Quote:

Totally innacurate. Marxism and communism are the abolition of private property and shifting of all the wealth into the hands of the state, which then controls everything.

---

Quote:

For Obama to be a Marxist he would have to believe in the abolition of private property.

---

Quote:

This is grossly innacurate. I belong to and shop and work part-time at a co-operative grocery. We all own part of the store, we buy produce from local farmers, we all work short shifts each week, and everyone has a say in our meetings as to decisions made regarding the store. You're telling me this is facism?  This is capitalism at its best my friend...collective ownership and mutual benefit entered into freely.

---

Phred said:

It won't be that simple. With no checks on their idiocy, the Left will run roughshed over the tattered remnants of a once-great country in far less than four years. And you'll be unable to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. It'll be too late.

---

This is absolute nonsense. Are you actually proposing that people go out and either vote Republican only for President or only for Congress simply because they don't want too many Democrats in there at once?

This doesn't make sense, because it is the Republicans fault that both the executive and legislative branch (and, consequently, eventually the judicial branch) are going to be handed over to the Democrats because they simply no longer represent enough of the country? One of their most prominent leaders was just unanimously convicted a felon for abusing his position, highlighting quite well the excesses the party went to when they controlled both the executive and legislative branch.

It is also quite short-sighted to assume that the Democrats would have no checks "on their idiocy". Even though they would have majority control, obviously the Democrat Party is not a cohesive, unified unit, and there exists within the party itself a great number of different camps, all with their own interests and powers and their own representatives. For example, you'll have Hillary Clinton in the Senate; don't you think that Obama is going to have to make compromises with her camp in order to get certain things accomplished? You'll have centrists and then the far-left and the checks and balances system is still naturally in existence.

All your talk of inevitable, irreversible doom is simply poppycock.

Quote:

    "In a previously uncovered interview from September 6, 2001, Barack Obama expressed his regret that the Supreme Court hadn't been more 'radical' and described as a 'tragedy' the Court's refusal to take up 'the issues of redistribution of wealth.' No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench."
    --McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin


With just over a week to go until the election, the McCain campaign is stepping up its efforts to portray Barack Obama as a closet "socialist" bent on implementing a major redistribution of wealth in American society. The Illinois Democrat's remarks to "Joe the Plumber" on "spreading the wealth around" are Exhibit A in the Son of Karl Marx argument. Exhibit B is a newly-discovered interview that Obama gave to a Chicago public radio station back in 2001 in which he mentioned the R-word several times in a generally positive context.


Did Obama really say what the McCain camp says he said?


The Facts

"Obama Bombshell Audio Uncovered. He wants to Radically Reinterpret the Constitution to Redistribute Wealth!!" runs the YouTube headline from the conservative video blog Naked Emperor News. "This video exposes the radical beneath the rhetoric."

On closer inspection, the "bombshell audio" turns out to be a rather wonkish, somewhat impenetrable, discussion of the Supreme Court under Earl Warren. Obama, then a University of Chicago law professor and Illinois state senator, argued that the courts have traditionally been reluctant to get involved in income distribution questions. He suggested that the civil rights movement had made a mistake in expecting too much from the courts -- and that such issues were better decided by the legislative branch of government.

You can read the entire transcript of the interview here, courtesy of Fox News, but here is the passage in which Obama explains that courts are "not very good" at redistributing wealth:

   

Quote:

Maybe I am showing my bias here as a legislator as well as a law professor, but you know I am not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know the institution just isn't structured that way.... Any of the three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts. I think that, as a practical matter, that our institutions are just poorly equipped to do it.

---

In other words, Obama says pretty much the opposite of what the McCain camp says he said. Contrary to the spin put on his remarks by McCain economics adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin, he does not express "regret" that the Supreme Court has not been more "radical." Nor does he describe the Court's refusal to take up economic redistribution questions as a "tragedy." He uses the word "tragedy" to refer not to the Supreme Court, but to the civil rights movement:

   

Quote:

One of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think, there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change.

---

Holtz-Eakin "read a different interview to the one I heard," said Dennis Hutchinson, a University of Chicago law professor who joined Obama in the panel discussion. "Obama said that redistribution of wealth issues need to be decided by legislatures, not by the courts. That is what a progressive income tax is all about."

While there are sharp differences between the two candidates on economic issues, they both favor a progressive income tax system in which people with high incomes are taxed at a higher rate than people with low incomes.




The Pinocchio Test

With very few exceptions, all American politicians, including both presidential candidates, are in favor of a progressive income tax system and welfare policies (such as Medicare and Social Security) that "redistribute wealth." Barack Obama is more enthusiastic about "spreading the wealth around" than his Republican rival. But that does not make him a "Socialist." The McCain camp is wrong to suggest that the Illinois senator advocated an "wealth redistribution" role for the Supreme Court in his 2001 interview.

---

Quote:

Are you actually proposing that people go out and either vote Republican only for President or only for Congress simply because they don't want too many Democrats in there at once?

---

Quote:

This doesn't make sense, because it is the Republicans fault that both the executive and legislative branch (and, consequently, eventually the judicial branch) are going to be handed over to the Democrats because they simply no longer represent enough of the country?

---

Quote:

One of their most prominent leaders was just unanimously convicted a felon for abusing his position, highlighting quite well the excesses the party went to when they controlled both the executive and legislative branch.

---

Quote:

It is also quite short-sighted to assume that the Democrats would have no checks "on their idiocy".

---

Quote:

For example, you'll have Hillary Clinton in the Senate; don't you think that Obama is going to have to make compromises with her camp in order to get certain things accomplished?

---

Quote:

You'll have centrists and then the far-left and the checks and balances system is still naturally in existence.

---

Quote:

All your talk of inevitable, irreversible doom is simply poppycock.

---

fireworks_god said:

One of their most prominent leaders was just unanimously convicted a felon for abusing his position

---

Phred said:

No, I want them to vote Republican for all branches, because Republicans aren't looking to enslave the populace, while Democrats (on the whole) are.

---

Quote:

So the solution is to hand all aspects of the governance of the country over to the Lefties? How does that figure?

---

The point is that people aren't going to be voting Republican because they see themselves as being fucked over by the Republicans, or otherwise that they simply aren't represented by them. It figures because its the nature of reality - we wouldn't need to be so concerned with the possibility of one-party rule if the last party that had a stint of one-party rule themselves didn't blow it.

Obviously you weren't rallying against a Republican majority back in the day, considering your first statement that you want Republicans in all offices for ideological reasons, so hopefully you will see the utter nonsense of crying against the dangers of one-party rule.

I think what is escaping your point of view on the matter as you've presented it thusfar is the realization that the country already tried out your ideal of Republicans in every office and it didn't work. Obviously a balance between the two sides is most effective (although you clearly won't concede that due to the fact that you're thinking in your own black and white on this), but the reason there is going to be a one-party rule for awhile is that there is effectively only one party, as the Republican party, time being, has collapsed.

Quote:

Oh please. There have been at least as many (almost certainly MORE if you take the time to search them all out) Dem politicians involved in felonious behavior over the years as Repubs.

---

Quote:

Veto-proof majority in the House? Filibuster-proof majority in the Senate? Supreme Court packed with legislators rather than judges? Wake up and smell the coffee, Jethro.

---

I see it, and it is what it is. I don't have a sense of the dire reason this can't happen, but then I'm not going around saying that Republicans should be in every office, either. I think you're simply overreacting due to your own bias. I don't see it as being necessarily bad. If the Republic is sinking, then its the fault of the Republican guard.

Quote:

As was pointed out over and over and over again by all political analysts of all stripes in the primaries, there wasn't a hair's breadth of difference between Hillary's positions and Obama's. Try again.

---

Quote:

Why do you think the stock market has been dropping so much so long? Long before the news about the credit crisis surfaced? Because market analysts figured it likely Obama would win. Businesses are getting ready to move overseas.

---

Quote:

If Obama wins - and it is not certain he will - there will be no turning back.

---

Ahh, yes, "everything will go to hell in a hand-basket". I'd think they would add that one to the list of logical fallacies that is stickied over at P&S.

Quote:

Seizing wealth from some to hand to others (what Obama has advocated many MANY times in no unmistakable terms) is not a Capitalist stance, nor an American one.

---

You're correct that it is not an American idea, it is a British one. Adam Smith, the founder of Capitalism, was the first person to advocate a progressive tax.

"It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." - Adam Smith

Phred said:

And you are totally inaccurate on this. Communists insist that under Communism, there is no such thing as "state".

---

Quote:

A Communist society is a stateless society - that's the whole point of Communism.

---

Quote:

Again, you illustrate your lack of understanding of Collectivism. Socialists and Communists and Collectivists claim they stand for the abolition of private property, but in fact they do not. In Collectivist societies, private property is still respected. Some guy can't come into your house and steal your refrigerator, for example, with impunity. The refrigerator is yours, as is the house.

---

Quote:

As is the case with all Obamabots,

---

Quote:

you deliberately ignore the fundamental principles under discussion

---

Quote:

Seizing wealth from some to hand to others (what Obama has advocated many MANY times in no unmistakable terms) is not a Capitalist stance,

---

Quote:

nor an American one.

---

Quote:

I chose to point out Marx's popularization of the phrase Obama now lives by and you immediately start to quibble about details.

---

Quote:

And again you illustrate your stunning lack of understanding of the topic under discussion and especially your total misunderstanding of what constitutes Fascism.

---

Quote:

I strongly suggest you read the sticky post by The-Red_Crayon at the top of the first page of the forum, then get back to us.

---

Quote:

What's the difference between your Co-Op and Collectivism? The fundamental difference? Think about it for a few minutes and explain it in your own words or look foolish when I point it out to the audience. Your choice.

---

Quote:

No, I want them to vote Republican for all branches, because Republicans aren't looking to enslave the populace, while Democrats (on the whole) are.

---

Ancalagon said:

Quote:

No, I want them to vote Republican for all branches, because Republicans aren't looking to enslave the populace, while Democrats (on the whole) are.

---

And the truth shall set you free. Thanks for coming clean.

---

gluke bastid said:

Phred said:

Quote:

I do not think you know what a Marxist is.

---

Then you are wrong. I know what a Marxist is. And Obama is the closest thing to it we've ever seen run for president. As I have said here before several times --

Is he an exactly-to-the-letter Old School Marxist who will immediately upon gaining the White House nationalize the shipyards and steel mills and coal mines? No, of course not. But he subscribes to the core philosophy of Marx - wealth is to be seized from those who have it and given to those who don't, in the name of "fairness". That is the fundamental principle upon which Marxism (and all other Collectivist schemes) is based.

---

Totally innacurate. Marxism and communism are the abolition of private property and shifting of all the wealth into the hands of the state, which then controls everything.

For Obama to be a Marxist he would have to believe in the abolition of private property. He does not. He believes in taxing the middle class less and taxing the upper class more. He isn't even trying to socialize medicine. He's trying to make the health care plan that is available to congress available to american citizens.

Be honest Phred. You want to label Obama a Marxist so people will get scared and vote for McCain instead. 8 years from now, when Obama is ending his second term, private property will still be available to all Americans. We will still own our own businesses. We will have the same rights and freedoms as we do now. Most of us who aren't in the millionare crowd will probably be much better off. Only hyperbole offerred up from people like you (who have an obvious interest in voting McCain so they can keep their republican tax cuts) suggests that there is anything Marxist about Obama.

Continuing:

Quote:

Collectivism is Collectivism, whether you choose to name it Marxism or Socialism or Communism or Communalism or Fascism or Anarcho-Syndicalism or Libertarian Socialism.

---

This is grossly innacurate. I belong to and shop and work part-time at a co-operative grocery. We all own part of the store, we buy produce from local farmers, we all work short shifts each week, and everyone has a say in our meetings as to decisions made regarding the store. You're telling me this is facism? This is capitalism at its best my friend...collective ownership and mutual benefit entered into freely.

Furthermore by stickeying Red_Crayon's definition of Facism, in which he begins to outline important distinctions between a Communist economic system and a Facist one (but he doesn't go far enough, IMO, and ignores several key aspects of Facism), and then here saying they are same thing because they are collectivist, you are essentially contradicting yourself. This is easy to do when you are so hell-bent on putting an ugly label on Obama that you are willing to say that his proposed tax cuts for the middle class make him both a Marxist and a Facist (which is like saying he is both obese and underfed).

---

buckwheat said:

"This time it's different!"


It's amazing that as the world slowly moves away from the Socialism and Communism of the 20th century that failed them,You people want to move towards it! Truly shocking.

---

Phred said:

Why are you so obsessed with the political leanings of the moderators of this forum?

Seriously, bro, do you believe the people who read the posts here give more weight to my opinion because my name is green? Or to Seuss's opinion because his name is red? Because I have seen exactly zero evidence that this is the case.

As for why I care so much, it's because the rest of the world has already caved in to creeping Collectivism. Europe caved long ago, Canada soon after. The US is the world's last best hope and it's about to surrender. There'll be no one left to look up to. Nothing but more useless drones, interchangeable with any Euroweenie country in the pantheon of the miserable United Nations.

Once the US is gone, that's it. There's no one left.

That may not bother you, but there are still people in the world who value freedom, and are heartened to know that even if there is little or none in their own country, there is still a place in the world which reveres freedom. It is disheartening in the extreme to see that place not just lost, but actually given up without a struggle, because its populace is too apathetic to educate themselves about a not-even-particularly-slick con man.

This is the gigantic disservice the mainstream media has done to the American public - they have betrayed their mandate. Not only are they not investigating this charlatan, they are actively concealing his malfeasance. It's like Bizarro World press! And they are doing it without a hint of shame. The Los Angeles Times, for example, is actively thumbing its nose at the public. They have a video of Obama yukking it up with his PLO buddy Khalidi at a Jew-bashing event a few years back, and they refuse to release it. Try to wrap your heads around this, folks - a news-gathering outfit is actively concealing news.

All so this punk-ass penny ante two bit Chicago machine hack professional job seeker can be promoted past his pay grade. Waaaaaaaaaaaay past his pay grade. Putin and Ahmadinejad will make this hollow shell their bitch in about a week, tops. Even Slow Joe Biden has the chops to see that. Why can't the rest of you?





Phred

---

Quote:

No, I want them to vote Republican for all branches, because Republicans aren't looking to enslave the populace, while Democrats (on the whole) are.

---

Phred said:

No, I want them to vote Republican for all branches, because Republicans aren't looking to enslave the populace, while Democrats (on the whole) are.

---