Don't confuse me with the facts!

[andak01]

If your father, mother, grandparents, friends, religious affiliations, former bosses, first political parties you associated with, and political appointees were all unabashed Communists/Marxists at one time, and your own politics reflect social justice, spreading wealth around, and a living Constitution ....it's not a smear to call a fact, a fact.

Except for establishing royal bloodlines, the politics of parents does not say anything about the politics of their children. I doubt Marx's parents were Marxist! Furthermore, politicians particularly on the national level associate with many, many people of many persuasions. Obama no doubt has associated with homeless people and billionaires, people on the far right and on the far left. Short of him stating that he is a Communist, using circumstantial evidence of acquaintances stinks of witch hunting. When you add that to the FACT that every Democratic candidate has undergone the same smear since Clinton and probably before that, then calling agit-prop what it is is not a smear.

[andak01]

You're obfuscating again Andak. Bill Clinton is not, and was not a communist, not by a longshot. Neither is Kerry and the Heinz family, that is for certain.

And yet, they got the same treatment and smears from the same sources.

[redcake]

using circumstantial evidence of acquaintances stinks of witch hunting.

Which is why you ignore the fact that Obama's own politics and affiliations are enough, without any need to use circumstantial evidence, and this validates the scrutiny of his acquaintances for further insight. It's not just that every formative experience he had was shaped by dissident politics, it's that he's attempting to turn such politics into subversive policy.

When you add that to the FACT that every Democratic candidate has undergone the same smear since Clinton and probably before that, then calling agit-prop what it is is not a smear.

Every major Democratic candidate's lineage and platform since Clinton has had direct ties to SDS.

[NewsGuy]

Yep. The far left is just as angry at him as the far right about health care, the environment, the budget, etc. But I understand the middle is so far away from you that the contrast hurts your eyes.

As it's already been said here, Obama is a Communist or Socialist, and apparently you view him as moderate because he represents your own radical Leftist views.

Instead of trying to mischaracterize Obama and deny his voting record, why not just admit what Obama is a radical Leftist and be proud of it instead of living in denial?

[andak01]

As it's already been said here, Obama is a Communist or Socialist, and apparently you view him as moderate because he represents your own radical Leftist views.

Look, you can pull out the same smear on me as you use on anyone else to the left of Mussolini. That's about what I've come to expect. And of course socialism and communism are interchangeable terms to you. Not surprisingly.

Instead of trying to mischaracterize Obama and deny his voting record, why not just admit what Obama is a radical Leftist and be proud of it instead of living in denial?

Because he isn't a radical and the reason your fear mongering didn't work this time is fatigue. Moderates can't remain in a state of hysteria over every single democratic candidate that comes along. Saying that Clinton and Gore and Obama are everything short of mother slaying cannibals is getting a bit old.

[redcake]

Andak, is it Socialism, or Communism when one advocates a government takeover of 1/6th of our entire economy?

Isn't social justice legislation, and "spreading the wealth around" in line with classic Marxism?

Isn't it radical to view the Constitution as a "charter of negative liberties"?

We're discussing facts, not hyperbole. It's actually you who is smearing Newsguy.

[Mediocrates]

It's a spectrum. The US like most countries is socialist-social democrat-capitalist hybrid. All you're arguing about is numbers.

[redcake]

Aren't those numbers consequential?

We're arguing about ideology, masked as identity politics.

[Mediocrates]

I don't think so. It's a bellwether that's used to signify more where you stand than it does in terms of any real consequence. Most taxes and spending is on the state level, at least to the extent that it perturbs the day to day lives of people. The very fact that the FOMC (The Fed) exists means that the Federal government can't really be 'socialist' in any significant way. It's a huge efficient capital market with a thriving retail economy. At most it's the difference between moderate taxes and slightly less moderate taxes.

[redcake]

Aren't we discussing increased regulatory permissions for the Feds that would negate the comfort zone of your argument?

Our deficit is a Federal deficit, despite allocations to State levels. A State budgetary crisis is miniscule in comparison.

Finally, it's the approach to solving these issues which comes back to ideology...either you believe in the government solution, providing for the people, or you believe in a free market system with individual initiative.

If Obama was to the left of Bernie Sanders, and has expanded our government workforce to an unprecedented degree, while proposing all encompassing regulations to media, banking, utilities, civil services....well, a duck is a duck.

[I am David 2]

If Obama were actually a radical leftist, or liberal, that would be a good thing. Not in all senses, but fear mongering that Obama is "socialist" isn't an argument that the policies are actually negative, which is what's important, right? Simply put "socialist" policies applied to certain issues can be a good thing. If it increases efficiency and accountability to centralize decision making, the "socialism" argument becomes irrelevant.

The debate shouldn't be about whether Obama is socialist. You can't prove that's a bad thing just by calling him one.

Obama's problem is that he is a weak leader without any real convictions and is anti-intellectual, not being a socialist.

[Mediocrates]

The progressives call him Bush 3. The GOP calls him that evil Marxist. Can't win for losing I guessing. Had any Republican won in 2008 he would have been accused of largely the same thing as Obama because there are not that many options when the economy is in free fall. I suppose we could have cut Federal taxes to zero and pray for rain, but that would have only worked one budget cycle.

[redcake]

Sounds like you figured out you might need another 2 years solid just to psych yourself out enough in order to vote for him a 2nd time, and you're starting now.

[bararallu]

LOL. Naw Medio has seen the Apaches not delivered.

[NewsGuy]

Look, you can pull out the same smear on me as you use on anyone else to the left of Mussolini. That's about what I've come to expect. And of course socialism and communism are interchangeable terms to you. Not surprisingly.

Actually, you're the one who tries to smear everyone who is not a Socialist like you. Just scroll up and see. I don't think that Socialism and Communism are the same, although they are closely related, and I wonder which label best fits Obama and his radical Leftist supporters like you.

Because he isn't a radical and the reason your fear mongering didn't work this time is fatigue. Moderates can't remain in a state of hysteria over every single democratic candidate that comes along. Saying that Clinton and Gore and Obama are everything short of mother slaying cannibals is getting a bit old.

Since you seem to be the only one saying those things and you feel fatigue, why not just give yourself a little break?