• 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!

Is Obama a Socialist or a Communist?

Which is he

  • Total voters
    31
Misterveritis said:
In other words you have nothing.

My arguments were about corruption. Some here mistakenly believe the one term Marxist embraces capitalism. he doesn't. The actions of his administration, including the three examples above illustrate my point.

This also shows me a great deal about you. Thanks for the insights.
Click to expand...

No; you have nothing. You have anti-union sour grapes. "One term marxist" . . .

You now have no credibility.

Thanks for playing.
 
OnWisconsin said:
Good luck with that...
Click to expand...
Thank you. Getting out the vote will be essential. I am certain nearly all of the voting dead will vote for democrats. I am certain that all of the felons will vote for democrats. I am certain that the illegals who vote will vote for democrats. So we need to get the greatest possible numbers of real voters to the polls to vote for Romney.

After President Romney is inaugurated we shall have to hold his feet to the fire. A Romney win will only be the beginning of a very long struggle to return us to liberty and freedom. We need to undo the mess all the way back to the first Roosevelt.
 
Andalublue said:
Since we are discussing Barack Obama, not Mycroft, what are you blathering about? I'm not remotely interested in your political identity.
Click to expand...

Oh...I see.

So, you just picked me to spout off your opinions to...even though they don't have anything to do with anything I've said.

Hmmm...you must get some good conversations that way, eh?
 
KopeAcetic said:
That's pretty much the point of my post, the democrats feel the same way, because their politicians are telling them that they have been doing the same. That is the exact team mentality I'm talking about, "I'm obviously not a bad person, and I believe this, the other party is on the other side so obviously they're the bad ones and I've had to give up my good ideas to give into their bad ones."

This isn't a team sport, or at least it shouldn't be.
Click to expand...

The problem is once you start compromising with a group that is too far away from your own you start to give up much of your fundamental stances and as time goes on you start to notice that the country is nothing like what you want and the deals that are on the table have nothing in common with any of your stances. For example, if you don't want government involved in healthcare the idea its on the table is troublesome from the start and in order to compromise you have to first admit you will not stand for anything you believe in and that you are basically just going to allow them to win, but just by not as much. That simply is not good enough and not a good reason to go to the table.
 
Misterveritis said:
No. But spending one's formative years in an Islamic environment with a Socialist father and mother certainly influences one's path.
Click to expand...

You don't mold into who you are between 1st and 4th grade, also, he attended a Catholic school for his last two years in Indonesia, it wasn't all Islamic.

Are you playing with me or are you serious?
Click to expand...

Answer the question.


A recent piece of evidence is his truthful moment when he said, If you've got a business, you didn't build that.

Click to expand...


I'm going to assume context clues weren't your strong point in English class. He said 'You didn't build that', meaning the roads and bridges, the internet, and infrastructure that was there before you (the businessman/women) came along.
 
megaprogman said:
When I was a child, I was surrounded by people on drugs, failures at life, rejects, and other similar people in a very poor part of the country. For a time, my parents did drugs (all the way up until I was 21 or so, based on stories from my brother), they split up twice and got back together, my dad was abusive up until the second split up, and our home culture wasn't exactly the best as you can imagine.

Who am I today?
1. I am quite well off (so are my parents actually, but it came to them very late in life and I had to help them with it) and am above the top 20 percent of households (I made 8 an hour about 10 years ago for comparison) while still being in my early 30s.
2. I still live in a poor part of the country (rural georgia)
3. I do not do drugs, I don't even drink or smoke.
4. My wife and I have had a very solid marriage with only one time it being so bad that we even considered not sleeping in the same bedroom
5. My child is special needs child with autism and somehow I resist my frustration from being overwhelming enough to act out (and trust me, some days are worse than others)
6. My kids don't even cuss and our home culture is quite good despite challenges from point 5.

What you are growing up may or may not have anything to do with who you are as an adult, this is the perspective on which I look at your paranoia.
Click to expand...
If you embraced the drug culture, if your ghost-written books proclaimed to the world that you carefully sought out the drug users, the drug dealers, the enforcers and the bullies through your college years then your story would be similar to the one term Marxist's story.

If he had not embraced the Marxist, socialist, Progressive influences, if he had not embraced radicals perhaps we would have a reasonably good president. But he did embrace the Marxists, the socialists, the Progressives, and the radicals.
 
Henrin said:
The problem is once you start compromising with a group that is too far away from your own you start to give up much of your fundamental stances and as time goes on you start to notice that the country is nothing like what you want and the deals that are on the table have nothing in common with any of your stances.
Click to expand...

Again you summed up my thesis perfectly.

Henrin said:
For example, if you don't want government involved in healthcare the idea its on the table is troublesome from the start and in order to compromise you have to first admit you will not stand for anything you believe in and that you are basically just going to allow them to win, but just by not as much. That simply is not good enough and not a good reason to go to the table.
Click to expand...

Look at this and replace "government involved in healthcare" with "private insurance companies involved in healthcare" and you're at the democrat's side of the issue. This is the team mentality. Both sides have given stuff up and feel regretful of it because the other side got the other part of their desires. Each side can say the same, that they partially gave in and this all would have been for the better if they got what they wanted fully.
 
KopeAcetic said:
Again you summed up my thesis perfectly.

Look at this and replace "government involved in healthcare" with "private insurance companies involved in healthcare" and you're at the democrat's side of the issue. This is the team mentality. Both sides have given stuff up and feel regretful of it because the other side got the other part of their desires. Each side can say the same, that they partially gave in and this all would have been for the better if they got what they wanted fully.
Click to expand...

The republicans never wanted anything and the only reason that crappy plan was ever put together was because the democrats wanted to get involved. I also don't how democrats can claim that they aren't always winning, sure they might see it as losing that didn't win in completion, but they always get more out of the deal than anyone else.
 
spud_meister said:
Since so many right wingers describe Obama as a "Socialist/Communist/", or some variation thereof, I figure by now they'll have made up their minds about which one of these mutually exclusive political philosophies he is.

Remember though, as Socialist believes in sharing wealth, to many different degrees depending on which flavour they are, a Communist, on the other hand, believes in a classless, stateless society where the means of production are evenly distributed. And if he's a Marxist (as is often claimed), then he wants to attain this through violent revolution.
Click to expand...

Actually socialism is redistribution of wealth to promote social equality and govt control of industry. By that textbook definition, Obama is a socialist. He strongly beleives in redistribution of wealth, and govt control of all sorts of industries. No, hes not a pure socialist. Yes, Republicans and most of america are socialists too.
 
Henrin said:
The republicans never wanted anything and the only reason that crappy plan was ever put together was because the democrats wanted to get involved. I also don't how democrats can claim that they aren't always winning, sure they might see it as losing that didn't win in completion, but they always get more out of the deal than anyone else.
Click to expand...

Ok, democrats initiated this legislation, now let's look at abortion. Democrats don't want to initiate any legislation, they want it to be free reign, and between the doctor and the patient for them to decide whatever they want. Republicans believe that this is murdering innocent lives so they want to initiate legislation to stop that. Democrats don't want any legislation, so anything that is put on the table the democrats negotiate their own current freedoms (what they believe to be...) down.

This isn't a one issue problem, this is a general mentality problem for both sides and it's only getting worse because people have stopped believing the other side can be correct and we can work together.
 
jonny5 said:
Actually socialism is redistribution of wealth to promote social equality and govt control of industry. By that textbook definition, Obama is a socialist. He strongly beleives in redistribution of wealth, and govt control of all sorts of industries. No, hes not a pure socialist. Yes, Republicans and most of america are socialists too.
Click to expand...

The last sentence most people will never admit.
 
Das Sozialist said:
You don't mold into who you are between 1st and 4th grade, also, he attended a Catholic school for his last two years in Indonesia, it wasn't all Islamic.
Click to expand...
His step-father was Indonesian. He was also a socialist. His mother was a socialist or Progressive. He was there from 1967 to 1971. You may claim tht he was not influenced by Islam but he has said the call to prayer is one of the prettiest sounds.
Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”​





I'm going to assume context clues weren't your strong point in English class. He said 'You didn't build that', meaning the roads and bridges, the internet, and infrastructure that was there before you (the businessman/women) came along.
Click to expand...
I am going to assume that you are an Obama supporter blind to the obvious.
 
Misterveritis said:
If you embraced the drug culture, if your ghost-written books proclaimed to the world that you carefully sought out the drug users, the drug dealers, the enforcers and the bullies through your college years then your story would be similar to the one term Marxist's story.

If he had not embraced the Marxist, socialist, Progressive influences, if he had not embraced radicals perhaps we would have a reasonably good president. But he did embrace the Marxists, the socialists, the Progressives, and the radicals.
Click to expand...

I was careful to stick to nonaddictive drugs, but yes I have been friends with drug dealers and I have done drugs. For quite a few years, I was a part of Goth/Rivethead culture.
 
KopeAcetic said:
Ok, democrats initiated this legislation, now let's look at abortion. Democrats don't want to initiate any legislation, they want it to be free reign, and between the doctor and the patient for them to decide whatever they want. Republicans believe that this is murdering innocent lives so they want to initiate legislation to stop that. Democrats don't want any legislation, so anything that is put on the table the democrats negotiate their own current freedoms (what they believe to be...) down.

This isn't a one issue problem, this is a general mentality problem for both sides and it's only getting worse because people have stopped believing the other side can be correct and we can work together.
Click to expand...

We cant work together. Its time to split up. Why should two groups of people fundementally opposed to each other continue to fight over governence? It makes more sense for each to go form their own societies.
 
Where is the 'Who cares' option?

What possible difference does it make?

What he has (and has not) done in 3 1/2 years in office is what matters.

He is what he is - a very interesting man and (like all of his predecessors lately - Dem and Rep) a crappy POTUS.
 
Henrin said:
The last sentence most people will never admit.
Click to expand...

Its pretty obvious. Republicans generally support progressive taxation and govt control/involvment of all sort of industries and the economy. They simply dont want nearly all out socialism like democrats do. Ie, Republicans want govt involvement in healthcare, but not single payer. Republicans want the rich to pay most of the taxes, but not all. Democrats want single payer and for the rich to pay all the taxes.
 
DA60 said:
Where is the 'Who cares' option?

What possible difference does it make?

What he has (and has not) done in 3/12 years in office is what matters.

He is what he is - a very interesting man and (like most of his predecessors - Dem and Rep) a crappy POTUS.
Click to expand...

It makes a difference because if he admitted it and embraced it, democrats would lose popularity. Liberal and socialist are dirty words, althought people dont really understand why. But thats why Dems call themselves 'progressive' now.
 
jonny5 said:
We cant work together. Its time to split up. Why should two groups of people fundementally opposed to each other continue to fight over governence? It makes more sense for each to go form their own societies.
Click to expand...

are you seriously advocating to split the country?
 
jonny5 said:
We cant work together. Its time to split up. Why should two groups of people fundementally opposed to each other continue to fight over governence? It makes more sense for each to go form their own societies.
Click to expand...

Given that most of the fight is between rural and urban centers, how would you propose splitting the country in a way where land is contiguous among the different cultures?
 
jonny5 said:
It makes a difference because if he admitted it and embraced it, democrats would lose popularity. Liberal and socialist are dirty words, althought people dont really understand why. But thats why Dems call themselves 'progressive' now.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.

But I, personally, do not care what he calls himself.

Nor do I care what most voters do either - I assume at least 2/3'rds of U.S. voters are politically clueless.

Anyone that votes for either party in this election - imo - has not a clue what America really needs.

Both Romney and Obama will end up (if they do what they claim they will do) making America worse off then it is now. Probably much worse.
 
Obama is a huge Multi-Cultural Internationalist (MCI) .. with inklings of a Corporate Global Expansionist (CGE).

Thus he is a danger to American citizens by virtue of these alone.

His CGE inklings definitely highlight his support of American corporations, which are capitalist profit-is-everything entities by statute definition.

To attempt to classify Obama as a socialist/communist/marxist is so old-school-irrelevant in this day and age.

What truly matters regarding its affect on Americans is how a president sees the "global economy" and whether the president cares or not about the obvious damaging effects of the "global economy" on American citizens -- the "global economy" which is merely an obvious euphemism for wage-slave workers in a borderless countryless world.

Obama in that regard is dangerous to Americans, as his MCI ideology coupled with his CGE support strips him of his patriotic loyalty to the common socioeconomic defense and general financial welfare of the overwhelming majority of his fellow Americans.
 
Misterveritis said:
His step-father was Indonesian. He was also a socialist. His mother was a socialist or Progressive. He was there from 1967 to 1971. You may claim tht he was not influenced by Islam but he has said the call to prayer is one of the prettiest sounds.
Mr. Obama recalled the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer, reciting them with a first-rate accent. In a remark that seemed delightfully uncalculated (it’ll give Alabama voters heart attacks), Mr. Obama described the call to prayer as “one of the prettiest sounds on Earth at sunset.”​

Click to expand...


I didn't hear Obama reciting the Call to Prayer in that video, did you? And why does it matter if he finds it to be a pretty sound? Liking a sound makes you a Muslim?

I am going to assume that you are an Obama supporter blind to the obvious.
Click to expand...

Not at all, I don't believe Obama deserves a second term. And you still didn't answer my question.
 
Das Sozialist said:
I didn't hear Obama reciting the Call to Prayer in that video, did you? And why does it matter if he finds it to be a pretty sound? Liking a sound makes you a Muslim?
Click to expand...
No. That was not the point. The point was that after living in Muslim Indonesia as a young boy he was able to flawlessly recite the evening call to prayer in Arabic. The call is a profession of Muslim faith. I wanted people to hear what that prayer sounds like and see what the translated words are.

If this impressionable young man absorbed so much of Islam that he could recite the call of faith in Arabic a few year ago then it is equally likely that being steeped in Marxist dogma, socialist and Progressive beliefs would also be absorbed. It was child abuse that has led to nation abuse.
 
Misterveritis said:
No. That was not the point. The point was that after living in Muslim Indonesia as a young boy he was able to flawlessly recite the evening call to prayer in Arabic. The call is a profession of Muslim faith. I wanted people to hear what that prayer sounds like and see what the translated words are.
Click to expand...

Do you mind sourcing that? You've linked a video that does not prove your statement.

If this impressionable young man absorbed so much of Islam that he could recite the call of faith in Arabic a few year ago then it is equally likely that being steeped in Marxist dogma, socialist and Progressive beliefs would also be absorbed. It was child abuse that has led to nation abuse.
Click to expand...

Again, how do you know he could recite the prayer? Do you have proof? Video, Audio, a statement from Obama? What's your proof?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom