Pres. Obama and Nobel Peace Prize

[Sinestra]

Originally Posted by MMM

And I am sorry samurai, I am not going to watch a bunch of Fox "News" videos. If you have some text sites I will be happy to scan them.

I think we can both agree there isn't one person to blame for the economic crisis we are in.

Agreed. We can sit all day and blame the Government for tuning a blind eye or blame Americans for not being responsible with their money (which is the one i pin it on the most) or blame banks for lending to anyone and everyone under the sun lets not forget the investments firms that basically made back ally deals written down on napkins ect ect. The list goes on however the trap that a lot of Americans are falling into is the blame game. We spend more time looking for someone to blame than we do finding a fix for the problem. Its important to be mindful of the past but not at the expense of the future.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by MMM

I guess you say something enough times it then becomes a fact.

President Obama is not a socialist, has never been a socialist, and will likely never be a socialist. The Socialist Party of America does not recognize him as one, and it's thanks the presidential campaign speeches by Republicans like McCain, Palin and Huckabee that started this last year, and even though the campaign is over, the right-wing finds it easy to tear down anything Pres. Obama says and does with the blanket statement that "Obama is a socialist." This has now leaked down into the vernacular of your average American who like to spout the same phrase when chances are few of them know what it even means.

He might not be a self avowed socialist, but the socialist ideals and policies are growing everyday. This didn't start with Obama but it is continuing with Obama.... in the time of Crisis the government will ALWAYS take the opportunity to grow/expand its power in a time of crisis.

While we have to solve problems, we also have to conserve money. We are not doing this.

Originally Posted by MMM

To be socialist is to be anti-capitalist and anti private industry. Look at how much money has been poured into private industry. Obama is clearly a free-market democrat...much the opposite of socialist ideals.

But not ALL socialistic ideals. Yes socialist do not go the way of the free market. Selective bail-outs by the government of private industry is not free-market. Selective bail-outs of financial institutions here and there but not for here and there making an uneven playing field.

Comparing textbook socialism to capitalism is unfair. The system of capitalism we are operating under is removed from the way it was originally drawn up. The housing market is a great example of this and so is the size of government. Socialists institute a huge government, tons of welfare programs, wealth distribution, unions, safety nets, and publicly funded infrastructure projects along with very high taxes to pay for it. Why else is government spending responsible for almost 40 something percent of our GDP versus in 1955 at 25 percent. It is only going to go up. See what government run health care will do to it.

Originally Posted by MMM

Look at health care. "Socialized health care", like in Japan and Canada and other industrialized nations eliminates the need for private insurance companies. This isn't even on the table in terms of what the debate is about.

Comparing the US to smaller nations like Japan who have nationalized health care is not a fair comparison. Japan simply for its size. Japan and Canada has plenty of its own problems with health care because of being a nationalized health care nation. Our systems are just incompatible. In American instead of throwing the baby out with the bath water, the obvious solution is to try to fix those areas of the health care system that are problematic. Why would we in-trust the US government who has
problem running the simplest of programs to a program as big as nationalized health care? Why not fix the key issues? Why is releasing insurance companies from state borders not being debated? Why is tort reform a non-issue?

People think politicians can and should run the government like a business. That is just a big fail boat.

Originally Posted by MMM

So please steer me to the policies of this administration that really are socialist. Anyone.

I think you have plenty listed in this post. You are right though, there are many people that will scream socialism not knowing what it is. The sad thing is that it didn't start with this administration. The Obama administration is just upping it at the while the free market is correcting itself and the country is in a slump from current AND past administrations. The reason Obama has this perception of being a socialists is because of the attempts to grow government, welfare programs, unions, safety nets, publicly funded infrastructure projects. Surrounding himself with radicals, known communists, and just incompetent administration, is not helping this perception.

The biggest is the health care debate. There are so many ways current AND past administrations could of began the reform, but the greed of the current and past have brought us to this state. Now we got lies from both sides. Couldn't we take this a step at a time versus whopping nationalized health care? If there is such a emergency, why would we have to wait 3-4 years for this reform to take affect? Why not implement that medicare reform/savings now? Why not begin tort reform? Why work with insurance companies? Current government can't wait to demonize private industry and capitalism to grow government. There are the greedy that must be regulated, but growing/expanding government is not the answer.

I'm seeing nothing new in this current administration... just more of the past amplified. Though I am happy to see that you and posters on this board do not approve of socialism, which is important, I just see the move toward it piece by piece over time and no administration is turning away from it, they are moving towards it and not calling is socialism.

We have to get over this too big to fail in all aspects of America, including out personal lives.

Sinestra has a good post above this one. But I don't think government is turning a blind eye at all now... they are using this opportunity.

[Liongale]

People use the word 'socialist' as a name-calling, they do not really know what it means, yes. I think it's kind of funny, but also sad because it shows ignorance in a legit debate.

Also remember you can't think of government as one entity, I think this is a mistake. It is hundreds of peoples, with hundreds of seperate goals. These are the same troubles the councils of Rome had! (but less daggers).

So when you say the gov't is going to do 'this' or 'that', this is a mistake too, you should look at the individuals in it and their goals for the deeper picture. This will enrich your side of the debate.

[samurai007]

Originally Posted by MMM

And I am sorry samurai, I am not going to watch a bunch of Fox "News" videos. If you have some text sites I will be happy to scan them.

I think we can both agree there isn't one person to blame for the economic crisis we are in.

You're the person that posted Rachel Maddow, who is clearly more biased than most anything FOX puts out...

Also, not all of them are from FOX. The one explaining in detail what happened, and the one showing Dems arguing against reform are not from FOX. I'm at work now and can't dig up printed sites, but you probably won't like those sources much better anyway. Dems are trying very, very hard to cover up the fact that Bush and the Reps called for Freddie and Fannie to be regulated and warned that they were in trouble, and the Dems were the ones that fought against it, calling it a "racist lynching".

[MMM]

clint if you want to argue the government is moving in a direction you don't like that this has been happening over several administrations and that direction seems like Socialism, I will allow you that.

But that is very different than the battle-cry and show-stopping "Obama is a socialist!" which is now used a call to action be right-wing talk show hosts to divide the country and attract those that don't know any better to their side.

I was listening to a guy on the radio this morning who wants to impeach Obama. His reasoning is that he is trying to change policies too quickly. He is going too fast. So one side of the mouth says "He isn't doing anything, he doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize" and the other side says "He is extreme and socialist and is making rash decisions too quickly."

I am going to stop asking "which is it?" because I don't think it is either...

[MMM]

Originally Posted by samurai007

You're the person that posted Rachel Maddow, who is clearly more biased than most anything FOX puts out...

Also, not all of them are from FOX. The one explaining in detail what happened, and the one showing Dems arguing against reform are not from FOX. I'm at work now and can't dig up printed sites, but you probably won't like those sources much better anyway. Dems are trying very, very hard to cover up the fact that Bush and the Reps called for Freddie and Fannie to be regulated and warned that they were in trouble, and the Dems were the ones that fought against it, calling it a "racist lynching".

I posted Rachel Maddow with full disclosure that she is a liberal and opinionated talk show host, but despite that her piece about the president and the Nobel Peace Prize applied directly to topic of this post, which I fear is drifting a little far.

But I appreciate the fact that you are moving from Obama is to blame to the Democrats are to blame. I think we are moving closer to shared ground.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by MMM

clint if you want to argue the government is moving in a direction you don't like that this has been happening over several administrations and that direction seems like Socialism, I will allow you that.

Thanks... I think.

Originally Posted by MMM

But that is very different than the battle-cry and show-stopping "Obama is a socialist!" which is now used a call to action be right-wing talk show hosts to divide the country and attract those that don't know any better to their side.

People are relating Obama to the government for some reason.
Both sides are dividing the nation.

Originally Posted by MMM

I was listening to a guy on the radio this morning who wants to impeach Obama. His reasoning is that he is trying to change policies too quickly. He is going too fast. So one side of the mouth says "He isn't doing anything, he doesn't deserve a Nobel Peace Prize" and the other side says "He is extreme and socialist and is making rash decisions too quickly."

Impeaching isn't going to happen for any president - not today. Again the too big to fail mindset of the past decades.

The average Joe etc calling the morning zoo usually hasn't got their arguments together or are not conveyed properly... time constraints of talk radio (or the host) won't allow it or they just want to put a voice to their frustrations...

Believing he didn't do anything to deserve the nobel peace prize, and the "He is a extreme socialists and is making rash decisions too quickly" are not mutually exclusive. But I got your point.

The fact is though, it goes both ways. The "get out of our way" theme from government recently is dividing the nation well too.

[clintjm]

Originally Posted by Ryzorian

...

Interesting take.

Just for the record for all, from the dictionary:

fas⋅cism   [fash-iz-uhm
–noun
1. a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

[ We're lacking to put America in this situation ]

so⋅cial⋅ism   [soh-shuh-liz-uhm]
–noun
1.a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.


[#3 is a little frightening. ]

[MMM]

Originally Posted by clintjm

Thanks... I think.

You're welcome. I may not agree, but that's a bigger topic than two people on an Internet forum are going to solve.

Originally Posted by clintjm

People are relating Obama to the government for some reason.
Both sides are dividing the nation.

I understand the president is the face of the country's government, and I am not denying that. I try and say "Bush administration" and "Obama administration" but I am sure you can find plenty of times when I am talking about the man himself, intentionally or not.

However, I sense something different going on at this time in the country, and I wish I could say I was the first to mention it, but I have heard talk show hosts from a variety of backgrounds say that the level of disdain some people are feeling for this president...the man himself...not only what he represents, has reached some disturbing heights. Samurai will turn around and say "But look at San Francisco! Then burned Bush in effigy!" And that did happen in a very limited scale. But what I am seeing is a slow boil of hatred spilled out to literally millions of Americans for hours and hours every day through several huge media sources. I worry a little this focus on the man, specifically, and not the administration has already led to guns being brought to town hall meetings, and I hate to imagine what would happen if it continues to the points those guns get loaded and the safetys are clicked off.

You can say both sides are divisive, and on the extreme ends that is probably true, but how some of the extremists on the right (Rush, Beck, etc.) are essentially preaching the evil of Obama the man worries me.

Originally Posted by clintjm

Impeaching isn't going to happen for any president - not today. Again the too big to fail mindset of the past decades.

The average Joe etc calling the morning zoo usually hasn't got their arguments together or are not conveyed properly... time constraints of talk radio (or the host) won't allow it or they just want to put a voice to their frustrations...

Believing he didn't do anything to deserve the nobel peace prize, and the "He is a extreme socialists and is making rash decisions too quickly" are not mutually exclusive. But I got your point.

The fact is though, it goes both ways. The "get out of our way" theme from government recently is dividing the nation well too.

I agree, impeachment is not going to happen. However, this wasn't an "average joe" it was right-wing consultant Floyd Brown. He is famous for designing the "Willie Horton" ads that helped sink Dukakis.

This is his website.

Impeach Obama Campaign

You can say both sides are divisive. But I think this is getting into "dangerous".

At the very least, fire a shot across the bow... a shot that will be heard around the world... and send Barack Hussein Obama a clear and unmistakable message that he does not have carte blanche to ruin the United States of America.

We’re now in the middle of a bloodless coup – the takeover of an entire nation by the hate-America crowd –

Does he simply hate Christianity... does he hate the United States... or both?

I know this is not the view of anyone here, but is just an example of the extreme messages that are being presented against not the Obama administration, but the man himself.

[Ryzorian]

We should all be honest with ourselves, it isn't Bush's fault, Obama's fault, Clinton's fault, Reagan's fault or any of the rest of em persay. It's technically our fault, "we the people" run the American system of government and it's "we the people" that voted these folks into office. So really, if we have major gripes about it, we need to look in the mirror.

Clintjm; The American system as a whole, is more likely to have a facist approach to governmental takeover than a socialistic one. Facist, communist or socialist dictatorships are useually the end result of a government.To figure wich type of dictatorship will take place, one needs to see which type of for runner governmental system best favors that result historically.

I contend that Republic's ( Wich is what the United States really is) generally usher in Facist style dictatorships, while tyrants and kings tend to bring in communistic ones. Plain Jane democracies, such as what much of Europe has, brings in Socialistic takeovers. It really doesn't matter in the end, each system has power in the hands of a few who dictate what everyone else can do, useing power and fear to inforce those dictates.