NObama: Marxist Ideology in America?

[crunchtastic]

Today is not a good day.

I doubt any day is a good day for you.

What I find so deliciously ironic is that many of your posts here contain content sufficient to get you tagged with making terroristic threats. Hard to wage your anti-marxist rise-up from a jail cell. Just saying.

This is a public forum. You never know whom has contacts with whom. You would be wise to tone it down.

[VicMan]

Disastro, TJ, perhaps you could help Toggle in his homework assignment.

[TJones]

In all fairness Disastro, that has been the norm for American politics for a good part of the last Century. Most countries see it that way also. That is why people like Ross Perot and Michael Dukakhis never had a chance. You got to have a good lookin' 6 footer with a million dollar smile to make America look strong. We also used to want someone who actually has fought for this country as they seem to know what ultimate sacrifice and a love for one's country might be. Nowadays it's, "Well, I can forgive the fact that he was running around with domestic terrorists. Just as long as I get some of that Govt. cheese. Oh, and he ain't Bush."

If people would take a few minutes to actually read about Obama's associates, and I have provided links for those too lazy to research for yourselves, they may feel differently. But most, especially on here, would seem to give Obama a pass, even if Timothy McVeigh were the one who threw Obama his coming out party and had served with him on a charitable organization for years. They just can't seem to see the parallel. Obama has thrown EVERYONE under the bus, he has now even thrown ACORN under the bus, which is the group that helped him get elected in Chicago. When he shows how much he cares about thoe who have actually helped him, how much do you think he is gonna care about those he hasn't even shook hands with ? I think he should run for Chancellor of Germany, Obama is as hot as Hasselhoff over there. It will probably be Obama's next move after he gets his ass handed to him in November.

[Disastro]

I doubt any day is a good day for you.

What I find so deliciously ironic is that many of your posts here contain content sufficient to get you tagged with making terroristic threats. Hard to wage your anti-marxist rise-up from a jail cell. Just saying.

This is a public forum. You never know whom has contacts with whom. You would be wise to tone it down.

Don't try that "terroristic threats" bull---- on me. My comments were made in reference to a purely hypothetical situation (a Marxist takeover of America) and nothing specific was outlined or described.

That hypothetical situation has not come to pass and no threats have been made.

I don't care who reads my words. Until there is a Marxist takeover, my rights are still protected under the Constitution.

Believe me, no one will ever take those away.

[VicMan]

Disastro, you talk about a "Marxist takeover" - I asked Toggle what his definition of Marxism is, why it would be bad for the United States, and how Obama's policies match with it.

I think going into detail about specifics rather than wrangling over labels like "Marxism" will improve this debate.

[N Judah]

Don't try that "terroristic threats" bullshit on me. My comments were made in reference to a purely hypothetical situation (a Marxist takeover of America) and nothing specific was outlined or described.

That hypothetical situation has not come to pass and no threats have been made.

I don't care who reads my words. Until there is a Marxist takeover, my rights are still protected under the Constitution.

Believe me, no one will ever take those away.

Hey! Watch the language! This is a family site.

[Disastro]

In all fairness Disastro, that has been the norm for Ameircan politics for a good part of the last Century. Most countries see it that way also. That is why people like Ross Perot and Michael Dukakhis never had a chance. You got to have a good lookin' 6 footer with a million dollar smile to make America look strong. We also used to want someone who actually has fought for this country as they seem to know what ultimate sacrifice and a love for one's country might be. Nowadays it's, "Well, I can forgive the fact that he was running around with domestic terrorists. Just as long as I get some of that Govt. cheese. Oh, and he ain't Bush."

If people would take a few minutes to actually read about Obama's associates, and I have provided links for those too lazy to research for yourselves, they may feel differently. But most, especially on here, would seem to give Obama a pass, even if Timothy McVeigh were the one who threw Obama his coming out party and had served with him on a charitable organization for years. They just can't seem to see the parallel. Obama has thrown EVERYONE under the bus, he has now even thrown ACORN under the bus, which is the group that helped him get elected in Chicago. When he shows how much he cares about thoe who have actually helped him, how much do you think he is gonna care about those he hasn't even shook hands with ? I think he should run for Chancellor of Germany, Obama is as hot as Hasselhoff over there. It will probably be Obama's next move after he gets his ass handed to him in November.

True, TJ.

However, If one is armed with the facts and then chooses to ignore them then they are part of the problem as well. But I guess that's no surprise. I've always said these MoveOn.org/Marxist types were seditionists and traitors...and I hold to that.

People who vote based on looks and superficial things should have their voting priviledge removed. There used to be a time in this country where you couldn't vote unless you owned property.

I think we might need to return to that...but given the braindead nature of about 40% - 50% of our populace, I won't hold my breath.

[N Judah]

I think we might need to return to that...but given the braindead nature of about 40% - 50% of our populace, I won't hold my breath.

You could try seceding.

[TJones]

Disastro, TJ, perhaps you could help Toggle in his homework assignment.

"a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation[3] of workers by the owners of the means of production

a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects the dominant ideology which is in turn shaped by material conditions and relations of production

an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations

an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable

a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change

a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state) "

"On every major policy front, Obama has declared two things: 1) the exploitation and alienation of labor is the true evil in this country and 2) that increasing the size and scope of Government is the answer."

[Disastro]

Disastro, you talk about a "Marxist takeover" - I asked Toggle what his definition of Marxism is, why it would be bad for the United States, and how Obama's policies match with it.

I think going into detail about specifics rather than wrangling over labels like "Marxism" will improve this debate.

Well, it's the redistribution of wealth...gah! I've been through all that. Obama supporters aren't interested. Nothing will deter them from supporting their "Messiah".

It's just like the 90's all over again when they were brainwashed with Clinton. He could do no wrong. Same for Obama now.

"a belief that capitalism is based on the exploitation[3] of workers by the owners of the means of production

a belief that people's consciousness of the conditions of their lives reflects the dominant ideology which is in turn shaped by material conditions and relations of production

an understanding of class in terms of differing relations of production, and as a particular position within such relations

an understanding of material conditions and social relations as historically malleable

a view of history according to which class struggle, the evolving conflict between classes with opposing interests, structures each historical period and drives historical change

a belief that this dialectical historical process will ultimately result in a replacement of the current class structure of society with a system that manages society for the good of all, resulting in the dissolution of the class structure and its support (more often than not including the nation state) "

"On every major policy front, Obama has declared two things: 1) the exploitation and alienation of labor is the true evil in this country and 2) that increasing the size and scope of Government is the answer."

"We have lost the understanding that in a democracy, we have a mutual obligation to one another

[TJones]

Well, I am actually trying to help Vicman, and not Toggle. I am sure he is a nice enough guy, but Toggle is a little too Aryan for my views. Even though some think my signature was a piece of racebait.

[Disastro]

Well, I am actually trying to help Vicman, and not Toggle. I am sure he is a nice enough guy, but Toggle is a little too Aryan for my views. Even though some think my signature was a piece of racebait.

Well, I support you in your efforts! LOL!!!

I don't really know Toggle...I haven't read any of his posts but I'm not into that Aryan thing you mention either...

[crunchtastic]

Don't try that "terroristic threats" bullshit on me. My comments were made in reference to a purely hypothetical situation (a Marxist takeover of America) and nothing specific was outlined or described.

That hypothetical situation has not come to pass and no threats have been made.

I don't care who reads my words. Until there is a Marxist takeover, my rights are still protected under the Constitution.

Believe me, no one will ever take those away.

Allright, Mr. Cold Dead Hands. We all suffer for our convictions.

But your 'hypothetical Marxist takeover of America' is not merely hypothetical, it is also possible, if not probable. Moreover, the threats do not have to be specific, just clear. (google 'executive signing statements', if you like. See also, 'Patriot Act').

[TJones]

Allright, Mr. Cold Dead Hands. We all suffer for our convictions.

But your 'hypothetical Marxist takeover of America' is not merely hypothetical, it is also possible, if not probable. Moreover, the threats do not have to be specific, just clear. (google 'executive signing statements', if you like. See also, 'Patriot Act').

Crunch, here we go with your "Humvees and Tanks rolling down your street", thing again. Do you truly believe that "The Patriot Act" was aimed at YOU , or any law abiding citizen in this country ? Just for giggles, in your mind, who was the Patriot Act structured towards ?

[Disastro]

Allright, Mr. Cold Dead Hands. We all suffer for our convictions.

But your 'hypothetical Marxist takeover of America' is not merely hypothetical, it is also possible, if not probable. Moreover, the threats do not have to be specific, just clear. (google 'executive signing statements', if you like. See also, 'Patriot Act').

Well, if it truly is "probable" as you say, then you and the rest of us will have MUCH more to worry about than harmless (albeit emotional) me.

Besides, chin up! McCain can still win. It's not over until the fat lady sings...

I'm trying to be positive.

Do you really think tanks will be rolling in the streets?

[sarahiki]

Scary, huh, TJ?

Programmed little useful braindead idiots...sorry...I can't take the stupidity of it all anymore. 99% of these idiots don't even know or care what Obama represents or what he believes in or care about his associations with enemies of America!

I've listened to people say they are voting for Obama because he LOOKS GOOD or because they need a "fresh" leader! ARE YOU ____ING KIDDING ME???!!!

Sadly, this is typical of the Obama voter. And even more sad -- WE have to suffer the consequences of these idiots votes!!

That's what pisses me off!

The stupid F-ers!!!

Again...sorry. Some days I suffer fools more easily than others. Today is not a good day.

If you were really sorry, you would have hit the delete key a few times. If you can't be even a little bit respectful you really shouldn't be posting. I would ignore your posts, but you are so damn funny that I would miss reading them. I keep waiting for you to have a coronary or something while typing though. Seriously, I'm concerned. Calm down a little.

[Disastro]

If you were really sorry, you would have hit the delete key a few times. If you can't be even a little bit respectful you really shouldn't be posting. I would hit delete, but you are so damn funny that I would miss your wacky posts. I keep waiting for you to have a coronary or something while typing though. Seriously, I'm concerned. Calm down a little.

Yeah, you're right Sarah.

I promise to chill. I'm sorry. Honestly.

Will you (and the others) forgive? Seriously...sorry about the namecalling. It was uncalled for.

With regard to Obama, let's just agree to disagree...

Dis

[VicMan]

I'll take a look at the Obama quotes in a sec. Let's keep in mind what Barbara Mikkelsen said in a Snopes article about some quotes attributed to Hillary Clinton that were described as "Marxist" in chain e-mails: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

* "Most collections of political quotes are difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false" although they generally include statements that were indeed uttered by the persons to whom they're attributed, they also create misleading impressions about the nature of those statements by eliding portions of them and stripping them of all explanatory context."

[sarahiki]

Yeah, you're right Sarah.

I promise to chill. I'm sorry. Honestly.

Will you (and the others) forgive? Seriously...sorry about the namecalling. It was uncalled for.

With regard to Obama, let's just agree to disagree...

Dis

Thanks, that's very nice. Agreed.

[TJones]

I'll take a look at the Obama quotes in a sec. Let's keep in mind what Barbara Mikkelsen said in a Snopes article about some quotes attributed to Hillary Clinton that were described as "Marxist" in chain e-mails: http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/marxist.asp

* "Most collections of political quotes are difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false" although they generally include statements that were indeed uttered by the persons to whom they're attributed, they also create misleading impressions about the nature of those statements by eliding portions of them and stripping them of all explanatory context."

I am not asking you to look at his quotes, I am asking you to look up the people he has been hanging out with and the organizations he has organized and given money to BEFORE becoming a political hack.

BTW, here you go Vicman, tell me what you think: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...305420655186700

[VicMan]

Let's see this editorial: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.a...305420655186700

Investor's Business Daily seems to be an advocate of capitalism with few governmental restrictions. I can see why the newspaper is against many of Obama's proposals as the newspaper feels they go against free trade. Please keep in mind that this is an editorial, and I found some parts of it that I feel weren't explained enough.

The editorial, "Michelle's Boot Camps For Radicals," talks about the group using "threats, pressure, tension and confrontation

[memebag]

Crunch, here we go with your "Humvees and Tanks rolling down your street", thing again. Do you truly believe that "The Patriot Act" was aimed at YOU , or any law abiding citizen in this country ? Just for giggles, in your mind, who was the Patriot Act structured towards ?

Laws are "aimed" at anyone and everyone. They change some law abiding citizens into law breaking citizens, and vice versa. The Patriot Act changed a law breaking government into a law abiding government by taking away that government's citizen's rights. Do you think there's some exclusion for Crunch in the text?

[Deut28Thirteen]

I doubt the Founding fathers wanted America to be like the last eight years. The Founding Fathers were all for change why do you think we are not apart of England any more? Did you watch the debate tonight? All Obama wants for this country is the very best. Obama has a family, Wife ,and children and saying he is like Karl Marx and other lies is one of the reason people are going around saying things like kill him and other horrible comments. I think it is wrong to spreed lies that could have the potential to harm someone and frankly I think it is beneath America.

[crunchtastic]

Crunch, here we go with your "Humvees and Tanks rolling down your street", thing again. Do you truly believe that "The Patriot Act" was aimed at YOU , or any law abiding citizen in this country ? Just for giggles, in your mind, who was the Patriot Act structured towards ?

The Patriot Act is not 'aimed' at anyone. However, it includes everyone.

[cottonmather0]

Cotton, is that any more enlightening than McCain supporters...even on this forum...railing against socialism, when McCain is proposing to buy up home mortgages at full price from lenders and renegotiating them according to their ability to pay? You know, "...to each according to need".

Is it any different than McCain supporters railing against 'out of control spending' when McCain's fiscal policies would increase the National Debt 50% more than Obama's?

Dude, I never said I *liked* McCain (although I am going to have to vote for him), I just said that I think a lot of Obama's support is for vapid and unserious reasons.

Going back to the plumber quote ("spread the wealth around"), the fact that Obama starts from the assumption that "the people behind you" are unable to succeed on their own is antithetical to my personal beliefs and should be to anyone who has studied the history of this country and understands the reasons its economic success over the years. This country is different BECAUSE we don't have an institutionalized upper class or a landed gentry and success is available to anyone. Not everyone is going to succeed, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't prevent everyone from succeeding by redistributing the results of their labor.

Here is the full quote:

"It's not that I want to punish your success," Obama said. "I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you that they've got a chance at success, too."

This is AMERICA. By definition everyone already has an equal chance at success. Inequality of outcome does not mean that not everybody had an equal "chance" so why does the outcome need to be changed? I'm not saying that there isn't more that can be done to improve everyone's chances, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of someone else's outcome. This is what bothers me about the whole trend in this country, recently in my personal perspective but really historically since the end of the Civil War, of attacking a successful minority in pursuit of electoral support from the less successful majority. At some point the well runs dry and it's disturbing to think that so many people in this country think that's OK. There's a very good book about that very subject.

I will be the first to agree that a massive percentage of the electorate, perhaps 90% or more, is comprised of morons voting strictly on the letter at the end of the candidates' names. This is every bit as true for the GOP as the Democratic Party.

Probably so, but I'm not talking about parties, I am talking about Obama. I would argue that to blindly support a party, you would at least have to have some idea about the party's ideology and found something - however tenuous - that you agree with to gain your support. My argument about Obama is that there are many people who simply see having a young black president as a desirable thing, regardless or politics or ideology. I'm not saying that they don't desire his election for no reason or unthinkingly, just that they support him for reasons not relating to the more legitimate issues that should be considered when choosing a president.

Nor am I saying that all of Obama's supporters feel this way, I just get the feeling based on poll results and Obama's relative popularity compared to older white Democrat politicians with similar politics that a very large portion of his support is for reasons other than his ideology.

I don't think this is necessarily the same thing as voting for Tom Delay or Rick Perry just because they're Republicans. It's similar, but not the same.

This thread is exhibit number 1. But, just as the GOP cannot rely on true conservatives to get elected, neither can the Dems rely on intelligent liberals or centrists. There are simply too few intelligent and principled voters on either side to gain a majority of the vote. So, what do they do? The GOP tries to lure the greedy rich with promises of tax breaks, and fills in the gaps with with morality plays on abortion, gays, 'evil doers' and religion. The Dems try to paint the middle class and poor as victims of the rich.

Depending on the climate, the moderates will identify with one group or the other. This year, it is hard not to feel significantly more poor than in past elections. McCain, and other Republicans, are hard pressed to paint themselves as friends of the middle class when they've been as such fiends of the rich in the past. Given the percentage of voters who do not research the issues and candidates, but instead get their info from cable news and talk radio, neither candidate can expect to win on the truth. In fact, I'd go so far as to say the Dow is a better predictor of the winner than the debates.

The fact that morons are also voting for Obama does not does not dilute the research that I have put into my vote. The fact that morons are voting for McCain does not dilute your decision to vote for McCain. They simply make the forum more fun to read.

I dunno. I hear what you're saying, but it still bothers me that we treat voting so flippantly in this country under the ironic pretense that it's a sacred "right" that cannot be abridged so we do nothing to protect it: not asking for ID, making it as easy as possible to register (multiple times, even), and tripping over ourselves to encourage the least informed and uneducated among us to participate. Yes, there are thoughtful people on both sides, but this system we have is screwed up because we end up having to pander to ignorant people who shouldn't have a vote in the first place. Granted, McCain is a special case this year among Republicans (which isn't the same thing as being conservative), but if you are so uninformed and/or ignorant to not have a clear preference this late in process, then your vote isn't going to be a thoughtful one. Why should that vote still be as valuable as that of someone who actually does care enough to have a formed a thoughtful opinion over time?

Why do we have to pander to these people by promising to give them things they haven't earned or playing to their religious and moral beliefs?

I guess we are saying the same thing.

[VicMan]

Obama has a family, Wife ,and children and saying he is like Karl Marx and other lies is one of the reason people are going around saying things like kill him and other horrible comments. I think it is wrong to spreed lies that could have the potential to harm someone and frankly I think it is beneath America.

I must also add that there are different schools of Marxism that mean different things. I highly doubt that there is any significant political support for a USSR-like economy and lack of private ownership in the United States. We like our private property in the US.

[KinkaidAlum]

The Marxist takeover folks are funny. I get a kick out of reading them. My Dad is one of y'all too! He built a safe room in his house... in the middle of nowhere Texas!

I pay taxes in the highest tax bracket. I should personally be concerned about this supposed "class jihad" being waged by Obama. But, I am not. Quite frankly, a Marxist takeoever might actually help my portfolio compared to the last 2 weeks of our "free market" system. All joking aside; Obama is no more a Marxist than Bush/McCain are true capitalists. We've been a socialist country for many decades. That's the truth. Wrap your head around it and deal.

[TJones]

I must also add that there are different schools of Marxism that mean different things. I highly doubt that there is any significant political support for a USSR-like economy and lack of private ownership in the United States. We like our private property in the US.

.......and Obama wants to give some of your private property that YOU worked so hard and paid for, to the guy that decided to not work so hard, get a govt. check and go blow his money on indian food and video games. Obama's reasoning being, "Hey, you can afford just a little bit, look how much you got here, SPREAD THE WEALTH ,Comrade."

[VicMan]

Cottonmather, I understand your point but I don't think the paragraph really attacks Obama's argument.

I think a start would be to say "Mr. Obama, we already have an equality of chance because of a lack of an established political elite, X, Y, and Z" - This would contradict Obama's statement - it may help to look around for more context to see who he is speaking to and what he uses to support his argument. Attack these support columns and address them.

You said: "attacking a successful minority in pursuit of electoral support from the less successful majority. At some point the well runs dry and it's disturbing to think that so many people in this country think that's OK." - Are you referring to the "When they came for the A, I said nothing because of X. When they came for the B, I said nothing because of Y. When they came for me, nobody spoke up for us." ?

Which voting sites do not require ID? I think ALL ought to require ID. Voting is sacred and therefore we must ensure that people do not use ID to exclude people, but we should also ensure that as few people as possible try to cheat the system.

This is AMERICA. By definition everyone already has an equal chance at success. Inequality of outcome does not mean that not everybody had an equal "chance" so why does the outcome need to be changed? I'm not saying that there isn't more that can be done to improve everyone's chances, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of someone else's outcome. This is what bothers me about the whole trend in this country, recently in my personal perspective but really historically since the end of the Civil War, of attacking a successful minority in pursuit of electoral support from the less successful majority. At some point the well runs dry and it's disturbing to think that so many people in this country think that's OK. There's a very good book about that very subject.

Probably so, but I'm not talking about parties, I am talking about Obama. I would argue that to blindly support a party, you would at least have to have some idea about the party's ideology and found something - however tenuous - that you agree with to gain your support. My argument about Obama is that there are many people who simply see having a young black president as a desirable thing, regardless or politics or ideology. I'm not saying that they don't desire his election for no reason or unthinkingly, just that they support him for reasons not relating to the more legitimate issues that should be considered when choosing a president.

Nor am I saying that all of Obama's supporters feel this way, I just get the feeling based on poll results and Obama's relative popularity compared to older white Democrat politicians with similar politics that a very large portion of his support is for reasons other than his ideology.

I don't think this is necessarily the same thing as voting for Tom Delay or Rick Perry just because they're Republicans. It's similar, but not the same.

I dunno. I hear what you're saying, but it still bothers me that we treat voting so flippantly in this country under the ironic pretense that it's a sacred "right" that cannot be abridged so we do nothing to protect it: not asking for ID, making it as easy as possible to register (multiple times, even), and tripping over ourselves to encourage the least informed and uneducated among us to participate. Yes, there are thoughtful people on both sides, but this system we have is screwed up because we end up having to pander to ignorant people who shouldn't have a vote in the first place. Granted, McCain is a special case this year among Republicans (which isn't the same thing as being conservative), but if you are so uninformed and/or ignorant to not have a clear preference this late in process, then your vote isn't going to be a thoughtful one. Why should that vote still be as valuable as that of someone who actually does care enough to have a formed a thoughtful opinion over time?

Why do we have to pander to these people by promising to give them things they haven't earned or playing to their religious and moral beliefs?

I guess we are saying the same thing.

[TexasVines]

Alcohol and politics do not mix well with some posters.

which is why you had to come back and edit your origional post