Is Obama socialist or fascist?

You're right, Obama didn't do anything...Just

Ended Bush administration's CIA program of 'enhanced interrogation methods' by requiring that the Army field manual be used as the guide for terrorism interrogations

Health Care Reform Bill, preventing insurance companies from denying insurance because of a pre-existing condition

Ending the Iraq War

Health Care Reform Bill, allowing children to remain covered by their parents' insurance until the age of 26

Lifted restrictions granting Cuban Americans unrestricted rights to visit family and send remittances to the island
etc.

But I guess Mitt Romeny will have the upper hand when personally attacking Obama and not revealing his tax accounts. Because...of course he has nothing to hide, right?

 

i never said i had a problem with you personally. i am starting to think you may have a problem with taking things personally that were not meant that way.

i already explained the connection between your farting question and your attack on this thread's question.

 

But allowed the continuation of 'Extraordinary Rendition'...

 

Sure he did.

 

Right, and I gave you my response. Point taken and moving on.

 

I don't support Mitt Romney so you shouldn't assume. Obviously you're not clear-headed enough for an adult conversation, so it's not worth my time to try.

 

Well, most of the general public are brainwashed imbeciles, and they automatically assume that if you don't support an empty suit (or chair, rather) like Obama -- a mindless moron who reads bullshit someone else wrote for him off a teleprompter -- then you must automatically be in support of the "other side." This is the brainwashed mentality promoted by the media and public school system. Sports are so important in dumbing the population down, because it promotes this way of thinking. Always this vs. that. It's the black and white dialectic.

I think Obama and Romney are both pure scum, but people will defend a dumbass like Obama simply because he spouts different rhetoric than Romney, though has been vetted by the same powerful people.

Fuck them both. And by the way, some of you bleeding heart liberals make me sick. You are some of the most brainwashed people ever. And what really disgusts me is that some of you think you're so smart and open-minded. In reality, the exact opposite is more often the case.

 

Bail out Wall Street (Help save the owners of Capital)? Oh yes----that's definitely Socialist. Don't you remember when the Bolsheviks did that right before the Russian Revolution? Yeah---they injected a bunch of capital into the Russian banks, to fight the tyranny of the Czar. They needed to save the capitalist system so that when the workers united and took over the means of production, the Bolshevik-run capitalists would be able to provide their healthcare----which had been designed by an African American that had been run out of the US for his Marxist ideals. Why would the Socialists not want a strong capitalist banking system? It says so right in my history book.

...WAIT A MINUTE!!! This history book was written by the Republican National Committee!!!

 

25

The problem I see with this approach is that it just encourages ‘bad’ forms of governance because it means governance falls into the hands of those with the power and influence to drive policy, and it is not surprising that it is often right wing propaganda that encourages the ‘rugged individualist’ approach (a strong theme within anti-communist and neoliberal / free market thinking).

But that is the thing – the way you are reacting to a bad situation is seemingly to want to make it worse with a whole load of what seem to be deeply flawed right wing ideas.

I mean go and look at those threads were such right wing ideas are discussed and time after time you will find that there supporters don’t seem able to defend them from criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

It seems to me the reason for that is because many of these ideas seem to be rarely challenged in the US they have been so deeply implanted through long use of propaganda that they have become to many just ‘common sense’ and its only when they are actually asked to defend them that they suddenly realise they can’t.

For example to you it doesn’t seem to be about good governance but neoliberal free market slogans like ‘small government’ and cutting taxes – things that as have been explained time and again would greatly increase the power and influence of wealth and putting them even further in control, with the freedom to mould the system in their own interests to the detriment of everyone else.

 

25

Oh there are differences between the two main political parties but the problem in my opinion is that they are both basically right wing parties and there is nothing of any consequence pulling them to the left.

Basically the US seems to have a dysfunctional political system where wealth has too much influence but rather than change this for the better many Americans have been seduced by wealth influenced right wing ideas that would only make things worse.

But that is what I’m saying - there is no ‘left’ of any consequence in the US left wing ideas have basically been purged from American society over the last 50 odd years.

 

The correct answer to the question is 'Mu.'

Wiki;

The term is often used or translated to mean that the question itself must be "unasked": no answer can exist in the terms provided. Zhaozhou's answer, which literally means that dogs do not have Buddha nature, has been interpreted by Robert Pirsig and Douglas Hofstadter to mean that such categorical thinking is a delusion, that yes and no are both right and wrong.

In Robert M. Pirsig's 1974 novel Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, mu is translated as "no thing", saying that it meant "unask the question". He offered the example of a computer circuit using the binary numeral system, in effect using mu to represent high impedance:

For example, it's stated over and over again that computer circuits exhibit only two states, a voltage for "one" and a voltage for "zero." That's silly! Any computer-electronics technician knows otherwise. Try to find a voltage representing one or zero when the power is off! The circuits are in a mu state.

The word features prominently with a similar meaning in Douglas Hofstadter's 1979 book, Gödel, Escher, Bach. It is used fancifully in discussions of symbolic logic, particularly Gödel's incompleteness theorems, to indicate a question whose "answer" is to
un-ask the question,
indicate the question is fundamentally flawed, or
reject the premise that a dualistic answer can or will be given.
According to the Jargon File, a collection of hacker jargon and culture, mu is considered by Discordians to be the correct answer to the classic logical fallacy of the loaded question,

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Assuming that you have no wife or you have never beaten your wife, the answer "yes" is wrong because it implies that you used to beat your wife and then stopped, but "no" is worse because it suggests that you have one and are still beating her. As a result, some Discordians proposed "mu" as the correct answer, which to them means,

Your question cannot be answered because it depends on incorrect assumptions.

For the same reason, "mu" may be used similarly to "N/A" or "not applicable," a term often used to indicate the question cannot be answered because the conditions of the question do not match the reality.

 

At this point do the reptilians got you?

 

What is my flawed ideas? Is it flawed to believe in deregulation? It might sound bad, but in reality companies would be more liable. In other words, if a company were polluting they'd be sued out of existence. No body gets hand outs or free government money. The federal income tax would be abolished, and everyone would pay a flat percentage, for BASIC needs such as the police force, Army (but not wars) and, education. This is not a flawed idea. I believe it's silly to assume that the government is keeping dibbs on ANY of the biggest and most corrupt organizations. In fact, they're in bed together, (The Military-Industrial Complex.) We don't NEED government to create charities which feed people, clothe people give away, houses and cars; We already have private charities which already do the same thing in America!!!

What America doesn't need is this HUGE invasive government. When I say small government I mean, Abolish the IRS, FBI, CIA, DHS and, many, many more parts of the American Government, which are deeply corrupt.
I don't understand why small government scares people!? We couldn't have ROADS without the Federal Government up our ass, right?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=7a2EhgADVFY

See the truth is, Liberals are as much of the problem as Republicans. They want to vote "Obama," and go back to sleep for another four years. But until we stop relying on Government to fix all of our problems, we're going to be living in this police state of perpetual wars, and a BIG invasive government who is spying on our facebook messages, skype calls, personal emails and, killing citizens without trial.

Liberals and Republicans seem to think that's all fine, as long as their guy is in charge.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&list=LP0BMlwNnZn9I&v=8ppP1k3vafU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=REoqKUzTx4I&feature=related"]

 

Why don't you name a few. And leave out religious institutions please.

 

http://www.clothingpickup.com/

http://feedingamerica.org/

www.kars4kids.org/


www.[B]donate[/B]acar.com/

 

No, he's right. I'm wary of conspiracy theories myself, but both Obama and Romney are supported by and support bankers and corporations. The American electoral process is, as Chris Hedges calls it, "pure theater". Both candidates support the most overwhelmingly totalitarian aspects of America; everything from the well-worn drug war to the NDAA to (I assume) widespread surveillance, militarization of police, etc. The media uses a lot of big, fancy to words to convince the population that the election process will cause real change, when it is in fact worthless, a simple distraction. Whoever is elected, it doesn't matter; it is the elites who are in control. This is not conspiracy theory, but simple reason. Left or right, the rich will simply gain more power and wealth at the expense of everyone else.

BTW, liberals are very pathetic. Mainstream liberalism had little to do with true leftism, but instead preaches moderately progressive social programs while simultaneously supporting the corrupt system which creates such problems, as shown by their support for Obama etc. I don't know how Obama can be called a socialist when he so clearly supports the aristocracy.

 

I love these deregulation arguments.

If they make shitty cots that kill babies then the company will get sued out of existence! If they were polluting they'd get sued out of existence!

Which is an improvement on regulation, which STARTS with less pollution and dead babies, how?

 

pasted from Kars4Kids.org

JEWISH KIDS for fuck sake! Oh, way to shoot yourself in the foot on this one Stp! :smilielol5:

 

^^^This!

 

25

Sorry but just telling me that these right wing ideas are not flawed is not addressing the many outstanding criticisms of them.

And just restating these same right wing ideas does not addressing the many outstanding criticisms of them.

25 this is me Balbus you’ve been in many of the threads I talk about above where time after time you’ll see that the supporters of these ideas don’t seem able to defend them from criticism in any rational or reasonable way.

But as someone pointed out (and not for the first time) it is far better to stop them from polluting in the first place.

The idea is that the company wouldn’t pollute because they would know that if they did ‘they'd be sued out of existence’ it is the same theory that many neoliberals had in relation to the financial sector before it crashed – that the corporations wouldn’t overstretch themselves because if they did so they faced bankruptcy or have to be bailed out.

But they did overstretch themselves…

And as also pointed out it is anti-regulation not just deregulation meaning they are against new regulation, not only did the financial sector get rid of regulations that refrained them from overstretch and that helped lead to the financial crisis they stopped regulation (such as on derivatives see Brooksley Born) that could have reduced the possibility of the financial crisis.

Also the deregulations that ‘businesses’ are calling for are labour laws and health and safety legislation that was brought in to protect workers from exploitation.

The problem is that if you increase the power and influence of wealth, it is wealth that will dominate and mould the system to its interests. Just hoping that when that happens wealth will not take advantage of that position to feather bed itself to the detriment of everyone else is naive at best.

Which as pointed out many, many times would vastly increase the power and influence of wealth to the detriment of everyone else.

If they are not flawed why does it seem that time after time there supporters can’t seem to defend they from criticism in any rational or reasonable way?