Obama Speech to the Kiddies

[Meirionnydd]

gl


That's really not the issue. And again, Bush, Obama, Clinton wgaf? Peter putting a smirk after every one of his comments doesn't take away from the idiocy of him wanting to do it to begin with. He's an elitist socialist prick. Besides, our school district refused to play it. So really we didn't have a choice anyways.

Obama a Socialist? Give me a break.

Any credible Political Scientist would classify Obama's political ideology as a left-leaning moderate.

I'm personally a Democratic Socialist, and let me tell you, Obama's political positions are no where near what I would consider to be a Socialist ideology.

Waah waah, the evil electoral college makes the politicians at leasta pay lip service to someplace other than NY, CA and FL. Its just not right. Waah waah waah :sarcasm

Yep, sounds great, even if it undermines the principle of a real democracy. Do you enjoy voting for electors who then elect the president for you?

 

[nova]

Ah, the evil socalism again! Can you please explain to me what is so socialist about telling kids to study in school which will make them think collective farming ect is the way to go? Admit it, you just dont like Obama and will critisize anything he does regardless.

Nothing overt but there sure was some creepy collectivist BS in there...

Some selected excerpts...

If you quit on school, you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country....

Don't ever give up on yourself, because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country.

The story of America [is] about people...who loved their country too much to do anything less than their best....

What will a President who comes here in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what all of you did for this country?...

I expect great things from each of you. So don't let us down. Don't let your family down or your country down.

 

[nova]

Obama a Socialist? Give me a break.

Any credible Political Scientist would classify Obama's political ideology as a left-leaning moderate.

I'm personally a Democratic Socialist, and let me tell you, Obama's political positions are no where near what I would consider to be a Socialist ideology.

I think that just shows how far to the left the rest of the world has pushed the "center" to...

Yep, sounds great, even if it undermines the principle of a real democracy. Do you enjoy voting for electors who then elect the president for you?

Pray tell why should it bother me? Does it bother you to vote for legislative reps from which your prime minister is appointed from? I should hope not. If you're worried about undermining "democracy" you best be looking at your own institutions of gov't first...


Glad to see you sticking to the principles of "real" democracy but, technically all modern nations with democratic institutions undermine the principles of "real" democracy because they're ALL representative democracies and not direct democracies.

Not that it matters because the US has never been a "democracy" in the strictest sense of the word. We're a federal constitutional republic with democratic traditions.

 

[Peter Parka]

Nothing overt but there sure was some creepy collectivist BS in there...

Some selected excerpts...

I thought you Americans loved all that Patriotism?:dunno

 

[Peter Parka]

I think that just shows how far to the left the rest of the world has pushed the "center" to...

I just see it as a sad indication that a lot of Americans still haven't moved on from McCarthyism and irrational paranoia of left thinking ideas.

 

[Meirionnydd]

I think that just shows how far to the left the rest of the world has pushed the "center" to...

Not really, I don't really see how any of Obama's polices can be interpreted as overly Socialist. Truth is, every Liberal Democracy operates as a mixed economy, incorporating some Socialist aspects.

Pray tell why should it bother me? Does it bother you to vote for legislative reps who then elect your prime minister, your head of gov't? I should hope not...

The only difference is we separate our powers and responsibilities a bit more and provide electors separate from the legislative branch.

There's a bit more to it than that. The leader of a political party (who is elected to the position by fellow MP's), will become the Prime Minister when that party is elected into office. The process of electing a leader for the party almost always happens when that party is in Opposition, meaning that the leader of the government currently in power was, in most cases appointed by the electorate.

But however, it is possible for the Prime Minister to quit mid term and pass the torch to someone else, but such a decision is unpopular, and such notions of a Prime Minister not serving out their full term is extremely damaging politically.

Glad to see you sticking to the principles of "real" democracy but, technically all modern nations with democratic institutions undermine the principles of "real" democracy because they're ALL representative democracies and not direct democracies.

The electoral system used in Presidential elections in the US is an indirect form of voting, contrasting that with many other democratic nations like Australia and the UK, where leaders are elected directly (considering they form part of the legislature).

A 'winner-takes-all' system of voting doesn't exactly strike true to the notions of a Representative democracy. If I live in Oklahoma and decide to vote for the Democrats in a Presidential election, my vote isn't really going to matter, the same goes for a Republican supporter in New York.

 

[retro]

I just see it as a sad indication that a lot of Americans still haven't moved on from McCarthyism and irrational paranoia of left thinking ideas.

Yes, because not agreeing with the ideology of socialism is perfectly comparable to anti-communist witch hunts. Good God. The lack of logic in that statement makes my head hurt. I'm a Libertarian, I believe in less government. Obama is a socialist, he believes in more government. As such, my ideologies are at odds with his, hence my reasons for not agreeing with him, and not liking his brand of socialism. I'm not on any witch hunts though, I believe that people are perfectly within their rights to have their own ideals and principles; and I'm perfectly within mine to disagree with and oppose them.

 

[Meirionnydd]

Yes, because not agreeing with the ideology of socialism is perfectly comparable to anti-communist witch hunts. Good God. The lack of logic in that statement makes my head hurt. I'm a Libertarian, I believe in less government. Obama is a socialist, he believes in more government. As such, my ideologies are at odds with his, hence my reasons for not agreeing with him, and not liking his brand of socialism. I'm not on any witch hunts though, I believe that people are perfectly within their rights to have their own ideals and principles; and I'm perfectly within mine to disagree with and oppose them.

Socialism is more than just believing in big government. It's primarily an economic system where the means of production are owned by the public, and all resources are distributed to the people in an egalitarian manner.

George Bush expanded government greatly throughout his term, does that make him a Socialist too?

So in a strict sense 'Socialism', by itself, isn't a Political system. You know there's such a thing as Libertarian Socialism?

 

[retro]

Socialism is more than just believing in big government. It's primarily an economic system where the means of production are owned by the public, and all resources are distributed to the people in an egalitarian manner.

George Bush expanded government greatly throughout his term, does that make him a Socialist too?

So in a strict sense 'Socialism', by itself, isn't a Political system. You know there's such a thing as Libertarian Socialism?

You are correct in your assessment that socialism is an economic system; however, a socialistic system cannot come to prominence without it also being a political ideology as well. GWB a socialist? No, his expansion of government was more authoritarian than it was socialistic. Obama may actually be better described as a statist, if we're keeping socialism as a purely economic theory. But then again, if you look at the socialist/communist countries that came to prominence in the last century, you'll see there there was a high degree of statism in them as well.

Oh, and Libertarian Socialism is basically anarchy... opposition of capitalism and of government. To compare that with typical Libertarianism would be like comparing Obama and Stalin.

 

[USF Sam]

ORIGINAL:



Props to the unknown Photoshopper. Looks pretty damn good.

However, why'd they have to go and invent something when you have material like this:


"I've abandoned free market principles to save the free market system." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Dec. 16, 2008

 

[nova]

The electoral system used in Presidential elections in the US is an indirect form of voting, contrasting that with many other democratic nations like Australia and the UK, where leaders are elected directly (considering they form part of the legislature).

I think you're missing the similarities of our systems and to an extent my point.

Yes your PM comes from the legislature, but if your PM is from "District 1" and your're in "District 2" you sure didn't vote for him and neither did anyone from Districts 3-100 or however your voting precincts are divided. Each district elects a representative to form the legislature and then the legislature elects a PM from within itself.

In a similar manner, each state elects electors who then elect the president. We simply separate the process from our legislature.

A 'winner-takes-all' system of voting doesn't exactly strike true to the notions of a Representative democracy. If I live in Oklahoma and decide to vote for the Democrats in a Presidential election, my vote isn't really going to matter, the same goes for a Republican supporter in New York

And if we did not have that system, then my vote in Alabama wouldn't mean anything at all because the candidates could win a dozen of the major cities to win the election and ignore the rest of us. Our system is designed such that the minority voices of the country cannot simply be ignored. You have to pay attention to each and every state.

 

[Alien Allen]

and it is rare that the popular count outcome is different from the electoral college count.

I think it has happened 2-3 times??

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Obama a Socialist? Give me a break.

Any credible Political Scientist would classify Obama's political ideology as a left-leaning moderate.

I'm personally a Democratic Socialist, and let me tell you, Obama's political positions are no where near what I would consider to be a Socialist ideology.



Yep, sounds great, even if it undermines the principle of a real democracy. Do you enjoy voting for electors who then elect the president for you?

If you think he's a moderate anything you got issues. He is opposed to a real free market/capitalist economy, pro-nationalized health care, wants to increase the size of the government and at the rate he's going, I would argue that he would like to nationalize the energy industry under this pro-environmental push he's toying with. Face it, the only way he's ever going to pay for what he wants to add, is to incorporate big business into government entities to reap the profit straight from the top, rather than the straight 42% my company already pays on profit in taxation.I guess that must be a center leaning Democrat we got thurr.And Parka if he actually DOES something, I will acknowledge that. To this point I have heard nothing but talk, and seen nothing but his smirk. You got nothing to worry about anyways, the health care system there is already on the verge of collapse, soon we'll be just like y'all We'll be like family

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Socialism is more than just believing in big government. It's primarily an economic system where the means of production are owned by the public, and all resources are distributed to the people in an egalitarian manner.

George Bush expanded government greatly throughout his term, does that make him a Socialist too?

So in a strict sense 'Socialism', by itself, isn't a Political system. You know there's such a thing as Libertarian Socialism?

If you research Socialism you'll find a lot of different ideologies. And I know you have most likely researched. Just sayin.Obamas plan is not to give anything to people that they aren't already getting, it's to punsih those who have so that he can give more to those that are already taking.You don't have to look to deep to realize that although he has amassed a lot of wealth, he hates the wealthy.

 

[Minor Axis]

You don't have to look to deep to realize that although he has amassed a lot of wealth, he hates the wealthy.

You mean those with "conservative leanings" think he hates the wealthy. There are rich guys who say, I don't mind paying the taxes and others who bitch and moan about it. A lot depends on where you are coming from, what you think is important, and how much it is all about you...

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

You mean those with "conservative leanings" think he hates the wealthy. There are rich guys who say, I don't mind paying the taxes and others who bitch and moan about it. A lot depends on where you are coming from, what you think is important, and how much it is all about you...

I have no issues paying taxes, my point it where does it stop? I was always taught not to give someone more power than you are willing to let be abused. To me if we shrunk government, strictly governed welfare, both corporate and private, managed social security and medicare/medicaid and the VA BETTER, we wouldn't have the lofty tax burden we have.
And since the middle class is all but crippled financially, he has no choice right now except to hit the wealthier that much harder.

Does that only make sense to me or what?

 

[Minor Axis]

And since the middle class is all but crippled financially.

Gee, whose responsible for that? (rhetorical question)

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Gee, whose responsible for that? (rhetorical question)

Piss poor management of large corporations. Certainly not my fault. Give GM 50 billion and they still can't keep afloat.

 

[retro]

Here's a question... if we keep taking money from the "rich" and taxing their companies into the ground, doesn't it stand to reason that there's not going to be any more money available if we continue with the philosophy of taking from the rich to give to the poor?

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Here's a question... if we keep taking money from the "rich" and taxing their companies into the ground, doesn't it stand to reason that there's not going to be any more money available if we continue with the philosophy of taking from the rich to give to the poor?

At least someone see's it! However, if they send these companies into the ground, the government can nationalize them Run them with low paying government workers, and reap all the profit. You can then have that great government healthcare plan...For the people, not the one that senators and the president enjoy.