Obama wins

@ Millionz

Yes i just pointed out that one, cause this really blows my mind from time to time.

And for the other ones, its not about increased Government regulation, its also about _better_ government regulation.

Top US economist like Joseph Stiglitz, Larry Summers or Paul Krugman are demanding what Obama is going to try to do. Lawrence was the treasury secretary in the Clinton era, guess he has some credibility.

Of course you can sit there and wait for the self-healing capacity of the Free Market, but its not going well right now, isnt it?

Once again, its about better regulation, not about creating a communist command economy. Do you think Obama is going to take your Money and spread it? nobodys wealth is going to be spread.

Fox News did a great Job in creating Socialism Paranoia i guess.
 
Millionz said:
Well a lot of his policies are such as universal healthcare, increased government regulation, "spreading the wealth" are very socialist. Which to be honest I don't see how someone can say they aren't.
Click to expand...
There really isn't universal health care under Obama's plan. Universal health insurance coverage is a different beast. Increased regulation isn't socialist. Regulation is required in a capitalist system to insure there's competition. Once a monopoly arises, all that "world peace" goes out the window.

Good post Jaxel. I dunno if I agree with your example but I agree with your main general argument 100%
Click to expand...
All that "free market" means is a handful of companies would be able to enjoy unfettered monopoly status. The free market only works like how libertarians imagine when there is constant competition. It also assumes that consumers always make informed decisions and are smart. (Personally, I don't trust giant corporations to look out for anything but their own self interests.) The theory that even monopolies are vulnerable to competition doesn't make any sense. How this is accomplished when a monopoly would control the supply, distribution, and pricing of a market sector is cheerfully dismissed by libertarians generally.
 
Amazon.com: No Contest: The Case Against Competition: Alfie Kohn: Books
While I don't agree with the majority of this book, it makes some interesting points on how protecting competition and preventing monopolies is yet another problem of government propoganda. The idea of competition in general is what creates this "only look out for ones self" attitude. Competition basically means that you can only suceed at someone else's failures. So in order to not fail, you must fuck everyone else over; and it is in large part the fault of our government for perpetuating this ideology.

Kohn, a journalist whose work has appeared in such publications as The Nation and Psychology Today , has written a timely summary of research and commentary by others on the psychology of competitiveness. He seeks to debunk "the rationalizations for competition"that it is inevitable, more productive, more enjoyable, and likely to build character. In closely reasoned argument he shows that, while competition is deeply ingrained, it is also inherently destructive, especially where self-esteem is contingent on winning at the expense of others. The book, which lacks depth only in its discussion of organizational behavior and the incentive for creativity, will provoke considerable discussion. Recommended for general collections and subject collections on social interaction. William Abrams, Portland State Univ. Lib., Ore.
Click to expand...
 
Marginal said:
There really isn't universal health care under Obama's plan. Universal health insurance coverage is a different beast. Increased regulation isn't socialist. Regulation is required in a capitalist system to insure there's competition. Once a monopoly arises, all that "world peace" goes out the window.
Click to expand...

Even Ron Paul, champion of the free market and hero of the bandwagon-riding political neophyte, mentioned that the government needs to play a role in making sure companies don't game the market by using deception.

People, for the love of all things, STOP POLARIZING SHIT. Free markets have been shown by history and stated by economists to be susceptible to boom/crash cycles and entities stifling competition. That may be fine for a market, but that's awful for a nation. Instilling rules to prevent that for the betterment of the nation is not socialist i.e. the FUCKING OPPOSITE END OF THE ECONOMIC SPECTRUM.

Do people even know what defines socialism? This is a serious question.
 
Jaxel said:
Amazon.com: No Contest: The Case Against Competition: Alfie Kohn: Books
While I don't agree with the majority of this book, it makes some interesting points on how protecting competition and preventing monopolies is yet another problem of government propoganda. The idea of competition in general is what creates this "only look out for ones self" attitude. Competition basically means that you can only suceed at someone else's failures. So in order to not fail, you must fuck everyone else over; and it is in large part the fault of our government for perpetuating this ideology.
Click to expand...
How does the book explain Standard Oil? They were all for enlightened helping of their fellow man?
 
33kbz7o.gif
 
Cloud073 said:
It would be worse...if we were Canada
Click to expand...

I love it whenever people say that. It makes you guys sound like you're jealous of Canada, and you don't even seem to realize it. This image is further strengthened by the fact that this sentence is getting really popular in the lands of the rednecks.
 
docvizzo said:
Next Stalin? Serious? The Stalin who killed about 1,5 Million people?

Obama a socialist? Lol. Do you mean Communist or do you think he social? Do you even know what you are talking? Socialism is a wide term. Stalin, WTF.

Dont make yourself ridicolous.
Click to expand...

Socialism is not a wide term:
Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

This is what Obama means to do by spreading the wealth, increasing high income taxes and giving his seal of approval to companies in the form of taxes.

All this will have to be regulated by the government. Jobs will be created in these regulating organs. So at first it will be great, because unemployment will decrease. Except that this money isn't created, it will have to be paid by those not working for the government.

Essays and books have been written on the subject. If you would like to educate yourself, you are free to do so, but something tells me you rather stick with your current beliefs. It's a lot easier. Call me a nut, call me ridiculous. I would have done the same 8 years ago. I have enjoyed education, but after that I have not stopped educating myself. When your imagination hits a wall, you resort to these kind of tactics. I am not offended. It's human nature.

Stalin is responsbile for 20 million deaths in his age. This is estimation is on the conservative side. He got into power the same way as Khomeini in Iran, Pol Pot in Indonesia, Hitler in Germany, Moa in China, Castro in Cuba.

Obama did not win because of his actions or his history. He won despite of them. He won because he has charisma and delivers fantastic speeches. Speeches which are built around a few keywords which are vague promises: Change, hope, wealth, a better America, a better World. Around these promises he states facts no one can deny. He associates these words with current troubles in America and fools everyone.

All the people listed above have had the same charisma, appeal and delivery of words. All of them shared another characteristic: Narcissistic Personality Disorder

Don't take my word for it. I'm not an expert in that field. But Sam Vaknin is.

Obama thrives on power and attention. And the cult of personality built around him gives him just that. If he cannot deliver on his promises people will turn away from him and he will resent them for it.

Mankind learns nothing from history.

"I feel like we got a righteous wind at our backs here, but we’re going to have to work. We’re going to have to struggle. We’re going to have to fight."
- Barack Hussein Obama in a speech for the voters in Virginia


"The ill wind of opportunism is falling, the righteous wind of socialism is on the rise.

By the end of this year the victory of socialism will be greatly assured. Naturally there will be many struggles ahead and we must struggle hard."
- From the writings of Chairman Mao.

I am not an American, but unlike most Europeans I support America. Unlike most Europeans, I support Israel. Unlike most Europeans I did not pretend my embrace of either candidate mattered one bit. I am not telling Americans what to do. I am simply observing.
 
harlekein said:
Obama did not win because of his actions or his history. He won despite of them. He won because he has charisma and delivers fantastic speeches. Speeches which are built around a few keywords which are vague promises: Change, hope, wealth, a better America, a better World. Around these promises he states facts no one can deny. He associates these words with current troubles in America and fools everyone.
Click to expand...
That doesn't say much other than that Obama ran a standard presidential campaign.
All the people listed above have had the same charisma, appeal and delivery of words. All of them shared another characteristic: Narcistic Personality Disorder
Click to expand...
So now Obama's one step short of a sociopath? LOL. (NPD people view other people as tools, have no emotional attachment to other people etc.) You're getting quite a lot of mileage out of an extremely superficial look at the man.

Also, if you believe that Obama will somehow pave the way for the destruction of Israel, you really are misinformed. Israel is simply too strategically important to the US.
 
Om my God, you are an idiot, this is unbelievable.

First i was talking about Stalins purge of his own State Apparatus, in which he killed estimated 1,5 Million to achieve his position.

Furthermore, youre an idiot once again. Are you comparing Obama to Hitler,Stalin and Mao?

This is hilarious. and LOL at the Compare between the Obama and Mao Quote.
 
Marginal, I have added a source to that claim, because I realised just stating it would not be sufficient.
 
Only time will tell. I hope you are right and I am being paranoid.

I am comparing the way Obama played the people like the way these other leaders played their people. The consequences hopefully will be entirely different, but you cannot look at these basic facts and deny them.
 
Seriously, why even reply to that?

FDR, in response to the Depression, introduced FAR AND AWAY more powerful government control and regulation in the private sector than Obama could muster. FDR, too, was a great speaker that the country could get behind.

Yet, in no point in my many history classes do I recall this this country over the past century turning into a Stalinist socialist dictatorship with 20 million people killed.


It's like some asshole saying that Bush is Hitler. Just nod your head in their direction and continue on your way.
 
I said at worst. Not definitely.

But nevermind, I'm out of this thread. I have hit a wall. Instead of using arguments you simply put up a wall. Again: I don't hold it against you. It's human nature.
 
Oh you said at worst? Now this changes everything.

So you are covering you argumentation with both extreme sitautions, maybe he is going to do well, or he WILL BE THE NEXT STALIN. WHOO. Paranoia.

This is not an argument, its like saying, "maybe the match will be good or it will be bad".
 
Actually, it's like saying "maybe the match will be good or maybe IT WILL RESULT IN THE DESTRUCTION OF TEXAS"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back