This is the last time I'm going to say it.

I am sick and tired of hearing people call Obama a Marxist, or a Commie, or a Socialist.

He is none of these things.

He is a Corporate Oligarch.

Corporate oligarchy is a form of power, governmental or operational, where such power effectively rests with a small, elite group of inside individuals, sometimes from a small group of educational institutions, or influential economic entities or devices, such as banks, commercial entities, lobbyists that act in complicity with, or at the whim of the oligarchy, often with little or no regard for constitutionally protected prerogative. Monopolies are sometimes granted to state-controlled entities, such as the Royal Charter granted to the East India Company, or privileged bargaining rights to unions (labor monopolies) with very partisan political interests. Today's multinational corporations function as corporate oligarchies with influence over democratically elected officials.

Most of you have never read Marx in your life and have no idea what he said on the subject, have no idea what Communism is, and have no idea what Socialism (by comparison) is.

And you are confusing these with Obama.

Obama works for the banks, the major corporations (Specifically JP Morgan Chase) And works to further THEIR goals.

People who say that Obama is a Marxist are oblivious to politics and just parrot whatever Sean Hannity tells them to think.

The above more aptly suits Obama and his tenure as President.

reply to post by HauntWok


They've been told he's a commie socialist marxist muslim, and you are not going to convince them otherwise.

Nothing he's done could be painted as socialist.

Whew! I'm glad we finally got that cleared up.

reply to post by HauntWok


I agree with you OP. However, you have to realize the majority of people who call [insert name here] are people who grew up during the fear of the Cold War. To them the words "communist, socialist, or even Nazi." Can be used as negative terms. Which invokes emotion to their cause.

reply to post by Phoenix267


I did too, grew up worried about the commies. Thinking any day that ICBM's were going to fall from the sky, even was listening to the radio the day that Reagan outlawed Russia forever.

But it doesn't forgive the fact that these people are dead wrong. He is not a communist, hasn't worked towards those ends, hasn't done anything but ensure Corporate rule in America at every turn.

reply to post by HauntWok


Does it matter?

He is not a representative of the people.

Most of congress isn't either.

Calling Obama a communist, socialist, fascist, oligarchist, . . . . is just illustrating how he is not a representative of the people.

I have a nail and I need a hammer to pound the nail. Instead I get a banana, a glass of water, a jelly bean, a fish.

It doesn't matter in the end, what you have or identify it as, if it isn't a hammer, then it is the wrong tool for the job.

Obama. . . . . . is the wrong tool for the job.

This differentiation is actually very important and speaks directly to a propaganda psy-op that has been played upon the American people for well over 50 years... The Red Menace.

This misconception of what socialism and communism really are is a direct tool of control. First it can ( and very much has ) been used to marginalize, vilify, and destroy people. Secondly it helps reinforce the oligarchy agenda by teaching a false notion of what free-market capitalism was meant to be while instilling the public with a "dog eat dog" mind set that serves to disempower us and teach us to respect those who seek to take advantage of us for their own gain.

S&F OP.

Originally posted by HauntWok
Obama works for the banks, the major corporations (Specifically JP Morgan Chase) And works to further THEIR goals.

Although there may be some truth in your statement, it's not completely accurate. The president is a PR figure for the military industrial complex, which actually runs the country at present.

edit on 26-7-2013 by _BoneZ_ because: (no reason given)

Obama is all over the boards .. he doesn't know what he is. Sometimes he's a corporate stooge (obamacare) ... sometimes he's a socialist (spread the wealth) ... whatever, the bottom line is he's unqualified for the job he's in and he's not in it for the benefit of America.

Apparently the OP missed the speech. Obama called himself a Socialist. Doesn't get any more accurate than from the horse's mouth.

reply to post by HauntWok

I am sick and tired of hearing people call Obama a Marxist, or a Commie, or a Socialist.

He is none of these things.

You forgot Kenyan, and Muslim.

Everyone knows he is a Kenyan Muslim in cahoots with the Muslim Brotherhood! (sarcasm)

ETA:

To be truthful, he is just a puppet like any other "elected official".

Follow the money...

reply to post by suz62


Are you referring to this???

Context is everything.

reply to post by HauntWok


Yes, I understand what you're saying. But I feel they use the words to invoke angry emotions rather than rational thought. Anything to make the opposing party look bad.

reply to post by HauntWok


President Obama doesn't care what we think. It's obvious he won't be impeached and if the pressure gets too high he'll find a scapegoat and then take a vacation.



Plus if all else fails he'll just cry...

reply to post by HauntWok


Well I really don't like calling people names or labelling them as such. But if you were asked to describe or rate one's effectiveness then:

But just 26% of voters think the country in heading in the right direction.

Most logical, educated people would conclude that voters think the country is not headed in the right direction.

This then could lead one to conclude that the person in question is Incompetent :

in·com·pe·tent [in-kom-pi-tuhnt] Show IPA adjective 1. not competent; lacking qualification or ability; incapable: an incompetent candidate. 2. characterized by or showing incompetence: His incompetent acting ruined the play. 3. Law. a. being unable or legally unqualified to perform specified acts or to be held legally responsible for such acts. b. inadmissible, as evidence. noun 4. an incompetent person; a mentally deficient person. 5. Law. a person lacking power to act with legal effectiveness.

Daily Presidential Tracking Source

Perhaps that is really what is happening in our government at all levels:They are Incompetent

reply to post by playernumber13


You don't see Putin crying. Real men, real leaders, don't cry.

I am sick and tired of hearing people call Obama a Marxist, or a Commie, or a Socialist.

So what it is called then eh?

When a person wants a bunch of free stuff, and they think it's government's job to provide all that fiat currency, and corporate products by tyrannical despotism of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

What is that called?

Originally posted by Hefficide

This differentiation is actually very important and speaks directly to a propaganda psy-op that has been played upon the American people for well over 50 years... The Red Menace.

This misconception of what socialism and communism really are is a direct tool of control. First it can ( and very much has ) been used to marginalize, vilify, and destroy people. Secondly it helps reinforce the oligarchy agenda by teaching a false notion of what free-market capitalism was meant to be while instilling the public with a "dog eat dog" mind set that serves to disempower us and teach us to respect those who seek to take advantage of us for their own gain.

S&F OP.

No star or flag for either.

Obama worships and the alter of statolatry, and believes in the 'benevolence' of government being the provider, and planner for success,wealth, and knowledge nay government exists to only 'legislate' priviiledge' and he and his supporters think money grows on trees, and other nonsense.

In fact those who support the man or his idealism shows nothing, but contempt for his fellow man as they are nothing without statist's.

Last time I checked communism,socialism,marxism is nothing but a bunch of materialistic people who are really only arguing of who pays for fiat currency and corporate products that have been deemed 'human rights'.

Originally posted by neo96

I am sick and tired of hearing people call Obama a Marxist, or a Commie, or a Socialist.

So what it is called then eh?

When a person wants a bunch of free stuff, and they think it's government's job to provide all that fiat currency, and corporate products by tyrannical despotism of robbing from the rich and giving to the poor.

What is that called?

edit on 26-7-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)

In a system that is predicated upon allowing the rich to to rob from the poor without any checks or balances? I call it a necessary evil.

The biggest welfare recipients in America are not those receiving food stamps... they are corporations that pay no taxes, bride congress into passing laws that benefit only their greed, and then engage in sweeping right wing propaganda campaigns to make people sadly believe that total deregulation is the most American thing ever conceived of.

While I am not a follower of socialism nor communism... the malicious and false representation of all social programs as being such is reprehensible.

reply to post by Hefficide


Oh yeah we're going to argue for sure here

In a system that is predicated upon allowing the rich to to rob from the poor without any checks or balances? I call it a necessary evil.

I don't I call that trading one master for another.

The biggest welfare recipients in America are not those receiving food stamps... they are corporations that pay no taxes,

Not really considering 47% of Americans have zeo tax liabiilties, and are drawing more in benefits than they return in to that system.

Between Social Security,Medicare,Medicaid,free homes,free education($1 Trillion in Student loan debt) and the rest of those social engineering programs that create debt all for naught.

We the people are the biggest welfare recipients in this country, and it is nothing but the redistribution of wealth to so they can go out and buy more corporate products.

While I am not a follower of socialism nor communism... the malicious and false representation of all social programs as being such is reprehensible.

Me neither I am a follower of people stepping up to the task of paying their own way of life I absolutely reject any and all those who purport changing the environment to suit the individual.

Because that is what we have here reverse darwinism at work insert label of choice(communist,socialists,marxists) trying to social engineer the environment that creates stagnation, nay regressive policies that created the largest dependency based society the world has ever seen.

So the argument is who pays for it to what we really has is one big arse zoo that would perish if something ever happened to the care takers.

Funny thing here is those same people say 'Don't feed the animals' turn around and practice the opposite in real life.

So why do people support that for animals and reject the same rationale for civilization?

Makes no sense to me.