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…
[/quote]
If you think he’s fundamentally changed his ethos and his past associations no longer mean a thing to him then “naive” is the label for you.
[/quote]
This is a copout. You presented the logic behind the proposition that Obama is a communist (or a Communist, take your pick because they are equally insupportable). I showed how that logic, when coupled with facts, invited a directly antithetical conclusion. And your rebuttal is…what? A single unsubstantiated sentence about “past associations.” How about we talk about the people with whom he confers as President. Surely they are more directly relevant to this discussion than are people he knew decades ago as student, no?
So please directly address the fact that the President has invariably turned to establishment capitalists for economic advice. Or you could bring up the fact that he knew a guy who liked Trotsky once. The difference is that the former involves a discussion about the President as he governs today.
If you tell me someone is a vampire, I’m not gonna settle for stories about how farm animals used to disappear from his village every night when he was a lad. I want you to rip his mouth open and show me his fucking fangs.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
This beats the “obscure” Russian paper by far:
[/quote]
Nice red herring. And yes, Pravda is a sensationalist shadow of its former self and a wholly unreliable source. The Russian posters in this thread said as much.
I showed how that logic, when coupled with facts, invited a directly antithetical conclusion.
[/quote]
Ah, no you didn’t. Firstly, capitalist cronies are notorious in Communist regimes the world over. Just take a look China for starters. Secondly, as I already stated Alinsky preached compromise with the capitalist system as a means of infiltrating it. And thirdly, the second example you gave was of Obama essentially nationalising the auto industry and paying off his UAW backers in the process. Logic fail.
Maybe push didn’t think there was a need to substantiate the accusation about his past associations because it’s been substantiated ad nauseum hundreds of fucking times on this forum including by me to you.
You mean like Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod and the congo line of Commies and hard leftists he still surrounds himself with?
You mean like Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod and the congo line of Commies and hard leftists he still surrounds himself with?[/quote]
I see two political advisers and a one-time adviser on environmental issues. We’re talking about economics here, so why don’t you produce an economist. I’ve already produced 4, and not a single Red.
Or is David Axelrod setting interest rates these days?
By the way, Sexmachine, I recall you saying fairly recently that it is not exactly accurate to call Obama a socialist. Please don’t let a response to this post preclude one to the post before it, which was more important.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3.Topic A is abandoned.
You brought up a shit publication that Russian nationals and scholars of Eurasia/Russia see as unreliable, dubious, and sensationalist. Your title “What THE RUSSIANS are saying about Obama’s USA” is on a similar intellectual level. It reflects a fundamental ignorance of Russian history and geopolitics on your part. Then you post a video of an raving imbecile ranting about how white America is on the verge of revolution. Not exactly conductive to discussion.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
“And no wonder, for Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light.”
2 Co 11:14
But Obama is not a vampire, he is America’s Messianic Angel.
[/quote]
I assume this was directed at me because of the vampire line. Are you arguing against something I said?
[/quote]
No need to be personally sensitive (“I assume this was directed at me.”)
The quote refers to it being possible for a person to appear, at least to some, as being one thing when in fact being another. Whether a given person can see it or not may depend on his perception, or his blindness or prejudice, or the abundance or lack of evidence, as the case may be.
As for “arguing against what [you] said,” that really is not my interest.
Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).
3.Topic A is abandoned.
You brought up a shit publication that Russian nationals and scholars of Eurasia/Russia see as unreliable, dubious, and sensationalist. Your title “What THE RUSSIANS are saying about Obama’s USA” is on a similar intellectual level. It reflects a fundamental ignorance of Russian history and geopolitics on your part. Then you post a video of an raving imbecile ranting about how white America is on the verge of revolution. Not exactly conductive to discussion.
[/quote]
So you don’t know what “red herring” means, as there was no diverting away from anything or any misleading. It also appears you may be very self-focused with some conception that people must, or should, only post according to what you have said or what you are interested in. But life does not happen to work that way. Whether you enjoy the video or not is probably not of much importance to anyone except yourself, though clearly you didn’t watch even half of it, if that, before commenting.
If you had watched it in its entirety before commenting, you would have seen at least one relevance, rather than asserting no relevance. And whether the Pravda article or this, you don’t seem to have much sense of humor, if any. There is such a thing as finding fun even in important areas where there can be disagreement.
As for your claim that this has not been conducive to discussion, it may be true that it was not conducive to useful discussion from your end. But it appears correct only from that self-centered viewpoint, or a viewpoint assuming that others should think as you do. It seems pretty clear that others have found at least the original article conducive to discussion.
You mean like Van Jones, Valerie Jarrett, David Axelrod and the congo line of Commies and hard leftists he still surrounds himself with?[/quote]
I see two political advisers and a one-time adviser on environmental issues. We’re talking about economics here, so why don’t you produce an economist. I’ve already produced 4, and not a single Red.
Or is David Axelrod setting interest rates these days?[/quote]
Bernanke was appointed to a fourteen year term by Bush II.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
By the way, Sexmachine, I recall you saying fairly recently that it is not exactly accurate to call Obama a socialist. Please don’t let a response to this post preclude one to the post before it, which was more important.[/quote]
I think I said it’s more accurate to describe him as a community organiser. However, socialist is accurate enough. He was elected to the Illinois Senate on a socialist party split ticket.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
By the way, Sexmachine, I recall you saying fairly recently that it is not exactly accurate to call Obama a socialist. Please don’t let a response to this post preclude one to the post before it, which was more important.[/quote]
Pres. Obama Appoints Non-Economists to Key Economic Positions
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]
A better question is why wouldn’t they? There is no such thing as bad publicity and Pravda sure as hell needs it. It has gone from being the self proclaimed official voice of Soviet Communism to barely being able to run print 3 times a week. The OP’s article is reflective of that. If Romney had won the election that would be publishing the same imbecilic drivel in a different flavor. Surely I “possess the erudition” to articulate my position you say? Despite your thinly veiled sarcasm you have yet to contribute anything to the discussion of American foreign policy towards Russia.
“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.”
This is important. This is tangible. This is relevant. Not this speculative discussion of President Obama’s supposed political ideals in spite of his governance. Address this. Do you agree or disagree with the paragraph above?