[quote]Sloth wrote:
If Obama wins? [/quote]
while I may agree with you to an extent , you are not factoring in if we have another boom of sorts . You know when Clinton had the dot com boom he balanced the budget and when Bush had the real estate boom he cut the taxes for the wealthy and started two wars . There will be more booms to come .
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]iflyboats wrote:
If Obama gets it, the country hits bottom. Sadly, that might just be exactly what we need. If government bankruptcy forces us to stop funding tertiary education, we can fire all the Marxist professors and save our young people from having their minds destroyed in college. [/quote]
This idea that teachers are indoctrinating students with liberalism,Marxism, Socialism etc is fucken crazy.
I’ve been in college for almost 4 years now and cannot recall a instance were I had any of that stuff shoved down my throat. Only thing I can recall is teachers(very few) that make a small quip about Obama or a Republican candidate. Now I know what I’m saying is selection bias(or is it confirmation bias I forget lol) but most teachers just want to cover the material and end the class.
But I do know that Political Science courses are more liberal teachers etc but that is only one class for most students. And for Poly Sci. majors well they should know better and take what there teachers say with a grain of salt.
So can somebody please explain to me where this whole brainwashing of American youth into Liberalism comes from? Serious Question.[/quote]
A Cultural Diversity class my girlfriend and I took utilized the textbook “Race, Class, and Gender In The United States” by Paula S. Rothenburg. Very liberal slanted and even features Keith fucking Olberman. Would any college text feature Hannity? If one does I would like to know but I highly doubt it. Just one example of the top of my head for you that I have personally experienced.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If Obama wins? [/quote]
while I may agree with you to an extent , you are not factoring in if we have another boom of sorts . You know when Clinton had the dot com boom he balanced the budget and when Bush had the real estate boom he cut the taxes for the wealthy and started two wars . There will be more booms to come .[/quote]
We can’t grow our way out.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If Obama wins? [/quote]
while I may agree with you to an extent , you are not factoring in if we have another boom of sorts . You know when Clinton had the dot com boom he balanced the budget and when Bush had the real estate boom he cut the taxes for the wealthy and started two wars . There will be more booms to come .[/quote]
Correction Bush cut taxes for everyone, not just the wealthy. Everyone who paid taxes got a 5% tax cut EVERYONE!
So true that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth. (Shaking head)
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If Obama wins? [/quote]
while I may agree with you to an extent , you are not factoring in if we have another boom of sorts . You know when Clinton had the dot com boom he balanced the budget and when Bush had the real estate boom he cut the taxes for the wealthy and started two wars . There will be more booms to come .[/quote]
Correction Bush cut taxes for everyone, not just the wealthy. Everyone who paid taxes got a 5% tax cut EVERYONE!
So true that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth. (Shaking head)[/quote]
Yeah it was a great plan , (EYE ROLL)
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]LUEshi wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
SexMachine,
Read somewhere back in 08 that Obama’s IQ was 128. This makes him above average but that’s about it. Did you read anything about his IQ? You think this figure is correct?[/quote]
I did hear something about that. I don’t put a lot importance in IQ tests beyond measuring basic aptitude, basic mathematical knowledge, cognitive speed. I don’t think Obama is stupid. I would say he’s probably above average.[/quote]
Obama’s problems are really two fold. You may agree, at least other’s whom I’ve espoused my theory to have agreed.
1. He is an Idealogue. He has this leftist picture of the US and when left to his own accord he gravitates toward it. He has some very bright people around him to constantly pull him back toward the center left. It only works now because he is not yet in his second term. Should he achieve his dream of a second term he will be unrestrained and not drift, but run toward the left.
2. He has an out of control ego. This man really does think that he’s the greatest thing that has ever lived. This is an obvious one from, not only what he’s said, but the way he swaggers when he walks to the way he holds his nose up in the air when giving a speech. He is completely full of himself. No question the most arrogant President in mondern times.
There you have it.[/quote]
Agree[/quote]
Now this thread is just getting masturbatory.[/quote]
I know. Obama, a leftist? It is to laugh. The man’s so far up Wall Street’s ass he’s probably singing Lloyd Blankfein a soulful lullaby as we speak. Speaking as someone who shares common cause with the left on a variety of issues, the Prez is a lotta things but he ain’t no leftist.
[/quote]
Yeah, but you are assuming that being “left” automatically means being anti business.
In reality, the sort of collectivism the left stands for goes quite well with corporatism, they are an easy match.
It is neither new or unusual that big business is brought on board to implement changes in a society, like “free” healthcare and that they, at least initially, expect to benefit greatly from it.
Of course that sort of leftism, if combined with a militaristic, aggressive foreign policy and the tendency to draw power to the political center is usually called “fascism”, but I will leave it up to you how something that is supposedly so diametrically opposed to true leftism arranges itself to well with it time and time again.
PS- edited. Damn dyslexia, which I do not even have!?![/quote]
Wrong! what kind of nonsense is it that claims the left stands with corporatism. You got that wrong but wait are you thinking of the Nazi’s and national socialism? oh wrong time and place and wrong label the Nazi’s were right wing who worked together with capital to destroy unions and the working class movement.
And your generalization that the left stands for collectivism meaning what? There is no unified left. And your board generalization is ideology, mythology.
and it is a political fact that Obama won because wall street saw something in him. But he’s giving in on all issues that a left wing democratic socialist would have welcomed. ANd which would be good for the country , name getting insurance companies out of health care. Health care and profit doesn’t mix… Not continuing with the Bush tax cuts which were a way that the right sought to slam any remains of a social safety net which came out of the Roosevelt era.
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If Obama wins? [/quote]
while I may agree with you to an extent , you are not factoring in if we have another boom of sorts . You know when Clinton had the dot com boom he balanced the budget and when Bush had the real estate boom he cut the taxes for the wealthy and started two wars . There will be more booms to come .[/quote]
Correction Bush cut taxes for everyone, not just the wealthy. Everyone who paid taxes got a 5% tax cut EVERYONE!
So true that if a lie is repeated often enough it becomes the truth. (Shaking head)[/quote]
Yeah it was a great plan , (EYE ROLL)
[/quote]
Great or not, it was a 5% tax cut FOR EVERY TAX PAYER IN THE US!
And by the way when is it bad for people to keep more of the money that THEY HAVE EARNED?
SHESSSSSSH!!!
And stop using my eye roll that is a patented trade mark 
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]LUEshi wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
SexMachine,
Read somewhere back in 08 that Obama’s IQ was 128. This makes him above average but that’s about it. Did you read anything about his IQ? You think this figure is correct?[/quote]
I did hear something about that. I don’t put a lot importance in IQ tests beyond measuring basic aptitude, basic mathematical knowledge, cognitive speed. I don’t think Obama is stupid. I would say he’s probably above average.[/quote]
Obama’s problems are really two fold. You may agree, at least other’s whom I’ve espoused my theory to have agreed.
1. He is an Idealogue. He has this leftist picture of the US and when left to his own accord he gravitates toward it. He has some very bright people around him to constantly pull him back toward the center left. It only works now because he is not yet in his second term. Should he achieve his dream of a second term he will be unrestrained and not drift, but run toward the left.
2. He has an out of control ego. This man really does think that he’s the greatest thing that has ever lived. This is an obvious one from, not only what he’s said, but the way he swaggers when he walks to the way he holds his nose up in the air when giving a speech. He is completely full of himself. No question the most arrogant President in mondern times.
There you have it.[/quote]
Agree[/quote]
Now this thread is just getting masturbatory.[/quote]
I know. Obama, a leftist? It is to laugh. The man’s so far up Wall Street’s ass he’s probably singing Lloyd Blankfein a soulful lullaby as we speak. Speaking as someone who shares common cause with the left on a variety of issues, the Prez is a lotta things but he ain’t no leftist.
[/quote]
Yeah, but you are assuming that being “left” automatically means being anti business.
In reality, the sort of collectivism the left stands for goes quite well with corporatism, they are an easy match.
It is neither new or unusual that big business is brought on board to implement changes in a society, like “free” healthcare and that they, at least initially, expect to benefit greatly from it.
Of course that sort of leftism, if combined with a militaristic, aggressive foreign policy and the tendency to draw power to the political center is usually called “fascism”, but I will leave it up to you how something that is supposedly so diametrically opposed to true leftism arranges itself to well with it time and time again.
PS- edited. Damn dyslexia, which I do not even have!?![/quote]
Wrong! what kind of nonsense is it that claims the left stands with corporatism. You got that wrong but wait are you thinking of the Nazi’s and national socialism? oh wrong time and place and wrong label the Nazi’s were right wing who worked together with capital to destroy unions and the working class movement.
And your generalization that the left stands for collectivism meaning what? There is no unified left. And your board generalization is ideology, mythology.
and it is a political fact that Obama won because wall street saw something in him. But he’s giving in on all issues that a left wing democratic socialist would have welcomed. ANd which would be good for the country , name getting insurance companies out of health care. Health care and profit doesn’t mix… Not continuing with the Bush tax cuts which were a way that the right sought to slam any remains of a social safety net which came out of the Roosevelt era.[/quote]
To say that the Nazis were “right wing” is meaningless.
Apart from the national socialist workers party, which should be kind of a clue when it comes to what they saw themselves as, their symbolism, their party structure very much was socialist.
That they tried to end unions is meaningless too, so did many “real socialist” countries.
Also, of course the left stands for collectivism, what is left of “socialism” without the power of the state but the admonishment that we should all be nice to each other?
“Leftism” requires brute state force, be it to socialize the means of production or just to force anyone to have health insurance, or to pay for college loans or to subsidize corn farmers.
Both fascism, socialism and liberalism (what would be a social democrat in Europe) are eschatological, statist and very, very often manichaeic.
It is a political substitute religion that has different branches that differ from each other as much as Catholics or say, Methodists, but that is about all there is.
Unless you are emotionally invested in one of them and try desperately to draw a meaningful line between yourself and your main competitor working the same market the differences are negligible, if we are talking similar amounts of extremism.
Meaning, modern American liberalism is the Anglican Church which is kind of not the same as the Spanish Inquisition, that is not a difference regarding underlying convictions however, just a lack of zeal.
‘President Obama assured Russian President Dmitry Medvedev Monday that he’d have “more flexibility” after the November election, during a conversation that appeared to focus on the touchy issue of missile defense.’
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]optheta wrote:
Now this thread is just getting masturbatory.[/quote]
There you go, Champ. Just like they taught you.
Insult and run. Throw shit and disappear into the crowd.
Never address any substantive issues for you shall surely lose.
Shout loud. Make witty slogans and phrases and continue to appeal to the lowered intellect of the crowd.
Sal would be proud. [/quote]
No one would be proud , that is standard operating procedure at T-Nation PWI
[quote]orion wrote
d
To say that the Nazis were “right wing” is meaningless.
Apart from the national socialist workers party, which should be kind of a clue when it comes to what they saw themselves as, their symbolism, their party structure very much was socialist.
That they tried to end unions is meaningless too, so did many “real socialist” countries.
Also, of course the left stands for collectivism, what is left of “socialism” without the power of the state but the admonishment that we should all be nice to each other?
“Leftism” requires brute state force, be it to socialize the means of production or just to force anyone to have health insurance, or to pay for college loans or to subsidize corn farmers.
Both fascism, socialism and liberalism (what would be a social democrat in Europe) are eschatological, statist and very, very often manichaeic.
It is a political substitute religion that has different branches that differ from each other as much as Catholics or say, Methodists, but that is about all there is.
Unless you are emotionally invested in one of them and try desperately to draw a meaningful line between yourself and your main competitor working the same market the differences are negligible, if we are talking similar amounts of extremism.
Meaning, modern American liberalism is the Anglican Church which is kind of not the same as the Spanish Inquisition, that is not a difference regarding underlying convictions however, just a lack of zeal. [/quote]
Nah its not meaningless its right on. The Nazi’s aligned themselves with the big corporation, and it was in the Interest of Capital, big corporations, to eliminate the workers movement. This is historically a fact and logically it makes total sense. The working class movement wasn’t seeking to be co opted by the Third Reich. So that is just confusion on your part, check out some of the history of time.
Again if other countries tried to end the working class movement it was because Capital saw them as a thread.
Fascism, aligns itself with big corporations and the military. Socialism doesn’t have to necessarily take a postion backed by the state. IT can be a democratic socialism. Liberalism is what we have had for years in the USA, its the freedom to pursue a life of happiness and liberty. Incidentally both the republican party except for some extreme right wing loons and the democratic party both held to liberalism and both support the economic system of a mixed system, although radical extremist right wingers, want to dismantle the saftey net so that more private operations can pick up and attempt to make a profit. Of course when you explain this to the bulk of the American people they are against this… " Many in the tea party mistakely were chanting to Obama, " don’t take our medicare away, and Bush was turned back when he tried to privatize social security.
As far as your remark that liberalism etc needs a strong state or is protected by the state, that is pretty much true. But both liberals and conservatives want protection for major corporations and those major corporation are where many of the politicians come out of, they go in and out of government. We see that the government helps corporations and often what we have is socialized cost and privatized profits. You can see this in your own community when the gas company or the electric company digs up the roads for their benefit, the tax payers flip the bill for repair of the roads.
As for your comments about eschatology, wasn’t it some right wing nut who was predicting the end the world recently. For got his name but can find it if i have to. He predicted this a few times and we are still here so, he was out to lunch on that. Also this notion of “end times” is a right wing notion. . I’ll tell you there may be a coincidence here with their predictions and what is happening to the whole ecosystem of the earth with man-made global warming. There is strong evidence of that, and you know what, many top CEO’s privately admit this so in a sense its a kind of slow suicide.
As far as your Manichean remark, are you saying that the left believes in either all good or all bad? Again that sounds more like a extreme right position. Most people on the left and they are not all the same so, tend to believe that man is both capable of good and of doing bad so.
The last three paragraphs I didn’t follow so if you want please expand on your meaning.
[quote]silee wrote:
[quote]orion wrote
d
To say that the Nazis were “right wing” is meaningless.
Apart from the national socialist workers party, which should be kind of a clue when it comes to what they saw themselves as, their symbolism, their party structure very much was socialist.
That they tried to end unions is meaningless too, so did many “real socialist” countries.
Also, of course the left stands for collectivism, what is left of “socialism” without the power of the state but the admonishment that we should all be nice to each other?
“Leftism” requires brute state force, be it to socialize the means of production or just to force anyone to have health insurance, or to pay for college loans or to subsidize corn farmers.
Both fascism, socialism and liberalism (what would be a social democrat in Europe) are eschatological, statist and very, very often manichaeic.
It is a political substitute religion that has different branches that differ from each other as much as Catholics or say, Methodists, but that is about all there is.
Unless you are emotionally invested in one of them and try desperately to draw a meaningful line between yourself and your main competitor working the same market the differences are negligible, if we are talking similar amounts of extremism.
Meaning, modern American liberalism is the Anglican Church which is kind of not the same as the Spanish Inquisition, that is not a difference regarding underlying convictions however, just a lack of zeal. [/quote]
Nah its not meaningless its right on. The Nazi’s aligned themselves with the big corporation, and it was in the Interest of Capital, big corporations, to eliminate the workers movement. This is historically a fact and logically it makes total sense. The working class movement wasn’t seeking to be co opted by the Third Reich. So that is just confusion on your part, check out some of the history of time.
Again if other countries tried to end the working class movement it was because Capital saw them as a thread.
Fascism, aligns itself with big corporations and the military. Socialism doesn’t have to necessarily take a postion backed by the state. IT can be a democratic socialism. Liberalism is what we have had for years in the USA, its the freedom to pursue a life of happiness and liberty. Incidentally both the republican party except for some extreme right wing loons and the democratic party both held to liberalism and both support the economic system of a mixed system, although radical extremist right wingers, want to dismantle the saftey net so that more private operations can pick up and attempt to make a profit. Of course when you explain this to the bulk of the American people they are against this… " Many in the tea party mistakely were chanting to Obama, " don’t take our medicare away, and Bush was turned back when he tried to privatize social security.
As far as your remark that liberalism etc needs a strong state or is protected by the state, that is pretty much true. But both liberals and conservatives want protection for major corporations and those major corporation are where many of the politicians come out of, they go in and out of government. We see that the government helps corporations and often what we have is socialized cost and privatized profits. You can see this in your own community when the gas company or the electric company digs up the roads for their benefit, the tax payers flip the bill for repair of the roads.
As for your comments about eschatology, wasn’t it some right wing nut who was predicting the end the world recently. For got his name but can find it if i have to. He predicted this a few times and we are still here so, he was out to lunch on that. Also this notion of “end times” is a right wing notion. . I’ll tell you there may be a coincidence here with their predictions and what is happening to the whole ecosystem of the earth with man-made global warming. There is strong evidence of that, and you know what, many top CEO’s privately admit this so in a sense its a kind of slow suicide.
As far as your Manichean remark, are you saying that the left believes in either all good or all bad? Again that sounds more like a extreme right position. Most people on the left and they are not all the same so, tend to believe that man is both capable of good and of doing bad so.
The last three paragraphs I didn’t follow so if you want please expand on your meaning.[/quote]
Well, to the mea culpa first, I fucked up with echatological.
What I meant was the attempt to immanticize the echaton, meaning, bringing about the city of God on this here planet. Building utopia, a place that necessarily cannot exist with flawed human beings in the here and now.
Catholicism tried and failed and what they did was not that far off of what Nazis and Communists did.
I am still not entirely sure that “echatological” is not the right word to use, but maybe what I have in mind is not the first thing that comes to mind when reading it.
Then, the Nazis were against organized labor… So? They claimed they were the fulfillment of what unions tried to achieve with imperfect means, as did the Sowjets. To claim that they were not subscribing to the same religion is like claiming there is no Christianity because there are schisms and heretics.
That socialism does not have to be etatist because it can be democratic socialism is a contradiction in terms. Without coercive power democracy is meaningless.
As to the rest of the paragraph, no, no and no.
As far as manichaic goes, I am saying that the US left of today is utterly unable to comprehend that people are living in the same world, sharing many of the same experiences but are unable to comprehend that people could seriously come to different conclusions based on all that.
No, they gotta be evil or stupid.
Then, of course people are dancing between private business and government. I swear that there is a secret tunnel connecting Goldman Sachs, the Fed and the White House. But, a rather leftist creed that demands more and more regulation of corporations almost necessarily leads to regulatory capture, you do not get freedom from corporations that way, but corporations that get to write their own rules, backed by a nation state with a standing army.
Mattel was more than happy to endorse safety regulations. Incidentally their shiny new testing lab can test their toys, their competitors can go jump in a lake. Or shell out 10 grand per toy, which pretty much means, jump in a lake.
Trayvon™…‘whose problems at school ranged from getting spotted defacing lockers to getting caught with a marijuana baggie and women’s jewelry.’
Zimmerman ‘suffered broken nose and injury to the back of the head.’ Trayvon™ 6’3" is said to have knocked Zimmerman down and then began to ‘bang his head on the ground.’
Trayvon™’s mother files to trademark her dead son’s name.
“Pussy Ass Cracker” T-shirts with Zimmerman’s picture go on sale in Florida.
[quote]
I am still not entirely sure that “echatological” is not the right word to use[/quote]
It is actually.
But, on the other hand, it’s the only part of your original post i would really agree with.
Looks like Obama thinks he already has it in the bag.
President Obama Asks Medvedev for ‘Space’ on Missile Defense - ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
I am still not entirely sure that “echatological” is not the right word to use[/quote]
It is actually.
But, on the other hand, it’s the only part of your original post i would really agree with. [/quote]
Let us say we put aside left vs right for a moment, would you agree that even theoretically fascism and socialism share a lot of the same features and that in practice the look even more similar?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
[quote]
I am still not entirely sure that “echatological” is not the right word to use[/quote]
It is actually.
But, on the other hand, it’s the only part of your original post i would really agree with. [/quote]
Let us say we put aside left vs right for a moment, would you agree that even theoretically fascism and socialism share a lot of the same features and that in practice the look even more similar?[/quote]
The problem is not with left vs right.
It’s that socialism and fascism are not on the same taxinomic level.
Socialism is not an ideology, it’s a whole family of ideologies. Even if you often conveniently ignore certain branches of the tree.
Fascism on the other hand is a distinct, discrete ideology. (it belongs to a less studied family i call “organicism”).
So, if we want to make comparison, we should compare fascism with specific “leaf” of the socialist family tree.
Then yes, Fascism, being the most “statist” of organicisms, will obviously seem close to the most statist versions of socialism.
Yet, socialism and organicism are two VERY different ideologies, with radically different definitions of what a society is, and should be.
So, the similarities you see are not ideological ones.
They are, as you rightly put it, eschatological ones.
Fascism and marxist socialism shared the same (post-hegelian) interpretation of the role of the State in the history of mankind. They both saw the State as THE mean of the “End of history”. And for this very reason, they were/are both totalitarian in nature.
On a side note, capitalism is absolutely not immune to this eschatology. In capitalism’s case, it’s called technocracy, and it’s as much totalitarian as fascism and marxism.
You will certainly see that if you stop equating statism and socialism.
Non-statist and anti-statist form of socialism did and do exist.
It really doesn’t matter that you think these socialisms were/are meaningless because socialism is impossible without a State.
(one could argue that capitalism is impossible without a state, and conclude that your libertarianism is equally meaningless)
This may very well be right, and this may very well explain why statist socialism has always been the main form of socialism. But, if we are analyzing the history of ideologies, the only thing that matters is that some people did and do believe that socialism is possible without a state.
Which is more than enough to affirm that statism is not a necessary component of socialism’s definition.
[quote]lanchefan1 wrote:
Looks like Obama thinks he already has it in the bag.
President Obama Asks Medvedev for ‘Space’ on Missile Defense - ‘After My Election I Have More Flexibility’
That’s because he is (obviously) privy to the big secret. That is, he’s dumping Biden and picking up Hillary as his VP. And if he does this there most likely won’t be a good enough republican team that can beat him.
I am shocked he went with Biden in the first place, he is an ass-clown by definition.