Is this poster racist?

[thatmariolover]

I just think associating Obama with Socialism is almost as inaccurate as associating The Joker with it.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by thatmariolover

I just think associating Obama with Socialism is almost as inaccurate as associating The Joker with it.

This assertion intrigues me, since I think it's pretty clear that Pres. Obama has shown to lean more towards socialist/fascist solutions to problems and not capitalist. Once again, thats not to say he's a socialist or a fascist, but when problems arise he seems to default to government control rather than economic freedom, and that tendency certainly doesn't fall into the realm of capitalism. Also, I think we can at least make more of a connection between Obama and socialism than Obama and anarchism if we were forced to make the association (I can't think of one policy that you could remotely compare to anarchy).

To Everyone:

Looking at the definitions of the following "isms", which do you think President Obama's economic policies resemble most considering his administration's reaction to the recession, the investment banks and car industry in particular? He must have more in common with one area than the others, in your opinion. I'd encourage you to keep to the economic portions of the debate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

Also, there is no pejorative associated with any of these answers. I'd prefer to have clarity in this case than agreement.

EDIT: If I missed any "isms" please feel free to post them.

[TheGame]

Prof I'm curious. What's your opinion of Bush and Clinton? What has Barrack Obama pushed for that neither of them would have?

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Prof I'm curious. What's your opinion of Bush and Clinton? What has Barrack Obama pushed for that neither of them would have?

Please don't change the subject. I've asked a fair question and I'd like you to answer it. If you like, we can address your topic after mine is addressed.

[TheGame]

Well, my answer that we've been dealing with both conservative socialists, and liberal socialists. They go about things different ways, but in the end everyone is pushing us towards socialism. Which is why I posed the question.

However, that's just my opinion, I'm curious what yours is.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by TheGame

Well, my answer that we've been dealing with both conservative socialists, and liberal socialists. They go about things different ways, but in the end everyone is pushing us towards socialism. Which is why I posed the question.

However, that's just my opinion, I'm curious what yours is.

Well, while Bush did push the spending up a good bit, I don't think the nature of his spending ever went in the direction of owning portions of private companies, unlawfully terminating contracts to stakeholders or worse yet, "firing" the CEO's of privately held companies. I think we can confiendently say Bush would never have made those decisions, whether or not you view them as the appropriate actions. It just so happens those actions bounce between being socialist and fascist, and in ways that have never been done before, or not since FDR.

In other social spending, Bush funded a LOT of private charity with public funds, including religious groups. Pres. Obama seems to want to put those funds towards public groups instead, like AmeriCorps.

As for healthcare, Bush pushed for mainly private plans such as health savings accounts instead of a universal public option. In social security, Bush also pushed for privatization as opposed to socialization. This was probably his greatest failure as a president (domestically, not changing tactics in Iraq was his greatest overall failure).

When it comes to the economy, Bush was hands-off, and I think he viewed it as being it's own boom to self-correcting bust animal.

As for Clinton, he too failed to install a universal public option, but when it comes to free trade and the economy, he was pretty hands off as well with Alan Greenspan having more say than he did, IMO. Clinton is a tough comparison, though, because so much of his presidency was without severe issues like Bush and Obama has experienced. It's difficult top say what he would have done in Obama's place.

IMO, the only person to compare President Obama to is really FDR in terms of policy... maybe LBJ or Carter, but even Carter never thought to intervene in the direct running of private industry.

But history is history, and this topic is about Pres. Obama's current policies, and their nature, not an attempt to cast blame or view that nature in a negative light or to change the subject to the policies of someone else.

[Seth]

The poster isn't racist. I perceived it as clearly pointing out the big fucking joke.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t=va&aid=14826

I wouldn't compare Obama to Hitler beyond the type of crowd atmosphere he draws. Little freaky imo.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Professor S

EDIT: If I missed any "isms" please feel free to post them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cronyism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)

Not exactly primary "isms," but important none-the-less.