Precisely how does offering a different analysis of a politician constitute justifying that politician's thought and behavior?

Sigaba, anybody who can't understand that the title quote of this thread is an example of communist, socialist an/or marxist reasoning is a dumb shit.

[GratefulCitizen]

Not convinced his comments are a consequence of a socialist ideology.
They are a consequence of his narcissism.

Romney has consistenty demonstrated independent success through life.
The president has been highly dependent on others for his successes.

This side-by-side comparison is a threat to his fragile ego.
The president needs this "collective success" to be true.

If the story ends up going against him, the rage will show.
Then, the obvious explanation will be racism.

His socialist ideology is probably just a consequence of his narcissism.
He needs it to be true to explain why others succeed where he fails.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Sigaba, anybody who can't understand that the title quote of this thread is an example of communist, socialist an/or marxist reasoning is a dumb shit.

IMO the title is contextually misleading. It's an election year, and anybody who doesn't understand that is...well...whatever.

And so it goes...

Richard

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by Dusty

Sigaba, anybody who can't understand that the title quote of this thread is an example of communist, socialist an/or marxist reasoning is a dumb shit.

Or that unnamed "anybody" is familiar with the American System as proposed by Hamilton, and practiced by John Qunicy Adams and Henry Clay.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

IMO the title is contextually misleading. It's an election year, and anybody who doesn't understand that is...well...whatever.

And so it goes...

Richard

Richard, "it's an election year" isn't the answer to everything.

Remember "It Takes a Village." Same communist shit.

Anybody who believes libdems a la Obama, Billary, Pelosi Galore et al are only communists during election years is a dumb shit.

[Richard]

Originally Posted by Dusty

..."it's an election year" isn't the answer to everything.

Ratcheting up the hyperbolic rhetoric as has been happening for the past year is an election year staple for politicians, their affiliations, the pundits, the media, and the blogosphere. It isn't an answer for 'everything' being said or done out there, but certainly applies to a discussion of the context of a politically delivered, election-oriented speech such as this one.

Labeling everyone a communist or a dumbshit with whom you disagree is one way to answer everything that's being said or done, however, I'm pretty much in agreement with Sigaba's opinion that such mislabeling does more harm than good, reflects poorly on those doing such mislabeling, and distorts and deadens any message(s) being attempted...even among those who may agree that someone like BHO is deceptive, inept, disunifying, and one of the least effective Presidential leaders we've elected within the recent past.

But as I said previously, I'm tired of the pallaverin' and am ready to vote now. However, because that won't happen for three-and-a-half more months, I'm predicting the election-related rhetoric from all corners will only become even more picayune and strident as Election Day nears.

Richard

[Pete]

Well, I can vote today.

Republican primary runoff.

A few state offices to vote for.

Under 700 early voted in the county - and that counting D's and R's.

Folks - don't complain if you don't pull the lever, push the button or mark the card.

[Badger52]

Originally Posted by GratefulCitizen

Not convinced his comments are a consequence of a socialist ideology.
They are a consequence of his narcissism.

Romney has consistenty demonstrated independent success through life.
The president has been highly dependent on others for his successes.

This side-by-side comparison is a threat to his fragile ego.
The president needs this "collective success" to be true.

If the story ends up going against him, the rage will show.
Then, the obvious explanation will be racism.

His socialist ideology is probably just a consequence of his narcissism.
He needs it to be true to explain why others succeed where he fails.

That's a pretty damned good post.

I still think he's a less-than-average achiever left to his own devices. The thuggery behind his marketing remains a primary concern; the crew has to go, I don't want to see a single remnant when he's sent home to write another book.

Originally Posted by Badger52

I still think he's a less-than-average achiever left to his own devices.

Some folks at Harvard Law School would strongly disagree with your assessment.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/news/obama-at-hls.html

Originally Posted by Pete

Well, I can vote today.

Republican primary runoff.

A few state offices to vote for.

Under 700 early voted in the county - and that counting D's and R's.

Folks - don't complain if you don't pull the lever, push the button or mark the card.

Nonpartisan Primary

I voted almost 2 weeks ago by drop off /mail in ballot . Four Judges and one School Board member.

Going to the polls is so 19th centuryish!