It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Socialists Reject Obama

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:03 AM
Conservatives like to call Obama a socialist. Obama is not a socialist. Any genuine socialist would not vote for Obama. Obama barely passes for a 'liberal'.Obama's one claim to fame is that he ordered the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Obama's election campaign centres around 'strength' on 'National Security' . Obama's 'National Security' involves ordering the killing of Bin Laden. Obama's 'National Security' involves killing many innocent people in Pakistan and other places through Drone Strikes with collateral murder. Drone Strike and an assassination are his biggest drawcard. Obama has done nothing else worth mentioning.

Obama promised 'change'. I think all Obama has changed is what it mean's to be a 'liberal'. Now we can hear a straight faced political debate that involves 'conservatives' claiming that torturing prisoners needs to be brought back and embraced because its more humane and sensible than mass drone strikes. Then the 'liberal' says that we cant bring back torture but Drone strikes are good. Its insane. The majority of 'liberals' now support drone strikes'. What will Obama do in his second term? Convince 'liberals' that waterbaording is better than the electric chair so it must be good?

All Obama has proved to be is a smug liar and a b-grade stand up comedian. His insulting comedy routine has done nothing more than persuade 'liberals' that War is never ending and that War is good. War has bi-partisan support under Obama. Obama is not a 'socialist'. Obama is not even a 'liberal'. Obama is a wolf in sheeps clothing. If anyone votes for Obama they are a chump.

This article is from the Socialist Worker News Site. Socialists reject Obama and label him the 'President Who Doesnt Even Try'.

If Obama had wanted to pursue a progressive agenda—banning foreclosures, jailing bankers, closing Guantánamo, stopping the wars, pushing for the public option he promised in his healthcare plan—he could have. He had ample political capital, yet chose not to spend it.

Team Obama's attempt to shore up his liberal base also falls short on the facts. Progressives were shocked by the U.S. Supreme Court's 5-4 ruling, along party lines, that legalized strip-searches and body cavity rapes by police and private security firms who detain people suspected of any crime, even minor traffic infractions. "What virtually none of this…commentary mentioned," reported Glenn Greenwald in Salon, "was that that the Obama DOJ [Department of Justice] formally urged Court to reach the conclusion it reached…this is yet another case, in a long line, where the Obama administration was able to have its preferred policies judicially endorsed by getting right-wing judges to embrace them."

Responding to fall 2011 polls that indicated softening support among the younger and more liberal voters who form the Democratic base, Obama's reelection strategists began rolling out speeches inflected with Occupy-inspired rhetoric about class warfare and trying to make sure all Americans "get a fair shot." But that's all it is: talk. And small talk at that.

Obama has been mostly silent on the biggest issue of our time, income inequality and the rapid growth of the American underclass. He hasn't said much about the environment or climate change, the most serious problem we face—and one for which the U.S. bears a disproportionate share of the blame. Even on issues where he was blocked by Congress, such as when Republicans prohibited the use of public funds to transport Gitmo detainees to the U.S. for trials, he zipped his lips.

Liberals don't blame Obama for not winning. They blame him for not trying. When he does crazy things like authorizing the assassinations of U.S. citizens without trial, progressives have to ask themselves: Is this guy kowtowing to the Right? Or is he one of them?
edit on 3-5-2012 by Germanicus because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:11 AM
reply to post by Germanicus

I'd say he's more fascist than socialist. But looking at the US and Obama towards it, you can't define him that narrowly. He's taking elements out of fascism, socialism, communism. There is no cookie-cutter definition other than he is wrong for what ails us.

Imagine having a broken leg. Obama is the doctor.

His treatment would be to remove your spleen.

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:38 AM
Obama is the furthest thing from a socialist/communist there is. The whole socialist/communist label was given to him to confuse people further on the meaning of the words. He is a fascist.

Obamacare is fascist, it is the state mandating everyone buy PRIVATE insurance. It is good for the corporations, not the people.

edit on 3-5-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 04:59 AM
Good topic. It's not surprising though. Most the "left" in America aren't really "left" at all. It's really quite peculiar.

posted on May, 3 2012 @ 05:00 AM
reply to post by Germanicus

I S&F you for bringing some reason.
Too many times "socialism" as a concept is either totally misunderstood or abused.

1. I'm not a socialist, I'm a left-libertarian (in the way Chomsky talks about it).
2. I'm European. It's my experience the notion gets a different (emotional) response depending where it is being used.

new topics

top topics

log in