Why is Barack Obama so popular?

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Quazga
You know, lots of ignorant people forget that socialist leanings today have nothing to do with Marxism.

It's more ignorant to believe that statement is true.

But let's talk about what these socialist ideas which are so demonized by so many.

1. Better working conditions for workers
2. Shorter work day (From 12 to 8)
3. No child labor
4. Trade Unions to help check the Employers

What makes you think those are socialist ideas?

If you study the socialist movements in Europe during the 1880's you will find the following:

8 Hour Work day was started by Socialists in Britain and Australia. Eventually it swept across Europe but not in Russia.

en.wikipedia.org...

The socialist legislation of a compulsory old-age and sickness insurance, which gave rise to pensions began in 1880 in Germany. Britain instituted the "Retirement Scheme" in 1909, and they made these insurances mandatory in 1911.

You have to remember that Socialism in the 1800's was the domain of workers parties. For example, "The Workingmens Party" was founded in 1869 by August Babel, which eventually led to the "Social-Democrat Parties" which sprung up all across Europe.

These movements inspired our working-class voters and we eventually adopted these principles as law as well.

It's really good to read history as opposed to listening to people like Sean Hannity for your definition of Socialism.

Originally posted by MegaTherion
reply to post by Quazga

 

correct sir.

the reason all these people think socialism is the greatest evil is cold war propaganda.

Thanks for chiming in here!

and another reason are south american dictatorial governments, which mostly came about because of abuses by the corrupt right wing capitalist governments before them.

like colombia. in colombia they have FARC. FARC is a marxist regime that took over a section of the country because right wing capitalists abused the working people to the point where they had nothing to lose by arming themselves and taking a stand.

Very good points here. It's kinda like some places give democracy a bad name.

does socialism work better than capitalism? NO.

they are both incomplete, what america has done until recently has been to have a mix of good socialist ideas and good capitalist ideas.

Indeed, a balance between the owners of the majority of the capital and the labor force both have legitimate desires which need representation in a democratic Congress. That's just how our great country works.

now we have an imbalance because the corrupt neocons have convinced everyone that ANY AND ALL socialist ideas are wrong.

Alas, as you mention, it is not the direction a platform leans, but to what extreme that makes it beneficial or malevolent.

I would also like to point out to an earlier poster that the countries he mentioned in the EU, as well as Japan, have a higher quality of life for their citizens, as well as kicking our butts in terms of economy.

there's a reason that the dollar isn't worth much as it was. I've discussed that elsewhere.

Ayep... Thanks again

reply to post by MegaTherion


I agree with you. Neither pure capitalism or pure socialism work and that the socialist reforms of the late 1800s in the US were actually a good thing. Yes, a capitalist just said that . Its true, however.

On the other hand, I think you can certainly tip the balance too far. In our case in the US, I think we've already gone above and beyond that point. The federal government has become too large and unwieldy, and generally speaking, no one is happy with any of the social programs that the government has put into effect. We spend $1.5 trillion every year at the Federal level and what do we get in return? Not much, except a half-dozen news reports a week about our failing schools, how government-funded housing projects are falling in, or how someone is swindling the medicare system. So why reward that ineptitude by allowing these morons to have more control? Not a good idea, IMO.

I do not know what the solution IS, mind you. I just see this big mess that can't get *anything* right (AKA, our Federal government) and I see absolutely no reason to believe that they can solve these problems if we just throw more money at them and give them more authority.

Originally posted by vor78
reply to post by MegaTherion

 

I agree with you. Neither pure capitalism or pure socialism work and that the socialist reforms of the late 1800s in the US were actually a good thing. Yes, a capitalist just said that

.

Vor, I think we are more like minded than may appear. I too believe the same way. Which is why I get upset when anyone supports extremes of either, or if they attack the leanings of either.

Its true, however.

On the other hand, I think you can certainly tip the balance too far. In our case in the US, I think we've already gone above and beyond that point. The federal government has become too large and unwieldy, and generally speaking, no one is happy with any of the social programs that the government has put into effect. We spend $1.5 trillion every year at the Federal level and what do we get in return? Not much, except a half-dozen news reports a week about our failing schools, how government-funded housing projects are falling in, or how someone is swindling the medicare system. So why reward that ineptitude by allowing these morons to have more control? Not a good idea, IMO.

Let's not forget how much money we spend simply on the Interest of our National Debt. Its crazy. I mean, completely and utterly nuts.

I do not know what the solution IS, mind you. I just see this big mess that can't get *anything* right (AKA, our Federal government) and I see absolutely no reason to believe that they can solve these problems if we just throw more money at them and give them more authority.

Yep. I'm with you there as well. The issue here, I think is that the masses in this country are so diverse. If you look at the Socialist benefits we adopted during the height of the Industrial Revolution, these came because of the mass movements of workers.

Now however, I don't work in a factory. I work at home in front of a computer. Yet, there are many who do work in the factory down the road. I just think that as a nation we don't have enough shared crisis just yet to precipitate a large movement. In short, in the late 1880's these were not simple ideologies which were academic, but realities that people dealt with daily.

I think 98% of our political discourse these days, up until the recent fuel, food, and housing issues, have been mostly academic.

I see that pendulum swinging back again though with the threats which we face on the horizon.

Because he's young, reasonably good looking, and he has been packaged and sold by some marketing geniuses.

Nobody knows what he stands for, because he isn't saying. He has no legislative record at all (he primarily voted present in the Illinois legislature, and he has done nothing at all in the US Senate).

He speaks very well, without saying anything.

Oh well, people are gullible, as any con man can tell you. It's just that Obama is the biggest, and most successful con man we have seen for a long, long time.

The music man in politics.

Originally posted by Quazga
These movements inspired our working-class voters and we eventually adopted these principles as law as well.

I still don't see the link between the four items you mentioned and socialism. For starters, the wiki link only talks about the 8 hour work day and it does not necessarily relate it to socialism. Sometimes, two different groups have similar goals and does not necessarily mean it belongs exclusively to one of the groups.

1. Better working conditions for workers
2. Shorter work day (From 12 to 8)
3. No child labor
4. Trade Unions to help check the Employers

It's really good to read history as opposed to listening to people like Sean Hannity for your definition of Socialism.

I rarely listen to Sean Hannity so you should stop assuming and generalizing. I don't need anyone to tell me the definition of socialism as I am capable of reading.



[edit on 27-7-2008 by WhatTheory]

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Quazga
These movements inspired our working-class voters and we eventually adopted these principles as law as well.

I still don't see the link between the four items you mentioned and socialism. For starters, the wiki link only talks about the 8 hour work day and it does not necessarily relate it to socialism.

First off, sorry about the Sean Hannity comment. I really shouldn't take my frustration with him out on you or anyone other than him.

If you search for Socialist on that wiki link, you will see that each individual who introduced it was a socialist.

Also on the wiki link for Socialism down at the International Workingmens Association and their part in building the trade unions which gathered the power to gain these rights which we all enjoy today.

As for Child Labor, take a look at this link for a better understanding of fact that it was Engles and Marx who both drew attention to child labor as a serious issue, and it has been Socialists all along who have decried it.

And it was something that here in the US we didn't fully accept until 1938. Even though, admittedly, Child labor may not have reached the anti-human levels that it did in England. Although, if you study the miner wars, you'll see children working in coal mines as their families toil in futility with the company store.

Pretty much anything related with political action towards the benefits to the work force has been driven by socialist ideals. Purely because, in many ways, socialism is the collective organization of labor for labor.

I'm not arguing for anti-capitalism, I'm merely stating that Socialism is not a giant evil. It's not communism, and in fact many nations who practice socialism, are capitalist democracies which are opposed to communism.

That's all.


BTW, Love the new Avatar!

[edit on 27-7-2008 by Quazga]

Simple - he is a good person that is determined to make america a better country that it already is !

Originally posted by Quazga
I'm not arguing for anti-capitalism, I'm merely stating that Socialism is not a giant evil. It's not communism, and in fact many nations who practice socialism, are capitalist democracies which are opposed to communism.

I have never stated that socialism is a giant evil like communism or marxism but when socialist principals are applied for a entire nation, things start to decline at a fast pace.

IMO the 4 items you listed are natural progressions of a advanced society and should not be confused with socialism. Developing societies are always looking out for their children because that only increases the probability for advancement in the next generation. Those items can also be considered part of a capitalistic society whether it gets accomplished through conservative or liberal ideologies.

While I do believe socialism is not a great evil, if implemented nationwide it slowly degrades society and finally leads to the evils of communism and marxism. Some of the big issues today like socialized medicine and wealth distribution are definite socialism ideas unlike the 4 items you mentioned.

reply to post by billyjoinedat2k8


To think that any sitting president would allow America to be attacked and do "nothing" about it is ridiculous. Obama has said repeatedly, including before the start of the Iraq war that he isn't against war, he's agaist stupid wars. Which most people would agree by now that Iraq falls under that catagory. Listen to what Obama say's, not what people tell you he say's. Use your own mind. That's what you have a mind for . Do your own research. Can Obama be trusted? Time will tell. But the republicans have already shown over, and over again that they can not be trusted. They can not be trusted to tell the American people the truth about the danger from other countries, they can not be trusted to tell the truth about terrorism, and they certainly can not be trusted to tell the tryuth about their own motives for war. George Tenet, and Scott McClellan have both well documented this in their books.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
reply to post by billyjoinedat2k8

 

To think that any sitting president would allow America to be attacked and do "nothing" about it is ridiculous. Obama has said repeatedly, including before the start of the Iraq war that he isn't against war, he's agaist stupid wars. Which most people would agree by now that Iraq falls under that catagory. Listen to what Obama say's, not what people tell you he say's. Use your own mind. That's what you have a mind for . Do your own research. Can Obama be trusted? Time will tell. But the republicans have already shown over, and over again that they can not be trusted. They can not be trusted to tell the American people the truth about the danger from other countries, they can not be trusted to tell the truth about terrorism, and they certainly can not be trusted to tell the tryuth about their own motives for war. George Tenet, and Scott McClellan have both well documented this in their books.

Your right on the part most people think Iraq was a mistake. The thing is how well it will be taken care of by whomever comes in power.

If we pull out to soon and screw the Iraqis, which is most likely with obamas plan, the international community will be even more pissed off with us for cutting and running. Of course they don't say that now, but believe me it will happen. The same goes for Iran when it comes a nuclear threat.

Originally posted by billyjoinedat2k8
reply to post by rapinbatsisaltherage

 

ye same i think if you dont like either then dont vote at all instead of voting for someone that you maye dont like at all.

No, I still vote. Voting entails many things, including legislations I support. It also involves more than two candidates often, the others are just ignored by most.

What I'm saying is if I thought both candidates would do a horrible job, take our country down the wrong path in different ways, and both be equally politically motived to do what they please and not want the people want why would I support either? Neither deserves your vote if this is the way you think about them. I'm only talking about those that think they are voting for a lesser of two evils.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
I'm sorry but this logic baffles me. McCain and Obama are no better than the other, voting for one over the other is a selection of voting for a lesser evil. Why the hell vote for an evil at all?

For starters, if I would NOT vote for McCain then that means there is more of a chance that Obama will get elected. And that is unacceptable!

Secondly, I do agree with McCain on some major issues but I disagree with Obama on practically everything.

For example, I would trust that McCain would fill vacant seats on the Supreme Court with Constitutionalists. Obama will fill the seats with extreme liberals and that is also unacceptable.

So while I might disagree with McCain on some major issues, he is still far better than Obama.

[edit on 27-7-2008 by WhatTheory]

I understand that reasoning. I'm curious as to what makes everyone think Obama is so liberal? He has some conservative stances other Democrats don't. You think he's just playing a part to get more votes?

Originally posted by MegaTherion

 

... money is only worth what people decide it's worth,

... it deflates and inflates based on the perception of it's not it's actual worth.

.... so if america looks good, speculators will speculate back up.

that's why the euro is winning the currency race right now, because of bush and our new lower standing in the world, speculators beleive in their money more than they beleive in ours. when that perception changes, the money will be worth more.

Ok, good points but what happens next?

What will Obama decide about how much it's worth?
His hating of American should also play into the equation as well.

Maybe it's nothing but false perception at work here

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
I'm curious as to what makes everyone think Obama is so liberal? He has some conservative stances other Democrats don't. You think he's just playing a part to get more votes?

Obama is a extreme liberal. His voting record and the views he speaks about are all liberal.

Now you have my attention. What conservative views do you think Obama has because I cannot think of any.

Yes, I do think he is changing his rhetoric to increase votes. During the democratic elections his views were far left. Now, during the general election his views get skewed more towards the right but they are still left of center.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by WhatTheory]

MCain is just Bush with a slightly better education and a much more volatile temper. I know it's been said before but it bears repeating: A vote for McCain is a vote for a Bush 3rd Term.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
I'm curious as to what makes everyone think Obama is so liberal? He has some conservative stances other Democrats don't. You think he's just playing a part to get more votes?

Obama is a extreme liberal. His voting record and the views he speaks about are all liberal.

Now you have my attention. What conservative views do you think Obama has because I cannot think of any.

Yes, I do think he is changing his rhetoric to increase votes. During the democratic elections his views were far left. Now, during the general election his views get skewed more towards the right but they are still left of center.

[edit on 28-7-2008 by WhatTheory]

I'm confused here. Do you equate Democrats with libertarians. What of Obama's record matches mostly that of someone's record from the Liberal Party?

Obama is Jimmy Carter II but even more dangerous because of his radical Marxist views (i.e. extreme liberal).

Obama has no conservative views, only pretending to move from left to center in order to gain votes from undecided Republicans.

Obama chose to avoid voting or taking a stance on more than 123 votes, while his arch nemisis Hilliary only voted "present" much less (only 4 I believe and certainly not 123).

Becoming POTUS is so important to Obama in gaining the top office and the power that comes with it, that he'll do anything to deceive the populous. Even if it means not taking a stance on anything so no one can really deduce what he stands for.

A couple things though have more than come to the surface and that is his practicing the Muslim religion and Marxist ideas for larger than life government and taxes.

Originally posted by rapinbatsisaltherage
I'm confused here. Do you equate Democrats with libertarians.

No

What of Obama's record matches mostly that of someone's record from the Liberal Party?

Pick one. Almost all of them are liberal or extreme liberal positions.

I'll ask you again. What conservative views to you think Obama has because I cannot think of any.