Obama's Communist Administration. .

topic posted Sun, September 27, 2009 - 10:58 AM by  ~lorenzo!
has actual Soviet Communist Czars!!! I kid you not. . .this website is totally lunatic. .
  • B
    offline 124

    gag me.
    • I do take issue with the "Soviet" description. But I do also wonder about the constitutionality of all these positions of power being given away to lunatic friends left and right. Yes, Bush did it too, and I didn't like it then either. But nobody has done it to the level of your beloved Obama.
      • hopefully it is an effort to assign accountability, to be flexible in responding to significant issues by targeting them with resources and organization support. . .but who the fuck knows?
        • "targeting them with resources and organization support" Sounds like throwing money at them. My money. Taken from me at gunpoint. For things like buying majority ownership of companies like AIG, Chrysler, and GM? If I wanted to own stock in those companies, I would have bought some. But I tend to shy away from companies that are so badly managed.
          • Unsu...
            Didn't Obama appoint the nimrod who ran AIG into the ground to a position where he could run the entire into the ground? He definitely ain't the messiah a lot of liberal folks make him out to be IMO. I'm glad someone else around here is keeping an eye on the money...
            • Unsu...
              " the entire country into the ground?"

              Brain fart...
              • B
                offline 124
                His entire economic team is composed of the people that either created the mess or were complicit in the financial meltdown. His administration is as beholding to the moneyed interests as every other one maybe more. Notihing new to see.

                He will throw the liberals a few bones like maybe someday stopping the use of torture. But the big picture of who runs this country remains firmly in the hands of corporations and the financial interests.
                • Unsu...
                  As Mel Brooks may say, "America has the best government money can buy!"

                  I'm relieved to have a president that can form coherent sentences and inspire people, but the root entropy continues...
      • "constitutionality of all these positions of power"

        As I understand it, the "czars" are advisors who serve at the pleasure of the President and have no power of their own.
        • As you understand it. That would mean, as Obama has explained it to you? Or have you really looked at it? I looked up "Czar" and "advisor" in the dictionary, and they didn't seem to be even remotely related.
          • Czar is a figure of speech, which dates back to the Nixon administration. They don't actually have any more power than his cabinet members do.
            • Actually, much less. Cabinet officers have budgets with billions under their signatures and thousands or millions of subordinates, they do things like move armies around and negotiate treaties with foreign governments . . . "czars" get an office and a secretary and a few aides and spend their time doing research and reviewing government policy . . . now and then, they get to write a report . . . ooh, ooh, big excitement!
              • Doesn't sound like something worth wasting money on, does it?
                • The budget a "czar" gets to play with is probably less than it costs to clean the bathrooms in the Capitol building . . .
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    A segment of the US's population considers any form of cogitation as unmanly. Thinking things through and seeking advice and advisement from educated engaged minds is, by champions such as our respondent, as somehow *not* a vital part of society.

                    They have been in charge for quite some time now, in a country that values easily digested masturbatory TV BS over stuff that's hard to read and not even a little bit fun or funny. Let's stop pretending they are "equal" or have the "right" to shit all over the world. Just for mmmm say 32 years. In 32 years, *then* I'll pretend this level of politics isn't obviously retarded and evil. For a *little* while.

                    Trying to talk sense to this sort of marauding doofus is a waste of time and merely increases mutual acrimony. Asshole buffoons turn schurlish when you attempt to make sense to them; they think you are making fun of them.
                    • Since all you are capable of is personal attacks, I have to agree. Exactly what is it that "we" have been doing for the last 32 years that you have a problem with, and who exactly is "we?" Or should I say "they?" One of Obama's recent appointees, I can't remember which one, there have been so many, has said that in the case of ambiguously written law, the courts should not decide what is right and wrong. That decision should be left to the President. First, why can't a few hundred lawyers get together and write a law that is clear enough so as not to need interpretation by the courts? Second, will this "Czar" still think that the President should be deciding these things three and a half years from now, when a Republican is back in the White House?
                    • B
                      offline 124
                      <Trying to talk sense to this sort of marauding doofus is a waste of time and merely increases mutual acrimony.>

                      Or put in another way.

                      Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes you time and annoys the pig.

                      However political debate has a long and cherished history in this country. Once there is a debate. Which starts with facts.
      • Unsu...
        People like you think the term "czar" is the actual job title. And that Czars were somehow Soviet.

        A better argument for better education there has never been.
        • Dave, I'm still waiting for you and Loki to refute one thing I have said, or to do anything other than sling insults and call names. I remember arguing like that in the past. In second grade.
          • You haven't made any "points", Lester, unless your secret mission is to create a target for people who like to snarl, "see? all these fake-ass professing 'republicans' are nothing more than illiterate apes who will do nothing but create static while their betters are discussing complex problems, and who bellow their shocking imbecility around as if its a gift of virtue they bestow on their victims".

            You bring nothing to "refute" but some markedly stupid opinion; you force your audience to cull it from your incoherent babbling and it is based, I ween, only on fearful incomprehension, ignorance, and inability to apprehend even the simplest aspects of the mess you've made of the world. Sit down and clamp it shut, hero; your species' nakedly racist pogrom against decency and sanity has done enough good for one millennium. Your personal command of facts and rhetoric alike has already provided quite enough entertainment, I think. Now piffle off and go drink some nice beer or something. Mmmm!
            • Ok, I've lost track of how many times I have mentioned to you, Loki, that I am not a Republican. My party has not been given the chance to make any messes in this world. Only yours and the other one that have been in power. I despise the Republicans, probably almost as much as you do. See? We agree on something. Where we disagree is that I despise the Democrats just a little bit more.
              • >>Where we disagree is that I despise the Democrats just a little bit more. <<

                I think where we disagree has something more to do with ethics and morals, ntm observation and analysis of reality, than it does with imaginary political blocs. My apologies, though, for associating you with your ideological supporters. That was hasty.
                • Yes, you're right, it's ethics and morals. I have some, you have none. Can you explain to me how it is moral to take money by force from a person that has worked hard and created things for the use of others through his work? No, seriously, I want to see how you can justify theft, just because it is being committed by government.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
                    If you think taxation is immoral, move to Somalia, it's the only moral country on the Earth. As a Christian, I do not consider taxation immoral (Matt. 22:21), but I understand that the "conservatives" include many heathens who reject Christ and his teachings.
                    • Ok, I think this about the sixth or seventh time, but some of you still don't get it. I am not a conservative, nor am I a Republican. And I am certainly not a christian. Quoting a book of fairy tales impresses me a little less than referring to wikipedia or
                      • You seem to feel you've made a cogent argument somewhere - could you point me to it? Your weird insistence that your brainless non sequitir and empty rhetoric constitute "argument" is getting confusing. Haven't you any sort of pride in yourself? Make a coherent point or get steppin' over to the Lurker Lounge, champ. Life is short. Wasting it on wading through your next lamest excuse for ignorant paranoid bigoted pants-wetting is getting mightily tedious.

                        I'm sure the *other* bolthole denizens are wowed by your stammering; you'll need more to impress this room. Sift through facts for *1* hour and see if you can find something - anything - that supports your bizarre and rather romantic fear-fetish for Obama.
                      • NOTHING you say impresses me in the slightest, because you have never produced any evidence to support your ridiculous statements.
                        • I'm sorry, Forrest. . .Cheech and Chong have a tangential relevance, which relates to the detection of bogus evidence. .
                          • Sorry, I was talking to Lester. Cheech and Chong have more relevance than his posts.
                            • Cheech and Chong rock, there's no doubt about that. Now, as for relevance, wasn't it you, Forrest, that quoted the bible here in a political discussion? I guess some of you see relevance in that.

                              I was going to save this for later, but I might as well use it now. I have a tendency to look at people's associations in judging their behavior. For example, we here in California have an initiative process on our ballots. I know many states don't have that, so here's how it goes. Some organization or another comes up with enough money to collect enough signatures to put a question on the ballot. Then each side lies about what effect the initiative will have on the state. We get to try to decide which lies we come the closest to believing, and vote up or down on the question, which is usually carefully worded so as to make you think that voting yes means yes, when actually it means no, and vice versa. Now, in my quest to make sense out of the lies from each side, I have a tendency to look at what organizations are telling each lie, so that I can get a sense of who will be made happy, and who will be made sad, should the initiative pass.

                              Now, in looking at who supported Obama the most, one organization I saw was ACORN. Ok, that's one big strike against Obama for me. I saw quite a few more that looked bad. Shady organizations like the Black Panthers, you know, the kind that condone violence as a way of changing perceived problems. Then, after the election, I saw this quote, and it kind of reinforced the opinion I had held as soon as I started looking at Obama's background.

                              "I was standing on the Washington Mall on Inauguration Day, alongside nearly two million other people on Inauguration Day, and proudly watched the first African American take the oath of office in our nation’s history. That alone made the day deeply memorable, joyful, and historic. But I couldn’t help but think – and I’m sure that millions of others had the same thought – that the transfer of power from Bush to President Obama not only tore down a barrier that once was thought near impenetrable, but also signified the fading away of one era and the beginning of another.

                              "It was hard not to think on that cold day in our nation’s capital that the worst of the past 30 years of right wing extremist rule is behind us and that an era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream.

                              Just look at the new lay of the land: a friend of labor and its allies sits in the White House. Larger Democratic majorities control Congress. A feeling of renewal and hope is in the air. Public opinion polls show a high favorability rating for our new President. And the labor and people’s movement that was so instrumental to the election’s outcome, after a short holiday pause, is off and running."

                              Sam Webb
                              Chairman Communist Party USA

                              In my recollection, I don't believe that the Communist Part has ever been quite so taken with anyone in the White House. I know, many of you believe that communism is a good thing, and having the endorsement of the Communist Party isn't a bad mark on a candidate at all, but then again, you probably still believe the USSR was a great place to live.