Bachmann vs Obama

[Luissa]

I just realized that if Bachmann wins the presidency...she can appoint her husband as the "gay curing czar".

God I hope this brainless twerp wins!

She could but I don't think she would. Tea Partiers are not into any form of social engineering and I can't imagine a dedicated Tea Partier would use the federal government to accomplish any of that.

So you are saying Bachmann isn't a dedicated Tea Partier?

 

[Foxfyre]

Doublethink only to those who do not understand Marxism and how it is accomplished. And those who change my words to say what he wants me to say instead of what I actually said. Which of course is dishonest.

Nope. Pretty sure it's doublethink.

You're saying that he's a Marxist who's going to try and destroy the rich to strengthen the poor. Meanwhile, you talk about how he appoints someone from a rich Corporation in his Administration while propping up said corporation over small businesses that are poor.

This is the two talking points about President Obama I've seen from the right in the last two years colliding. Most people only accept one of the two because they realize he can't possibly be both.

He can't be some evil Marxist looking to destroy the rich to strengthen the poor while also being an evil Capitalist who's looking out for rich corporations while destroying the poor.

Just once I wish you had the integrity to represent an argument I made honestly, fairly, and accurately. I accept that you probably aren't capable of doing that, but I wish it anyway.

If you ever have a chance to take a competent class that explores Marxism and all the components of it, what it is, how it is accomplished, what the goals are, you might not be so likely to post ignorance about it. Maybe you'll even get lucky enough to take one of my classes when I teach it.

 

[Luissa]

Absolutely buiness is suffering under President Obama's (plus a Democratically controlled Congress) policies. Obama does not 'rule' obviously as he changes his policy proposals and presumably convictions almost daily these days. He is Keynesian because he sees the solution to all of societies ills as being more government money, more government involvement. He is Marxist in that he sees America as the villain in almost everything and sees the solution as weakening the 'rich' to win approval (and support) from the 'poor'.

If from the beginning, Obama had simply supported making the Bush tax policy permanent at least until the economy fully recovered and we had reachieved prosperity; if he had promoted reducing as much regulation and restrictions as possible to free up American capital and initiative; if he had worked to rein in spending of ANY money that didn't absolutely have to be spent--if he had done that I believe we would be out of the recession and well on our way to recovery by now.

Keynesian Marxists don't look at it that way though.

I'm not sure how many more talking points you could fit into your post there. That's not the definition of a Marxist even if what you believe about him is true.

Furthermore, the second part of your post is nothing but ideological talking points. Your wish for rampant deregulation is what helped get us into this financial crisis in the first place. Furthermore, making the Bush tax cuts permanent would have done what for the economy exactly?

No talking points there that I'm aware of and I'm pretty up on official talking points from both parties. And if you think weaking the rich to strengthen the poor isn't Marxist, I really REALLY fear what manner of education you are getting.

So why do you think Obama chose Jeffrey Inmelt as his 'jobs czar'? Just recently I read that G.E. is closing down another big division here and relocating it in China. And that is AFTER his appointment as jobs and competitiveness advisor. And which major U.S. corporation stands to gain the most if Obama's cap and trade initiative ever makes it through Congress? Ding, ding, ding--G.E. again, while most small business is clutching what investment capital they have left lest they lose it if that initiative passes.

if he had promoted reducing as much regulation and restrictions as possible to free up American capital

Just recently I read that G.E. is closing down another big division here and relocating it in China.

So what do you really want? It sounds like you want more regulation, or do you not care that GE is moving jobs to China? Which is it?
You can't have one without the other.

 

[Luissa]

Doublethink only to those who do not understand Marxism and how it is accomplished. And those who change my words to say what he wants me to say instead of what I actually said. Which of course is dishonest.

Nope. Pretty sure it's doublethink.

You're saying that he's a Marxist who's going to try and destroy the rich to strengthen the poor. Meanwhile, you talk about how he appoints someone from a rich Corporation in his Administration while propping up said corporation over small businesses that are poor.

This is the two talking points about President Obama I've seen from the right in the last two years colliding. Most people only accept one of the two because they realize he can't possibly be both.

He can't be some evil Marxist looking to destroy the rich to strengthen the poor while also being an evil Capitalist who's looking out for rich corporations while destroying the poor.

Just once I wish you had the integrity to represent an argument I made honestly, fairly, and accurately. I accept that you probably aren't capable of doing that, but I wish it anyway.

If you ever have a chance to take a competent class that explores Marxism and all the components of it, what it is, how it is accomplished, what the goals are, you might not be so likely to post ignorance about it. Maybe you'll even get lucky enough to take one of my classes when I teach it.

He is right.
You can't call Obama a Marxist while claiming he is catering to a big corporation and helping them increase their bottom line by moving their jobs to China.
From what I have seen, your whole argument on this last page has been one big double think.

 

[Luissa]

Doublethink only to those who do not understand Marxism and how it is accomplished. And those who change my words to say what he wants me to say instead of what I actually said. Which of course is dishonest.

Nope. Pretty sure it's doublethink.

You're saying that he's a Marxist who's going to try and destroy the rich to strengthen the poor. Meanwhile, you talk about how he appoints someone from a rich Corporation in his Administration while propping up said corporation over small businesses that are poor.

This is the two talking points about President Obama I've seen from the right in the last two years colliding. Most people only accept one of the two because they realize he can't possibly be both.

He can't be some evil Marxist looking to destroy the rich to strengthen the poor while also being an evil Capitalist who's looking out for rich corporations while destroying the poor.

Just once I wish you had the integrity to represent an argument I made honestly, fairly, and accurately. I accept that you probably aren't capable of doing that, but I wish it anyway.

If you ever have a chance to take a competent class that explores Marxism and all the components of it, what it is, how it is accomplished, what the goals are, you might not be so likely to post ignorance about it. Maybe you'll even get lucky enough to take one of my classes when I teach it.

And one would hope you are not teaching Marxism, it doesn't sound like you understand what it is.

 

[Foxfyre]

My comments dear Luissa is that our fearless leader has promoted increasing regulation and controls on American business while giving a pass, even encouraging, even enlisting support from, a mega corporation that is not only exporting American jobs but pays little or no American taxes. Sort of dilutes his steady drumbeat that the rich's 'fair share' should be more doesn't it?

But then one must put the discussion into its full context to discern the meaning of any individual member's posts rather than dishonestly cherry pick one or two phrases out of context to attack.

 

[Seawytch]

Doublethink only to those who do not understand Marxism and how it is accomplished. And those who change my words to say what he wants me to say instead of what I actually said. Which of course is dishonest.

Nope. Pretty sure it's doublethink.

You're saying that he's a Marxist who's going to try and destroy the rich to strengthen the poor. Meanwhile, you talk about how he appoints someone from a rich Corporation in his Administration while propping up said corporation over small businesses that are poor.

This is the two talking points about President Obama I've seen from the right in the last two years colliding. Most people only accept one of the two because they realize he can't possibly be both.

He can't be some evil Marxist looking to destroy the rich to strengthen the poor while also being an evil Capitalist who's looking out for rich corporations while destroying the poor.

Just once I wish you had the integrity to represent an argument I made honestly, fairly, and accurately. I accept that you probably aren't capable of doing that, but I wish it anyway.

If you ever have a chance to take a competent class that explores Marxism and all the components of it, what it is, how it is accomplished, what the goals are, you might not be so likely to post ignorance about it. Maybe you'll even get lucky enough to take one of my classes when I teach it.

You paint Democrats and liberals as Marxist and then get upset because you don't think you are being represented fairly? Oh the irony...


The thing that annoys me most about Republicans is that they make vote for Democrats.

 

[Modbert]

Just once I wish you had the integrity to represent an argument I made honestly, fairly, and accurately. I accept that you probably aren't capable of doing that, but I wish it anyway.

If you ever have a chance to take a competent class that explores Marxism and all the components of it, what it is, how it is accomplished, what the goals are, you might not be so likely to post ignorance about it. Maybe you'll even get lucky enough to take one of my classes when I teach it.

For once I wish you wouldn't resort to personal attacks about myself when I call you out on a post.

I would hope you would not be teaching a class on Marxism since you seem to have little clue what it is. If Marx were alive, it's very likely he would consider President Obama to be a defender of the Bourgeoisie. If President Obama was a marxist, things such as this nature would not occur:

The Wageless, Profitable Recovery - NYTimes.com

In their newly released study, the Northeastern economists found that since the recovery began in June 2009 following a deep 18-month recession, “corporate profits captured 88 percent of the growth in real national income while aggregate wages and salaries accounted for only slightly more than 1 percent” of that growth.

This would not be occurring if President Obama was a marxist.

In the same post you were saying President Obama is propping up corporations (rich) like G.E while kicking down the small businesses (poor), you were making the argument that he's nothing but a Marxist who wishes to destroy the rich in order to strengthen the poor.

Furthermore, to touch upon your post about making the Bush Tax Cuts permanent earlier:

Food stamps: The struggle to eat | The Economist

Food stamps also help stimulate the economy more than other forms of government spending, points out Jim Weill of Food Research and Action Centre, a charity, since their recipients are so poor that they tend to spend them immediately. When Moody’s Analytics assessed different forms of stimulus, it found that food stamps were the most effective, increasing economic activity by $1.73 for every dollar spent. Unemployment insurance came in second, at $1.62, whereas most tax cuts yielded a dollar or less. All the talk in Washington these days, however, is of cutbacks—even for the hungry.

It seems to me that you don't have a great understanding of economics either, especially when you're calling for deregulation on a massive scale.

This is what happens when you get what you want:

The People vs. Goldman Sachs | Rolling Stone Politics

To recap: Goldman, to get $1.2 billion in crap off its books, dumps a huge lot of deadly mortgages on its clients, lies about where that crap came from and claims it believes in the product even as it's betting $2 billion against it. When its victims try to run out of the burning house, Goldman stands in the doorway, blasts them all with gasoline before they can escape, and then has the balls to send a bill overcharging its victims for the pleasure of getting fried.

Before that campaign, banks were closely monitored by a host of federal regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC and the Office of Thrift Supervision. These agencies had examiners poring over loans and other transactions, probing for behavior that might put depositors or the system at risk. When the examiners found illegal or suspicious behavior, they built cases and referred them to criminal authorities like the Justice Department.

This system of referrals was the backbone of financial law enforcement through the early Nineties. William Black was senior deputy chief counsel at the Office of Thrift Supervision in 1991 and 1992, the last years of the S&L crisis, a disaster whose pansystemic nature was comparable to the mortgage fiasco, albeit vastly smaller. Black describes the regulatory MO back then. "Every year," he says, "you had thousands of criminal referrals, maybe 500 enforcement actions, 150 civil suits and hundreds of convictions."

But beginning in the mid-Nineties, when former Goldman co-chairman Bob Rubin served as Bill Clinton's senior economic-policy adviser, the government began moving toward a regulatory system that relied almost exclusively on voluntary compliance by the banks. Old-school criminal referrals disappeared down the chute of history along with floppy disks and scripted television entertainment. In 1995, according to an independent study, banking regulators filed 1,837 referrals. During the height of the financial crisis, between 2007 and 2010, they averaged just 72 a year.

But spiking almost all criminal referrals wasn't enough for Wall Street. In 2004, in an extraordinary sequence of regulatory rollbacks that helped pave the way for the financial crisis, the top five investment banks — Goldman, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns — persuaded the government to create a new, voluntary approach to regulation called Consolidated Supervised Entities. CSE was the soft touch to end all soft touches. Here is how the SEC's inspector general described the program's regulatory army: "The Office of CSE Inspections has only two staff in Washington and five staff in the New York regional office."

And that's only the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Sallow]

My comments dear Luissa is that our fearless leader has promoted increasing regulation and controls on American business while giving a pass, even encouraging, even enlisting support from, a mega corporation that is not only exporting American jobs but pays little or no American taxes. Sort of dilutes his steady drumbeat that the rich's 'fair share' should be more doesn't it?

But then one must put the discussion into its full context to discern the meaning of any individual member's posts rather than dishonestly cherry pick one or two phrases out of context to attack.

And..that's..not marxism.

 

[Foxfyre]

Nope. Pretty sure it's doublethink.

You're saying that he's a Marxist who's going to try and destroy the rich to strengthen the poor. Meanwhile, you talk about how he appoints someone from a rich Corporation in his Administration while propping up said corporation over small businesses that are poor.

This is the two talking points about President Obama I've seen from the right in the last two years colliding. Most people only accept one of the two because they realize he can't possibly be both.

He can't be some evil Marxist looking to destroy the rich to strengthen the poor while also being an evil Capitalist who's looking out for rich corporations while destroying the poor.

Just once I wish you had the integrity to represent an argument I made honestly, fairly, and accurately. I accept that you probably aren't capable of doing that, but I wish it anyway.

If you ever have a chance to take a competent class that explores Marxism and all the components of it, what it is, how it is accomplished, what the goals are, you might not be so likely to post ignorance about it. Maybe you'll even get lucky enough to take one of my classes when I teach it.

You paint Democrats and liberals as Marxist and then get upset because you don't think you are being represented fairly? Oh the irony...


The thing that annoys me most about Republicans is that they make vote for Democrats.

I swear there must be something in the water liberal Democrats drink that causes the same dysfunction in reading comprehension.

I did not paint Democrats or liberals as Marxist in any post in this entire discussion. Unless you want to characterize Barack Hussein Obama as the epitome of what liberals and Democrats are. So assuming you didn't intend to do that, yeah, when you accuse me of painting Democrats or liberals as Marxists, I KNOW I am being represented unfairly.

 

[Modbert]

Here's some real Socialists on whether President Obama is a "Socialist" too:

Ask the card-carrying socialists: Is Obama one of them? - CNN

But Wharton, co-chair of the Socialist Party USA, sees no reason to celebrate. He's seen people with bumper stickers and placards that call Obama a socialist, and he has a message for them: Obama isn't a socialist. He's not even a liberal.

"We didn't see a great victory with the election of Barack Obama," Wharton says, " and we certainly didn't see our agenda move from the streets to the White House."

Obama's opponents have long described him as a socialist. But what do actual socialists think about Obama? Not much, says Wharton.

"He's the president whose main goal is to protect the wealth of the richest 5 percent of Americans."

He and others say the assertion that Obama is a socialist is absurd.

"It makes no rational sense. It clearly means that people don't understand what socialism is."

Socialists scoff at the notion. They don't applaud the passage of the recent health care bill either. They wanted a national "single-payer" health insurance plan with a government option. The bill that Obama championed didn't have any of those features.

Wharton said the new health care bill only strengthens private health insurance companies. They get 32 million new customers and no incentive to change -- something a socialist wouldn't accept.

How about Obama's bailout of the Detroit auto industry? During the bailout, the federal government assumed partial ownership of General Motors.

"It's not socialism," Llewellyn says. "The mere fact that the government owns something or has a stake in it, doesn't make it socialist. If that was true, you would say that we have a socialist army. The government owns the army."

And the Beat Goes On.

 

[Liberty]

lack of ron paul is disappointing.

 

[BDBoop]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umrp1tIBY8Q]‪Sonny & Cher The Beat Goes On‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Modbert]

‪Sonny & Cher The Beat Goes On‬‏ - YouTube

Good song, but I was thinking more of this one:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slldMEPvUqA]‪The Whispers - And The Beat Goes On Official Video‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

To Modbert, grading you on debate technique, you get an "F" for accusing me of attacking you personally which I did not. I did call you out on your erroneous and/or dishonest characterization of what I said and pointed out that you do that a lot.

Grading you on your presumed discussion of Marxism and Socialism--these are not the same thing I hope you understand--you would get an "E" for effort; a D minus for understanding the concepts.

But getting back on topic, the point is Obama's policies are anathema to free market supply side. I can't recall a single instance in which he suggested that people need more economic freedom instead of less.

Whatever one thinks of Michelle Bachmann, I have never heard her speak against American interests or the American people; I have never heard her suggest that giving people less economic freedom was the path to a recovering economy; I have never heard her praise somebody with a track record of going against America's interests.

So for me it's a no brainer if that should be our choice. Michelle Bachmann could possibly be as incompent and as much of an idiot as her enemies say she is, though I rather doubt it would be that bad. But I am convinced she would not do anything that would intentionally slow down American initiative, progress, and freedoms. I have no such confidence in the current occupant in the White House.

 

[Seawytch]

Just once I wish you had the integrity to represent an argument I made honestly, fairly, and accurately. I accept that you probably aren't capable of doing that, but I wish it anyway.

If you ever have a chance to take a competent class that explores Marxism and all the components of it, what it is, how it is accomplished, what the goals are, you might not be so likely to post ignorance about it. Maybe you'll even get lucky enough to take one of my classes when I teach it.

You paint Democrats and liberals as Marxist and then get upset because you don't think you are being represented fairly? Oh the irony...


The thing that annoys me most about Republicans is that they make vote for Democrats.

I swear there must be something in the water liberal Democrats drink that causes the same dysfunction in reading comprehension.

I did not paint Democrats or liberals as Marxist in any post in this entire discussion. Unless you want to characterize Barack Hussein Obama as the epitome of what liberals and Democrats are. So assuming you didn't intend to do that, yeah, when you accuse me of painting Democrats or liberals as Marxists, I KNOW I am being represented unfairly.

President Obama isn't a Marxist either so the irony is still there.


The thing that annoys me most about Republicans is that they make vote for Democrats.

 

[Zona]

This is going to be a meaningless poll. Conservatives outnumber Progressives 10-1 on this board.

But hell... I'll play along. Obama

Exactly and the op knows this.

 

[Modbert]

To Modbert, grading you on debate technique, you get an "F" for accusing me of attacking you personally which I did not. I did call you out on your erroneous and/or dishonest characterization of what I said and pointed out that you do that a lot.

Grading you on your presumed discussion of Marxism and Socialism--these are not the same thing I hope you understand--you would get an "E" for effort; a D minus for understanding the concepts.

But getting back on topic, the point is Obama's policies are anathema to free market supply side. I can't recall a single instance in which he suggested that people need more economic freedom instead of less.

Whatever one thinks of Michelle Bachmann, I have never heard her speak against American interests or the American people; I have never heard her suggest that giving people less economic freedom was the path to a recovering economy; I have never heard her praise somebody with a track record of going against America's interests.

So for me it's a no brainer if that should be our choice. Michelle Bachmann could possibly be as incompent and as much of an idiot as her enemies say she is, though I rather doubt it would be that bad. But I am convinced she would not do anything that would intentionally slow down American initiative, progress, and freedoms. I have no such confidence in the current occupant in the White House.

A.) Because questioning my integrity here is not a shot at me?

Just once I wish you had the integrity to represent an argument I made honestly, fairly, and accurately. I accept that you probably aren't capable of doing that, but I wish it anyway.

So yes, you personally attacked me because you attacked my character. Fail on your part.

B.) I never said Marxism and Socialism were the same thing. Another fail on your part. You also have decided to ignore the numerous amount of links I have posted.

C.) Supply side economics is exactly what got us into the recent financial crisis. However, you decide to ignore all the evidence.

Furthermore Foxfyre, you have decided it seems to just continue on making as many talking points in this thread as possible. You have shown that you do not know what Marxism is or really seem to understand the implications of the economic actions you wish to see occur.

 

[Luissa]

My comments dear Luissa is that our fearless leader has promoted increasing regulation and controls on American business while giving a pass, even encouraging, even enlisting support from, a mega corporation that is not only exporting American jobs but pays little or no American taxes. Sort of dilutes his steady drumbeat that the rich's 'fair share' should be more doesn't it?

But then one must put the discussion into its full context to discern the meaning of any individual member's posts rather than dishonestly cherry pick one or two phrases out of context to attack.

So he isn't a Marxist, as you claim?

 

[Luissa]

To Modbert, grading you on debate technique, you get an "F" for accusing me of attacking you personally which I did not. I did call you out on your erroneous and/or dishonest characterization of what I said and pointed out that you do that a lot.

Grading you on your presumed discussion of Marxism and Socialism--these are not the same thing I hope you understand--you would get an "E" for effort; a D minus for understanding the concepts.

But getting back on topic, the point is Obama's policies are anathema to free market supply side. I can't recall a single instance in which he suggested that people need more economic freedom instead of less.

Whatever one thinks of Michelle Bachmann, I have never heard her speak against American interests or the American people; I have never heard her suggest that giving people less economic freedom was the path to a recovering economy; I have never heard her praise somebody with a track record of going against America's interests.

So for me it's a no brainer if that should be our choice. Michelle Bachmann could possibly be as incompent and as much of an idiot as her enemies say she is, though I rather doubt it would be that bad. But I am convinced she would not do anything that would intentionally slow down American initiative, progress, and freedoms. I have no such confidence in the current occupant in the White House.

You are putting down Modbert on his debate skills, while you have no real understanding what a Marxist is? Too funny!
And I think someone who wanted an investigation into who is a real american in Congress might slow down our freedoms.