Obama Leader of the New Soviet Union of America?
Posted by Kurt Wallace on Sun, 06/15/2008 - 13:05 in Everything I am hearing from Obama screams Soviet Union with Red, White and Blue colors and a sales pitch of Sweet Apple Pie Communism in the Marxist sense of "Utopian Ant Like Government" speech.
Our country is collasping economically and this type of Obama's Freedom Hate Speech is a perfect storm for a possible final nail in America's coffin.
Do you think the "Campaign for Liberty" and its message of Hope, Peace and Prosperity will prevail?
or
Do you think Obama's message of a welfare nation anti-Liberty will appeal more to our possible depression bound society?
Do Americans have enough deep rooted understanding of what we stand for to see through the stinch of Socialism?
or
Will we abandon Freedom and Liberty for Obama's New Soviot Union of America?
Subscribe to this thread- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 474 reads
and would prefer to not be attacked. This response is in no way meant to be offensive to anyone, nor anyone's theory, nor anyone's beliefs.
"Do you think the "Campaign for Liberty" and its message of Hope, Peace and Prosperity will prevail?
or
Do you think Obama's message of a welfare nation anti-Liberty will appeal more to our possible depression bound society?"
I'd avoid the term "or." I think a little of both is going to take place. Some of O'bama's followers are going to clammor loudly for hope, peace, and prosperity. Others, not necessarily his followers, are going to support a welfare anti-liberty agenda.
(I'm not nearly as concerned about O'bama and his followers, although he could turn out to be a loose cannon. I'm worried about the people around him, the Bilderbug pres-groomers. I think O'bama is young and easily deluded by these psych sleuths.)
Do Americans have enough deep rooted understanding of what we stand for to see through the stinch of Socialism?
Some Americans do have enough deep rooted understanding to see through the stinch of socialism, and some do not. Americans have been brainwashed and dumbed down for decades. But an awakening certainly seems to be taking place.
"Will we abandon Freedom and Liberty for O'bama's New Soviet Union of America?"
I'm afraid that this is the course that will most likely be taken. Though the electorate is awakening, it's still groggy. And when people get pushed to the edge, principle and integrity are the first casualties.
I'm not hopeful for the masses at this time, no. They've been too brainwashed for too long.
(I think there are "pockets of freedom and rebellion," however, and that these will mulitply. )
__________________
Freedom is an inside job
Thanks for your response.
I agree with you that both will continue to happen. I guess my reason for posting this was to see what different ideas everyone has on the strongest in the battle for ideas. Which ideas will appeal to Americans the most?
------"I'm not hopeful for the masses at this time, no. They've been too brainwashed for too long.
(I think there are "pockets of freedom and rebellion," however, and that these will mulitply. ) "------
I am very hopeful that the time has come for a true liberation of Freedom and Liberty. That the tired ideas of big government controlled by media and bankers are on their last days.
"I am very hopeful that the time has come for a true liberation of Freedom and Liberty. That the tired ideas of big government controlled by media and bankers are on their last days."
What a wonderful thought. Maybe it's true.
___________________
Freedom is an inside job
that my argument isn't about content. It's about the words chosen which show disrespect and antagonism, and why can't a different way be found to state your point of view.
__________________
Freedom is an inside job
I just reread the "infamous" post. I'm not sure, other than its content, which part you object to. How could it have been said differently?
I also don't get how you can point a gun in my face and demand my property and then complain that my objection wasn't worded "respectfully." Do you have any idea how absurd this argument is?
Finally, I see that you remain silent about the content of my posts on this thread. I ask here and now, and am willing to retract everything I have said to you if you can answer these questions with a "yes."
Do oil companies have the right to sell their oil at the highest price that they can to the highest bidder that will pay them?
Are oil companies entitled to the largest profits that they can make, so long as the force of government is not involved in maintaining their advantage in the marketplace, and regardless of who can and cannot afford to buy their products?
Can you answer even these two questions with a "yes," or is your silence an affirmation of the accuracy of my comments, their diplomacy or lack thereof notwithstanding?
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
that the answer is "no," I can't get a "yes" from you on those two questions. I didn't think so.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
needed reform here at home. For crying out loud, Brezinski is his foreign policy advisor. He's CFR bought and paid for, Bilderbug certified. There's no point in asking if he's going to anything legit while in office.
We heard all the big promises from Nixon, Reagan, Clinton, even Bush jr who once said he'd never follow in his father's footsteps, never go into politics.
The White House has been bought and Bilderbug certified for a long time, the govt has been hi-jacked by the corporatocracy since before O'bama was born.
And Barrack O'bama's going to change that?
Then there's the dumbed down electorate.
"Do you think the "Campaign for Liberty" and its message of Hope, Peace and Prosperity will prevail?
Or will we abandon Freedom and Liberty for Obama's New Soviot Union of America?"
I think that's a no-brainer.
___________________
Freedom is an inside job
Your comment about "Big Oil" indicates that either you've been bought and paid for by the "Bilderbergers" as well or you just don't get it.
Looting the oil companies is a central plank in the socialist platform of the Democrats.
Over 98% of the stock in "big oil" is owned by average Americans in their retirement funds.
When we stop blaming dark conspiracies for the socialism we have forced upon us and start realizing that we are DEMANDING it ourselves, as you have done over and over in different posts, then the Campaign for Liberty might have a chance.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
You know Tom, I've been patient. But your posts do not need to sound so insulting. Why accuse someone of having been bought off by Big Oil? That's inflammatory.
My first impulse is to tell you to take a flying leap. That is reactionary.
My second impulse is to wonder why it is that there has to be an insulting remark of any kind.
___________________
Freedom is an inside job
Believe me, I am not trying to be insulting, and I am sorry you feel that way. However, I am just drawing reasonable conclusions from the comments you make and the content that you post. You're antagonism towards free markets is a direct attack on my own liberty, and I am trying to fight back with words before we all resort to taking up arms again. Being against the Bush administration does not equal being pro-freedom - there are hundreds of socialist Democrats in Congress that are against him as well. If the purpose of these forum posts are to share ideas, I am going to attack the bad ones at every opportunity. Bad ideas in the hands of voters are the chains that have bound those of us that wish to live a life of freedom, peace, and prosperity.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
I'm speaking specifically about the way you word your posts. When you feel personally attacked, I'm wondering if there isn't some other way of letting the person know you're feeling this way.
There was absolutely no intent to attack you in any way shape or form. None whatsoever.
__________________
Freedom is an inside job
I'm not just being argumentative here, but you have personally attacked me. I believe there is a fundamental lack of understanding on your part of what your actions amount to, and believe me, you're not alone.
When you attack free markets, you attack me personally. As just one example, a significant part of my savings for retirement are comprised of energy stocks. I am an average American. I am not wealthy, I do not work for an energy company, nor am I in any way connected with a "power elite." I am perfectly willing to take the risk that the oil companies that I own stock in will lose money or see their stock value depreciate due to their shortcomings in the competitve market or their own poor management.
However, when a fellow citizen advocates looting those companies because they feel entitled to lower gas prices, or for any reason, they are stealing from me, using the threat of violence to enforce their theft. In a society that elects its leaders democratically, your words can amount to real action against me. Forgive me if my replies to those personal attacks on my life and liberty are not worded in a way that my attacker finds acceptable. This is of little concern to me.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
to take a political comment personally, imhmfo
also, saying that Obama will be controlled by the oil co's is not the same as saying that there should be a windfall tax on profits or more regulation, or more socialism
are personal. THat is my point. Immoral politics have victims. They are not a philosophical or academic point to be debated for the intellectual exercise. The water cooler talk by citizens with the power to vote their wishes into law, via elected representatives, represent a direct, personal attack upon me when the talk amounts to calls for government looting.
You are correct in that the post in this thread does not directly call for windfall oil taxes on oil companies. I feel reasonably assured that TruthSerum's characterization of oil companies as "big oil" that buys politicians like Barack Obama represents her antagonism towards those companies. She has posted other comments that indicate an antagonism toward free trade.
However, in the interest of fairness, if TruthSerum will agree to the following statements, I will certainly admit that my conclusions were wrong:
Oil companies are entitled to charge as high a price for their oil as the highest bidder is willing to pay.
Oil companies are entitled to make as much profit as they can possibly make, and should do so.
The effect of the price of their products on the budgets of average Americans should not be a consideration in the way oil companies do business - only their competitive standing in the industry and their profitability should drive their decision-making.
I doubt I could get half of the so-called "freedom-lovers" on this site to agree with these statements, even though to not agree with them is the antithesis of freedom.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
contradict your free market principles. She simply said that the oil co's will control Obama.
How is that immoral or personal(unless you're Obama)?
my full support on all the outlined questions.
to oil co's if they had developed in a free market. But you can't ignore that oil co's are subsidized by the gov't. They have used tax dollars to fund exploration and many other facets of their business. Because of their acceptance of tax dollars they set themselves up for regulation. In a truly free market they would be able to do as they pleased and suffer or enjoy the consequences.
However, without competition, (there are only a few big oil co's), the matter becomes complicated.
It is at a late stage in the game with oil, there is basically a monopoly (or something closely resembling one) and the oil co's have benefitied from socialistic policies. So I think at this late stage in the game, the matter is more complicated.
Also, Oil is a natural resource. For me that further complicates matters. Does the guy with a chainsaw have a natural right to every tree in his path? What if only a handful of people had the means to buy chainsaws? Practically speaking you end up with a feudalistic situation.
It is tied in to the banksters because they decide who will receive large enough loans to open up an oil co. They always have (as far as I can tell). This is more like being annointed by the money lords than prospering in a free market. If you or I could walk in to a bank tomorrow, take out a loan, buy an oil rig and start drilling, that would constitute something like a free market in my mind.
What are the chances that you, in your lifetime, will be able to start your own oil co? When the options are only open to the annointed few isn't that something like fedualism??
I don't think socialism is justified but I don't think applying free market principles long after the start of the race is appropriate either.
I'm looking forward to your response. Also please consider the complication of dealing in a natural resource.
Here is a challenging question for you:
If I developed a water vaccuum tomorrow, sucked up all the water out of a lake and built water pumps around the country, would the water belong to me and would it be my right to determine the price of water?
I fear that questions such as this may only remain hypothetical for so long.
Ihate to have to bring up the old doctor again, but he really does speak directly to your natural resource question:
"We see in commons, which remain so by compact, that it is the taking any part of what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which begins the property; without which the common is of no use. And the taking of this or that part, does not depend on the express consent of all the commoners. Thus the grass my horse has bit; the turfs my servant has cut; and the ore I have digged in any place, where I have a right to them in common with others, become my property, without the assignation or consent of any body. The labour that was mine, removing them out of that common state they were in, hath fixed my property in them."
and
"God gave the world to men in common; but since he gave it them for their benefit, and the greatest conveniencies of life they were capable to draw from it, it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use of the industrious and rational, (and labour was to be his title to it;) not to the fancy or covetousness of the quarrelsome and contentious. He that had as good left for his improvement, as was already taken up, needed not complain, ought not to meddle with what was already improved by another's labour: if he did, it is plain he desired the benefit of another's pains, which he had no right to, and not the ground which God had given him in common with others to labour on, and whereof there was as good left, as that already possessed, and more than he knew what to do with, or his industry could reach to."
As I stated in my post, the force of government should not be used to subsidize, nor give any other advantage to oil companies, including excessive regulation that makes it difficult for smaller companies to enter the market and compete with them. I am interested in documentation of the subsidies they received. Are we talking about cash investments by the government, or tax breaks? Were the tax breaks an attempt to lower costs, and thus the price of gasoline for Americans? In any case, the government should not be involved. There should be no imposition of tax on incomes as it is, so calling a tax break a "subsidy" is a stretch but not one totally without merit (on the reasoning that if there is a tax on incomes, it should be uniformly applied, and not raised or lowered by government for some companies in return for some other concession that the govenrment has no right to bargain for).
The rest of your argument assumes that there is no choice for new firms to enter the oil industry because we have reached some significant point in history, or because every oil field is owned by someone (neither is true). This couldn't be further from the truth. If we got the government out of the oil industry - both out of looting them and subsidizing them, competition would occur the minute that the existing companies failed to efficiently provide the market with oil (at the lowest price it can be delivered profitably). If, however, smaller companies are kept out of the market because the oil companies are offering oil at a price lower than those companies can compete with, then the market is working properly and delivering the optimal benefit to the customer.
The answer, as is the answer to everything, is to get the government out of it, other than enforcing contracts. The fact that not even "big oil" has built a new refinery in the United States in the past 20 years proves that there is much more to what is happening in oil than "market forces."
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
Locke. That does seem to apply.
I agree that gov't should not be involved but I'm not sure that having gov't involved for the first hundred years and then taking it away is the most perfect solution -- though it may be the best.
I also agree that there is much more to the price of gas and oil than "market forces" but I'm not sure if the other side of the equation is gov't regulation.
I don't believe that the rising price of oil is rising in conjuction with lessened supply or increased demand. I can believe that demand is increasing but certainly not at the rate that prices are rising. The oil co's seem to be consistent on saying that supply is not dropping.
Since this is the case, I believe there is basically an oil monopoly and price gouging. (either for profit or as some suggest - as part of a Bilderberg type attempt to end the middle class, merge our country into a NAU, introduce the Amero, etc., etc.)
Since our entire economy is dependent on oil they have us over a barrel(literally). I'd almost never be in favor of something that hurt our entire economy and damaged the lives of many U.S. citizens.
I think electricity, heat, lighting, things of this nature are the elements that seperate the American way of life and that of any first world country from third world or midevil conditions. If you let the oil co's do whatever they wanted to do they could easily price gouge until people were freezing to death in winter.
While I'm not in favor of holding a gun to someone's head and looting them -- my understanding of the oil situation (or most economic situations) is that they are indeed armed and dangerous and that it wouldn't be wise to lay down arms and do as they say without attempting to negotiate something beneficial.
Weren't labor unions an outgrowth of the free market? By that I mean, isn't a group of independent people coming together to negotiate better standards of living from their rulers an element of the free market? Gov't is always on the side of mega - corporations these days.
I don't think it would be contrary to the principles of a free market to have some ability with which to negotiate prices. Presently, since there exists a virtual monopoly there are no mechanisms with which to negotiate. Starting an oil co from scratch at this stage of the game doesn't seem like an option.
Therefore, I'm very much interested in what mechanisms could be used (besides inefficient socialist policies) to bring about a type of collective bargaining with these mega corporations. Or now that borders mean little, is there none - as long as poorer, hungry countries situated nearby are willing to subsist on a lower standard of living.
concentrate on the topic and what's discussed in the comments instead of whining about feelings. you have no counter argument to make so you resort to crying about the wording of his posts. weak.
Does the word "whining" describe the questioning about the reason behind an inflammatory post? This term is also accusatory, in the same league.
It was my understanding that this would be a forum where respect and courtesy would be preferred.
__________________
Freedom is an inside job
> Does the word "whining" describe the questioning about the reason behind an inflammatory post?
yes. you whine about his style of putting his point across. are you suggesting that he keeps in mind how your feelings are affected by his point? that's ridiculous. don't preach to people about how they should conduct themselves. focus on the discussion instead.
> This term is also accusatory, in the same league.
that was the intention.
> It was my understanding that this would be a forum where respect and courtesy would be preferred.
there's a bit of a problem with that assumption. your idea of what's respectful and what isn't may differ greatly from mine. one very effective way to take that variable out of the equation is not to whine about being offended by anyone, ever. if he's hurting your feelings with his comment then don't respond. move on. nobody has any idea about what might offend you. most people wouldn't care if you're offended or not. so stop whining and stop preaching about what respect and courtesy means to you. nobody cares. debate the point, not the man's style and how it affects your feelings.
"Do Americans have enough deep rooted understanding of what we stand for to see through the stinch of Socialism?"
No. How could they? Everything they have ever been taught, read, seen on TV, learned from their role models, etc. has pushed them toward socialism. They no longer have the critical thinking skills to reason through the issues, and since they have almost no access to the questions, it is impossible to expect the right answers. To answer your question, just watch his speeches. Tens of thousands of voters at a time cheering wildly when he says that we will "achieve" universal health care, or should I say "win that fight."
Pretty grim, eh? However, Adam's point will provide the answer. Like the Soviet Union, Weimar Germany, most of the countries of Europe, ancient Rome, and a hundred other examples, the United States is going to collapse economically, for exactly the same reason - socialism. At that point, when socialism, which has proved throughout history to be unsustainable, is no longer possible, we will have a chance to introduce an alternative.
I think it is important to remember that this is not just a problem of government. It is really the American people that have become corrupt. It may be a decades long plot to infiltrate America with Communism or it may just be human weakness giving way to apathy and a sense of entitlement, but the so-fat-he-is-struggling-to-walk, American-idol-watching, Xbox-playing, loot-demanding glutton that is today's average American bears little resemblance to the rugged, self-reliant individualist that carved an entire nation out of wilderness. It may only be hardship that shapes him into anything else.
However, in the end, socialism will fail, as it always has. This is the hope that we can hold on to.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
lol,
I really got a kick out of your rant about the lifestyle/ popculture of today. Essence of freedom breeds personal responsibility which is a tough, wonderful and real change.
You said ----"They no longer have the critical thinking skills to reason through the issues, and since they have almost no access to the questions, it is impossible to expect the right answers."----
This was thougt provoking for me and left me wondering.....
can it (critical thinkers) happen if BTM, Campaign for Liberty and others can push the Freedom message into the mainstream as popculture and COOL? Could that accelerate the ideas, or is it too late for unlearning? Will the apathy riegn due to human weakness and bad economy?
You also, make a great point in reference to Adam and the lack of real funds which will be the glaring defect in the Socialist idea Obama is pushing.
You said ---"However, in the end, socialism will fail, as it always has. This is the hope that we can hold on to."---
Couldn't be more true. History is a great tool for having faith that things will work out. I actually believe we are on our way to seeing a better day. But it could get worse before it gets better.
:)
You know, I've been a libertarian (in the ROn Paul school) since about 5 years after I got out of grad school (early nineties). To show you the effectiveness of the media blackout, even I never heard of Ron Paul until sometime last year when my wife asked if I had heard that he was running and that he was a libertarian. When I found out about him, I immediately went to his website and was astounded that a Republican was running on this platform. I couldn't believe a presidential candidate was calling the Federal Reserve into question. I couldn't believe a presidential candidate was talking about elminating the income tax.
I have a circle of friends that, like me, are convinced that the US is headed for an economic meltdown of unprecedented proportions (worse than the Great Depression). My friends believe that the only way American politics will change is when severe harship hits the American people. I actually got very energized by Ron Paul, but couldn't even convince them that any result but economic disaster was possible. I was saying things like, "he probably won't win, but if he did, he could do some things to save the dollar, etc." Even friends of mine who share my views wouldn't give the idea a chance.
I guess what I'm getting to is that you're right - it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better, and it's a shame. It is all unnecessary.
Tom Mullen
www.tommullen.net
www.myspace.com/skepticsongs
..
The current administration have done their part to damage the reputation of capitalism, partly because the public still associates free market ideals with Republicans. Republicans have made it easy easy for "progressives" to push the idea of the rich stealing from the little guy, because that is in effect what has happened under both Republican and Democrat administrations for years now. We need to stress the ways in which Republicans have been anti-free market as well as the ways in which the collectivist ideals of Democrats are ruining our country.
I so wish that Republicans had lived up to the small government ideal they seemed to be promoting ten years ago before they became "compassionate conservatives", and had given liberal capitalism a chance to prove itself. Then we wouldn't be in this mess.
Unfortunately it's a vicious circle. As the economy gets worse, people lose confidence in their own ability to provide for themselves and look increasingly for nanny state "security". It's so sad, actually, because they are buying the lie that they are safe in the hands of the government. Think of all the people who entrusted their future to Social Security and Medicare... I suppose you could say that they have a really big life lesson coming to them. It's going to hurt, though. No doubt about it. It's a shame because Ron Paul had found a way to wean them off gently...
Great points, I enjoyed reading your post.
Do you think that America is going to continue down the path its on or is it ready for the message of ideas that Ron Paul is carrying of Freedom and Liberty?
Is it too late for these ideas to lift our country away from the direction it is headed?
This post is spot on and deserves more than a vote-up. Disassociating modern Republicans from free market capitalism has largely been done by the GOP themselves... the trick is getting them to wake-up to that truth. The myth of compassionate conservatism is one of three smelling salts we can use on even the most proud Elephants. The others are the costs of the entitlement tsunami (a sub-set of compassionate conservatism) and the third catapulted the Paul candidacy... the Iraq War. 700 bases in 130 countries is big government. America as policeman to the world is big government. Conservatives will come to believe this, it's a question of when.