Brand Obama - what we were sold (what we have now)

[Baldy]

You need to pay a little better attention, Cleets. Shame on you.
I was very critical of Bush multiple times for multiple reasons...from the Medicare Prescription Drug Program to the bloated highway bill...from amnesty for illegals to the start of the bailout fiasco. I'm an equal opportunity criticizer. I guess you're just pissed off because Obama has made himself such an easy target.

Shame on me... What are you my Grandmother..?
And (I'm sorry) have we had a president in 30 years who hasn't been and "Easy Target"
Mostly a series of buffoons...

The criticism from you seems to come from one direction only - the Rush Limbaugh play book
You even found a way to say the BP managed and operated oil rig explosion wasn't really BPs fault



and then you follow with "Shame on me" Seriously too funny

Have you completely sheared off the last remaining fully functional neuron in your tiny little skull? I am truly sorry if you have lost the ability to decide from which way my criticism comes, but that is a problem you will have to deal with on your own.

However, you did get one thing right in your response, I am not your grandmother, but other than that you completely whiffed, again. Never...not once did I ever say that BP wasn't at fault for the explosion on the rig in the Gulf. If you would have paid closer attention, you would know that what I did say was BP isn't the only guilty party.

Please, next time you feel the urge to respond to one of my posts...don't go half cocked, research the facts, and pay a little closer attention. Otherwise, you're just going to embarrass yourself once again.

[houndawg]

And he has been proven correct.

Proven? Says the dog with no facts.

No facts other than the fact that so-called "free market" capitalism wouldn't exist today without recent massive tax-payer-funded bailouts.

[native]

...don't go half cocked, research the facts, and pay a little closer attention. Otherwise, you're just going to embarrass yourself once again.

We could all eat a little more of that oatmeal!

[Baldy]

Proven? Says the dog with no facts.

No facts other than the fact that so-called "free market" capitalism wouldn't exist today without recent massive tax-payer-funded bailouts.

Interesting, you actually don't know how the system works.
It is called profit AND loss for a reason. In reality, the loss part is more important the the profit. "The loss" is what gets rid of poorly managed and poorly operated companies. The companies who needed a bailout should have been allowed to fail or fall into bankruptcy.
ECON 101.

[kalm]

No facts other than the fact that so-called "free market" capitalism wouldn't exist today without recent massive tax-payer-funded bailouts.

Interesting, you actually don't know how the system works.
It is called profit AND loss for a reason. In reality, the loss part is more important the the profit. "The loss" is what gets rid of poorly managed and poorly operated companies. The companies who needed a bailout should have been allowed to fail or fall into bankruptcy.
ECON 101.

And they were bailed out for two reasons and by two different administrations because 1) They were too big to fail due to right wing monopoly capitalism under the guise of the free market. 2) Corporatism - the main thrust of this thread.

So here we are right back to where we started. Perhaps you've learned something.

If not, go back to school.

[CitadelGrad]

"right wing monopoly capitalism"

Monopolies aren't right or left wing. They just are. Monopolies are antithetical to capitalism. Exactly which monopolies were bailed out?

[Chizzang]

And they were bailed out for two reasons and by two different administrations because 1) They were too big to fail due to right wing monopoly capitalism under the guise of the free market. 2) Corporatism - the main thrust of this thread.

So here we are right back to where we started. Perhaps you've learned something.

If not, go back to school.

A point I held off on making is also interesting to ponder regarding the socialist criticisms of the author and the subject of the article...

~Baldy and his team have been telling us Obama is a socialist
~And the author of this article is being called a socialist

Will the real socialist please stand up..?

You'd think these two socialists Obama and Hedges would agree...
Yet the are completely diametrically opposed

[AZGrizFan]

And they were bailed out for two reasons and by two different administrations because 1) They were too big to fail due to right wing monopoly capitalism under the guise of the free market. 2) Corporatism - the main thrust of this thread.

So here we are right back to where we started. Perhaps you've learned something.

If not, go back to school.

A point I held off on making is also interesting to ponder regarding the socialist criticisms of the author and the subject of the article...

~Baldy and his team have been telling us Obama is a socialist
~And the author of this article is being called a socialist

Will the real socialist please stand up..?

You'd think these two socialists Obama and Hedges would agree...
Yet the are completely diametrically opposed

I don't think the author of this article disagrees with Obama....he disagrees with how Obama is packaged. Big difference.

[Chizzang]

I don't think the author of this article disagrees with Obama....he disagrees with how Obama is packaged. Big difference.

Stop that... Jeezus
You're saying he likes the product but dislikes the packaging (bullsh!t AZ and you know it)
He disagrees with virtually every single thing Obama has done and calls him a "Junk Politician"
Are you afraid to acknowledge the disconnect in your argument..?

This is from the article:
The result of junk politics is that nothing changes - "meaning zero interruption in the processes and practices that strengthen existing, interlocking systems of socioeconomic advantage." It redefines traditional values, tilting "courage toward braggadocio, sympathy toward mawkishness, humility toward self-disrespect, identification with ordinary citizens toward distrust of brains." Junk politics "miniaturizes large, complex problems at home while maximizing threats from abroad. It's also given to abrupt unexplained reversals of its own public stances, often spectacularly bloating problems previously miniaturized." And finally, it "seeks at every turn to obliterate voters' consciousness of socioeconomic and other differences in their midst."

Yeah he really sounds like a big fan... of the product vs. the package

[AZGrizFan]

I don't think the author of this article disagrees with Obama....he disagrees with how Obama is packaged. Big difference.

Stop that... Jeezus
You're saying he likes the product but dislikes the packaging (bullsh!t AZ and you know it)
He disagrees with virtually every single thing Obama has done and calls him a "Junk Politician"
Are you afraid to acknowledge the disconnect in your argument..?

This is from the article:
The result of junk politics is that nothing changes - "meaning zero interruption in the processes and practices that strengthen existing, interlocking systems of socioeconomic advantage." It redefines traditional values, tilting "courage toward braggadocio, sympathy toward mawkishness, humility toward self-disrespect, identification with ordinary citizens toward distrust of brains." Junk politics "miniaturizes large, complex problems at home while maximizing threats from abroad. It's also given to abrupt unexplained reversals of its own public stances, often spectacularly bloating problems previously miniaturized." And finally, it "seeks at every turn to obliterate voters' consciousness of socioeconomic and other differences in their midst."

Yeah he really sounds like a big fan... of the product vs. the package

I think he's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (though his other writings) that what he WISHES Obama would do (and probably what he believes Obama would do if the leash was taken off) he agrees with....what Obama is ACTUALLY doing (and the junk politics being employed) he disagrees with completely.

[Chizzang]

Stop that... Jeezus
You're saying he likes the product but dislikes the packaging (bullsh!t AZ and you know it)
He disagrees with virtually every single thing Obama has done and calls him a "Junk Politician"
Are you afraid to acknowledge the disconnect in your argument..?

This is from the article:
The result of junk politics is that nothing changes - "meaning zero interruption in the processes and practices that strengthen existing, interlocking systems of socioeconomic advantage." It redefines traditional values, tilting "courage toward braggadocio, sympathy toward mawkishness, humility toward self-disrespect, identification with ordinary citizens toward distrust of brains." Junk politics "miniaturizes large, complex problems at home while maximizing threats from abroad. It's also given to abrupt unexplained reversals of its own public stances, often spectacularly bloating problems previously miniaturized." And finally, it "seeks at every turn to obliterate voters' consciousness of socioeconomic and other differences in their midst."

Yeah he really sounds like a big fan... of the product vs. the package

I think he's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (though his other writings) that what he WISHES Obama would do (and probably what he believes Obama would do if the leash was taken off) he agrees with....what Obama is ACTUALLY doing (and the junk politics being employed) he disagrees with completely.

Wrong..!!!
He hates that Obama let insurance companies write trillion dollar legislation - in their own favor - and then play acted and staged it as though he (Obama and the Democrats) were doing a favor for America - all the while the wolf was in the kitchen

READ THIS:
The junk politics practiced by Obama is a consumer fraud. It is about lies. It is about keeping us in a perpetual state of childishness. But the longer we live in illusion, the worse reality will be when it finally shatters our fantasies. Those who do not understand what is happening around them and who are overwhelmed by a brutal reality they did not expect or foresee search desperately for saviors. They beg demagogues to come to their rescue. This is the ultimate danger of the Obama Brand. It effectively masks the wanton internal destruction and theft being carried out by our corporate state. These corporations, once they have stolen trillions in taxpayer wealth, will leave tens of millions of Americans bereft, bewildered and yearning for even more potent and deadly illusions, ones that could swiftly snuff out what is left of our diminished open society.


He is about as "anti-Obama" as you can get... In fact he claims the differnce between Obama and Bush is much smaller than one would like to think... and I completely agree

[kalm]

"right wing monopoly capitalism"

Monopolies aren't right or left wing. They just are. Monopolies are antithetical to capitalism. Exactly which monopolies were bailed out?

My bad, I posted that in haste. I meant to say right wing rhetoric which extolls the virtues of a deregulated free market with disregard for the consequences of monopolistic outcomes

If Obama was a progressive he would have gone all Teddy Roosevelt and broke up the banks. If he was a socialist, he would have nationalized them.

[native]

"right wing monopoly capitalism"

Monopolies aren't right or left wing. They just are. Monopolies are antithetical to capitalism. Exactly which monopolies were bailed out?

My bad, I posted that in haste. I meant to say right wing rhetoric which extolls the virtues of a deregulated free market with disregard for the consequences of monopolistic outcomes

If Obama was a progressive he would have gone all Teddy Roosevelt and broke up the banks. If he was a socialist, he would have nationalized them.

So you think Obama IS a socialist!

[Chizzang]

My bad, I posted that in haste. I meant to say right wing rhetoric which extolls the virtues of a deregulated free market with disregard for the consequences of monopolistic outcomes

If Obama was a progressive he would have gone all Teddy Roosevelt and broke up the banks. If he was a socialist, he would have nationalized them.

So you think Obama IS a socialist!

I think Ron Paul said about Obama is accurate...'

[Ivytalk]

Hedges might as well move to France with the Baldwin brothers. The U.S. electorate will never endorse his views.

[JohnStOnge]

Let's just take a recent event. Obama just put a moratorium on deepwater offshore drilling. Do you guys think "the corporations" wanted that? Do you think it would've happend if "the coporations" controlled things?

All sorts of things happen that make it very clear the "the corporations" don't control things. Do they have influence? Sure. But they pretty obviously don't control things. Lots of things happen that "the corporations" are in opposition to.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Hedges might as well move to France with the Baldwin brothers. The U.S. electorate will never endorse his views.

Ivy, I'm missing something here because I don't know what "Hedges views" relates to exactly. Do you mean his political view or his view on Obama as per this article? I think the country is starting to quickly realize that we were duped by the shiny spots again (well, not all of us).

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

Let's just take a recent event. Obama just put a moratorium on deepwater offshore drilling. Do you guys think "the corporations" wanted that? Do you think it would've happend if "the coporations" controlled things?

All sorts of things happen that make it very clear the "the corporations" don't control things. Do they have influence? Sure. But they pretty obviously don't control things. Lots of things happen that "the corporations" are in opposition to.

I think you take things a little too seriously St. Onge. I would assume that when people say that corporations control things they are referring to an undue influence because of money. It does not mean that they are literally at the switch. If you're trying to get others to use less dramatic language in descriptions then good luck, but if you take that literally then I think you are missing some of the communication here.

[AZGrizFan]

I think he's proven beyond a shadow of a doubt (though his other writings) that what he WISHES Obama would do (and probably what he believes Obama would do if the leash was taken off) he agrees with....what Obama is ACTUALLY doing (and the junk politics being employed) he disagrees with completely.

Wrong..!!!
He hates that Obama let insurance companies write trillion dollar legislation - in their own favor - and then play acted and staged it as though he (Obama and the Democrats) were doing a favor for America - all the while the wolf was in the kitchen

READ THIS:
The junk politics practiced by Obama is a consumer fraud. It is about lies. It is about keeping us in a perpetual state of childishness. But the longer we live in illusion, the worse reality will be when it finally shatters our fantasies. Those who do not understand what is happening around them and who are overwhelmed by a brutal reality they did not expect or foresee search desperately for saviors. They beg demagogues to come to their rescue. This is the ultimate danger of the Obama Brand. It effectively masks the wanton internal destruction and theft being carried out by our corporate state. These corporations, once they have stolen trillions in taxpayer wealth, will leave tens of millions of Americans bereft, bewildered and yearning for even more potent and deadly illusions, ones that could swiftly snuff out what is left of our diminished open society.


He is about as "anti-Obama" as you can get... In fact he claims the differnce between Obama and Bush is much smaller than one would like to think... and I completely agree

EXACTLY. The Obama that campaigned is NOT the Obama we have in office...he's not NEARLY liberal enough for socialists like this guy.

[Ivytalk]

Hedges might as well move to France with the Baldwin brothers. The U.S. electorate will never endorse his views.

Ivy, I'm missing something here because I don't know what "Hedges views" relates to exactly. Do you mean his political view or his view on Obama as per this article? I think the country is starting to quickly realize that we were duped by the shiny spots again (well, not all of us).

I meant his general "southpaw" political views. Obama is getting it from both sides. Those community organizing days probably look real good right now!

[Baldy]

Interesting, you actually don't know how the system works.
It is called profit AND loss for a reason. In reality, the loss part is more important the the profit. "The loss" is what gets rid of poorly managed and poorly operated companies. The companies who needed a bailout should have been allowed to fail or fall into bankruptcy.
ECON 101.

And they were bailed out for two reasons and by two different administrations because 1) They were too big to fail due to right wing monopoly capitalism under the guise of the free market. 2) Corporatism - the main thrust of this thread.

So here we are right back to where we started. Perhaps you've learned something.

If not, go back to school.

I would love to go back to school. Come and sit in my class, it seems I need to teach you a few lessons.

Lesson #1:
In general and through time, from the granting of television and radio licenses by the government to the Interstate Commerce Commission monopolizing the trucking industry and government imposed steel tariffs protecting the US steel industry, monopolies are a product of governmental intervention in the market place.

First, I'll just give you one simple statement to answer:
Name me just one private monopoly that has had any long term success without governmental assistance.

[JohnStOnge]

I think you take things a little too seriously St. Onge. I would assume that when people say that corporations control things they are referring to an undue influence because of money. It does not mean that they are literally at the switch. If you're trying to get others to use less dramatic language in descriptions then good luck, but if you take that literally then I think you are missing some of the communication here.

Well, I guess whether or not any particular interest exercises "undue" unfluence is kind of a subjective judgement. But I don't see how anybody could look at the world around them and think that "the corporations" are anywhere close to controlling the decisions that are made. Like the regulations in place in this country. Do you think that if real estate development corporations had their way, for instance, we would have the wetlands regulation we have now in place? No way.

Or saying Obama is controlled by "the corporations." Do you think he'd be talkinga bout "cap and trade" at all if that were true? C'mon guys.

[Ursus A. Horribilis]

I think you take things a little too seriously St. Onge. I would assume that when people say that corporations control things they are referring to an undue influence because of money. It does not mean that they are literally at the switch. If you're trying to get others to use less dramatic language in descriptions then good luck, but if you take that literally then I think you are missing some of the communication here.

Or saying Obama is controlled by "the corporations." Do you think he'd be talkinga bout "cap and trade" at all if that were true? C'mon guys.

Why is it that every time you quote somebody that you take their name off of it?

On the point though, I ain't arguing that Corporations DO control. I am providing you with clarity with what others mean when they say it.

I do think money controls a lot of decisions in politics though. The reason some things like cap & trade get play is that there is a great deal of money to be made there as well.

[kalm]

Or saying Obama is controlled by "the corporations." Do you think he'd be talkinga bout "cap and trade" at all if that were true? C'mon guys.

Why is it that every time you quote somebody that you take their name off of it?

On the point though, I ain't arguing that Corporations DO control. I am providing you with clarity with what others mean when they say it.

I do think money controls a lot of decisions in politics though. The reason some things like cap & trade get play is that there is a great deal of money to be made there as well.

Exactly. Just like with healthcare legislation, get back to me when the final bill is passed and tell me corporate interests don't benefit, that there's not a money trail in lobbying dollars related to the issue, and that Obama is a progressive.

[Chizzang]

I think you take things a little too seriously St. Onge. I would assume that when people say that corporations control things they are referring to an undue influence because of money. It does not mean that they are literally at the switch. If you're trying to get others to use less dramatic language in descriptions then good luck, but if you take that literally then I think you are missing some of the communication here.

Well, I guess whether or not any particular interest exercises "undue" unfluence is kind of a subjective judgement. But I don't see how anybody could look at the world around them and think that "the corporations" are anywhere close to controlling the decisions that are made. Like the regulations in place in this country. Do you think that if real estate development corporations had their way, for instance, we would have the wetlands regulation we have now in place? No way.

Or saying Obama is controlled by "the corporations." Do you think he'd be talkinga bout "cap and trade" at all if that were true? C'mon guys.

John..
I'm glad you finally admit you just don't understand