"There's No Place Like Utopia"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 19, 2014 3:49 PM GMT


    192803_5_.jpg


  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Jul 30, 2014 11:01 AM GMT
    Lazy satirical picture. Obama shouldn't be holding the hammer and sickle. Obama isn't a Marxist or even left-wing.

    usprimaries_2008.png
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Jul 30, 2014 11:07 AM GMT
    Even when the folks at political compass looked at the 2012 presidential elections, Obama wasn't left wing. Yes, he certainly moved on the compass, but not to the left.

    http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Jul 30, 2014 11:10 AM GMT
    sets3.png

    This is quite useful.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 02, 2014 7:45 PM GMT
    Only a fool would deny that the Democrat Party has turned hard Left.

    Only a fool would deny that its Dear Leader was schooled in Marxism from an early age and that Marxism animates his motivations and policies.

    Maobama and his accomplices work for one goal: Party power through expansion of the central government without discernible limit.

    Marxism, Statism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism -- the pursuit of a phony utopia through increased central government control is the same.

    Maobama may not have effected state ownership of the means of production, or turned the U.S. into Cuba, but that is his trajectory.

    Relative to the individual liberty and limited government intended by the Founders and the U.S. Constitution, Maobama is indeed a subversive Marxist trying to fundamentally transform a once great nation into a socialist cesspool.
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 03, 2014 6:11 PM GMT
    jockfever saidOnly a fool would deny that the Democrat Party has turned hard Left.

    Only a fool would deny that its Dear Leader was schooled in Marxism from an early age and that Marxism animates his motivations and policies.

    Maobama and his accomplices work for one goal: Party power through expansion of the central government without discernible limit.

    Marxism, Statism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism -- the pursuit of a phony utopia through increased central government control is the same.

    Maobama may not have effected state ownership of the means of production, or turned the U.S. into Cuba, but that is his trajectory.

    Relative to the individual liberty and limited government intended by the Founders and the U.S. Constitution, Maobama is indeed a subversive Marxist trying to fundamentally transform a once great nation into a socialist cesspool.


    First things first. Please don't refer to Barrack Obama as "Maobama", it's just degrading to political discourse, and as much as you'd wish it were true, the United States isn't a dictatorship. I'd say the same thing for other leaders who are considered "right wing". Over here in the UK, there is a man attempting to topple the EU (good on him) called ‘Nigel Farage’, however, he is being compared to Adolf Hitler - which is just simply lazy. You do it again when you refer to him as "Dear Leader", which is a blatant reference to North Korea. North Korea and the US are nothing alike politically or ethically. So until Barrack Obama gleefully massacres thousands or millions of people in his own homeland (presuming you’re not a truther that believes that 9/11 was planned), then you’re statement concerning him being a totalitarian leader would be correct. Until that day, there is no truth in it. It’s like when somebody compares David Cameron to General Augusto Pinochet.

    Now I shall address your points as best I can, attempting to logically squeeze past your rhetoric and find the ideological views that you are expressing (you should work as a propagandist).

    “Marxism, Statism, socialism, liberalism, progressivism -- the pursuit of a phony utopia through increased central government control is the same”.
    This statement is factually correct in the sense that all the ideologies (bar two) concern centralising government, but if you understand Marxism, the power is put in the hands of the many, not of the few (another reason why Obama isn’t a Marxist – you don’t even say “pseudo-marxist”). Marxism is about direct democracy – I assume you know what this is, if not read it up, and you’ll understand that the US government isn’t “hard left”. Also, you seem to be politically incoherent in this sentence, you say that “liberalism” is about giving power to the state. Far from it. If you’ve read any liberal scholars and writers (JS Mill is the most obvious one that leaps to mind), you’ll know that liberalism concerns criticising power, and being pro-freedom: freedom of speech, freedom of expression and so forth. Thus, you’ve managed to somehow use pseudo-intellectual rhetoric to compare Maobama and liberalism, in other words you’re suggesting, assuming under your logic that Barrack Obama is a dictator: that totalitarianism and liberalism are ideologies which are similar. This is a falsehood. Progressivism has nothing to do with state-control, but merely to do with Cultural Marxism. In this sense it's about the control of language - something I disagree with fundamentally - however, you can't say that this is associated with statism as in the United States you have those gorgeous freedom of speech laws.

    In terms of the “phony utopia” statement – whether socialism works or not is an argument for another time - I will happily debate this by the way.

    “Maobama may not have effected state ownership of the means of production, or turned the U.S. into Cuba, but that is his trajectory.”
    Nonsense. The US is a capitalist society. As you have blatantly demonstrated, you do not wish to accept this fact, ignoring the political compass diagrams – which are written and created by political science scholars and are looked highly upon by figures left and right. Thus this seems to suggest to me that you suffer from confirmation bias. You will accept only propaganda which suggests that Obama is a mad dictator and nothing else. You will always believe that he is a lefty even if scrupulous political scientists and intellectuals who spend their days and lives observing and critiquing politics say otherwise.

    “Relative to the individual liberty and limited government intended by the Founders and the U.S. Constitution, Maobama is indeed a subversive Marxist trying to fundamentally transform a once great nation into a socialist cesspool.”
    Again, he’s a capitalist – in the authoritarian-right quadrant of the political compass section. Furthermore from this, if you ever spoke to anyone of the "Hard left" or read any "Hard left" literature and blogs, you would discover that the majority of them wouldn't vote democrat...but how shall I put it(?): an actual left-wing party.

    Now, I think I have to put it to you in clear words judging by your style of writing, I assume that you may believe that anyone who criticises you is Pro-Obama. I am not Pro-Obama. There I said it.

    Also, just read the bloody communist manifesto and compare Obama and Marx. You’ll see that they’re not alike politically, philosophically and not to mention their styles of facial hair.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 03, 2014 7:15 PM GMT
    jaroslav123 saidEven when the folks at political compass looked at the 2012 presidential elections, Obama wasn't left wing. Yes, he certainly moved on the compass, but not to the left.

    http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

    I'm not disputing the analysis of your source when considering worldwide political systems. And it is appropriate because this is an international forum. However when we are discussing US politics primarily but not exclusively among US citizens, the terms left and right are relative to the US. In the wintertime someone in a cold-weather states such as Montana could tell me it's cold outside. I could respond and say no it's not really cold. Antarctica is cold.
  • jaroslav123

    Posts: 600

    Aug 03, 2014 9:47 PM GMT
    socalfitness said
    jaroslav123 saidEven when the folks at political compass looked at the 2012 presidential elections, Obama wasn't left wing. Yes, he certainly moved on the compass, but not to the left.

    http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

    I'm not disputing the analysis of your source when considering worldwide political systems. And it is appropriate because this is an international forum. However when we are discussing US politics primarily but not exclusively among US citizens, the terms left and right are relative to the US. In the wintertime someone in a cold-weather states such as Montana could tell me it's cold outside. I could respond and say no it's not really cold. Antarctica is cold.


    The point of the political compass is to add nuance to the left-right dichotomy by adding another one into it (libertarian/authoritarian). I don't quite get your point, if you're discussing how left-right cannot be applied then the political compass fixes this (in a sense).

    However, if you're talking about the rejection of ideology entirely, then...well...get on reading post-positivist shizzle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postpositivism
    There's probably tonnes written about postmodernism & postpositivism in politics.