http://joemiller.us/2012/11/russias-prav...nly-begun/

Quote:Why? Because the US is “an illiterate society” that continues to buy off on Obama’s “lies of less taxes while he raises them.” The US educational system is also held responsible, with Pravda stating that it was “conquered by the Communists long ago and history was revised thus paving the way for their Communist presidents.”

Discuss, with civility if possible.

I see a bit of truth in it. I think one contributing factor is the strong desire some have to see Obama succeed. His missteps are swept under the rug, his policies praised regardless of their practicality. His signature piece of legislation was rammed through and is now more unpopular than than ever, so bad that some parts are being put off until after the next midterm elections. Despite all of this he receives praise.
The Russians have experience that we as a country should not discount. What we may not see could be the beginnings of a slippery slope towards communism and away from democracy.

It's the cult of personality.

Who cares if he's a dilettante, because he's just so damn cool?

What is it that we are supposed to discuss?

Right-wingers are now citing Pravda against their own president. It's sad how far the right has fallen. There's nothing but conspiracy theories and hysterics coming from the right these days. It also shows they are willing to line up with Russian, Chinese, or anyone else against our American President.

How can you discuss this in a civilized manner when you're calling the President a communist, which he is not?

(04-07-2013 09:43 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  How can you discuss this in a civilized manner when you're calling the President a communist, which he is not?

He's not? His actions say otherwise. Just because you refuse to recognize everything he's done wrong doesn't mean we can't and won't.

You are sheep who baa at the alter and refuse to acknowledge he's ever even made a single mistake.

(04-07-2013 09:43 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  How can you discuss this in a civilized manner when you're calling the President a communist, which he is not?

Of course, this comment is the very antithesis of civilized discussion. Civilized discussion requires that you first accept and respect viewpoints contrary to your own.

(04-07-2013 09:31 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  Right-wingers are now citing Pravda against their own president. It's sad how far the left has fallen, and how easily they fall for anything.

FIFY. But keep it up!

Actually Obama is a big worshiper of Marx. He showed at Occidental, as a Freshman, and an admitted dedicated Marxist.

Sorry, but I tend to have a pretty distinct definition of communism: Government owns the vast majority (90%+) if not all industries; Travel outside of the country is either tightly regulated or completely restricted, and even moving from city-to-city within the country is difficult without expressed consent by the government; Basic freedoms - speech, press, political protest, etc. - are either tightly restricted or abolished.

Obama may be liberal and solidly left of center, and who knows what he might've dabbled in during his younger years. But the country is a loooong way from communism.

And UMGRAD, to be fair, lest we forget the number of serious, literal "theocracy," "fascist," and Hitler/nazi comparisons made during Bush's terms. The left is hardly better when it comes to trotting out the most extreme terminology.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhendrick...d-fiction/

President Obama has emulated Lenin in striving to increase state control over such “commanding heights” of our economy as energy, health care, finance, and education, with smaller forays into food, transportation and undoubtedly some areas I am overlooking.

Besides mimicking some of Lenin’s policy strategies, Obama also has adopted Karl Marx’s strategies for gradually socializing an economy.

(04-07-2013 09:43 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  How can you discuss this in a civilized manner when you're calling the President a communist, which he is not?

I didn't call him anything. This is just a link to an article written in a formerly Communist country (although they may be headed back that direction with Putin) that parallels current events in the US with their communist past.

Do you completely discount they views given that they have the unique perspective of having lived under communist rule?


Hi own past is riddled with connections to Communist and Socialist parties as recently as 1996. I make no attempt to judge the mans political allegiancies, however it is clear that he favors strong government regulation and perhaps ownership of industry and has shown little faith in the free market.

I didn't post this to start an argument among the left and right. I posted it because I think some of us on both sides need to be aware of how the US is thought of around the world.

I believe Obama is at heart a communist in the sense he believes that the government can orchestrate every aspect of people's lives and it be successful. He believes government to be an instrument to force everyone to equality, not remove the barriers to them getting there themselves through hard work.

But we can't blame him entirely. The low information electorate that has elected him is to blame as well. We as a society are steadily moving more and more away from believing in hard work and liberty and more towards one of entitlement and believing we should be taken care of. We are becoming Greece. No if's, and's or but's about it.

The stupidity of liberals in this country is they believe they can make something work that never has at any point when it's been tried.

(04-08-2013 08:28 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-07-2013 09:43 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  How can you discuss this in a civilized manner when you're calling the President a communist, which he is not?

I didn't call him anything. This is just a link to an article written in a formerly Communist country (although they may be headed back that direction with Putin) that parallels current events in the US with their communist past.

Do you completely discount they views given that they have the unique perspective of having lived under communist rule?


Hi own past is riddled with connections to Communist and Socialist parties as recently as 1996. I make no attempt to judge the mans political allegiancies, however it is clear that he favors strong government regulation and perhaps ownership of industry and has shown little faith in the free market.

I didn't post this to start an argument among the left and right. I posted it because I think some of us on both sides need to be aware of how the US is thought of around the world.

Name an industry he has advocated that we nationalize and specific proposals he has introduced to do the same, and keep in mind that TARP and the auto bailouts started under Bush.

(04-07-2013 09:31 PM)UM2001GRAD Wrote:  It also shows they are willing to line up with Russian, Chinese, or anyone else against our American President.

You mean like Jane Fonda in Vietnam?

See this is the problem with Republicans. Instead of trying to convince the American people of their vision, they would rather denegrate those that don't agree with them as lazy and stupid. Sounds like a winning strategy to get votes.

(04-08-2013 08:33 AM)Ninerfan1 Wrote:  I believe Obama is at heart a communist in the sense he believes that the government can orchestrate every aspect of people's lives and it be successful. He believes government to be an instrument to force everyone to equality, not remove the barriers to them getting there themselves through hard work.

But we can't blame him entirely. The low information electorate that has elected him is to blame as well. We as a society are steadily moving more and more away from believing in hard work and liberty and more towards one of entitlement and believing we should be taken care of. We are becoming Greece. No if's, and's or but's about it.

The stupidity of liberals in this country is they believe they can make something work that never has at any point when it's been tried.

+1.......and it is unfortunate.

Right, the low information electorate is to "blame" for Obama. That's why he won college educated adults by a wide margin. The "low information" voters are Republicans, friend.

(04-08-2013 10:18 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Name an industry he has advocated that we nationalize and specific proposals he has introduced to do the same, and keep in mind that TARP and the auto bailouts started under Bush.

Remember GM? The fleet vehicles purchased by the government under Obama's watch were nearly all that kept it afloat for awhile. Bush may have started the bailouts, but Obama doubled down on them and called out any opposition from Republicans regarding the bailouts.

Also the Obama administration tried a "backdoor nationalization of banks in 2009. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124027165661037073.html

Govt paid back with stock instead of cash.

Obamacare anybody? State run exchanges you counter with.... Sure, just as long as those state run exchanges are complying with regulations and laws made at the federal level.



Not an industry per say, just the entire US economy.

Executive Order

Quote:Sec. 201. Priorities and Allocations Authorities. (a) The authority of the President conferred by section 101 of the Act, 50 U.S.C. App. 2071, to require acceptance and priority performance of contracts or orders (other than contracts of employment) to promote the national defense over performance of any other contracts or orders, and to allocate materials, services, and facilities as deemed necessary or appropriate to promote the national defense, is delegated to the following agency heads:
(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to food resources, food resource facilities, livestock resources, veterinary resources, plant health resources, and the domestic distribution of farm equipment and commercial fertilizer;
(2) the Secretary of Energy with respect to all forms of energy;
(3) the Secretary of Health and Human Services with respect to health resources;
(4) the Secretary of Transportation with respect to all forms of civil transportation;
(5) the Secretary of Defense with respect to water resources; and
(6) the Secretary of Commerce with respect to all other materials, services, and facilities, including construction materials.

(b) The Secretary of each agency delegated authority under subsection (a) of this section (resource departments) shall plan for and issue regulations to prioritize and allocate resources and establish standards and procedures by which the authority shall be used to promote the national defense, under both emergency and non-emergency conditions. Each Secretary shall authorize the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, to place priority ratings on contracts and orders for materials, services, and facilities needed in support of programs approved under section 202 of this order.

Obama my say he doesn't support nationalization of specific industries, but his cabinets and czars have supported the ideas on more than once occasion.

(04-08-2013 10:34 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  See this is the problem with Republicans. Instead of trying to convince the American people of their vision, they would rather denegrate those that don't agree with them as lazy and stupid. Sounds like a winning strategy to get votes.

Democrats don't do that, too?

Oh, wait. What they call people is racist and stupid.