It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Obama really a socialist? Some say so, but where's the evidence?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 10:23 AM
link   
news.yahoo.com...

Visit link for full article.



The assertion is getting louder: President Obama is a socialist, a wealth-redistributing wolf in Democrat's clothing gnawing at America's entrepreneurial spirit. It's easy to buy "Obama is a socialist" bumper stickers on the Internet. Political commentator Dick Morris said, in a column circulated on GOPUSA.com, that conservatives are "enraged at Barack Obama's socialism and radicalism." Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich titled his new book "To Save America: Stopping Obama's Secular-Socialist Machine." So, is Mr. Obama trying to form The Socialist Republic of America? Or are the accusations mainly a political weapon, meant to stick Obama with a label that is poison to many voters and thus make him a one-term president?


I agree 100% with this article. It's annoying people like my father abuse the word communist, democrat or socialist daily. With out knowing what they're saying in the first place.




posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 11:20 AM
link   


"I have been making a living telling people Obama is not a socialist," says Frank Llewellyn, national director of the Democratic Socialists of America. "It's frustrating to see people using our brand to criticize programs that have nothing to do with our brand and are not even working."


i agree with this. he gives a bad name to any self-respecting socialist. before anyone flames me, im NOT a socialist. i can understand some of their views and some of others' views. who cares what he "says" his ideology is o not, anyways? the president is a figure-head. a puppet. that is all. george bush, his administration, and his pals in the senate and house took over AIG. obama, his administration, and his pals in the senate and house took over GM. they both "spread the wealth" around the richest in the system. this is fascism, not socialism. the people dont own anything because the corporate oligarchy has the government by the balls, and though the government "owns" all this stock with "our" tax dollars, they work as a team.

in the end, i dont believe it actually matters what system of government anyone has. it will always descend into some form of fascism and die. eventually, a small group of people end up using their power to take control of most of the resources, and a marriage of corporation and government is necessary to justify the imbalance. after that, everything is about profit, not progress. that is just my opinion and view on history, though.

its definitely an important subject, though. especially here. i think a lot of people throw around words like socialism and fascism without actually understanding what these terms mean or what state our economy is in (sorry, NOT true capitalism). on that note, it never says anywhere in our constitution that we should always have a capitalist economy. i always wonder if the die-hard capitalists would side for democracy if the a state or country elected a socialist leader, or started enacting socialist principles. is it upholding freedom and democracy to tell people who they can and cannot vote for just because they have a different view on how the economic structure of a country should work? i dont think so, and i think freedom and democracy are far more important than capitalism or socialism. if our economic structure is interfering with these two principles, something should change.




We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


-Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution

an American Socialist thinks "...promote the general Welfare..." is the most important part of this statement.

an American Capitalist thinks "...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."

i dont see why we cant do both just as well. i mean, we think we're so special with our intelligence and all...yet we cant figure out how to have health care AND cool stuff?

good post!



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


Proof? Seriously?......OK
Government take over of Banks
Governent takeover of health care.
Government takeover of Industry (say...GM for example)
New "financial reform" which means government takeover and control of financial industry (yes, this is a different industry sector than banking).
Expansion of government (25 percent since 2009)
Assault on states rights (see lawsuit filed by JD vs. Arizona 1070)
Redistribution of wealth (note that 50 percent pay no taxes, while the upper half sees an increase, redistributed via free healthcare, for example)
In short, you won't recognize this country in a few months.

And have you noticed that Obama has at least 10 "czars" that are avowed "marxists." (for those of you in DC, that means communist).

In fact, we've got more czars that old Russia.
I would refer you to research the definition of "progressivism". Progressivism is a movement to transition to a hybrid marxism-socialism in phases. In gradual steps.
That's not conjecture or opinion, that is simply what it means. A definition. He told you what he was, you just didn't listen.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by astrogolf]



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:19 PM
link   
just saying stuff without evidence to back it up is NOT "proof"


Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 


Proof? Seriously?......OK
Government take over of Banks


NY Times
this is on AIG (not a bank, i know, but they got a lot of money from ol bush)
CNN
this one is about the bailout money given to banks as well. both of these articles were written in 2008, before "obama the socialist" took over.


Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 

Governent takeover of health care.

Baltimore Chronicle
Huffington Post
a "government take over of health care" would require a public option, single pay, or some form of free, universal health care. this is NOT what happened in the slightest. all that happened is the government gave big pharma and insurance companies more customers by creating restrictions against NOT having health insurance. thats it. they arent running it, and it sure as hell doesnt amount to a take-over. remember, even the people who were pushing for a public option dont like the bill as passed. im not sure anyone who knows whats in it actually likes it. again, this is government working in the favor of the corporate crowd. this is called fascism, not socialism. if you would like to see what socialized health care looks like, try looking at Sweden's healthcare system, and tell me if we look like this.


Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 

Government takeover of Industry (say...GM for example)


Wall Street Journal
george bush was the first to bend over for these guys. now, im not saying that this is all bush's fault, and im sure as hell not turning this into a flamin on bush post, but, like obama he is only a puppet for a fascist regime. it wouldnt matter if he was capitalist or socialist. its the GREED that leads to fascism, NOT the system before it.
anywho, yet another policy before "obama the socialist" came into office, which only proves that he does nothing.


Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 

New "financial reform" which means government takeover and control of financial industry (yes, this is a different industry sector than banking).


alternet
this didnt do anything to stop the craziness that caused this financial mess in the FIRST place. to say that nothing should be done to reform and regulate the financial sector after what we have seen is, at best, baseless, and at worst, ignorant. regardless, its not going to do anything but make all these risky practices legal, and hopefully ask them to save up for next time they screw the pooch. which they will, BTW.


Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 

Expansion of government (25 percent since 2009)

this, sadly, (i am opposed to big government and big corporations, btw) is what happens when you have to spend more money during record times of unemployment. luckily, you will see the size of government go down as the unemployment payments dry up! "size of government" is only being measured, as far as i can tell from sources i just looked up, including this one, only seem to site numbers like "amount spent per household" to calculate this 25% increase. also, this NY Times article chronicles GW's spending. i never heard anyone screaming socialist at him. which, like obama, is because he ISNT a socialist, and it wouldnt matter if he was anyways.


Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 

Assault on states rights (see lawsuit filed by JD vs. Arizona 1070)

states rights have been encroached on for years. how about past presidents policies to raid state-sanctioned medical marijuana clinics that the people VOTED for? we can get up in arms about challenging the AZ law (which i really have no problem with, theoretically), but nobody cares about actual seizing of peoples PROPERTY and encroaching on their RIGHTS to run a LEGITIMATE BUSINESS. as a capitalist (im assuming) you should be all for the liberation of free markets in all areas. once again, just more continued policies.



Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by Romantic_Rebel
 

Redistribution of wealth (note that 50 percent pay no taxes, while the upper half sees an increase, redistributed via free healthcare, for example)
In short, you won't recognize this country in a few months.
continued...
And have you noticed that Obama has at least 10 "czars" that are avowed "marxists." (for those of you in DC, that means communist).

In fact, we've got more czars that old Russia.
I would refer you to research the definition of "progressivism". Progressivism is a movement to transition to a hybrid marxism-socialism in phases. In gradual steps.
That's not conjecture or opinion, that is simply what it means. A definition. He told you what he was, you just didn't listen.

[edit on 2-7-2010 by astrogolf]


continued...



posted on Jul, 2 2010 @ 02:28 PM
link   
heres what you get when you simply GOOGLE "progressivism". not such a one-sided, easy to define ideal anymore, eh? maybe the shades o grey are peaking through your black-and-white world-view? progressivism is classicly, and rightly, linked to things like women's suffrage and the abolishing of child labor. i dont think these are bad things at all, marxism is extremely opposed to child labour, or the exploitation of the working class. tell me what is wrong with this. can we not borrow the good from some ideals and reject the negative? because if you are opposed to marxism as a whole, and believe that coporations can truly govern themselves, you might be swayed by a convincing argument to bring back child labor. you have to protect your mind from that kind of manipulation.

this is what a czar is in russia:



# a male monarch or emperor (especially of Russia prior to 1917) # a person having great power


we have more because our "czars" are not MONARCHS. "czar" in our country is only a nickname to what only amounts to an advisor. they have no executive power, whatsoever. every president has advisors. every president, however, also have corporate masters. they are the ones that run the show.
damn, that took a long time, but at least i can back up my statements. your turn.
edit to fix links...shows up in preview but not in post...suggestions?
[edit on 2-7-2010 by mooseinhisglory]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by mooseinhisglory]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by mooseinhisglory]

[edit on 2-7-2010 by mooseinhisglory]




top topics
 
3

log in

join