Obama is President

[Jake_Ellison]

I'm posting this on this thread because it's pretty popular at the moment. I think the point being made in the video is a great one -- If Obama is this super-socialist/marxist/communist... why is he not the Socialist candidate for President?

http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-r...t---brian-moore

Edit: P.S. I think Obama is going to "govern more from the center then the left."

I wouldn't rely on what Brian Moore said on a comedy show to make up my mind on what brand of toothpicks I should buy, let alone on something important like the political ideology of the next POTUS.

How is his opinion valid?

[Jackethan]

I'd say now is our time, more than ever. This time, now that the liberals are in charge, they can't sit round absorbing people to their cause via the: "Evil pig capitalist republican policies getting you down? Join the underdog." Slogan. Now it's our turn. Now's not the time to give up talking. Now's the time to get bigger than ever before. Books, public speaking, internet, radio, and TV. Get the message out that America needs reason, not emotion, and Selfishness, not sacrifice.

[universehead]

If the worshiping of a "savior" or a "messiah" that I witnessed last night while walking on the streets of Chicago, is any indicator of how this shit is "gonna go down"...Then lock and load my brothers and sisters.

Now if you don't mind, I'm gonna go throw up now.

[Rearden_Steel]

At least the Bush administration left the country so far in debt that a liberal government will be hard pressed to issue further social programs.

[Capitalism Forever]

I didn't say he is "their man", and I think it is dishonest of you to suggest that I did.

I think Mammon was referring to my post there, not yours. (I am not calling Mammon honest, just keeping the record straight. )

I would like to second the rest of your post as a good response to what he wrote. I have neither the time nor the desire to debate with him, so thank you for your post!

[Mammon]

I didn't say he is "their man", and I think it is dishonest of you to suggest that I did.

Read it again Jake. That was CapitalismForever's words.

The point being, that you say these things about Obama, but he himself addressed the issue about Iran. He has comments on the record. Why do, CF and anyone else who wants to say to these things, ignore or evade what he said about it?

My suspecision is that perhaps you guys haven't heard this or you don't care to check what was actually said. I'm up to being proven wrong, but you are going to have to back up what you say with some sort of evidence, or admit that's it's only pure speculation.

I don't know what Obama will do about Iran, but from his own words and he has said it time and time again, he does view them as a threat to be taken seriously.

....

You must have me confused with someone else, mammon. We are not saying ANYTHING the same. (I would ask you to give me an example, but we've all seen how you evade, evade, evade, whenever someone puts you on the spot to back up your assertions.)

I've been saying the same kind of stuff about the "chicken little" mentality going on here. In threads and in chat... mainly in chat, and you've been in the room when I've said it!

[RationalBiker]

If Obama is this super-socialist/marxist/communist... why is he not the Socialist candidate for President?

Well, there are many potential answers to that. One that comes to mind is that he is smart enough to know that he would never get elected on the Socialist party ticket. A 3 year old can almost figure out America is ingrained as a two party country. Thus, to push a socialist agenda, one may to tone it down a bit and run on the Democratic party ticket where one actually has a shot at getting elected. This is not brain surgery. It wouldn't be above a pragmatist to be deceptive now and then. A pragmatic politician? Deception would be part and parcel of the trade.

But hey, I'll wait and see what he does. What choice to I have?

His campaign theme of "Hope" is right though, in a sense. He's created in me a hope that he won't screw things up too badly.

[Jake_Ellison]

I don't know what Obama will do about Iran, but from his own words and he has said it time and time again, he does view them as a threat to be taken seriously.

He will be your president in 3 months. If he was an honest man, wouldn't you know what he will do?

His evasion is proof enough that he does not intend to stand firmly and face our enemies. If I ran for president, people would know from day one of my campaign what I intend to do abour America's enemies.

It is not a question of practical considerations, it is a question of principles and character. If he had those, he would've told us what he intends to do, even if it would've cost him the election. The fact that he doesn't leads me to believe that he will continue to evade the issue until it's too late or he is out of office.

That is my proof: that is the only proof anyone could offer about someone's true intentions( since psychics and crystal balls don't exist) , but in my view it is more than sufficient: he will do exactly nothing.

[Mammon]

Well, there are many potential answers to that. One that comes to mind is that he is smart enough to know that he would never get elected on the Socialist party ticket. A 3 year old can almost figure out America is ingrained as a two party country. Thus, to push a socialist agenda, one may to tone it down a bit and run on the Democratic party ticket where one actually has a shot at getting elected. This is not brain surgery. It wouldn't be above a pragmatist to be deceptive now and then. A pragmatic politician? Deception would be part and parcel of the trade.

So, there isn't anyway that he is not a super-socialist?

If we take him as a liar, then all those things he said that we don't like have to be lies. Or our his lies the things we like? How can we tell what's a lie and what's not?

Edit:Word to the wise, don't be this guy.

Edited November 5, 2008 by Mammon

[~Sophia~]

I don't know what Obama will do about Iran, but from his own words and he has said it time and time again, he does view them as a threat to be taken seriously.

How do you deal with a bully? By politely asking him to stop while you make yourself weaker (cut investments in missile defense systems and seek global ban on production of fissile material)?

Hussein Moussawi, a former leader of Hezbollah, an officially branded terrorist organization funded by Iran, once said this about Americans: "We are not fighting so that you will offer us something. We are fighting to eliminate you."

In light of that Obama calls for "aggressive diplomacy" and economic sanctions?

I hope he is a quick study. His kids and wife do live in America after all.

BTW, Hamas has expressed "hope" that Obama will win the presidential elections: "We like Mr. Obama, and we hope that he will win the election."

Edited November 5, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[RationalBiker]

So, there isn't anyway that he is not a super-socialist?

First, you are attacking a strawman here. I didn't say anything about him being a SUPER-socialist. You are exaggerating things. Whoever else in this thread you are arguing with, don't project your imagination on me.

Second, you asked a question and I gave you a POSSIBLE answer, hence the part where I said "There are many potential answers.... One that comes to mind". I did not state that to necessarily be the case, but you seem naive to the possibility that Obama might not be entirely forthcoming with his agenda. But it is a matter of fact that he has represented himself to be in favor of several things of a socialistic nature. Whether that earns him the label of socialist or super-socialist only time will tell. His ideas on national healthcare, subjectively determining who the rich are so they can be taxed heavier, and determining which energy type businesses will be allowed to operate without being financially raped by the government are all big steps down the socialist path. I suspect he has similar intentions in mind with schooling and other things.

If we take him as a liar, then all those things he said that we don't like have to be lies.

Is that your position, or are you somehow insinuating that it has something to do with my statement? If the latter, please make the connection based on what I said.

How can we tell what's a lie and what's not?

Most people do this by distinguishing a person's words from their actions. You can also look for discrepancies in what they say one time and what they say another time, and the next time, and so on. That must have been a rhetorical question because even if I disagree with on Obama, I gave you credit enough for being able to tell when someone is lying or has lied or not. Now I have to ask, are you capable of telling when someone has lied or not? Maybe I shouldn't assume that most people can do that as it is part and parcel of my job on almost a daily basis. Given that he has sought to be secretive about certain relationships throughout his life, relationships with these destructive people who do not seem to value freedom and liberty, he does not encourage the critical mind to just accept his intentions at face value.

Edited November 5, 2008 by RationalBiker

[Capitalism Forever]

His campaign theme of "Hope" is right though, in a sense. He's created in me a hope that he won't screw things up too badly.

I hope that too, but it's not a very realistic hope. He wants to screw us, and he's got what it takes to screw us. What is there to stop him?

[D'kian]

Now that it's all over, here are some observations that don't matter:

1) Obama wasn't even seriously running for President when he launched his campaign. I'm certain he was angling for a slot in the 2012 election, making himself (more) widely known to the country. He probably expected a GOP victory (not unreasonable back all the way to last year and considering Hillary as a likely opponent). Alas, he won.

2) The Congressional results are hopeful. Fact is the GOP is best as an opposition party. Look at their record in the 90s.

3) Whatever Obama plans to do, he'd better do it quickly. After 6 months or so witht the press and intelligentsia howling that any policy disagreement with the Messiah constitutes racism, the Peter and the Wolf effect kicks in. If Obama has a short honeymoon and a hard time staying popular, he will ahve done race relations a service.

[gags]

Now that it's all over, here are some observations that don't matter:

1) Obama wasn't even seriously running for President when he launched his campaign. I'm certain he was angling for a slot in the 2012 election, making himself (more) widely known to the country. He probably expected a GOP victory (not unreasonable back all the way to last year and considering Hillary as a likely opponent). Alas, he won.

2) The Congressional results are hopeful. Fact is the GOP is best as an opposition party. Look at their record in the 90s.

3) Whatever Obama plans to do, he'd better do it quickly. After 6 months or so witht the press and intelligentsia howling that any policy disagreement with the Messiah constitutes racism, the Peter and the Wolf effect kicks in. If Obama has a short honeymoon and a hard time staying popular, he will ahve done race relations a service.

1) The Dems have had some success with this formula. They pick a relative unknown and make him into something he isn't (2 examples: Carter, Clinton). I suppose we'll find out soon enough the true philosophical identity of BHO.

2) Back in the '90s, there were some Republicans with balls, particularly in the US Senate. I don't think you have the same sort of people in power this time around. They are going to get steamrolled unless they realize that principled opposition is the only chance they have for winning back some seats in 2 years.

3) He and his left wing friends control the whole shooting match now. It's not a hopeful sign that he appears to have picked Rahm Emanual for his chief of staff. The man is another extreme leftist and a brutal partisan. They may be able to do a lot of damage in the next two years.

Edited November 5, 2008 by gags

[D'kian]

1) The Dems have had some success with this formula. They pick a relative unknown and make him into something he isn't (2 examples: Carter, Clinton). I suppose we'll find out soon enough the true philosophical identity of BHO.

Clinton and Carter had governed states for several years before that. It's true Clinton first became known nationally for his speech at the 88 Democratic convention, but mostly because he took too long and bored everyone to tears. Obama did better in 04. As for Carter, does anyone remember when he was attacked by a rabbit?

2) Back in the '90s, there were some Republicans with balls, particularly in the US Senate. I don't think you have the same sort of people in power this time around. They are going to get steamrolled unless they realize that principled opposition is the only chance they have for winning back some seats in 2 years.

I honestly don't know. I hope either they do and we haven't noticed (possible) or that some GOP Congressmen will find their way. But partisan politics can go a long way, too.

3) He and his left wing friends control the whole shooting match now. It's not a hopeful sign that he appears to have picked Rahm Emanual for his chief of staff. The man is another extreme leftist and a brutal partisan. They may be able to do a lot of damage in the next two years.

To us or to themselves?

Seriously, the media can only do so much. If this were 1984 (literally, not literarily) I'd be worried. But these days there are more options. If the MSM cries "racist!" every day, people will get tired and stop paying attention. Everything gets dulled by repetition.

[aequalsa]

For an objectivist trying to make a life for himself, i would say it is much more important what the character of the people in your area is, rather than what economic policies the area has.

As one of your aforementioned panic-ers, I thought that I ought to chime in. First, I wanted to note that you do us a disservice when you call our opinions about this guy, knee jerk. I know it is not true of me, and from what others who are opposed to him have said, I don't think that they're reaction is automatic. I ask you to reconsider that accusation.

The point you make in your follow-up post struck me as important to understanding the difference between our views. As someone who lives in the US, it is becoming overwhelmingly clear to me that that American character you refer to, is something well on it's way out. To understand why, it is essential to grasp the underlying philosophical values which, until recently, were the underlayment upon which that positive sense of life has been built. The founders partially inoculated us against the evils of altruism and self-hatred when they made "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," a bromide. That became a philosophy at the core of most Americans, regardless of their education or their complete understanding of the terms and their negative connotation. I explain this because most people from Europe(as well as younger people now) seem to lack this inherent view that we have held-that our life is our own. That no one has the moral right to impose their will on you so long as you are not violating their rights. Without understanding that this is at the base of what most Americans have believed, I can see why you would feel confusion, as others have, over why a "little bit more socialism" is such a horrific thing.

Over the past 100 years our rights(particularly economic) have been gradually eroding in waves. So what is the difference between one more wave, You might ask. The main difference is that until Obama, presidents have had to pay homage to rights we possess. Regardless of whether they keep their word or not, they had to pretend they believed in freedom to get elected. Obama has said explicitly that he is opposed to the protection of rights as outlined by our constitution. That negative liberties are, in effect, an outdated idea and that a good constitution should not limit what the government can do, but should instead say what the government should do for us. In other words, outline how some should be privileged at the expense of others. And with that he won big. My guess, is that he got virtually all of the black vote(they vote 90-95% dem in every election due to a culture built on entitlement.) Most of the young probably voted for him because kids below 25 or so grew up after the fall of communism and for the most part lack any concrete knowledge of how real a threat it can be. Women tend to vote for the younger sexier guy who promises them the most security. And let's face it. He's Smoove. The rest, older white males are and increasingly small percentage of the population who are increasingly browbeat by the holy, untouchable triage of feminism, white guilt, and cultural relativity.

I won't say that the American spirit is dead. What I do believe is that if most Americans are enthralled by a guy who has only promised to eliminate their rights and grant them privileges at someone else's expense, then our general character is injured so badly that it won't make it through the ambulance ride. In Franklin's words, at this point we "deserve neither liberty nor security."

The difference between us and Finland or Sweden or France is only a matter of when, not if. What comes after, specifically, is anybody's guess, but in the other countries which have gone down this socialist path, the answer is obvious.

I would suggest that long term it will be worse though then what Europe has. The government already takes at least 40% of the GDP. Much more if you count inflation and regulation. Without providing much to anyone outside of certain protected classes. So to actually press forward with even just a government medical program could push us to the 70-80% range. Currently, medical care is 1/6 of our economy. That it will double after the government takes over is no big bridge to leap.

So anyway, I would say that I agree, with your assessment, but would caution that you have an extremely filtered sample set when you look at Americans who are traveling in Europe.

[Yes]

Once again America has shown itself to be the land of opportunity.

That opportunity is not limited to those of birthright privilege.

I am glad for Obama being elected. This country sorely needs this kind of energy.

[Ordr]

Once again America has shown itself to be the land of opportunity.

That opportunity is not limited to those of birthright privilege.

I am glad for Obama being elected. This country sorely needs this kind of energy.

What energy? The frenetic drive toward socialism? As dirty as this makes me feel, I have to quote the abomination that is Star Wars, Episode III: "So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause.".

[windyfellow]

I personally am horrified by this. Anyone else have thoughts?

I bet some people on this forum were at his victory speech...

[Ordr]

I bet some people on this forum were at his victory speech...

Were they?

[Kelly K.]

Look at it this way, very few people will be able to play the race card now.

For instance, a black person can't say that "the man" is keeping them down... they are the man.

I think this election shows that America really CAN be the land of oppurtunity.

That said, I'm not a big fan of Obama, seeing as how his tax plan raises my families taxes.

Is it possible that we are all overreacting to Obama's election?

how much can he really do to us or take away from us.

the most i think he can do is continue the slow process of taking away rights and freedoms for "protection"

also, look at the bright side. Biden in office. He is one of the smartest people on the topic of foreign relations.

so there might be a silver lining

[Ordr]

Look at it this way, very few people will be able to play the race card now.

For instance, a black person can't say that "the man" is keeping them down... they are the man.

I think this election shows that America really CAN be the land of oppurtunity.

That said, I'm not a big fan of Obama, seeing as how his tax plan raises my families taxes.

Is it possible that we are all overreacting to Obama's election?

how much can he really do to us or take away from us.

the most i think he can do is continue the slow process of taking away rights and freedoms for "protection"

also, look at the bright side. Biden in office. He is one of the smartest people on the topic of foreign relations.

so there might be a silver lining

They are still playing the race card and saying that this is nothing but a step in the right direction.

And, on the topic of Biden, how is he "one of the smartest people on the topic of foreign relations"?

[gags]

Look at it this way, very few people will be able to play the race card now.

For instance, a black person can't say that "the man" is keeping them down... they are the man.

I think this election shows that America really CAN be the land of oppurtunity.

Here in Detroit, blacks have been "the man" for more than the last 30 years. Nevertheless, when our black mayor was recently convicted of a felony, we still heard people complaining that the system is racist and the deck is stacked against black men.

also, look at the bright side. Biden in office. He is one of the smartest people on the topic of foreign relations. so there might be a silver lining

I wouldn't be so sure about that. Biden has been spectacularly wrong on a number of major foreign policy issues.

[01503]

Here in Detroit, blacks have been "the man" for more than the last 30 years. Nevertheless, when our black mayor was recently convicted of a felony, we still heard people complaining that the system is racist and the deck is stacked against black men.

Which is why this administration will blame Bush and the Republicans for all of its failures.

"Bush screwed it up so badly that we couldn't fix it in time!" etc.

Yeah, Bush screwed it up. That's a fact. But this has been a long time coming and the blame does not rest solely on Bush and Reagan, as many Dems would like to believe.

[Kelly K.]

And, on the topic of Biden, how is he "one of the smartest people on the topic of foreign relations"?

He's a long time chairmember of the Senate's Foreign Relations Commitee.

I believe it counts for something though I can't cite any specific examples where he has greatly effected are foreign policy.

but hey it's still better than "I can see Russia from my state"