• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama = Ghandi, Mandela?

What is your opinion when Obama is compared to Ghandi and Mandela?


  • Total voters
    27
I don't think the US has had a statesman of the stature of Gandhi and Mandela since Lincoln and even that's debatable. I'm not baiting, that's just how I feel. I'm a Brit and I don't think we've ever had one of that stature, Churchill most definitely included.

Or of the comparisons, I would suggest General Washington.
 
This isn't primarily a libertarian sentiment. The OWS movement generally shares the same sentiment.
My point is that the entire goal of socialism is to eliminate the bourgeoisie.
 
My point is that the entire goal of socialism is to eliminate the bourgeoisie.

Perhaps according to your definition. But there is no one concrete point of socialism.
 
Perhaps according to your definition. But there is no one concrete point of socialism.
What is your definition? "Regulation of the economy" does not equal socialism, and it never has historically. Hopefully it never will.
 
The only people I would even attempt to compare to Ghandi...are Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, in this country. Carter is Bad Ass good, and Clinton seems to be trying to make up for past deeds.
 
What is your definition? "Regulation of the economy" does not equal socialism, and it never has historically. Hopefully it never will.

I never even mentioned regulation of the economy. Though I originally brought up "socialism for the rich..." phrase, the term does not specifically adhere to strict socialism. In reality, "privatized profits, socialized losses" is far more accurate. This is because:

In political discourse, the phrase "privatizing profits and socializing losses" refers to any instance of speculators benefitting (privately) from profits, but not taking losses, by pushing the losses onto society at large, particularly via the government.

These sentiments have been echoed since time immemorial.

"I have had men watching you for a long time and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the Bank. ... You are a den of vipers and thieves." —Andrew Jackson, 1834, on closing the Second Bank of the United States;

But more to my point, I don't think the democratic socialists in Europe believe in a complete obliteration of the bourgeoisie.
 
The only people I would even attempt to compare to Ghandi...are Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, in this country. Carter is Bad Ass good, and Clinton seems to be trying to make up for past deeds.

Definitely not. In order for me to accept that comparison, I would have look strictly at their deeds AFTER leaving the presidency, and that would be a VERY generous comparison.

During their time in office (ESPECIALLY Clinton), they were nothing like Gandhi. Carter, maybe a little bit. Clinton, DEFINITELY NOT.
 
Definitely not. In order for me to accept that comparison, I would have look strictly at their deeds AFTER leaving the presidency, and that would be a VERY generous comparison.

During their time in office (ESPECIALLY Clinton), they were nothing like Gandhi. Carter, maybe a little bit. Clinton, DEFINITELY NOT.

My comparison was definately post presidency...eight years is not a lifetime. Neither were great presidents, but both are great men as was Ghandi...thus the comparison.

If you are playing from the GOP angle...please show me one of your guys who has done ANYTHING after his term....and I will not accept the Bush/Haiti crap for 12 hrs.
 
Well that is a painfully misleading headline. Nowhere in that clip did he compare himself to either Gandhi or Madela.
He did cleraly indicate that he wasn't a Gandhi or Madela in the clip. The equate must must be somewhere else in the speech, right?
 
I thought to myself the other day...

Between Barack Obama and Ron Paul, who really deserved the Nobel Peace Prize?
Yes, this is a hard one. Let's see the Nobel Peace Prize is normally given to someone that is concerned with World Peace and does something about it. That would be Ron Paul right? But, oh poo, I listened to him yesterday and somehow I missed his expression of concern about World Peace. I guess I'm supposed to listen more and more and hope, right?
 
My comparison was definately post presidency...eight years is not a lifetime. Neither were great presidents, but both are great men as was Ghandi...thus the comparison.

If you are playing from the GOP angle...please show me one of your guys who has done ANYTHING after his term....and I will not accept the Bush/Haiti crap for 12 hrs.

Don't be so quick to judge me as a member of the GOP. I take an issue with aggressive war-mongers and carpet bombers regardless of their party affiliation. I just want to make sure democrats KNOW their guy is just as bad as his GOP predecessor. There's nothing anti-war about the democrat party.
 
Yes, this is a hard one. Let's see the Nobel Peace Prize is normally given to someone that is concerned with World Peace and does something about it. That would be Ron Paul right? But, oh poo, I listened to him yesterday and somehow I missed his expression of concern about World Peace. I guess I'm supposed to listen more and more and hope, right?

Ron Paul has consistently expressed outrage over aggressive wars and presidents who feel the need to carpet bomb other countries. He has used his power in office to fulfill this agenda from day one. Just because you might be looking at one speech about the economy and there's no discussion of war doesn't deviate from the fact of the matter. Ron Paul is anti-war (at least aggressive, interventionist war).

Obama, on the other hand, has yet to rescind the 9/12 powers originally signed by GWB. He has continued to order drone attacks, assassinations, outsourced torture, and troop surges in places where troops should be marching out.
 
Don't be so quick to judge me as a member of the GOP. I take an issue with aggressive war-mongers and carpet bombers regardless of their party affiliation. I just want to make sure democrats KNOW their guy is just as bad as his GOP predecessor. There's nothing anti-war about the democrat party.


Agreed, but these guys playin GOP ball, scare the freakin' hell outa me in so many ways, it makes me ashamed to ever have been republican.
 
The speech in context was about change, how the ordinary citizen is necessary and how it takes time. His mentioning these great men let's us in, as ordinary people, as to who inspires him, who he wishes to emulate:

‘The civil rights movement was hard,’ he told his audience of donors, while talking about how difficult it is to bring about 'change' in politics.
‘Winning the vote for women was hard. Making sure that workers had some basic protections was hard.
‘Around the world, Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, what they did was hard. It takes time. It takes more than a single term.
It takes more than a single president. It takes more than a single individual.
'What it takes is ordinary citizens who keep believe, who are committed to fighting and pushing and inching this country closer and closer to our highest ideals.

'Change is hard' Obama tells fundraiser as he compares himself to Ghandi and Mandela | Mail Online
Frankly, putting Obamas words into their full context doesnt help him much. Obama is talking about "change" which is ostensibly the word most closely associated with his campaign. But the trouble for Obama is that next to the change Mandela and Ghandi brought, his change is the equivalent of changing underwear. There is no question that Obama is likening himself to those who fought for real change in the hopes that some people will be fooled into thinking his goals and his agenda are on some sort of equal plane as theirs. Next to the great change agents of history, Obama is a pretender; more a defender of the status quo than an agent of change.
 
Agreed, but these guys playin GOP ball, scare the freakin' hell outa me in so many ways, it makes me ashamed to ever have been republican.

I wish they would scare more members of their own party. But I also wish Clinton's massacre in Kosovo and Iraq would have scared his own party members as well.
 
Well ill be damned. Another conservative taking an article and misquoting it and making a provactive title, with the only hope to bashing Obama. Now if you actually read the article you will find how ridiculously stupid this article is cuz no where does Obama compare himself to Ghandi or Mandella.
But to answer, Obama is no where close to Ghandi or Mandella.

I guess you're damned then because I simply posted what was provided by the site. I didn't misquote anything.... yet more dishonesty? I'm so surprised... [/sarcasm].
 
:lamo I laughed for like ten minutes when I read the title of this poll. Seriously does anyone out there think Obama is important enough to be compared to either of those two men? To me the idea is laughable.
 
:lamo I laughed for like ten minutes when I read the title of this poll. Seriously does anyone out there think Obama is important enough to be compared to either of those two men? To me the idea is laughable.

I guess the OP did.
 
I guess the OP did.

Amazing to me... I mean if we remember much about Obama twenty years from now, I doubt it will be much good. Even if he does win a second term, he just hasn't done anything all that great.

Also I would love to know who said Obama is above Ghandi. I have to know if they were just kidding or if they are serious...
 
Last edited:
I never met any of the 3 so how do I know?
 
This is a completely inaccurate thread spreading false claims. Obama has never directly claimed to be like any of those individuals you listed. The media made this statement, not him. More false information being spread by Obama's critics, find some useful and accurate to break down, not false accusations. Good luck in this upcoming election.
 
:lamo I laughed for like ten minutes when I read the title of this poll. Seriously does anyone out there think Obama is important enough to be compared to either of those two men? To me the idea is laughable.

Hey hey hey... just wait a second there. Obama is a Nobel Laureate, so was Ghandi and Mandela.
 
Back
Top Bottom