Is Obama a Socialist or a Communist?

Neither, he is a Bildenberg puppet.

This is beyond a ridiculous poll. Obama neither Socialist or Communist. If you look at his policies and what he has done...it mimics a Democrat is who close to the center. He gets things like the Affordable Healthcare Act which appeases the left and these military drone strikes which appeases the right (even though they won't admit it in an election year).

If you honestly think he is either communist or socialist then you have no idea what those two political ideologies are.

AreteCourage said:

This is beyond a ridiculous poll. Obama neither Socialist or Communist. If you look at his policies and what he has done...it mimics a Democrat is who close to the center. He gets things like the Affordable Healthcare Act which appeases the left and these military drone strikes which appeases the right (even though they won't admit it in an election year).

If you honestly think he is either communist or socialist then you have no idea what those two political ideologies are.

Click to expand...

If you are real the nation is in peril.

Misterveritis said:

If you are real the nation is in peril.

Click to expand...

The nation is in peril for a lot of different reasons.

1) The two big parties are bought by corporate special interests. (That would mean we lean more towards Fascism than Socialism or Communism)
2) Neither party offers anything that would reduce our horrid deficit
3) There always has to be an enemy with both parties to distract the public from our own domestic issues.
4) Continued Spending on welfare and military
5) Foreign aid given when we don't have the money

There are more but it mostly revolves around our crumbling financial situation.

AreteCourage said:

The nation is in peril for a lot of different reasons.

1) The two big parties are bought by corporate special interests. (That would mean we lean more towards Fascism than Socialism or Communism)
2) Neither party offers anything that would reduce our horrid deficit
3) There always has to be an enemy with both parties to distract the public from our own domestic issues.
4) Continued Spending on welfare and military
5) Foreign aid given when we don't have the money

There are more but it mostly revolves around our crumbling financial situation.

Click to expand...

There are things here I do agree with, even if only partially.
I do see that the one term Marxist is using regulations to fascistically control private companies.
Democrats do intend to spend us into a fundamental transformation.
Republicans do have a plan but it is not widely known. Romney should fix that. Ryan can help.
There will always be enemies. We did not seek out the Soviet Union to be our enemy. They chose us. Ditto the Islamofascists.
I agree on welfare. I disagree on military. Why? National defense is one of the primary reasons to even have a nation. On the other hand taking wealth from the ones who create it to give to the marginal, the slothful, and dare I say it, the democratic base is simply wrong moreally and constitutionally.
Foreign aid should be used when it advances our national interests.

corporatism |ˈkôrp(ə)rəˌtizəm| noun -- the control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

Click to expand...

I'm gonna go with "Corporatist" for now.

Misterveritis said:

There are things here I do agree with, even if only partially.
I do see that the one term Marxist is using regulations to fascistically control private companies.
Democrats do intend to spend us into a fundamental transformation.
Republicans do have a plan but it is not widely known. Romney should fix that. Ryan can help.
There will always be enemies. We did not seek out the Soviet Union to be our enemy. They chose us. Ditto the Islamofascists.
I agree on welfare. I disagree on military. Why? National defense is one of the primary reasons to even have a nation. On the other hand taking wealth from the ones who create it to give to the marginal, the slothful, and dare I say it, the democratic base is simply wrong moreally and constitutionally.
Foreign aid should be used when it advances our national interests.

Click to expand...

Ok so you basically agree with everything that goes against the left, but nothing that goes against the right.

Republicans have a plan to cut on proposed future spending. That is hardly a plan to reduce spending and get this deficit under control. Republicans also want to INCREASE spending on the military budget which already eats up a little above 700 Billion annually. In contrast, the next country (China) only spends a little under 150 Billion on that budget.

There doesn't always have to be enemies of our country. The Soviet Union in gone. China is more of a economic foe than anything else. This term Islamofacist is made up to give further scrutiny to Muslims by grouping them with Fascism which is a buzz word for evil now a days. We now SEEK out enemies. Funny thing is that some of our enemies now...we supported in the past. Funnier still is that some countries that we helped "liberate"...those rebels were Al-Quida. Now we consider the Taliban an enemy, but in the 80s we supported them and called them "freedom fighters."

Foreign aid shouldn't be used when we don't have the money. We keep devaluing our currency by printing more and giving it away. Foreign aid is the easiest way to save and cut spending. Stop doing it. I understand that will hurt some countries, but we cannot be the saviors of the world. We got to live within our means before our entire financial situation collapses.

I'm gonna go with "Corporatist" for now.

Click to expand...

Well as Mussolini said..."Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

Option #3 :

Socio-Communist

AreteCourage said:

Ok so you basically agree with everything that goes against the left, but nothing that goes against the right.

Click to expand...

As you have stated the issues...

Republicans have a plan to cut on proposed future spending.

Click to expand...

Yeah. One step at a time. First stop the bleeding. Then sew the arms and legs back on the torso.

That is hardly a plan to reduce spending and get this deficit under control.

Click to expand...

Or you could choose option two, vote for the one term Marxist and pass the point of no return right onto the ash heap of history. Good thinking.

Republicans also want to INCREASE spending on the military budget which already eats up a little above 700 Billion annually. In contrast, the next country (China) only spends a little under 150 Billion on that budget.

Click to expand...

Super. Our military should be the best trained, equipped and provisioned of any possible rival world wide. I believe our Navy should be focused around 16-18 aircraft carrier battle groups. I believe the Air Force should have at least twenty bomber squadrons, another twenty fighter squadrons and a half dozen training squadrons. Our Army should have 30 armor heavy brigades plus another 50 light infantry brigades. I believe the special operations command should have a variety of classified and unclassified capabilities with no less than 100,000 available for deployment.

That ought to run about a trillion a year.

There doesn't always have to be enemies of our country.

Click to expand...

Now all you have to do is convince our enemies.

The Soviet Union in gone. China is more of a economic foe than anything else. This term Islamofacist is made up to give further scrutiny to Muslims by grouping them with Fascism which is a buzz word for evil now a days. We now SEEK out enemies. Funny thing is that some of our enemies now...we supported in the past. Funnier still is that some countries that we helped "liberate"...those rebels were Al-Quida. Now we consider the Taliban an enemy, but in the 80s we supported them and called them "freedom fighters."

Click to expand...

It is as if history began for you about ten years after the date of your birth. It is typical.

Foreign aid shouldn't be used when we don't have the money. We keep devaluing our currency by printing more and giving it away. Foreign aid is the easiest way to save and cut spending. Stop doing it. I understand that will hurt some countries, but we cannot be the saviors of the world. We got to live within our means before our entire financial situation collapses.

Click to expand...

While I agree with you somewhat a complete elimination of all foreign aid would slow the hemorrhaging of money and the value of our assets by about five minutes.

Well as Mussolini said..."Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

Click to expand...

I don't follow him much. Is he a CEO of some Fortune 500 corporation?

Misterveritis said:

As you have stated the issues...


Yeah. One step at a time. First stop the bleeding. Then sew the arms and legs back on the torso.

Click to expand...

This is putting a band aid on a broken arm. You have to cut spending not cut a little on proposed future spending.

Or you could choose option two, vote for the one term Marxist and pass the point of no return right onto the ash heap of history. Good thinking.

Click to expand...

Or option 3...vote for neither of them because they both are terrible for our country.

Super. Our military should be the best trained, equipped and provisioned of any possible rival world wide. I believe our Navy should be focused around 16-18 aircraft carrier battle groups. I believe the Air Force should have at least twenty bomber squadrons, another twenty fighter squadrons and a half dozen training squadrons. Our Army should have 30 armor heavy brigades plus another 50 light infantry brigades. I believe the special operations command should have a variety of classified and unclassified capabilities with no less than 100,000 available for deployment.

That ought to run about a trillion a year.

Click to expand...

A Trillion? Where exactly are we going to get this type of figure every year hmm? I'm all ears because you wouldn't even get close if you cut all welfare across the board. No, we have to be realists about spending and that includes the military budget that the right sees as sacred. I would like to see it drop from 700 Billion down to 300 Billion in a span of about 4-5 years. That along with the gradual decrease in welfare over that same period would stop the bleeding so to speak.

Now all you have to do is convince our enemies.

Click to expand...

That we created...

It is as if history began for you about ten years after the date of your birth. It is typical.

Click to expand...

Shall we go back to the ill conceived Vietnam War...or would you rather colonial times?

While I agree with you somewhat a complete elimination of all foreign aid would slow the hemorrhaging of money and the value of our assets by about five minutes.

Click to expand...

Just cutting foreign aid and nothing more...your probably right. However, this along with cuts to the military and welfare state would go a long way.

I don't follow him much. Is he a CEO of some Fortune 500 corporation?

Click to expand...

Ha Ha HA....how very sarcastic of you. Benito Mussolini told the truth when speaking of Fascism as it was in Italy. He may have been a mass murdering tyrant, but he wasn't wrong about Fascism

AreteCourage said:

Well as Mussolini said..."Fascism should rightly be called Corporatism, as it is the merger of corporate and government power."

Click to expand...

I think if one were to honestly take stock of the Republicrats, they would see that it isn't communism or socialism, it's fascism. Clear as day. Heightened sense of nationalism? "If you're not with us, you're against us". Check. Big Brother policy and law? Hella-Check. Forever War? Check check and check again. Corporate State? Super check. People want to throw -isms around, but they should at least get it right.

Ikari said:

I think if one were to honestly take stock of the Republicrats, they would see that it isn't communism or socialism, it's fascism. Clear as day. Heightened sense of nationalism? "If you're not with us, you're against us". Check. Big Brother policy and law? Hella-Check. Forever War? Check check and check again. Corporate State? Super check. People want to throw -isms around, but they should at least get it right.

Click to expand...

Well, at least you should try to get it right.

AreteCourage said:

This is putting a band aid on a broken arm. You have to cut spending not cut a little on proposed future spending.

Click to expand...

We can agree on the end point while we disagree on how to get there.

Or option 3...vote for neither of them because they both are terrible for our country.

Click to expand...

I believed that Mitt was a horrible candidate until I saw him talk about the entitlement mentality of the 47%, encouraged by the one term Marxist's policies. Now I am solidly behind him. I will be sending him money and will volunteer to call people. I can see that Mitt Romney get is and he will stand with the 53% and help many of the 47% become worthwhile, productive citizens again. Further, I was very impressed that Mitt clearly loves this nation. I am thrilled to consider that once again we will have an American president--who loves his country.

A Trillion? Where exactly are we going to get this type of figure every year hmm? I'm all ears because you wouldn't even get close if you cut all welfare across the board. No, we have to be realists about spending and that includes the military budget that the right sees as sacred. I would like to see it drop from 700 Billion down to 300 Billion in a span of about 4-5 years. That along with the gradual decrease in welfare over that same period would stop the bleeding so to speak.

Click to expand...

I think we would have that and more if we eliminated all of the extra-constitutional agencies, like the EPA for example.

We have different values. I prefer the Constitutional functions like defense of the unconstitutional functions that abound.

I would say socialist.

In an Obama video from 1998, this is what he says:

"..... I think the trick is figuring out how do we structure government systems that pool resources, and hence facilitate some redistribution, because I actually believe in redistribution, at least at a certain level, to make sure that everybody's got a shot."



In Video, Obama Says He Believes In 'Redistribution' - Business Insider

It's amazing to me... apart from a couple of us...that nobody sees that Obama is a socialist ... how can you spell it to them so they can understand?

may be they want to be fed by the government? like in Russia in the 1960s?

I am at a loss here.

Misterveritis said:

We can agree on the end point while we disagree on how to get there.

Click to expand...

Yes we both agree that spending must be halted. I liked Rand Paul's idea of a spending freeze for a few years to get to a balanced budget.

I believed that Mitt was a horrible candidate until I saw him talk about the entitlement mentality of the 47%, encouraged by the one term Marxist's policies. Now I am solidly behind him. I will be sending him money and will volunteer to call people. I can see that Mitt Romney get is and he will stand with the 53% and help many of the 47% become worthwhile, productive citizens again. Further, I was very impressed that Mitt clearly loves this nation. I am thrilled to consider that once again we will have an American president--who loves his country.

Click to expand...

Wow...

You drank that cup of crap as if it were a glass of Dom Perignon. 47% of the people are not on entitlements. 47% of the people don't feel like victims. It was such an out of context statement that Romney made, and I am absolutely amazed that some people agreed with that nonsense. Do you understand that if nearly half of our population were on entitlements that our financial system would have collapsed years ago? Of that 47% that don't pay income taxes...a lot are/were Romney supporters. The elderly made up 44% of that 47% Romney was referring to. The wealthy (his buddies) made up 5-10% of that 47%. Another 30+% are people who get tax breaks based on the number of children they have and so forth which is a Republican backed policy. So we're talking of that 47%..less than 20% are on entitlement programs. He also alienated military vets with that statement who come home unemployed. It was jackass thing to say...and you agree with it...

Just unbelievable.

I think we would have that and more if we eliminated all of the extra-constitutional agencies, like the EPA for example.

We have different values. I prefer the Constitutional functions like defense of the unconstitutional functions that abound.

Click to expand...

EPA, Homeland Security, Education, Energy...etc...I'm with you on that, but you still have to shave off this 700 Billion military spending.

I'm a Libertarian...I'm all about the Constitution. We don't need to spend money we don't have to maintain a great national defense. Matter of fact, we stretch our troops and resources too thin by being in 130 countries worldwide. We need to scale it down big time.

Misterveritis said:

Well, at least you should try to get it right.

Click to expand...

I'm more in the Yoda camp, do or do not, there is no try. I did. Sorry if you don't agree with the proper designation, but the more people wake up to the Republocrats and the government around us, the better.

Communism is only one form of "socialism" just as fascism is. Communism rules by committee, fascism rules by a single dictator but both are socialistic. Both sacrifice the freedom and rights of the individual in order to be subservient to the "state." Obama's statements taken as a whole are indicative of his actually being a socialist: by what degree has yet to be displayed. His attempts at centralized governmental control of essentially all aspects of private sector actions or infringements onto individual state's rights should be evidence enough that his basic philosophy runs against the reasons why our country was founded in the first place.

His, and some extremists of the Democratic Party, want more and more control of people's lives and their ability to make individual decisions. Hence "Obama Care" where everyone now faces an added tax penalty for not buying some form of healthcare coverage. No different than if he and Congress had issued an edict stating that people in this country will be required to buy only American made cars and those who buy foreign made cars will face a stiff tax "penalty." That policy goes against everything this country stands for. Despite the Supreme Court's ruling, this IS unconstitutional!

What government or political party or country's leader, operating in a free market capitalistic economy, has the right to dictate what you will purchase and who from???

Proof positive that Obama is not only a Socialist, at the very least, but also the antithesis, an anathema to what we as free Americans have fought and died for and hold dearly and celebrate every 4th of July!

FreeMarket said:

fascism rules by a single dictator but both are socialistic.

Click to expand...

A fascist state does not necessarily need to be a dictatorship. Oligarchy works just as well.

Oligarchy....yes that makes sense

He is neither. This country has ideas which could be considered Socialist but most people that I have "talked to" on other webs including this one have no idea what those two words mean. To them they are just words to scare people. Most people like that think the Soviet Union was Communist. In terms of ideology it was closer to Fascism because the state ran almost everything or contolled everything and did not allow dissent.

So for those of you who are going to say well then he was a Fascist. I have a question. "if this is so, how can you still be here?"

Wolfman24

Ikari said:

I'm more in the Yoda camp, do or do not, there is no try. I did. Sorry if you don't agree with the proper designation, but the more people wake up to the Republocrats and the government around us, the better.

Click to expand...

Well if you believe as Yoda did that you should do or do not then you should have stuck with the latter.

Misterveritis said:

Well if you believe as Yoda did that you should do or do not then you should have stuck with the latter.

Click to expand...

Why? So that you could continue moving on being wrong? Nope, I am here to correct all the ignorance of the world, even yours.

Do you have a point or anything to add other than comments you cannot back up? That's pretty much what I thought.

He is neither, of course.
But, in this case, we do need a better people.
The conservatives/tea-baggers/racists hate him as he does believe in "sharing the wealth"...as do most decent people...
But these ****/****/**** are a small minority who receive far too much press.

Ikari said:

Why? So that you could continue moving on being wrong? Nope, I am here to correct all the ignorance of the world, even yours.

Do you have a point or anything to add other than comments you cannot back up? That's pretty much what I thought.

Click to expand...

Nobel....and a super-inflated ego.....
I'd consider it to be quite an achievement if I could "correct" 0.01% of the ignorance of 0.01 % of the people....and a little of mine.