thegoldenmackid's thoughts on PRSI...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by thegoldenmackid, Dec 7, 2009.

  1. thegoldenmackid macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #1
    and political discussion in general.

    Since the other side of the aisle gets five times a day to post their current ramblings regarding the world, thought I'd take a shot. To start: I'd consider myself on the far left, especially on social issues.

    I stayed out of the PSRI for a long time, occasionally posting mainly on non-political stories mainly because I felt that the discussion of political nature were fruitless and aggravating, boy was I right. My frustration is directed at what I will call the "far-right" others will identify as them as the "Tea Party" portion, and worse some might even label this group as "Republican" or even "Conservative." This group is easily the most covered and most vocal portion of the electorate. (Yes, even CNN gives you more coverage then they do the moderates) This group seems to focus its complaints on a variety of "talking points" including, but not limited to: Obama being socialist, healthcare reform, the increase in "Big Government," Obama's citizenship, taxes and gun control. This group seems to be championed by a couple of figures, most notably Fox News and its group of anchors, Rep. Michele Bachmann and to some extent Sarah Palin. Anyone confused? Good.
    (not to suggest that the entire movement is represented by those issues or figures, but generally that's who I'm placing in this category)

    My issue is two-fold. First, Republicans take back your party. This is a vocal minority, but I doubt that most Republicans want to be associated with the broad-blanket anti-Obama movement. It seems odd that for so long racism was kept in our closets, but now that we have a president who is (half) African-American, it's suddenly okay again to be racist? I mean that is fine if one is racist, but generally iThink there are many who don't want to be considered "racist," nor do I think Michael Steele (or Cheney, or either Bush, or McCain or Huckabee) would like to be considered as such. I understand that there is a crisis within the party, and while I would generally accept that is being good for my political beliefs - it is not. (That's part two) Whatever the case, if you can't find unity within your party at least find unity in the Saidian approach of determining what one isn't - perhaps look to those with the Adolf Obama/Barack Hitler signs before you look at avoiding being associated with the Democrats.

    The second and possibly larger part of this is what I have touched upon a few times, the lack of discussion that can be had. The discussion that takes place today is not productive. In the PSRI we have discussions of how Obama is to blame for expanding the deficit three-fold over the not-passed health care reform? And that's when questions were being responded to. The goal of the anti-Obama/far-right movement seems to be to cause disruption, that's great and all, but the show has to stop at some point. The vocal minority has now stopped productive parts of the American system of democracy to exist and it's the Republicans that seem to be hurt the most. Rather then attempting to do something to change the healthcare bill, we get extreme discussions of socialism. News flash, the bill is probably going to pass in some form, ti would have a lot less chance of passing if the right decided to make actual indictments of the bill as opposed to conspiracy theories.

    Lastly, my favorite portion of the movement. Socialism ≠ fascism. Hitler ≠ socialist. The wonderful pictures I get to see of Obama and Adolf as one are great and all, but let's take a step back. Constantly asking for birth certificates? Racism? Blaming a certain person for the ills of the country? Sounds like the third reich, a tad bit.

    That's all.
     
  2. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #2
    True Republicans are out wandering in the desert, or they have become independents or Democrats. It is the Tea Party loonies that are controlling the party now. Whether the genuine Republicans can take back the party is unknown, but I'd love it if we could reach across the aisle and talk to the right again some day, instead of simply listening the current batch of righties assail us with hatred and delusional ideas.

    As to the PRSI forum suffering at the hands of a few: I posted my own reaction to that elsewhere. In effect I said that I'm not about to let one or two hate-filled people control my life, "making" me waste tons of time responding to their utter bilge. I have faith that 95% of the MR community reading those people's posts know they're utter bilge. I'd much rather spend time responding to thoughtful people like you or lee or hulugu, than waste my time on trolls. Lately if I answer trolls at all, it tends to be with a witty retort or a link that disproves them. More than that, they don't deserve.
     
  3. Desertrat macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2003
    Location:
    Terlingua, Texas
    #3
    A few general points: One is that there has been a general schism in the upper echelons of the national-level Republican Party since way back in the JFK era, if not before. There are the basic, conservative people, but the main voice has been of what today are called RINOs: Republicans In Name Only. The modern example is Sen. McCain. He's in no way a small-c conservative in the classic sense--which is why many conservative voters sta yed home.

    Small-c conservatives, the actual majority in the Republican Party, are in no way Neo-Con in their views, although there is some amount of agreement. But the Neo-Cons are just as Statist as are capital-l Liberals. Centralization of power is important, albeit in different arenas.

    This creates beaucoup confusion when using labels in discussions.

    Interlude: The majority of the tea party people are not kooks. They are protesting a pattern of monetary policy of trillion-dollar deficits, proposed higher levels of taxation, and the inefficacy of the present system of bailouts of Wall Street to the detriment of Main Street. That the media people don't see them in this manner reflects upon the competence or common sense of the media's employees.

    Okay, back to the OP:

    "This group seems to focus its complaints on a variety of "talking points" including, but not limited to: Obama being socialist, healthcare reform, the increase in "Big Government," Obama's citizenship, taxes and gun control."

    Obama is indeed socialist, by his own words in his own autobiography. He cannot refer to his mentors as mentors and not be full of BS if he says he is not socialist. His mentors are admittedly socialist in their views. And Saul Alinsky is on record as advocating the destruction of the US system, not its reform.

    Big Government? He obviously favors it. Fannie Mae is now de facto a federal agency, controlling some 85% of all home mortgages. The major investment banks are now either partially owned by the government or their policies are heavily swayed by it. The takeover of the once-private-sector businesses of GM and Chrysler are "merely news"--so we now have "Government Motors". Question: How is it constitutional for a politician of any level of office to force the firing of the CEO of a private corporation?

    This so-called healthcare reform in no way addresses the causes of the high costs of medicine and the resultant high cost of health insurance. I note in passing that many of the high costs have come about from government involvement in the "world of medicine" and none of those issues are discussed.

    Gun control? The calls for gun control laws is publicly stated as a desire to reduce violent crimes involving firearms, right? It has been repeatedly shown by statisticians' exhaustive studies that no gun control law has ever resulted in any reduction in the rate of violent crimes involving firearms. Anybody who calls for or who votes for gun control laws is operating on wishful thinking, if one cares to be extremely charitable about such calls. Obama has a pro-gun-control voting record, and has appointed a US Attorney General who is publicly outspoken in opposition to the Second Amendment. One's personal views about firearms, pro or con, are irrelevant to the issue of efficacy or utility of such laws.

    Race? Sorry, but it's mostly Obama himself and people of his political party and among his supporters who have raised the race issue the most and the most publicly. They're playing the race card just as much and in as shysterly a fashion as in the OJ Simpson trial. The Prof. Gates affair is adequate support for this view of mine. Me? I could care less if he's green with purple polka dots. I'm against his political views and his monetary policies.

    During the summer of 2008, I was bitching about the idiocies of the Bush/Congress bail-out BS and then about the foolishness of TARP. During that time, however, I predicted that Obama would continue this same idiocy--and he danged sure has, with predictable results. I'm fed up with his whining about what he inherited from the Bushies. He knew the problems existed, back in June of last year. Nobody forced him to take the job; he begged for it, he got it, and by virtue of continuing Bush's policies has made the whole deal his own baby. Okay, fine, now let him rock it.

    Trouble is, he doesn't have a clue about how to solve this financial debacle. He and Geithner and pMSNBC can do all the spin-spin they want, but when you're going down the wrong path you don't get where you want to go.

    This next three years is gonna be just really, really interesting...

    'Rat
     
  4. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #4
    I actually would love to take this seriously if you could go without replacing "I think" with "iThink". :cool:

    But generally speaking, don't you get it? There will always be a side that is anti-insert president's name here. I think when you realize that this will always be true you'll stop worrying about it so much. I also believe, or the way I read it, is that you just don't seem to think that a Republican can appreciate Obama. This is also untrue and without basis, but you are entitled to your opinions.

    That being said, I think there is a great deal of confusion surrounding party labels and the confusion doesn't lie with just you. I firmly believe that some republicans aren't even sure what brings them to the point where they call themselves a republican. I also believe that youth today is driven towards the sensational nature of Obama, you included ... no matter how far left or right you lean.

    Though on one point, you are right about the healthcare bill as it will pass in some form. Based on what you write I am unsure you can really understand why there is so much disruption over it, but as an adult who supports herself it is something to be disruptive about.

    My thought, if you have a voice and wish to use it then never think that what you say or do is fruitless. If you truly believe that then your post is fruitless too; which it really isn't.
     
  5. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #5
    No he isn't. I don't say this because I like Obama, or because I have any desire to defend him, but because I live in a nation with actual socialism. Obama is right of centre. Your statement betrays one of two ideological issues; either you do not know what socialism is or your political position is so far removed from Obama that you are willing to skew one side of the fulcrum. In either case, you have the experience, knowledge and rationality to know better.
     
  6. GoCubsGo macrumors Nehalem

    GoCubsGo

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2005
    #6
    That is very well put.
     
  7. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #7

    Chrysler is majority owned by Fiat. The US government holds a minority stake( I believe it is 20%).

    Wagoner wasn't fired. He was asked to step down by the Auto Task Force and he obliged. You may interpret it as being fired, but fact remains Wagoner left on his own free will. Wagoner was opposed to the bankruptcy filing. He feared it would have a negative effect on GM's image and further kill consumer confidence in GM. He also opposed getting rid of any brands until it was practically forced upon him. He was the only person to vote no when the old GM board voted to close down Pontiac.
     
  8. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #8
    Most will agree that in order to get elected president one has to adopt centrist ideologies/actions. In the entire "is obama a socialist" debate, its even difficult for self-proclaimed socialists to agree on what it is because the definition is broad. While he isn't textbook Marxist he was enough of a socialist to be endorsed by the Democratic Socialists of America in 1995-- unless they don't know what a socialist is either.
     
  9. thegoldenmackid thread starter macrumors 604

    thegoldenmackid

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Location:
    dallas, texas
    #9
    I will avoid the "iThink" for this:
    I do understand the anti-x president idea, but I really think it's a little different. The past administration and the one before that did not see the same type of response to it. While my utopian idea of discussion in the political sense won't ever come to fruition - I believe that the country is taking massive steps backwards. The closet racism and ignorance that seems to exist today in the Obama era seems very unique to the times.

    I don't believe that "Republicans," "conservatives," "Conservatives," or those anywhere on the political scale can't appreciate Obama. I don't really see that as any part of the formation of my jumbled thoughts. But you can explain to me what I'm thinking.

    My points were somewhat directed at this idea that the "Republican" party is very lost, but the representation it gets via those on the far-right cannot be representative of the party as a whole or even a majority.

    Sure, I thought it was great Obama was black. Quite frankly, I was more thankful:
    A. Bush era came to an end
    B. Palin was not elected
    C. There was some hope at social progress

    It's great and all that Obama had a twitter, but I would like DADT overturned a whole lot quicker.

    As to the healthcare discussion. I have some understanding, however biased it may be, of the bill. I have no clue of how it will affect me upon the loss of my college/parental coverage and the comparison between the before and after - that is something I doubt anyone could really know, given the lack of a passed bill.

    Your last points are well-taken and I will end my pitty-fest.
     
  10. IntheNet macrumors regular

    IntheNet

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    #10
    Excellent points here 'Rat... I am familiar with Communist author Saul Alinsky's 'work' and it should be footnoted and documented, particularly the link with Obama, since for many liberals herein may not be familiar with Communist Alinsky's call for the destruction, as you said, of the U.S. system and Obama's acceptance, indeed welcome of Alinsky's views. That's pretty shocking on its face. Moreover, Obama's socialistic tendency was made clear early on; in his book as you note but also more recently; recall candidate Obama's asinine remarks about how "bitter people in small towns cling to religion," very similar to the sentiment expressed by Karl Marx’s comment about "religion being the opiate of the masses." As we progress now almost 12 months into Obama's destruction of America, we see citizens rights abrogated daily, capitalism mocked, and the rapid growth of the federal government, all the while his liberal minions backing his socialism like lemmings. He is a repugnant leader to be sure and as his ratings drop and the increasing likelihood of Obama being a single-term president based on polls, many citizens ponder on how much damage he will do to the Republic while pursuing his socialistic agenda... Nonetheless, I just wanted to pass on my thanks for your post.
     
  11. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #11
    Just to clear something up. Many of the right wingers here think only in extreme terms. Everything is black or white. Either you love Obama or you hate him. Sorry, not so. Everyone I know who voted for Obama did so as the lesser of evils. When Palin joined the game even more people decided to vote for him. A vote against the religious right.
     
  12. leekohler macrumors G5

    leekohler

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Location:
    Chicago, Illinois
    #12
    You got that right. I hope they run Palin next election.
     
  13. XNine macrumors 68040

    XNine

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Why are you wearing that stupid man suit?
    #13
    Ya know, if one were to actually take time to look at the fundamentals of the Nazi party ("The National Socialist Party"), they are more in line with fundamentals of the Republicans than anyone, especially the actual socialists.

    Shouldn't these people then be comparing Bush to Hitler and not Obama?
     
  14. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #14
    They did.

    http://blogs.southflorida.com/citylink_dansweeney/hitler-bush.jpg

    http://conservativedigest.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/bush_hitler2.jpg

    http://www.phawker.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/adolf-hitler-bush.jpg

    http://www.black-and-right.com/wp-content/uploads/hitler_bush.jpg

    Don't really have to continue..
     
  15. it5five macrumors 65816

    it5five

    Joined:
    May 31, 2006
    Location:
    New York
    #15
    DSA knows what an actual socialist is, however, as someone who was for some time affiliated with this group, and was in contact with some of the main organizers of the group in NYC, let me clarify something. The DSA believes in a gradual shift toward socialism. They believe that, in America, working through the Democratic party, at first, is the only way to achieve this gradual change. They endorsed every Democratic nominee for President since Clinton, if my memory serves me well. The fact that they endorsed a Democrat - sadly, what passes for a progressive party in this country - does not say anything about that particular candidate, but rather, it speaks about the philosophy of the Democratic Socialists of America.
     
  16. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #16
    Why would they need him to be a socialist to endorse him? This is little more than guilt by association writ large.
     
  17. Lyle macrumors 68000

    Lyle

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Location:
    Madison, Alabama
    #17
    Yeah, actually, they did. It always seems worse when it's your guy who's under attack.

    I was working myself up into a long response to your original post, but I think I'm going to try to keep it short and to the point:

    What you need to understand is that the polarization that you see on the cable news networks, and the blogs, and especially here in the PRSI forums, represents (for the most part) the fringes of the political scene in the U.S. Seriously.
     
  18. obeygiant macrumors 68040

    obeygiant

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2002
    Location:
    totally cool
    #18
    Well I can see that the democratic party isn't the boiling pot of socialist water that you prefer, which to me is a good thing. In america, perhaps the best you can get is lukewarm socialism.

    It stands contrary to reason that the DSA would endorse someone who doesn't fall in line with their philosophy of a "gradual shift toward socialism."
     
  19. beatzfreak macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Location:
    NYC
    #19
    Not according to Frank Llewellyn, the national director of Democratic Socialists of America:

    more
     
  20. Queso macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2006
    #20
    No US President, past or present, bear any similarity to socialists as the definition stands. Maybe a few of the anti-Obama crowd should be a little more honest in exactly why they don't like him.

    I suspect it's less to do with his politics and more to do with not having Jesusland advocates in the White House.
     
  21. Iscariot macrumors 68030

    Iscariot

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Location:
    Toronteazy
    #21
    It's good to know we finally have a working definition of socialism -- everyone to the left of John McCain -- eh comrade?
     
  22. adroit macrumors 6502

    adroit

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    Location:
    Victoria, BC
    #22
    It's amazing to me that socialism is spoken about as if it's a bad thing.
     
  23. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #23
    Its not what America was built on, its not what we are about. We can take pieces out of socialism and use them if they benefit the whole at minimal expense. At the point you diminish the triumph of one class to reward the failures of another in every aspect you will have a very mediocre country on your hands.

    If mediocrity is your goal then socialism is excellent.
     
  24. yojitani macrumors 68000

    yojitani

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2005
    Location:
    An octopus's garden
    #24
    This is the land of failed labor unions, McCarthyism, red baiting, and witch hunts. What do you expect?

    Corrected.
     
  25. Eraserhead macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #25
    Agreed.

    Given it's starting point after WW2 as the worlds biggest power and the only one not ravaged by war and corruption the US has performed pretty mediocrely. Especially in the last 30 years where outside of the IT industry the Europeans and the Chinese among others have done very well.
     

Share This Page