a thread with merit and salient points on both sides!? right on.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Perhaps we should be more concerned with America’s foreign policy towards Russia and not a sensationalist piece from a known propagandist newspaper.
Contrary to the dismissive views of many in the West, Russia is a great power. While Russia may never again reach the superpower status it enjoyed during the Cold War, in terms of its “comprehensive national power”- its combined economic, military, and diplomatic strengths- Russia ranks among the strongest powers in the world today. Its economy has grown exponentially since 1998. Its military spending has increased by 20 percent annually in recent years. Russia holds the greatest reserves of mineral resources of any country in the world, including the largest reserves of petroleum and nearly half of the world’s potential coal reserves. Contrary to many peoples’ preconceptions, Europe depends more on Russia for its supply of energy than the Middle East. Russia has turned away from the post-war integrationist foreign policy championed by Yeltsin and Kozyrev. Great Power nationalism has returned to Russia, and with it traditional great power calculations and ambitions. [/quote]
I very much agree with this post. While we’re busy calling Obama a communist the real communists are taking over in Russia. Let’s not forget that Putin was a former KGB agent and a very good one at that. He knows how to manipulate people very well and respects those that play the game -something that we’ve forgotten how to do and especially since GW. If Obama was really a communist then wouldn’t Putin be working hard to forge that relationship? Don’t you think that they would be looking to us to form the “other” big communist block? But that’s not the case at all. So while we’re here reading Pravda for some unknown reason, getting our panties in a bunch calling Obama a Communist, and generally looking like idiots there’s serious changes going on in a real communist country.
Oh, and let’s not forget the biggest bogey and what keeps me awake at night since I live in a city where an entire Naval Fleet (along with two carriers) are housed - their nuclear arsenal. That’s probably the single biggest threat out there right now considering that if they wanted to see Al Queda a few pounds of enriched uranium it would be totally out of our control to be able to stop them. Mull on that for a bit.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
Let’s not forget that Putin was a former KGB agent and a very good one at that. He knows how to manipulate people very well and respects those that play the game [/quote]
Part of me feels like, what you say later in this post, would be us getting played.
I see it it as more “something we forgot how to see” as in us getting played.
How do we know they aren’t working on just a relationship? It isn’t like the press that could actually find something like that out are either looking or would report it if they did. Our media is corrupt.
Wouldn’t it be much more prudent to be subtle about it and allow a “natural” decline into the collective than to try and force one? Subtle enough where 50%+ actually ask for it, because they don’t even see it happening, or see it as a better ends than what they have now? So subtle that even mention of the notion of it gets oh so many to stomp out any direct mention of the decline…
[quote] calling Obama a Communist, and generally looking like idiots there’s serious changes going on in a real communist country.
Mull on that for a bit.
[/quote]
Some fairly serious changes going on in this non-communist country as well, that frankly aren’t really all that wonderful.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Wouldn’t it be much more prudent to be subtle about it and allow a “natural” decline into the collective than to try and force one? Subtle enough where 50%+ actually ask for it, because they don’t even see it happening, or see it as a better ends than what they have now? So subtle that even mention of the notion of it gets oh so many to stomp out any direct mention of the decline… [/quote]
Pick up a copy of this for Christmas friend. Don’t worry, its written by a thoroughly Republican author, Robert Kagan. Enough so that some call him a Neo Con. He served as a foreign policy adviser for the Romney campaign.
But we’re so far from being communist and that’s not really in our DNA. Just because the demographic is changing in the U.S. doesn’t mean that we are heading down the path of socialism no matter what the handful of “chicken little’s” say.
I doubt that the Russians would expect to see a subtle change because that’s not their history. Revolutions are just that, revolutions. Now that I think of it I’m not sure that they would even care about whether or not we turned into a communist country.
Tell me this, if Obama really was a communist would he have given so much leeway to the financial companies after they were given bail out money? They were given that money without any strings whatsoever. If he wanted to put everything under government control wouldn’t he have gone a different route? If he was a socialist wouldn’t he had mandated that the government control health care instead of farming it out to the current players?
james
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Wouldn’t it be much more prudent to be subtle about it and allow a “natural” decline into the collective than to try and force one? Subtle enough where 50%+ actually ask for it, because they don’t even see it happening, or see it as a better ends than what they have now? So subtle that even mention of the notion of it gets oh so many to stomp out any direct mention of the decline… [/quote]
Pick up a copy of this for Christmas friend. Don’t worry, its written by a thoroughly Republican author, Robert Kagan. Enough so that some call him a Neo Con. He served as a foreign policy adviser for the Romney campaign.
[/quote]
Based on the description there it seems like this would be right up my alley.
Also, in the interest of full disclosure I do get a little “chicken little” about this topic when it comes up, and a bit irrational ‘off the deep end’ too. Only because as someone who was deeply born and bread into the Blue Curtain of Modern American Liberalism, I know how ‘they’ think.
$12 on Kindle huh?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…Is this about an obscure Russian tabloid?..
[/quote]
Obscure? This was THE voice of communism for ~70 years. Did you not know that?[/quote]
Obscure as in murky, as in shady, as in not remotely trustworthy. Perhaps obscure is too nebulous though, so I’ll go with propagandizing Russian tabloid.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
But we’re so far from being communist and that’s not really in our DNA. Just because the demographic is changing in the U.S. doesn’t mean that we are heading down the path of socialism no matter what the handful of “chicken little’s” say. [/quote]
I wish I could be as confident in this as you are. But I see the changes in attitude and culture since I was a kid, and shudder to think of the world my daughter will see when she is 30.
The conservative brand is dead, and hollywood and the media are doing their best to keep it that way (Not that the likes of the Patriot Act and Homeland Security didn’t help put a nail in, don’t get me wrong, some of the issues are self inflicted). It isn’t like the current tumble to the left is going to just slow down one day when people all the sudden go “oh hey, this isn’t cool.” Because they will never say that, because lefty policy forbids it. People can’t lose in lefty world, everyone gets a trophy, everyone is protected from negative speech and everyone is equal in every way…
From what I understand Stalin didn’t like Antonio Gramsci because Gramsci spoke of how the only way to bring America down into the depths of ruin that is the collective would be through slow cultural influence and errosion of founding ideals. Stalin prefered blood to Gramsci’s time and pressure.
Yes, for the following:
- He had to run again in 2012, and needs the cash donations
- He owes the Democratic party (he didn’t build that - the party made that election happen) and the Democrats aren’t about to abandon their richy rich friends.
- Cloward-Piven is a very real idea, and giving money to people that know how to create massive houses of cards isn’t an awful idea
Now the realist in me thinks 1 & 2 are more likely the cause, but 3 sneaks into my head now and again.
[quote] If he wanted to put everything under government control wouldn’t he have gone a different route? If he was a socialist wouldn’t he had mandated that the government control health care instead of farming it out to the current players?
james[/quote]
No, he wants to be seen as the beginning of America’s ‘rebirth’, not a the first tyrannt pulled from power the the pitchfork of freedom. That and he needed to re-elected in 2012, so a total takeover wouldn’t do (see 1 & 2 above).
Constant pressure and the reaction is the key. I am fully aware the man, Obama, is a communist, he just doesn’t govern like one, because he can’t, because he knows that wouldn’t work in America.
He sure speaks like one though, and silly people eat it up like take-out on New Years.
ALso, the Republicans are in the pockets of big business too, don’t get me wrong. Neither party is free of those chains.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
SMH,
I don’t give a shit about a label, if you take money from me to give to someone else, I would call you someone I do not agree with.
[/quote]
Then you don’t agree with government in general and particularly with government in the United States. Do you think that taxes weren’t paid and food stamps weren’t printed under Reagan or Nixon? Do you think that cops and firemen and soldiers were paid out of some kind of private fund until Obama took office? Do you honestly feel like anyone needs to justify the concept of taxation in the year 2012?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Wouldn’t it be much more prudent to be subtle about it and allow a “natural” decline into the collective than to try and force one? Subtle enough where 50%+ actually ask for it, because they don’t even see it happening, or see it as a better ends than what they have now? So subtle that even mention of the notion of it gets oh so many to stomp out any direct mention of the decline… [/quote]
Pick up a copy of this for Christmas friend. Don’t worry, its written by a thoroughly Republican author, Robert Kagan. Enough so that some call him a Neo Con. He served as a foreign policy adviser for the Romney campaign.
[/quote]
Based on the description there it seems like this would be right up my alley.
Also, in the interest of full disclosure I do get a little “chicken little” about this topic when it comes up, and a bit irrational ‘off the deep end’ too. Only because as someone who was deeply born and bread into the Blue Curtain of Modern American Liberalism, I know how ‘they’ think.
$12 on Kindle huh?[/quote]
I prefer the hardcover printed version myself. Anything published by Alfred A. Knopf feels right in your hands for lack of a better term. Reading off a screen just isn’t the same.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
SMH,
I don’t give a shit about a label, if you take money from me to give to someone else, I would call you someone I do not agree with.
[/quote]
Then you don’t agree with government in general and particularly with government in the United States. Do you think that taxes weren’t paid and food stamps weren’t printed under Reagan or Nixon? Do you think that cops and firemen and soldiers were paid out of some kind of private fund until Obama took office? Do you honestly feel like anyone needs to justify the concept of taxation in the year 2012? [/quote]
When we look at what is being done with that money in 2012, yes.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
Wouldn’t it be much more prudent to be subtle about it and allow a “natural” decline into the collective than to try and force one? Subtle enough where 50%+ actually ask for it, because they don’t even see it happening, or see it as a better ends than what they have now? So subtle that even mention of the notion of it gets oh so many to stomp out any direct mention of the decline… [/quote]
Pick up a copy of this for Christmas friend. Don’t worry, its written by a thoroughly Republican author, Robert Kagan. Enough so that some call him a Neo Con. He served as a foreign policy adviser for the Romney campaign.
[/quote]
Based on the description there it seems like this would be right up my alley.
Also, in the interest of full disclosure I do get a little “chicken little” about this topic when it comes up, and a bit irrational ‘off the deep end’ too. Only because as someone who was deeply born and bread into the Blue Curtain of Modern American Liberalism, I know how ‘they’ think.
$12 on Kindle huh?[/quote]
I prefer the hardcover printed version myself. Anything published by Alfred A. Knopf feels right in your hands for lack of a better term. Reading off a screen just isn’t the same.[/quote]
Very much agree with the real-thing verse Kindle. I just can’t ask anyone buying me gifts to buy anything that could be seen as “right” in any shape or form. I come from deep blue country man, lol.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…Am I to take from this that you do indeed believe that Barack Obama is a communist?..
[/quote]
You are the average sum of the four or five people with whom you have surrounded yourself.[/quote]
The salient parties here are economists and economic advisers, so why don’t we take a look at the four or five shady Commies with whom he’s surrounded himself since taking the Oath: Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke (surely this makes W. a Red too, no?), and Steven Rattner, who founded a private equity firm and worked as an investment banker at Morgan Stanley for decades before he was appointed by President Obama to spearhead the auto bailout.
Might as well call his administration a politburo, huh?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
SMH,
I don’t give a shit about a label, if you take money from me to give to someone else, I would call you someone I do not agree with.
[/quote]
Then you don’t agree with government in general and particularly with government in the United States. Do you think that taxes weren’t paid and food stamps weren’t printed under Reagan or Nixon? Do you think that cops and firemen and soldiers were paid out of some kind of private fund until Obama took office? Do you honestly feel like anyone needs to justify the concept of taxation in the year 2012? [/quote]
When we look at what is being done with that money in 2012, yes. [/quote]
This is a debate that was settled centuries ago. If you think income tax collection is immoral, your problems run far deeper than President Obama. You could always move to Qatar or Oman, though.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Legionary wrote:
Perhaps they are simply trying to rile up those readers who are unable/unwilling to utilize critical thinking and set aside preconceived biases? Do you honestly think that PROPAGANDA by its very nature is motivated by what is explicitly presented to the target audience?..
[/quote]
Maybe.
Why would they want to do this?
What motive for this “propaganda” might they have?
Why would their English speaking version want to drive home the point that Bam is a communist? What could they hope to gain from this “ridiculous notion?”
Was Pravda just appealing to its conservative American readership? Do you think Pravda HAS a conservative American readership?[/quote]
Do you have a point, a position you hold? Your stance has been subtly shifting throughout this thread.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Just to be clear, is anyone here explicitly contending that Obama is in fact a communist?[/quote]
What’s with the nitpicking? Do you deny that he’s a socialist? Is there a meaningful difference between a hardcore community organiser/socialist and a Communist? What meaningful criticism do you have of someone who uses the term Communist instead of socialist or community organiser?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The salient parties here are economists and economic advisers, so why don’t we take a look at the four or five shady Commies with whom he’s surrounded himself since taking the Oath: Lawrence Summers, Timothy Geithner, Ben Bernanke (surely this makes W. a Red too, no?), and Steven Rattner, who founded a private equity firm and worked as an investment banker at Morgan Stanley for decades
[/quote]
You didn’t read up on Saul Alinsky’s community organising tactics did you? Alinsky preached infiltrating the enemy and compromise as a means to an end. Obama would never have got where he is without compromise, or Saul Alinsky for that matter.
[quote]
…before he was appointed by President Obama to spearhead the auto bailout.
Might as well call his administration a politburo, huh?[/quote]
You mean the one where he bought 61% of GM, essentially nationalising it?