Frogman
Dedicated LVC Member
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2005
- Messages
- 6,987
- Reaction score
- 1
Just watch it
- Thread starter Frogman
- Start date
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Mainstream media doesn't cover it, it didn't happen.
Move on people, nothing to see here.
Move on people, nothing to see here.
I find it fascinating to go back and read some of the post from 2008 and earlier.
I wish some of us hadn't been so right.... however, I don't think we anticipated just how dangerous things would become.
I wish some of us hadn't been so right.... however, I don't think we anticipated just how dangerous things would become.
topher5150
Dedicated LVC Member
everyone was so readt to call Bush a terrorist, but you look at Obama's string of cazy supporters and no one says a thing, are we that willing to be that blind
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
I did, from day 1.
My eyes were open. I have no regrets informing the uninformed of the dangers that lay ahead.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Agreed. I called it as well. None of this "let's give Obama a chance" bullcrap. I knew he was a socialist.
Ron Paul: Obama Not A Socialist
James Joyner | Sunday, April 11, 2010http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/ar...not_a_socialist/ron-paul-obama-not-socialist/Speaking of Ron Paul, he took the bold step yesterday of announcing that President Obama isn’t a socialist. Not in a technical sense, anyway.
Now, in a technical sense, I’m not sure any of this is “corporatism,” which is used to describe so many wildly disparate concepts as to be almost meaningless. But there’s not much doubt that organized economic interests hold powerful sway in both our parties.
It’s also true that, historically speaking, socialists are anti-capitalist and have worked to destroy corporations. There’s just no appetite in American politics for that. Obama would surely have preferred to establish a government-run alternative to private insurance, which would be a very mild form of socialism, but there weren’t anything like the votes for that so there was no use expending the political capital to engage in a losing fight.
“The question has been raised about whether or not our president is a socialist,” Paul said. “I am sure there are some people here who believe it. But in the technical sense, in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no, he’s not a socialist.”
“He’s a corporatist,” Paul continued. “And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”
Paul said examples of President Obama’s “corporatism” were evident in the heath care reform bill he signed into law last month. He said the mandate in the bill put the power over health care in the hands of corporations rather than private citizens. But he said the bill wasn’t the only place where corporatism is creeping into Washington.
“We see it in the financial institutions, we see it in the military-industrial complex,” he said. “And now we see it in the medical-industrial complex.”
I would think the bailouts of the big banks, General Motors, and Chrysler would be better examples.“He’s a corporatist,” Paul continued. “And unfortunately we have corporatists inside the Republican party and that means you take care of corporations and corporations take over and run the country.”
Paul said examples of President Obama’s “corporatism” were evident in the heath care reform bill he signed into law last month. He said the mandate in the bill put the power over health care in the hands of corporations rather than private citizens. But he said the bill wasn’t the only place where corporatism is creeping into Washington.
“We see it in the financial institutions, we see it in the military-industrial complex,” he said. “And now we see it in the medical-industrial complex.”
Now, in a technical sense, I’m not sure any of this is “corporatism,” which is used to describe so many wildly disparate concepts as to be almost meaningless. But there’s not much doubt that organized economic interests hold powerful sway in both our parties.
It’s also true that, historically speaking, socialists are anti-capitalist and have worked to destroy corporations. There’s just no appetite in American politics for that. Obama would surely have preferred to establish a government-run alternative to private insurance, which would be a very mild form of socialism, but there weren’t anything like the votes for that so there was no use expending the political capital to engage in a losing fight.
Key line; "in the economic definition of a what a socialist is, no, he’s not a socialist"
However socialism is not simply an economic school of thought, but an ideology. And in the ideological sense, there is no question that he is a socialist.
His economic views also function under the same flawed assumptions unique to Marxist economic theory.
However socialism is not simply an economic school of thought, but an ideology. And in the ideological sense, there is no question that he is a socialist.
His economic views also function under the same flawed assumptions unique to Marxist economic theory.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Oh, don't worry, he'll add it once the insurance companies fold. And that will happen. Rates are already going up.