I love how less than 20 years after the Soveit union diolved, the United States has already elected their own commie dictator. Onward Government Motors, to victory!
I love how less than 20 years after the Soveit union diolved, the United States has already elected their own commie dictator. Onward Government Motors, to victory!
What an intelligent post here. Commie dictator? Why in the world would you assume that he is a communist in the first place (even though communism isn't naturally bad. Totalitarianism is) , and what signs of a dictator has he shown?
I think the true test for Obama is going to be how he deals with North Korea. The way he deals with a second Korean war will surely show if he's really up to the presidency or not.
Agreed. About the actions by Obama, not the "second Korean war" thing. We don't really know if one's really going to happen, but there have been instances where I question that thought. If so, I bet one million yen that the U.S. and its allies are going to discriminate Koreans and other Asians JUST for being a Korean, when they had no involvement in the hypothetical war. It happened in WWII, Vietnam war, and the War on Terror; it's going to happen again.
It all depends on how he handles it, though. If what he executes is in favor of everyone else, his approval rating will rise. If not, then it will sink.
If what he executes is in favor of everyone else, his approval rating will rise. If not, then it will sink.
For people, not the media right? He would have to commit genocide for the media to look down on him.
I love how less than 20 years after the Soveit union diolved, the United States has already elected their own commie dictator. Onward Government Motors, to victory!
For the first and last time, I agree with Kirby. He's not communist, he's socialist. Learn the difference. And yes, it is no longer General Motors, it's government motors. They own 60% of it, making it a socialist company. But like I said, learn the difference. For all the bias of everyone on this site, you take the gold medal.
Jesus F**king Christ, he's not a socialist. And Gm isn't necessarily a socialist institution - it is the way it is because it went bankrupt and it's too important to fail, so the government is supporting it. And alos, he's actually quite capitalist - the socialist party of America said that he's being waaaay too capitalist. And he hasn't done a single socialist thing - government ownership of companies in this case is to help support them until they don't need supporting anymore. . . .
Obama =/= socialist Obama =/= ANYWHERE NEAR SOCIALIST, GODDAMMIT
Yes, it is a socialist institution. The government will destroy GM if it tries to disown it. They made the fatal error of taking 60% of it. That basically means that it will take 30 years to disown it to the point where they can release it all together. Well, he ain't capitalist, he might not be socialist, but he sure as hell ain't capitalist. Capitalists don't interfere with non-essential industries, which the auto industry is NOT essential to the survival of the US. And I would like to meet his economic advisors, they could help me get an A+ on my EPIC FAIL Studies Class. I'm at the moment at a D-. Does anyone know how I can contact them?
GM carried/carries such a weight in our economy that it could be argued that it was an essential institution when taken under government control. I do agree that 60% was too much though.
And about the EPIC FAIL studies class. . . .wouldn't failing fail class be the ultimate fail? Because that would mean that you fail at everything, even failing. . . . So much failing it's fallacious! > >
Anyway, I'm also failing epic fail class. And also, how is he not capitalist?
Really though, you seem to hate Obama for the sake of it. Cite examples of how he's made critical bad moves, instead of backing up your opinions with mudlslinging. It doesn't exactly work very well.
And RESEARCH SOCIALISM. All it is means that there will be a dictatorship of the proletariat (Obama never said he advocated it) and common ownership of all means of production (COMMON ownership, not government ownership.)
Therefore, since Obama hasn't been making socialist reforms or agreeing with socialist views or SAYING OR DOING ANYTHING LOGICALLY SOCIALIST, he's not a socialist. Impressive, eh? The power of logic.
Capitalists don't interfere with non-essential industries, which the auto industry is NOT essential to the survival of the US.
You talk a lot about capitalism, but I don't think you get how it works. If the auto industries go down, millions of American workers lose their jobs. Which means there is no income. Which means that there is no money circulating around by the purchasing of goods.
In fact, it would be more of a socialist move to let the companies die, because more people would end up on government-provided welfare.
Capitalists don't interfere with non-essential industries,
That's if you still in laissez-faire and trickle down bullshit from the Reagan Administration that got us into this mess in the first place.
Oh ya, tell me why he's now going back on most if not all the things he's said. Oh, and one way he's socialist is spread the wealth, and government health care (Which he plans to spend 1.5 TRILLION dollars on), and Marxism. I mean seriously, explain why. By the way, 1.5 trillion dollars is more money than all the presidents combined. Okay, maybe not, but pretty dam close. By the way, why aren't there any mentionable dictators in europe? I mean, come on, half the continent is socialist.
That's if you still in laissez-faire and trickle down bull**** from the Reagan Administration that got us into this mess in the first place.
What, you think snowballs start at the bottom of hills? WRONG! It took a dam war to get us out of a depression in the '30s, and Reagan got us out of one that was so close to becoming a depression, it's not even funny. Employers can't pay their workers if the government is destroying them. Free money is worthless money, and a disgrace to America, which is what this country was founded on. If you give tax cuts to companies, they then have more money to buy amenities, or pay their workers more, or whatever. If you increase taxes on companies, they have less money to do things, and need to let people go to be able to afford these things.
Oh, and one way he's socialist is spread the wealth,
That's not socialist necessarily.
--------
And he just wants a government plan to be an option. . .not a must. And how does Marxism correlate with Obama?
-------
1.5 trillion is really far away. Bush alone added about 10 trillion to our national debt during his time in office. Combined with all other presidents, Obama has a long way to go.
----------
What, you think snowballs start at the bottom of hills? WRONG!
TSL uses bad analogy! It's not very effective. . . .
Technically, if I'm paying my neighbor 10% of my wage because he is to lazy to get up and work himself, that's socialist.
No, it isn't. It's spreading the wealth. Which is not a socialist thing necessarily.
------
Think of the snow as the money. If we move lots of snow to the top of the mountain, the workers (the children making snowballs) wouldn't be able to make snowballs to create more snow being thrown around. (cashflow.) If all of it is at the bottom, there's too much for the children to be out at all. If there's a balance, then big snowballs can start down, and the children can still help the throwing of the snowballs. JUST trickle-down is nowhere near enough to make an economy work on it's own.
Duh. I ain't stupid I meant in what. What did he spend ten trillion on? And where do you get your figures?
JUST trickle-down is nowhere near enough to make an economy work on it's own.
No it's not, but neither is a trickle up. You make it sound as if the trickle down is the spawn of the devil, when in reality it's the only thing that works in a recession. A trickle up doesn't get cash flowing if nobody has a job because of heavy taxation of EVERY business that they used to work for.
