The motivation of a strange - and alienating - president

[Skybird]

I found this to be a good read.

http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2010/0927/politics-socialism-capitalism-private-enterprises-obama-business-problem_print.html

[AngusJS]

But when asked at a 2009 press conference whether he believed in this ideal, Obama said no. America, he suggested, is no more unique or exceptional than Britain or Greece or any other country.Really? Having a realistic view of the country is a bad thing?

Remarkably, President Obama, who knows his father's history very well, has never mentioned his father's article.What? He has never mentioned an article written 45 years ago by someone else in a different time and context? This is truly suspicious!!! What is he hiding??? :roll:

He came to view America's military as an instrument of neocolonial occupation.That's why he's extended operations in Afghanistan. Oh, wait.

Why support oil drilling off the coast of Brazil but not in America? Obama believes that the West uses a disproportionate share of the world's energy resources, so he wants neocolonial America to have less and the former colonized countries to have more.Or he thinks it would be a good idea if more of the world's oil supply didn't come from the Gulf. Naah, that' can't be it - it isn't sinister enough.

Rejecting the socialist formula, Obama has shown no intention to nationalize the investment banks or the health sector. Rather, he seeks to decolonize these institutions. That's why Obama retains the right to refuse bailout paybacks--so that he can maintain his control.Wow, I never took Geitner and Summers to be anti-colonialists.

For Obama, health insurance companies on their own are oppressive racketeers, but once they submitted to federal oversight he was happy to do business with them. He even promised them expanded business as a result of his law forcing every American to buy health insurance.You mean he can do business with them after he's forced them to stop discriminating based on pre-existing conditions? And he painted the bright side of the compulsory insurance deal (necessary because health insurance companies make money off the people who don't use their insurance) for them? He's a politician, in other words?

And what about all the health care policy experts and members of Congress who supported this policy? Are they anti-colonialists too?

I'm sure policy wonks have been kicking this idea around for years before they had even heard of Obama.

It's almost as if Dinesh is an idiot who doesn't know how the government actually works. :hmmm:

Obama supports the Ground Zero mosque because to him 9/11 is the event that unleashed the American bogey and pushed us into Iraq and Afghanistan.Right, that's the reason why he and everyone else who believes in religious freedom and who is against discrimination, supports Park 51. Good job, Dinesh.

Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. Someone will always find some sinister rationale for whatever he does.

[August]

Right, that's the reason why he and everyone else who believes in religious freedom and who is against discrimination, supports Park 51.

Then why hasn't he given any support to the REbuilding of a Greek Orthodox church that was flattened by the falling towers? The Greeks have been stonewalled in their efforts to rebuild while the President of the USA comes out in favor of a mosque?

I guess their religious freedom isn't as important as that of the Muslims eh?

[AngusJS]

Then why hasn't he given any support to the REbuilding of a Greek Orthodox church that was flattened by the falling towers? The Greeks have been stonewalled in their efforts to rebuild while the President of the USA comes out in favor of a mosque?

I guess their religious freedom isn't as important as that of the Muslims eh?You're right, because the President of the United States usually intervenes in matters on the municipal level. :roll:

And yes, this grand, triumphalist mosque (or community center with Jewish and Christian prayer rooms) is different because it's hilariously enough become a national (and even international) issue.

[mookiemookie]

If you found that to be a good read, your standards are very low.

This is completely retarded and just bizarre and disjointed. It's another attempt to turn Obama into this "ooh, scary African HUSSEIN Kenyan witch doctor come to slit the throats of white babies."

If you weren't completely retarded like Mr. D'Souza, you may read Obama Sr.'s paper he mentions and think that it's a legitimate critique of the Kenyan system of land use, education and foreign investment. But If you did happen to be bug-screwing insane, you'd say something like:

Even more remarkably, there has been virtually no reporting on a document that seems directly relevant to what the junior Obama is doing in the White House," But, if you weren't bug-screwing insane like Mr. D'Souza, you would have found after a brief dance with teh Google that Politico had reported on this 2 years ago: http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=51418214-3048-5C12-00D20AC776ED4E67

"the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s...[a] philandering, inebriated African socialist." "Fear the drunk black man, wild eyed and coming for your women and children!", right, D'Souza?

He then goes on to start pulling random events and happenings together...NASA, mosques, banks.... in some kind of mad screed, trying to grasp at disparate straws in an attempt to unravel the conspiracy, a la the pink faced nitwit Father Coughlin....err...I mean Glenn Beck.


D'Souza's an idiot.

[Skybird]

I find Obama's lack of orientation or lack of sense of realism in some areas bizarr, surreal, and worrying, in other areas it is self-contradictory. Damage is being done that way. With a political agenda by him, deriving from present-based circumstances, I cannot explain that to a satisfying degree, and if I do not want to simply accuse him to just following a policy of appeasing Muslim nations, oil suppliers and national lobby groups of the left side of the spectrum, then I am left with assuming personal, intrinsic drives or motivations basing in his personality and biography. And this is the level the article is aiming at. So I conclude that it may make sense.

At least it makes more sense than some of the emotional rant the topic already has caused again so far.

Everybody is driven by needs, drives, motivations and experiences he already made. Referring to them, behavior and priorities of a person often can be explained (though explanation and excuse are two different things, mind you). and Obama seems to have set the centre of gravity of Amrican interests more outside America's interest than any president before him, as I remember. And I question that all of that is just altruism. I think at least some of it is just foolishness and ignoring unfriendly and/or longterm facts that do not match his "vision". I also do not see that he cares for who pays for the bills he stockpiles on his desk.

[AVGWarhawk]

This is completely retarded and just bizarre and disjointed. It's another attempt to turn Obama into this "ooh, scary African HUSSEIN Kenyan witch doctor come to slit the throats of white babies."



:har: Wow! Did you really get all of that from this article? I missed that paragraph entirely. :DL

[August]

You're right, because the President of the United States usually intervenes in matters on the municipal level. :roll:

Your roll eye emoticon notwithstanding he opened his mouth on one so it sets the precedent for opining on the other or it leaves him open to charges of unfairness.

And lets call it what it is, a mosque.

[August]

:har: Wow! Did you really get all of that from this article? I missed that paragraph entirely. :DL

That's a common Dem tactic. They believe that opposition to their grand design just has to be racist, every time.

[mookiemookie]

Even American Conservative magazine finds this article ridiculous: (http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/09/09/obama-anticolonial-hegemonist/)

...conservative pundits and writers such as D’Souza have been indulging in so much evidence-free, ideological babbling for the last two years that many of them now seem convinced that this babbling is actually extremely serious, insightful commentary.

[mookiemookie]

:har: Wow! Did you really get all of that from this article? I missed that paragraph entirely. :DL

I believe my second quote sums it up nicely.

[AVGWarhawk]

I believe my second quote sums it up nicely.

This?


If you weren't completely retarded like Mr. D'Souza, you may read Obama Sr.'s paper he mentions and think that it's a legitimate critique of the Kenyan system of land use, education and foreign investment. But If you did happen to be bug-screwing insane, you'd say something like:



I believe he was tying in Obamas book entitled Dreams of my Father. Also, do you now for sure that Mr. D'Souza is in fact retarded?

[mookiemookie]

This?

No, this: "the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s...[a] philandering, inebriated African socialist."

[Tchocky]

Oh, Dinesh D'Souza. Saw the guy speaking a couple of years ago, it was...not so impressive.

You tend to get bogged down, peering into yawning chasms of stuff like this.

In an eerie conclusion, Obama writes that "I sat at my father's grave and spoke to him through Africa's red soil." In a sense, through the earth itself, he communes with his father and receives his father's spirit. Obama takes on his father's struggle, not by recovering his body but by embracing his cause. He decides that where Obama Sr. failed, he will succeed. Obama Sr.'s hatred of the colonial system becomes Obama Jr.'s hatred; his botched attempt to set the world right defines his son's objective. Through a kind of sacramental rite at the family tomb, the father's struggle becomes the son's birthright.

Crikey.

[AVGWarhawk]

No, this: "the U.S. is being ruled according to the dreams of a Luo tribesman of the 1950s...[a] philandering, inebriated African socialist."

Well that is a stretch however we are a product of our upbringing. Obama spent a better part of his youth globe trotting. Certainly these travels influence who, what and why in his decision making.

[GoldenRivet]

You're right, because the President of the United States usually intervenes in matters on the municipal level. :roll:


apparently

http://cdn.picapp.com/ftp/Images/6/8/f/3/Obama_Biden_talk_4d19.JPG?adImageId=2049088&imageId=5674239

[The Third Man]

apparently

http://cdn.picapp.com/ftp/Images/6/8/f/3/Obama_Biden_talk_4d19.JPG?adImageId=2049088&imageId=5674239

'Speaking truth to power' becomes problematic when you are the power.

When the party of 'no' speaks truth to power they are obstructionist. It must be a difficult pivot for Barack Obama.

[AVGWarhawk]

apparently

http://cdn.picapp.com/ftp/Images/6/8/f/3/Obama_Biden_talk_4d19.JPG?adImageId=2049088&imageId=5674239


Beergate!!!! :rock:

[Tribesman]

Then why hasn't he given any support to the REbuilding of a Greek Orthodox church that was flattened by the falling towers? The Greeks have been stonewalled in their efforts to rebuild while the President of the USA comes out in favor of a mosque?

I guess their religious freedom isn't as important as that of the Muslims eh?
Stonewalled? they entered into a land swap deal and have been bogged down in paperwork and negotiations with the two other parties ever since.
Are you suggesting the president should enter into a real estate transaction on the behalf of one party in a three way deal?
Though of course your President didn't come out in favour of the mosque did he, but I suppose you somehow forgot that little detail in a very short space of time.

[The Third Man]

Though of course your President didn't come out in favour of the mosque did he, but I suppose you somehow forgot that little detail in a very short space of time.

But he did come out on the side of the mosque before a group of muslims in a dinner before Ramadan. The next day he did the Obama shuffle reguarding the wisdom of building the mosque.

It is that very shuffle which makes him unworthy and not capable to hold his office beyond the 2012 election. Even the Euro's are off put by Obama.

[Tribesman]

But he did come out on the side of the mosque before a group of muslims in a dinner before Ramadan
Errrrrrr....no he didn't.
He made a statement of fact.

The next day he did the Obama shuffle reguarding the wisdom of building the mosque.
He made another statement because a wide section of the population is too dumb to understand a simple statement of fact and needed it spelt out very slowly in big letters.

[The Third Man]

Errrrrrr....no he didn't.
He made a statement of fact.


He made another statement because a wide section of the population is too dumb to understand a simple statement of fact and needed it spelt out very slowly in big letters.

So he supported the building of the mosque. Statement of opinion. Right to worship is protected from US government intervention. Not the right to build a church/ mosque. There is no such right.

His next statement put into question if he supported the wisdom of building the mosque. Another statement of opinion by the POTUS.

It is this undue wabble, flip-flop, which is why Obama will not last beyond 2012.

[AVGWarhawk]

Errrrrrr....no he didn't.
He made a statement of fact.


He made another statement because a wide section of the population is too dumb to understand a simple statement of fact and needed it spelt out very slowly in big letters.

He supported the mosque under the Constitiion and the ideals of freedom of religion. Statement of fact in the same breath when he said it was he was not going to talk about the wisdom of building the mosque on this particular site.

[AngusJS]

apparently

http://cdn.picapp.com/ftp/Images/6/8/f/3/Obama_Biden_talk_4d19.JPG?adImageId=2049088&imageId=5674239Except Gates is a friend of Obama's, and Beergate didn't occur until after the arrest became a big deal. Indeed, the only reason Obama got involved at all was because he was asked about it at a news conference.

If enough sturm und drang is kicked up about the Orthodox church business, he might talk about that, too. But this is the first I had heard of it, anyway.

[The Third Man]

Indeed, the only reason Obama got involved at all was because he was asked about it at a news conference.


And he had to respond? No, he didn't have to respond. When he did he acted stupidly, as evidenced by the Beer Summit.

Obama is an idiot by nature, and a fool at heart, who wishes the world is what it is not. He is a leftist progressive in the John Silas Reed mold of simlpistic, foolishment.

[Tribesman]

So he supported the building of the mosque.
Show that statement.

Oh yeah there was a whole topic about it and he hadn't:doh:

He supported the mosque under the Constitiion and the ideals of freedom of religion.
So the president supported the constitution. wow
Would you have preferred if he had opposed the constitution and freedom?

Statement of fact in the same breath when he said it was he was not going to talk about the wisdom of building the mosque on this particular site.
So he didn't support building a mosque there then did he.

[The Third Man]

Show that statement.

Oh yeah there was a whole topic about it and he hadn't:doh:


So the president supported the constitution. wow
Would you have preferred if he had opposed the constitution and freedom?


So he didn't support building a mosque there then did he.

All fine and good. your spin isn't lost on most folks. It is why the November elections will be a referendum on Barack Obama himself.

[AngusJS]

Obama is an idiot by nature, and a fool at heart, who wishes the world is what it is not. He is a leftist progressive in the John Silas Reed mold of simlpistic, foolishment.Oh no, not simplistic, foolishment! You take that back right now!

:rotfl2:

[Tribesman]

All fine and good. your spin isn't lost on most folks.
Show the statement.


It is why the November elections will be a referendum on Barack Obama himself.
You mean people are too dumb to understand that the presidential elections are the presidential elections

[bradclark1]

That's a common Dem tactic. They believe that opposition to their grand design just has to be racist, every time.
No it's a common Publican tactic. Everytime:shifty:

[Castout]

That article is reflecting the writer opinion or rather his political standing(views) in regard with Obama

Now I don't see Forbes being sued over defamation libel.

It's important to be and to stay critical when you read something. It doesn't mean one has to be a skeptic but to remain objective. Because exaggerated interpretation of facts and twisted truth may be imbedded to force a certain view to be favored by the readers. And lots of what is written is a matter of mere personal opinion.

For one Wiki tells US only has oil reserve that would last a mere 8 years when exploited.

Now oil is depleting and depleting fast. 21st century will be known to be the end of oil age. Oil prices are going to go sky rocketing before the world really exhausts all of its oil reserves. And what do you think would happen after that if US military equipments, ships, planes and other military machines are deprived of oil not to mention the state of the economy and civilian in general? Those 8 years worth of oil reserve would be crucial to extend US dominance and control for some years before another source of energy can be made reliable.

US has already got enough oil supply from the Saudis, Kuwait and now potentially Iraq so why would it need to steal some more oil from Brazilian coast? There's no free lunch in this world so I'm sure US got something back in return for the financial aid.

You're lucky that you have almost all of your oil reserve unexploited.
In my third world country the people are put under pressure with the increasing oil prices with so little of our average income and the government is already talking about limiting certain oil consumption because it can no longer afford to maintain its subsidy. For heaven sake though we are producing much natural gas, we are having difficulty fulfilling local demands because much of the gas goes to China and Japan for a very low price and over extended period of contract. As far as I know much of the domestic oil gets refined in Singapore and got imported back.:doh:

[Bubblehead1980]

Great article, truth hurts eh fellas?

[bradclark1]

And he had to respond? No, he didn't have to respond. When he did he acted stupidly, as evidenced by the Beer Summit.

He had to respond. And if he had not have responded you would have bitched about that. You are pretty transparent in your views of Obama.
If he said night you would say day.

[Skybird]

When Palin retired in alaska, I was anything but a believer in her statement she would not run for later presidency. I suspect that she indeed could very much aim for that. and if this german article (http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,717317,00.html) has it right, the probability for that is constantly raising.

That would be a disaster for america and the next election, if those who still want to join in votings, are left with the choice between Obama and Palin. What a miserable choice that would be!

This new brand of tea, Christine O'Donnell, also does not exactly give me the impression that she is the brightest amongst all intellectual lights.

Obama versus Palin. Just imagine. Plague or Cholera. Anthrax or Ebola. What a choice.

The most clever thing the Reps could do would be to let Palin and the tea party spend the next two years to turn Obama's public image into ruins with her/their vicious attacks. She/they is/are neither right, nor bright, but Palin is teflon-skinned and could help to reduce Obama's chances, even if she throws plenty of venomous spill, lies and garbage. After that chance-reduction has been acchieved, a reasonable, moderate Republican gets nominated for the presidential race. I am sure that this would be it for Obama. the Reps liekly would win if they simply present an electable candidate - more it does not take them anymore. Or are there no reasonable moderate Republicans left? I think if such a name exists, Obama already has lost next elections today. But if Palin gets nominated - well. It would remind of an athelete running the 100m race and 1 m before the finishing line he stops and takes a rest, inviting the others to reach the goal before him. As I see it, both Palin and Obama are 100% ineligible (=unwählbar).

German media occassionally mention that Jeb Bush also may join the race. What about that? He seems to be more clever and bright than GWB, maybe more like his father. That does not chnage the fact that it would be another one of these dynasties taking back the helm, with a whole ratpack of old friends and lobby contacts in their wake, which imo always is a big problem in itself. The existence of these industrial and economic dynasties is nothing but a rennaissance of feudalistic structures that hide in the coat of "democracy". If thexy would be defined by sense of duty and competence, then under certain circumstances I would be able to live with it (with good personell in power a feudal structure must not be worse than a democracy - but how to secure that "good personell", in both systems?). But with these elites we now have, this competence and sense of duty is not given - that'S why they are dangerous.

Now I want to see some faces here. :DL Skybird indicating that under certain circumstances he could live with another Bush in the WH. Hehehe! As a matter of fact, my problem was not so much with all Bushs in general, but with GWB in special. I do not like that Bush senior initially tried to prevent German reunification (although of the three Wetsern allies he also was the first one who gave up his resistence), and the Bush-Saudi connection also is something that rightfully takes a lot of fire. But beyond that he was not the worst guy in office. And certainly he was better than GWB, Obama and Palin.

[August]

The most clever thing the Reps could do would be to let Palin and the tea party spend the next two years to turn Obama's public image into ruins with her/their vicious attacks. She/they is/are neither right, nor bright, but Palin is teflon-skinned and could help to reduce Obama's chances, even if she throws plenty of venomous spill, lies and garbage. After that chance-reduction has been acchieved, a reasonable, moderate Republican gets nominated for the presidential race.

Swap the words Democrat for Republican and Hillary Clinton for Sara Palin and you basically have the Democrats strategy in the previous election.

[Skybird]

don't think so, in fact it is the strategy the republicans already tried back then with their McCain-Palin combo - it's just that back then they were facing an uphill battle against an Obama at the height of his popularity. The deciding factors were Obama's enormous and undeniable potency to deliver magical speeches that put a spell on his audience worldwide (remember the hype he triggered by that), plus the desastrous bilance of GWB, and tiredness with his policies and their results. The democrats probably would have won even if Clinton would have won the duel against Obama - not because Clinton was Clinton, but because she was not Republican.

Reminds a bit of Germany after 16 years of Kohl. At the end, any candidate or party would have beaten him and the CDU, because people simply were tired of 16 years of CDU-Kohl. In case of Kohl, it was the long time.In case of the last American election, it was unsatisfaction with the result of Bush'S policies, and Obama inspiring them. And because he did the latter so excessively, the deeper his fall now is. I think he had a very unrealistic idea of the challenge he was up to. Realities did not meet his former expectations, I think. Thus, he slammed into them unprepared.

[AngusJS]

Great article, truth hurts eh fellas?:haha: Did you even read the article?

It's like Obama isn't a man, but some sort of Overmind that telepathically controls all branches of government, and thus, anything that the government does can be used to psychoanalyze him.

Policy is not a product of thousands of advisers, congressional staff, experts and bureaucrats, evaluating policy alternatives and promoting them to decision makers. Nope, it's just the implementation of the Overmind's wishes.

Thus, how do we explain something as complex as health care policy? Obama's daddy issues.

Economic policy? Daddy issues. Obama's economic advisers are pretty much just window dressing. They certainly don't dare try and influence the Great Overmind.

Foreign policy? Daddy issues. Heaven knows Hillary, and indeed the entire Department of State, is completely powerless in the face of the Overmind's will.

:damn:

[August]

don't think so, in fact it is the strategy the republicans already tried back then with their McCain-Palin combo - it's just that back then they were facing an uphill battle against an Obama at the height of his popularity.

Nah, you're not seeing the point because you're talking about 2008.

Back in 2006, a comparable time to now in the Presidential term of office, Obama was barely on the national radar and the common wisdom at that time was that Hillary would be the one to beat. As a result the GOP wasted the next two years preparing against her and then got blindsided when Obama won the nomination instead.

[The Third Man]

Perhaps Obama just overestimated the pliability of the American electorate. This country is still center right politically and his blackness doesn't change that.

[tater]

Obama pretended to be a centrist. His famous 2004 speech at the DNC was a surprise, and he was instantly seen as a player.

It was clear to anyone that actually examined his record that he was in fact no centrist at all, but he ran to the center since running as what he actually is is a sure-fire loser in US politics.

The press scored a big win, they were in the tank for Obama from the start, and they were either credulous, or dishonest in not reporting on his actual position on the political spectrum.

I think that right now the electorate is reacting as if they were fooled... "hey, you said you were a centrist like me!"

Obviously the partisans will stick with him, but roughly speaking the US is 1/3 left, 1/3 right, and 1/3 centrist. The centrists are breaking hard right at the moment—as a reaction to the far left slant of all 3 branches.

[mookiemookie]

as a reaction to the far left slant of all 3 branches.

The Democratic party is anything but "far left." They'd be considered conservative in most every other part of the world.

[Bubblehead1980]

:haha: Did you even read the article?

It's like Obama isn't a man, but some sort of Overmind that telepathically controls all branches of government, and thus, anything that the government does can be used to psychoanalyze him.

Policy is not a product of thousands of advisers, congressional staff, experts and bureaucrats, evaluating policy alternatives and promoting them to decision makers. Nope, it's just the implementation of the Overmind's wishes.

Thus, how do we explain something as complex as health care policy? Obama's daddy issues.

Economic policy? Daddy issues. Obama's economic advisers are pretty much just window dressing. They certainly don't dare try and influence the Great Overmind.

Foreign policy? Daddy issues. Heaven knows Hillary, and indeed the entire Department of State, is completely powerless in the face of the Overmind's will.

:damn:

I did read it.

Fact is Obama is unlike any President we have had and it is difficult for many people to accept, so they write off truthful explanations as racist, far right nut talk etc , esp those who naively voted for him thinking he was what we needed and are not against him.Difficult thing for most people to admit they were wrong, I've had two friends admit to me they regret their vote but not many will.

Obama has no real allegiance to the US, I believe like it or not he is a citzen but because he spent much of his childhood and teen years outside the US mainland and was taught by his mother, grandparents, muslim stepfather, mentor Frank Marshall Davis and father(in the few times he met him), that American was not great, that it was not fair or just "down right mean" as Obama's wife would later put it.Obam was indoctrinated into far left ideology at young age coupled with racial views, his ties to islam and so on, creates a very post American President who as we have seen takes actions contrary to what is best for the US most of the time and against what the citzens want because it does not suit his far left view of America.

One of the most telling things about Obama is how time and time again he comes down on the opposite side of the American people on nearly everything.Lets take a look.

1.Healthcare aka Obamacare, multiple polls show the nation currently is against and was against this monstrosity at the time of its passage, but he had Pelosi etc to push that garbage down the American people's throat because he is commited to his ideology which is not in line with this country.

2.The Mosque, every poll shows Americans do not want the Mosque near the WTC site yet Barry yet again defies the citizens on this sensitive issue under the guise of the constitution(which he knows but does not care for) but in reality it's because his ties with Islam either blind him with sympathy to see what the mosque represents or he knows and does not care.

3.Cap and Trade, Obama still wants Cap and Trade passed, it prob wont but even though most Americans are against it, he wants it passed.

4.Stimulus, esp the second one that is rumored to be in the works.People were and are against this, but he seems to be for it.

5.Taxes.Obama is intent on raising taxes in January and will now only raise on the "rich" playing some more class warfare.The citizens are against raising taxes.

6.Apology Tour

7.Black Panthers

The list goes on and on and will keep growing.


As to your "Overmind" rant.Well true there are thousands of bureaucrats etc and many advisers but Obama has appointed many like minded people and made his views and intentions(for most part) well known to them so they carry out his wishes.Other Presidents do this but this President and his people have far left views and do not let "little" things like the constitution get in their way.


Bottom line...The current President is a far left ideologue with no real loyalty to the US.The current President is a man of flawed character due to his chaotic life as a younger man.No doubt there are some mother and father issues.

I ask you this, have you read both of his books? I have, read them both before the election.The second one "Audacity of Hope" is crap, just him trying to smooth things over before he ran from President when he was a sitting Senator.The first, "Dreams of my Father" authored long before he was in politics is the most honest Obama has ever been.This book clearly showed some of his racist views and feelings of inadeqaucy along with some daddy issues.

[DarkFish]

roughly speaking the US is 1/3 left, 1/3 right, and 1/3 centrist.:lol:
You mean the US is 1/3 centrist, 1/3 right and 1/3 extreme right:)

[Bubblehead1980]

The Democratic party is anything but "far left." They'd be considered conservative in most every other part of the world.

The Democratic party is far left, it has been controled by socialists etc for a while now.Of course the D is a name brand in American politics so theyd never change but the things they stand for and try to force on the American people are far left.Bill Clinton is far left but he was smart enough to pretend to move to the center and govern from there for the most part because he wanted to stay President.Obama is a far left ideologue and will not move even after the Dems are wiped out in November.There will be nothing but fighting until we can run him out of office in 2012, then finally we will be able to get something done.

[Tribesman]

It is so funny to see people talking of the far left when obviously they havn't the faintest idea what it is.

[Bubblehead1980]

It is so funny to see people talking of the far left when obviously they havn't the faintest idea what it is.

So funny to watch someone try to act superior on a internet message board.We know what the Far Left is.Please elaborate on why we are wrong.Your infinite wisdom is just so wonderful...

[tater]

The Democratic party is anything but "far left." They'd be considered conservative in most every other part of the world.

I frankly don't care about the rest of the world for this discussion. We're talking about US politics, and the left/right descriptor is barely good enough for even that narrow a discussion.

The entire "left/right" paradigm is actually a poor one for describing politics generally. IMHO, outside of a given political system "left/right" comparisons are not terribly valid. Even within the US the extremes are poorly used. The fact that nazis are describe in the US as "extreme right" is telling—that description is one that Stalin would certainly have agreed on, but within the context of US politics, they are certainly not "right." In this context, "left" means democrats and "far left" would be democrats holding views consistent with American socialist group opinions. Centrist are political switch hitters, and "right" means republicans. Far right is typically used for people like the so-called "social conservatives," though I would prefer putting them with strict constitutionalists like the libertarian-minded. (there are far more descriptors used in the US press for variations on the right than the left—presumably because the press considers the left the norm).

Obama is without question far to the left in US politics, as is the previous Presidential candidate John Kerry.

Any discussion of US political leanings on a one-dimensional continuum vs foreign parties is entirely OT.

[Tribesman]

I frankly don't care about the rest of the world for this discussion. We're talking about US politics, and the left/right descriptor is barely good enough for even that narrow a discussion.

So for your discussion restricting the focus to only US politics the far left isn't the democrat party its one of those tiny parties way out on the fringe that puts up a candidate for President and gets a handful of votes.

[tater]

So for your discussion restricting the focus to only US politics the far left isn't the democrat party its one of those tiny parties way out on the fringe that puts up a candidates for President and gets a handful of votes.

No. We're talking about mainstream US politics. Parties that actually win elections to national office. There are only 2 parties in the US. The others don't matter. So far-right are libertarians who run as republicans, and far left would be socialists who run as dems.

The other parties are not statistically significant. The few "independents" in congress are in fact members of a party sans the membership card. Lieberman is a dem—was a dem— and only switched to a made-up alignment when he lost a primary. Ditto the others. They are independents in name only.

[Tribesman]

No. We're talking about mainstream US politics. Parties that actually win elections to national office. There are only 2 parties in the US. The others don't matter.
So for you to make what you want true you have to shift the goal posts entirely and ignore reality.
So by far left you don't mean far left, by American politics and American political parties you don't mean American politics and american political parties.
OK so thats clear now
So in essence when you talk of the far left in American politics you mean the people who are ever so slightly more towards the center than another group who are very slightly further from the center.

[mookiemookie]

There are only 2 parties in the US. The others don't matter.

Well then there can't be a far left and a far right if your continuum only consists of two points. It's just "left" and "right."

If you'd like a clear understanding of what exactly is far left, ask a true socialist if Obama is a socialist. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301899.html)

[tater]

So for you to make what you want true you have to shift the goal posts entirely and ignore reality.
So by far left you don't mean far left, by American politics and American political parties you don't mean American politics and american political parties.
OK so thats clear now
So in essence when you talk of the far left in American politics you mean the people who are ever so slightly more towards the center than another group who are very slightly further from the center.

I'm talking about American political reality. I'll defer to you when you speak of Irish political reality. In the US there are 2 parties that rule. The only distinction that has any bearing on how the country is ruled exists within those parties.

Mookie, nationalizing healthcare is pretty socialistic, and make no mistake that is the point of the idiotic healthcare law in the long run. Again, by US standards, that's socialism—and a majority of americans don't like it.

It;s really best to stay within the confines of the system when discussing these distinctions, it's politically meaningless in the US to say "yeah, but he's a right-winger compared to Stalin!*" (*you could replace that name with any extant european socialist known by name to only 0.000001% of the US electorate (heck, many would draw a blank at "Stalin") ;)

[tater]

Well then there can't be a far left and a far right if your continuum only consists of two points. It's just "left" and "right."

If you'd like a clear understanding of what exactly is far left, ask a true socialist if Obama is a socialist. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031301899.html)

I didn't say it was two points, I said it was a line. I also said it's a poor way to compare people, but within the US system, when you do so at least people have SOME clue what you mean.

[Tribesman]

I'll defer to you when you speak of Irish political reality
So do you want to talk about the Republican party , republican party republican party, republican party, republican party, republican party or one of the others?:yeah:

The only distinction that has any bearing on how the country is ruled exists within those parties.

Yes, so you have one slightly closer to the center and one slightly further away, neither of which can be remotely described as far left even in the most restrictive definition.

Mookie, nationalizing healthcare is pretty socialistic
Nationalising healthcare is one of the first things the US govt. did.
Are you saying the founding fathers were socialists?

Again, by US standards, that's socialism
Socialism has many definitions of varying degrees, by US standards US socialism would be that defined by the big pile of US socialist parties....which ain't the democrat party by a even a very long stretch of the imagination.

[Platapus]

Well then there can't be a far left and a far right if your continuum only consists of two points. It's just "left" and "right."



Good point. :yeah:

But I agree with the other posters in that right/left is a convenient way to pigeon hole people which prevents a realistic evaluation of that person. It is a sound byte that makes some comfortable.

Personally I have never met a conservative person nor a liberal person. I have, however meet many people who are conservative about some issues and liberal about other issues (me being one of them).

So am I conservative or liberal? Yes, no and maybe.

To me the terms conservative/liberal can only be accurately applied to a specific issue and can only be used in a relative term. Person X is more liberal than person Y on issue D.

To consider that any person can be absolutely conservative/liberal on every single issue all the time in all social/political/cultural/economic circumstances is sophistry.

And don't even get me started on the sophistry of trying to establish conservative/liberal labels with respect to a political party :nope:

[tater]

Do tell abut the founders nationalizing healthcare. Modern medicine didn't even exist, they were still blood letting.

[August]

Do tell abut the founders nationalizing healthcare. Modern medicine didn't even exist, they were still blood letting.

I don't know why you bother tater. You know he's not going to say anything of substance.

[tater]

True, since it's only been ~46% nationalized since the mid-late 20th century.

[mookiemookie]

Mookie, nationalizing healthcare is pretty socialistic

No it's not. Not at all. Government programs in a capitalist country are not socialism. No matter how people want to change the definition of what socialism is. Doctors and drug companies under a single payer system are still private sector workers.

[Bubblehead1980]

No it's not. Government programs in a capitalist country are not socialism. No matter how people want to change the definition of what socialism is.

Uh if the government establishes a socialistic program, it's socialism even if the country itself is capitalist.Nationalized healthcare is a socialist thing.End of story, don't try to twist it.

[Happy Times]

It is so funny to see people talking of the far left when obviously they havn't the faintest idea what it is.

Not all can be as fanatical as you for your cause.:salute:


http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/9892/internazi.jpg (http://img829.imageshack.us/i/internazi.jpg/)

[Tribesman]

Do tell abut the founders nationalizing healthcare. Modern medicine didn't even exist, they were still blood letting.
What was the first national medical service the government set up and who was it for?
It covered people who were quite essential for business, trade and also at times the security of the nation.
It should be a simple question for you to answer, after all it is your nations history and it has been mentioned several times before in the healthcare topics.


I don't know why you bother tater. You know he's not going to say anything of substance.
So says someone who gets the government healthcare which developed on a similar basis out from the original.

[AngusJS]

The Democratic party is far left, it has been controled by socialists etc for a while now.Of course the D is a name brand in American politics so theyd never change but the things they stand for and try to force on the American people are far left.Bill Clinton is far left but he was smart enough to pretend to move to the center and govern from there for the most part because he wanted to stay President.Wow. If your perception is so warped that you really think the Democratic Party is controlled by socialists, then there is nothing to discuss.

[AngusJS]

It is so funny to see people talking of the far left when obviously they havn't the faintest idea what it is.God, I wish I was a conservative. It must be great to be able to label anyone you don't like with a scary word like "socialist", without having any understanding of what you're talking about. Life must be so simple.

And the funny thing is, the ones who cry SOCIALISM!!1!1!, and say that the Dems are far to the left, tend to be on the far right - they're just so far-gone that they'll never realize it.

[August]

God, I wish I was a conservative. It must be great to be able to label anyone you don't like with a scary word like "socialist", without having any understanding of what you're talking about. Life must be so simple.

And the funny thing is, the ones who cry SOCIALISM!!1!1!, and say that the Dems are far to the left, tend to be on the far right - they're just so far-gone that they'll never realize it.

I never saw you complaining when it was "Bush = hitler". I guess in your world only conservatives can be evil.

[Bilge_Rat]

Uh if the government establishes a socialistic program, it's socialism even if the country itself is capitalist.Nationalized healthcare is a socialist thing.End of story, don't try to twist it.


agreed.


...but the Health Care plan adopted by Congress is not anywhere near being "Nationalized healthcare" even if you look at it through the most skewed partisan eyes. The plan is still 100% privately owned, still run by 100% privately owned insurance companies, the profits will still be earned 100% by the private sector. At most, it merely tweaks the existing system. This is a CENTER-RIGHT or RIGHT health reform. Does that mean Obama is really a closet Republican?....:hmmm:

if you want to see "Nationalized Healthcare", come to Canada. :ping:

[August]

The plan is still 100% privately owned, still run by 100% privately owned insurance companies, the profits will still be earned 100% by the private sector. At most, it merely tweaks the existing system.

Be that as it may. turning a purely voluntary system to government mandated system is one heck of a "tweak".

[Tribesman]

Be that as it may. turning a purely voluntary system to government mandated system is one heck of a "tweak".
Not really as all taxpayers were paying for other peoples healthcare anyway as were all those who were paying their own insurance.

[tater]

What was the first national medical service the government set up and who was it for?
It covered people who were quite essential for business, trade and also at times the security of the nation.
It should be a simple question for you to answer, after all it is your nations history and it has been mentioned several times before in the healthcare topics.

Nationalizing healthcare does not mean providing healthcare for some people, it means taking over all of it. Period. That's what "nationalization" means.

Even the 46% of people covered by government plans doesn't amount to "nationalization." That said, the goverment is the reason from most of the problems due to badly designed systems (medicare setting pay for service rates (badly)).

The current scheme is designed to drive private insurers out of business in the long run, resulting in a true nationalized system.