Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Is Obama really a Socialist?

Rate this topic


Rocky Racoon
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Yes, one can be certain indeed, because Obama=bad. Everything he says is bad, everything he does is bad, everything he touches turns bad. The other day someone died... It's because of Obama eat breakfast. 9/11 happened because of Obama. Obama killed the dinosaurs, and the Obama created Hitler! So you can be definitely certain he will be wrong-headed. Everything bad in history happened because of Obama!
Obama believes that the road to salvation runs through the state. He embraces altruism, champions collectivism and demands sacrifice. If you think that does not automatically = bad, then what good do you expect to see from this guy? The only time he mentions the free market is when he want to regulate it, re-prioritize it, or confiscate the the wealth created by it.

As for Obama Killing the dinosaurs, I will have to do a little more research on that one. But if he knew they would turn into all that oil millions of years later, he probably would not have done it.

Here is a link to the Philadelphia speech that apparently got Cline (and thus, Mammon) all riled up:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/17/us/polit...nted=1&_r=1

Maybe I have just grown accustomed to this guy, but it strikes me as run of the mill Obama-speak. There is no doubt, however, that Obama is ignoring the principles behind the Revolution and casting himself and his contrary beliefs as a fulfillment of that history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no doubt, however, that Obama is ignoring the principles behind the Revolution and casting himself and his contrary beliefs as a fulfillment of that history.

Cline is very passionate about the founding principles. I expect someone so passionate to get very angry when a sworn protector of the constitution twists those principles beyond recognition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sick of the groupthink. People like Cline have it in their minds what they want to believe and will evade and actively search for anything to make them reality conform to their visions. Not the other way around. It's subjectivist and the fact that so many people do it, makes it collectivist, and the fact that he shows no signs of actually considering anything different shows he is not using reason. To me, Cline is doing everything Objectivism warns against.

It's just dumb. The article holds as much water as a dessert and Cline comes off as a hack.

I totally agree with your analysis of this scathing piece of crap Kline wrote.

Kline is no purveyor of Objectivism. He is a mere mouthpiece of the Right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the first sentence, the first thing he has to do is equate Obama with something negative. This is tone for the entire article. Could it be that the media is just doing their job, which is to report stuff? No, it's "mindless happy talk"! Well guess what? It's Inauguration Day. It's a celebration, and a ceremony it's time to have more positive talk. It's like New Years, except it only happens every 4 to 8 years, which makes it historically significant and thats why they have generally positive commentary about the history of the event. Are people not allowed to be interested or happy about that? I'm not for sure what would make Cline happy here. If the commentary was something a long the lines of "Obama blinked twice in 10 seconds, that means he wants to enslave America!"... Which is actually, pretty close to his own commentary!

Where to start.. I'm assuming Cline sets the tone of the article as negative because Obama is something negative. If you disagree, I'd be really curious to know why. As far as celebrations go, it really depends just what someone is celebrating. People lining up in droves to usher in a president who does not have my rights in mind is not something that I think should be praised and acknowledged in a positive light. Hence the negative tone of the article, starting with the first sentence.

A lot of people showed up to this and watched it. Yes, that's true. Because it's not something that happens every day. Are people not allowed to be interested in something rare and historic? Are they not allowed to show support for their country by watching it's elected leader get sworn in? At the last sentence here shows the answer is "NO!" ... If you watched the Inauguration you have to be someone who wants to be ruled over. Really? Here is where Cline begins to make himself up to be an omniscient deity. He knows what's going on in the heads of millions of people. It just so happens that all these people are wrong. Unlike the Enlightened Mr. Cline who bestows his wisdom down on us mere mortals in even more projections, free interpretations and postulating.

I can't figure out what you are referring to that is rare and historic, unless you are referring to the fact that the new president is black (is that really an important point to make?). I'll give partial credit to another poster in this thread, and agree that Obama has a lot in common with Hoover, FDR, Carter and the two Bushes. It's not anything new, and it's not something that I think one should be excited about. If one chose instead to do something more important than show up in freezing weather to watch this particular president get sworn in, I wouldn't think that they "supported their country" any less. In all likelihood, they were probably more cognizant of the meaning behind his words than those who did show up.

Here is where I discovered the problem. He can't discern fact from fiction here. He can project his fantasies all over the world here and can't see past them. He needs to cast someone as the villain of the story he's making up in his head. So of course it's our newly elected Democrat President. Let us keep this in mind as we read further.

I think in order for me to understand your posts better, I need to understand why you think Obama is not as bad as I think most judge his words and actions to be. Otherwise it sounds like your argument is such:

P1: Person A writes fiction as well as nonfiction.

P2: Person A judges Person X to be evil.

P3: Person X is therefore the villain of the "story".

P4: Person X is not evil (does he really mean the things he says?) by Person B's standard.

C1: Person A cannot discern fact from fiction and is living in a fantasy world.

You took personal offense because someone didn't say the words you wanted to hear? Cry me a river.

He quite obviously took offense at the words Obama did pronounce. Again, I need to understand why you think Obama deserves such a defense from the supposed fantasies of Ed Cline.

Of course, of course... just read his transcripts. Make sure you interpret them to mean whatever you feel like. As long as you interpret it to mean that Obama want's to be some sort of evil tyrant, dictator, or overlord then your correct. It can't be anything good or positive.

Those ambiguities and populist parts are meant to appeal to a wider audience. The speeches are designed that way. You can project what you want onto Obama. In the case of Cline it's "BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!!!" Again, Cline is omniscient and knows what Obama is really thinking, which is naturally the absolute worse things. Again, he asserts Obama wants to rule, but where does he back any of this up? It's just pure speculation, postulating and projecting.

I think Ed Cline is interpreting what Obama says just fine--if you came out with something good and positive, I'm not sure what to say, except that those ambiguities and populist parts really struck the intended note. For the things that were explicit and unambiguous, I have to know by what standard you judge them to be positive, worth of celebration, and unjustly criticized.

I could write like this guy,

"Edward Cline is a racist and a Republican talking head. All one has to do is look at everything he says. All of his books have always been broth with inflammatory and accusative language addressed to the worst in men, concealing an intention to be a cool leader of the new Revolution against the new Tyrant-in-chief and to be loved and worshiped as a freedom-fighting hero!"

If I wrote that, the member of this board and the saner people in the world would probably scold me for it. Yet this guy can get away with it.

Isn't that what you're doing? I have to ask: have you listened to Obama's speeches? It would make sense to make this point if what Ed Cline said wasn't actually true, but if you listen to what Obama says, it's not really a joke. It'd be like criticizing someone for saying, "All you have to do is listen to FDR's speeches; he's trampling our rights, pushing the welfare state, and ultimately reducing us to the status of incapable infants."

And it gets worse and worse. Here he throws everyone into a big group which, of course, has to be thoughtless. He knows the minds of millions of people apparently. And this the only reason to like Obama. If your a horribly stupid human being. It can't be for any other reason, can it Mr. Cline?

I couldn't find you making any positive statements about Obama yet, and I think everything comes down to why you think Obama gaining a major post in the entity whose sole purpose is to protect individual rights warrants celebration. I want to hear you out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, so apparently it's a real problem for someone not to like Obama and editorialize as such--even when it is based on Objectivist principles. Sounds like Obama is intrinsically good in someone's eyes here and any criticism is therefore a "piece of crap".

Edited by Steve D'Ippolito
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is one of the worst things I've ever read. I read it the day Sophia posted it and I haven't had time to write what I thought, but it was bothering me so much I'm just going to do it. I'll specifically quote what I'm talking about. Given the sheer amount of crap this guy wrote, it's going to be a lot.

Immature hyperbole. I've come to expect no more and no less from you when it comes to discussing Obama.

In the first sentence, the first thing he has to do is equate Obama with something negative. This is tone for the entire article. Could it be that the media is just doing their job, which is to report stuff? No, it's "mindless happy talk"! Well guess what? It's Inauguration Day. It's a celebration, and a ceremony it's time to have more positive talk. It's like New Years, except it only happens every 4 to 8 years, which makes it historically significant and thats why they have generally positive commentary about the history of the event. Are people not allowed to be interested or happy about that? I'm not for sure what would make Cline happy here. If the commentary was something a long the lines of "Obama blinked twice in 10 seconds, that means he wants to enslave America!"... Which is actually, pretty close to his own commentary!

If you want to go on thinking that the Bush inauguration and the Obama inauguration had the same feel about it, go ahead and continue with the sheep, Mammon. But the fact is there were state-wide traffic jams to come see a mediocre speech from a man who promised nothing but to further our problems. Cline doesn't need to read people's minds. It was on the faces of thousands of people. They are more amazed by Obama's race and personality than his politics at all.

Here is where I discovered the problem. He can't discern fact from fiction here. He can project his fantasies all over the world here and can't see past them. He needs to cast someone as the villain of the story he's making up in his head. So of course it's our newly elected Democrat President. Let us keep this in mind as we read further.

After accusations of psychologizing, here's a hefty dose of it.

You took personal offense because someone didn't say the words you wanted to hear? Cry me a river.

I suppose if I called your mother a whore, you wouldn't take offense? Or what if I bad mouthed everything you believed in? That is what Obama did in that speech. He bad mouthed capitalism, small government, self-interest and YES, I am offended. You seem like you've got your panties in a bunch over some people's words, so just stop it.

I'd like direct quotes here, please. Not your projections and your attempts to put those words in the man's mouth. This is where any respect I had for this writer because instead of showing Obama saying these things, he is just insisting he believes, implies, or means these things. Things which Cline doesn't like. Because Obama has to be bad. He is the villain of the story here. Cline can rewrite reality to make it mean whatever he wants it to mean.

Explain how Obama is NOT the bad guy. You won't, because your hate for Republicans has blinded you to the opposition. You're turning from a critic of failed Republican rule to a childish Obama supporter. Your arguments are really pathetic, in all honesty. You offer NOTHING in defense of your own beliefs, and criticize others.

Of course, of course... just read his transcripts. Make sure you interpret them to mean whatever you feel like. As long as you interpret it to mean that Obama want's to be some sort of evil tyrant, dictator, or overlord then your correct. It can't be anything good or positive.

You seem to be pretty good at that yourself, Mr. Mammon.

Those ambiguities and populist parts are meant to appeal to a wider audience. The speeches are designed that way. You can project what you want onto Obama. In the case of Cline it's "BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD BAD!!!" Again, Cline is omniscient and knows what Obama is really thinking, which is naturally the absolute worse things. Again, he asserts Obama wants to rule, but where does he back any of this up? It's just pure speculation, postulating and projecting.

Obama is thinking SOMETHING bad or isn't thinking at all. Sorry pal, but last time I checked Obama offered very little positive, just like you.

Cline isn't speculating. Obama has promised to do many things, almost all of them bad and progressive in the further destruction of America and it's citizens.

I could write like this guy,

"Edward Cline is a racist and a Republican talking head. All one has to do is look at everything he says. All of his books have always been broth with inflammatory and accusative language addressed to the worst in men, concealing an intention to be a cool leader of the new Revolution against the new Tyrant-in-chief and to be loved and worshiped as a freedom-fighting hero!"

You could write like that, and in fact that is basically how you have written.

And it gets worse and worse. Here he throws everyone into a big group which, of course, has to be thoughtless. He knows the minds of millions of people apparently. And this the only reason to like Obama. If your a horribly stupid human being. It can't be for any other reason, can it Mr. Cline?

This type of language litters the rest of the sorry excuse of an article. Obama has "worshipers" apparently. I have to divide it here for fear of running out of quote brackets.

If you REALLY like Obama, you are either thoughtless or your thoughts are very corrupt. One or the other.

Mammon, you're acting like a fucking child here, pure and simple. I understand opposing McCain and the Republicans. What I don't understand is your defense of someone who is at best a flimsy minded pragmatist and at worst an ideological supporter of Socialism.

I don't like the incessant anti-Obama talk, or the slobbering at his feet from supporters. You are currently acting like a slobberer.

Obama is another bad president in our illustrious history of bad presidents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted -- and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you. But it doesn't say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn't shifted, and one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And, uh, in some ways we still suffer from that.

-Barack Hussein Obama, Interview, Chicago Public Radio WEBZ-FM, Sept. 6, 2001

No, Mammon, you're right. He's not a socialist. Pat yourself on the back.

(BTW, my previous post was based on Obama's trajectory to date, so yes, it was hyperbole. The post, that is, not the trajectory. The trajectory has been decidedly linear:

1991 - graduated Harvard Law School

1996 - elected Illinois State Senator

2000 - lost election to House of Representatives

2004 - elected Senator from Illinois

2008 - elected President of the United States

2012 - ???)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...