Who will win the 2012 US Presidential Election?

Rossrjensen, you aren't showing any signs of grasping what you talk about so I do wonder where and when you got your grades. I wonder if your grade is from a patriotic university during the Cold War because that would explain a bit.

You seem to not understand Communism despite quoting the Wikipedia definition. Yes, communism aims to establish a classless, moneyless and stateless society. This is the crux. In this society there are no ownership, everything is shared and owned by the community.

Communism have always failed due to it's core misjudgment on human behavior. It assumed that all problems came from a corrupt government that wasn't neccessary, if the government was taken down all would live in peace and harmony. In reality, as soon as there was a revolution it ended up in a new dictarship, often with an almost religious character. It also assumed that if people work for the state and got what they need, all would be ok. That didn't work either for plenty of reasons, most importantly the need for autonomy to be well.

Communism have nothing to do with anything you said about the recent president. There have never been any talk about a revolution or abolishing government or ownership.
Welfare programs - nothing to do with communism.
Redistribution of wealth - nothing to do with communism.
Increased taxes - nothing to do with communism.
All of what you claimed to be communism were ideas within the young liberalism, even Wealth of Nations by the father of Capitalism himself believed it was neccessary for distribution of wealth for capitalism to work.

The ideas that these had anything to do with communism or that these were signs of communism was invented in the US during the Cold War and that's the only place you can find such ideas.


When it comes to George Bush he fulfills a couple of points on "The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism" but a couple of points isn't enough and if you have to stretch your imagination and seek vague examples that may prove most of them then you are simply doing a mindgame.



Finally calling them Authoritarianism is a stretch of the word. Neither had any real impact on social autonomy.

CountChocula said:

Can you elaborate on this?

The Summaries table of the 2012 budget seems to show a reduction below 1 trillion by the year 2016. Of course, perhaps there is some creative accounting practice at work.

At any rate, we cannot ignore the fact that Bush's wars have cost us between $3.2 trillion to $3.4 trillion by some estimates.

Click to expand...

'Bush's wars' were necessary expenses.

JemyM said:

Rossrjensen, you aren't showing any signs of grasping what you talk about so I do wonder where and when you got your grades. I wonder if your grade is from a patriotic university during the Cold War because that would explain a bit.

Click to expand...

More ad hominem gibberish. What does patriotism or the Cold War having anything to do with what I've been saying? I in no way have established myself as patriotic or against communism/fascism. In fact, I would say quite the opposite. I have been saying that people shouldn't be so afraid of the terms to not explore how people of all types follow them. And for your information, I went to a state university and received good grades.

You seem to not understand Communism despite quoting the Wikipedia definition. Yes, communism aims to establish a classless, moneyless and stateless society. This is the crux. In this society there are no ownership, everything is shared and owned by the community.

Click to expand...

More ad hominem gibberish. Obama has advocated for digital currency. Obama has stated that the free market has proven to be a failure and ran his campaign partially on the idea that we need to "redistribute wealth". Obama has consolidated central powers. I stated all of this already. That seems to be incrementalism towards a classless, moneyless, and stateless society, wouldn't you say? Furthermore, as I have also already stated, having a communist as president in no way makes the United States a communist country. I'm not sure how I can stress this more for you.

Communism have always failed due to it's core misjudgment on human behavior. It assumed that all problems came from a corrupt government that wasn't neccessary, if the government was taken down all would live in peace and harmony. In reality, as soon as there was a revolution it ended up in a new dictarship, often with an almost religious character. It also assumed that if people work for the state and got what they need, all would be ok. That didn't work either for plenty of reasons, most importantly the need for autonomy to be well.

Click to expand...

You sound like my history teacher from high school. There is nothing inherently wrong with communism that means it could not work. We can debate what China is all night if you want, but they claim to be communist and last I heard, they have been doing just fine. I, personally, find communism as a vile and disgusting infringement on basic human freedom that we all should be afforded. That doesn't mean it couldn't work in a "perfect" world.

Communism have nothing to do with anything you said about the recent president. There have never been any talk about a revolution or abolishing government or ownership.
Welfare programs - nothing to do with communism.
Redistribution of wealth - nothing to do with communism.
Increased taxes - nothing to do with communism.
All of what you claimed to be communism were ideas within the young liberalism, even Wealth of Nations by the father of Capitalism himself believed it was neccessary for distribution of wealth for capitalism to work.

The ideas that these had anything to do with communism or that these were signs of communism was invented in the US during the Cold War and that's the only place you can find such ideas.

Click to expand...

Wrong, wrong , wrong. The very principle of communism is to work together for the "common good". Karl Marx himself stated, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need". This is a communist slogan. Welfare programs are designed to help accomplish this. Redistribution of wealth is meant to help accomplish this. Increasing taxes on the rich is meant to help accomplish this. You cannot claim it has "nothing to do with communism". It most certainly does.

When it comes to George Bush he fulfills a couple of points on "The 14 Defining Characteristics Of Fascism" but a couple of points isn't enough and if you have to stretch your imagination and seek vague examples that may prove most of them then you are simply doing a mindgame.

1. Powerful and continuing nationalism (flags, mottos, slogans, everywhere all the time)
2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights (human rights can be ignored because of "need")
3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
4. Supremacy of the Military (even to the neglect of widespread domestic problems)
5. Rampant Sexism
6. Controlled Mass Media
7. Obsession With National Security
8. Religion and government are Intertwined (the most common religion is used to as a tool to manipulate public opinion)
9. Corporate power is protected
10. Labor power is suppressed
11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
12. Obsession with crime and punishment
13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption (governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other
14. Fraudulent Elections (sham elections, smear campaigns, legislation to control districts, media manipulation)

Click to expand...

I would say that the Bush regime fits a great many of those "characteristics" - which in no way is defining by the way. Look, it's painfully obvious that there are different ways to implement any regime. The regime in Italy was different from the one in Germany (just like communism Russia was different than communist China, and both are different than Laos). To say that it has to fit some arbitrary amount of these "characteristics" (again, not defining) is silly. For him to be categorized as a fascist, he only needs to more cleanly fit that definition than any other political ideology. I think he does. I have already demonstrated how he does. The only way for you to debate me on this is for you to demonstrate to me he does not, or, how he is more appropriately a Republican.

Finally calling them Authoritarianism is a stretch of the word. Neither had any real impact on social autonomy

Click to expand...

It's not a stretch. Any time government's role in the day to day lives of people increases, it is an increase in authoritarianism. Does that make the U.S. an authoritarian state? Well, not absolutely, but it does make it closer to being one. These things do exist in degrees you know. Especially, as I have stated, in an incrementally changing government. The intrusive effects of the Patriot Act is not a form of authoritarianism? Being forced to carry health care I don't use (or paying for somebody else's) is not a form of authoritarianism? I beg to differ.

dteowner said:

True enough. Let's get past this little "progressive" hiccup and back on a proper track and stick with it long term. Glad to see we can agree!

Click to expand...

In that instance, I wasn't going for either side of the spectrum, just trying to clarify what zara had said

dteowner said:

I do so enjoy when we can ignore the actual issues in favor of a nice bit of pointless pedantry over textbook definitions. Who cares if we all understand the point if we can muddy the waters with academic bullshit? Carry on, perfessers!

Click to expand...

We're waiting for the Florida primaries to discuss who should have won that one, who will win the next one and why all the candidates suck (including Obama)

rossrjensen said:

Yes Pladio, I could have quoted the entire thing, but I left out the parts that weren't applicable to my comments. Is there something wrong with that? It's not like I was intentionally trying to hide anything (I gave you my source for crying out loud), just avoiding inapplicable or redundant commentary. This is how citing sources works and I tend to believe in content over quantity. Do you intend to respond to what I did post?

Click to expand...

Sure, if you really want to forget the semantics. Let's go ahead.

You said :

He has sought for the expansion of the credit system. He encouraged and authorized over $700 billion in bailout programs

Click to expand...

<- Obama

George Bush also authorized over $700 billion in bailouts before leaving office.

Click to expand...

Check.

He sought the establishment of universal healthcare.

Click to expand...

<- Obama

Bush also created a Medicare entitlement that cost over $800 billion.

Click to expand...

Check 2.

increasing the federal budget by over $1 trillion.

Click to expand...

<- Obama

He presided over an increased public debt of what was a record $2.5 trillion.

Click to expand...

<- Bush

Check 3.

He increased the role of government in U.S. citizens' daily routines by advocating for the Patriot Act, allowing government to spy on its own citizens without a warrant - in the name of increased security, at the cost of privacy (TWA at the airport does this on a more localized level as well).

Click to expand...

<- Bush

And my addition to that is that Obama continued with those policies.

Check 4.

Well, are they both fascist then or both communist ?



By they way, and I thought I wouldn't but it hit me too hard after rereading your post. You said :

From Wikipedia, "communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless and revolutionary socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production." Do his goals not indicate that many of this is among his aim?

Click to expand...

So, no his goals do not indicate that many of this are among his aim. Talking about Obama here.


@others: I wasn't joking before, but I was being incomplete on purpose, to show Ross that he can't just take a definition and fit it to his own bill and pretend the rest doesn't exist.

Sir Markus said:

'Bush's wars' were necessary expenses.

Click to expand...

The expensive one, the war in Iraq, was not. This is the failing that will always most drag down the Bush years.

Pladio said:

Well, are they both fascist then or both communist ?

Click to expand...

I think we have established they are both pro-government. However, the way they implement it and the goals they have (and especially the rhetoric) is quite different. I would say, as I have been saying since we started with this discussion, that they are both authoritarian.

So, no his goals do not indicate that many of this are among his aim. Talking about Obama here.

Click to expand...

I am responding on a mobile device at the moment which makes navigating around a little more complicated. Instead of quoting myself, I responded to this already in my previous post. Please see it for my response. But I do have a question for you, if you were a communist (I don't know your complete ideology), how would you go about implementing your vision if you became president? You cannot force the society and government to drastically change, but you could make small steps to make it become closer to your vision and hope others continue your course, right?

@others: I wasn't joking before, but I was being incomplete on purpose, to show Ross that he can't just take a definition and fit it to his own bill and pretend the rest doesn't exist.

Click to expand...

Again, I simply will point out that it seems the "definitions" of Republican and Democrat seem endlessly flexible, yet for some reason it appears that fascist and communist are disregarded as needing to fit some very strict sort of rules. As I have mentioned, there have been some vastly different communist and fascist regimes that we, as a society, are okay with labeling as such, so there must be a wide array of different beliefs within those ideologies too. I think we have been fairly cordial to each other, which I appreciate, but why does it seem to me that people think I am being insulting somehow by stating that their perspectives are less consistent with their predecessor's ideologies (and there party's commonly agreed upon tenets) and more consistent with other ways of thinking. Do you recall Bill Clinton saying, "the day of big government is over"?

rossrjensen said:

I think we have established they are both pro-government. However, the way they implement it and the goals they have (and especially the rhetoric) is quite different. I would say, as I have been saying since we started with this discussion, that they are both authoritarian.

Click to expand...

The point was very simple. You said Obama is a communist, but have failed to show that. Same with Bush and him being a fascist. Especially since the points you were making were partly the same for both.

I wasn't talking about them being authoritarian, I think. Which is a whole other discussion.

I am responding on a mobile device at the moment which makes navigating around a little more complicated. Instead of quoting myself, I responded to this already in my previous post. Please see it for my response. But I do have a question for you, if you were a communist (I don't know your complete ideology), how would you go about implementing your vision if you became president? You cannot force the society and government to drastically change, but you could make small steps to make it become closer to your vision and hope others continue your course, right?

Click to expand...

Yes, and no. Communism in its essence (as I understand it) needs a big push. From what I've read, this is a strong government taking over everything and the letting go that power so that all people become equal in both wealth and power.

So doing what Obama is doing is first and foremost not communist as I've established before, but if a label should stand for him, it would be a Social Democrat, even for you as it nudges towards socialism...:

Traditionally, social democracy is an international political movement seeking a gradualist path to socialism through ameliorative reforms made on behalf of the working class. It relies on the use of the democratic process to achieve its aims as opposed to revolutionary means.[1] In terms of modern social democracy, one view presented calls for the profound reformation of capitalism to align it with the ethical ideals of social justice while maintaining the capitalist mode of production, rather than creating an alternative socialist economic system.

Click to expand...

Again, I simply will point out that it seems the "definitions" of Republican and Democrat seem endlessly flexible, yet for some reason it appears that fascist and communist are disregarded as needing to fit some very strict sort of rules. As I have mentioned, there have been some vastly different communist and fascist regimes that we, as a society, are okay with labeling as such, so there must be a wide array of different beliefs within those ideologies too. I think we have been fairly cordial to each other, which I appreciate, but why does it seem to me that people think I am being insulting somehow by stating that their perspectives are less consistent with their predecessor's ideologies and more consistent with other ways of thinking. Do you recall Bill Clinton saying, "the day of big government is over"?

Click to expand...

I don't think you're being insulting and I hope you don't think I am. I am attacking your arguments of communist and fascist, not you. I hope that's clear. If not please tell me and I would apologize and try not to attack you again, especially if you're offended.

Simply put, rrj, it's easier to quibble about pointless minutae than to deal with complex problems. Similarly, it's far easier to be "right" by finding fault than by formulating theories, particularly if finding fault boils down to claiming that some word is improperly used because it doesn't meet definition 3, section W, article 5, paragraph S from some suitably impressive textbook. Why deal with uncomfortable theories when they can be safely dismissed based on trivia? And don't let them fool you into the "precise communication for proper understanding" nonsense, either. They must, by implication, understand exactly what you meant since they know one word out of several hundred doesn't meet definition 3, section W, article 5, paragraph S, so the communication had to be effective.

On the top of everything you also seems to have a problem with understanding what "ad hominem" mean Ross... Now, if any of us called you "stupid" or "ignorant" that would have been "ad hominem" but saying that you don't understand specific term isn't.

rossrjensen said:

But people would not be just as right calling Paul a fascist or communist.

Click to expand...

As I have said before: they would be as right as you are calling Obama "communist" and Bush a "fascist" but let's examine what you have said in detail:

"Obama is seeking to create social justice through welfare programs" - he isn't but even if he was it's not "communist". In communism you don't have social welfare beyond Disability Benefit. There was no Social Security or Unemployment Benefit.

"While campaigning ("change") he said he would seek a "redistribution of wealth" and said that the free market had proven to be a failure." - Jemy have dealt with this point but let me add that Obama have said "current model of free market" and not free market as such.

"He has sought for the expansion of the credit system." - not communist. In fact, because of the (theoretical) "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" approach there is no room for credit in communism.

"He encouraged and authorized over $700 billion in bailout programs for "too big to fail" businesses (an unholy union between the private sector and government), increasing the federal budget by over $1 trillion." - bailout programs for PRIVATE ENTERPRISES communist? Dude!

"He sought the establishment of universal healthcare." - universal health care is universal in Europe and none of those countries is communist.

"He wants to raise taxes, with the burden falling primarily on the wealthy." - as Jemy have said: nothing to do with communism.

"By 2016, Obama will have increased government debt by a record $4.9 trillion." - and it's a well know fact that only communists suffer from increasing governmental debts?

"From Wikipedia, "communism is a social, political and economic ideology that aims at the establishment of a classless, moneyless, stateless and revolutionary socialist society structured upon common ownership of the means of production." Do his goals not indicate that many of this is among his aim?" Now you are just being funny!

dteowner said:

Simply put, rrj, it's easier to quibble about pointless minutae than to deal with complex problems. Similarly, it's far easier to be "right" by finding fault than by formulating theories, particularly if finding fault boils down to claiming that some word is improperly used because it doesn't meet definition 3, section W, article 5, paragraph S from some suitably impressive textbook. Why deal with uncomfortable theories when they can be safely dismissed based on trivia? And don't let them fool you into the "precise communication for proper understanding" nonsense, either. They must, by implication, understand exactly what you meant since they know one word out of several hundred doesn't meet definition 3, section W, article 5, paragraph S, so the communication had to be effective.

Click to expand...

dte, you can quibble that we are only dealing in semantics all you like, but both zara and I have shown his arguments to be wrong. (In addition to his semantics)

dteowner said:

They must, by implication, understand exactly what you meant since they know one word out of several hundred doesn't meet definition 3, section W, article 5, paragraph S, so the communication had to be effective.

Click to expand...

Smoke and mirrors dte. Smoke and mirrors. Only few of his words (out of several hundred) HAD actually met the definition.

Pladio said:

dte, you can quibble that we are only dealing in semantics all you like, but both zara and I have shown his arguments to be wrong. (In addition to his semantics)

Click to expand...

I would agree that both of you have expanded your argument over time, but your initial complaint ignored his concept in favor of beating him over the head with a dictionary. A rather typical tactic, I might add. While my comment is a little misplaced at this point of this particular discussion, I'll offer it as a universal truth that was specifically relevant and perfectly exemplified earlier in the discussion.

dteowner said:

I would agree that both of you have expanded your argument over time, but your initial complaint ignored his concept in favor of beating him over the head with a dictionary. A rather typical tactic, I might add.

Click to expand...

Oh I understand why you would have a problem with definitions dte. Definitions can be right down awkward when somebody likes to throw their own (and very individual) version of the words like "socialist" or "communist" only to be told (to their apparent surprise) that those words have very specific definitions.

Would you not also agree that the precise definitions of those words weren't actually critical to his point?

How would you argue that somebody doesn't seem to understand concepts he is using without referring to the definition of those concepts?

A textbook definition of certain terms isn't really critical to his original point--that the traditional left/right spectrum is inadequate to describe various political positions. In fact, if you think about it, the fact that you're so busy stroking your beard and channelling Noah Webster actually serves as fairly solid evidence that traditional definitions have gotten tremendously fuzzy. rrj should probably be thanking you for supporting his hypothesis.

You might as well be dogpaddling on a ship deck because you point out that ships don't float. Yes, technically you're correct (they are supported by the water), but you still completely miss the point and you look like an idiot in the process.

Allow me to start here.

On the top of everything you also seems to have a problem with understanding what "ad hominem" mean Ross… Now, if any of us called you "stupid" or "ignorant" that would have been "ad hominem" but saying that you don't understand specific term isn't.

Click to expand...

The funny thing is you have even insulted me right here, claiming I don't know a term I have used. A couple snippets from Wiki - "Abusive ad hominem (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one's opponent in order to attack his claim or invalidate his argument…An abusive ad hominem can apply to a judgment of cultural works or academic efforts based on the behavior or unconventional political beliefs".

Now here's what you have said:

All what you really did was to reveal that you have no clue what "fascist" or "communist" means.

Click to expand...

To say that I have no understanding to what those terms mean is an insult. It's an attack on my intellect and it's not related to the substance of my comments.

That's makes your previous statement even more preposterous.

Click to expand...

Apparently my comments were so ridiculous that you doubt my level of education, or think that people with education would not make such comments. This is insulting as well, though at least it was not as direct as the first.

From JemyM:

Rossrjensen, you aren't showing any signs of grasping what you talk about so I do wonder where and when you got your grades. I wonder if your grade is from a patriotic university during the Cold War because that would explain a bit.

Click to expand...

To say that I show no signs of grasping what I am talking about is an insult as well, unrelated to the substance of my arguments. I have described in detail my various concepts. While he could be honestly curious if I went to a patriotic university during the Cold War, I find it very doubtful. He was hinting that my education has been tainted by archaic (and thus outright wrong in his understanding) practices. The head professor of my program, the guy I took at least the vast majority of my courses from, was a self-described Marxist Communist in fact.

Pladio has taken a less insulting tone with me. He has simply said I'm wrong, and while I don't agree with the logic that supposedly proves me wrong, I can stomach his perspective.

Now on to the more substantive comments:

Pladio

The point was very simple. You said Obama is a communist, but have failed to show that. Same with Bush and him being a fascist. Especially since the points you were making were partly the same for both.

Click to expand...

My original comment that set in motion this debate was "We just traded a fascist for a communist. They both want authoritarianism." My point was they do a lot of things the same. Believe it or not, fascism and communism share a lot in common, as much as they may detest each other. How Obama and Bush are set apart is in their goals and how they implement their policies. Bush wanted to corporatize benefits, Obama wanted to make to make it a government function. Neither has gotten exactly what they wanted because congress has churned out some bastardized form of it. But that's what politics is all about in this country, incrementalism and compromise. And that takes me back to another of my points, just because we have a communist as president does not make our country communist, and just because we have a fascist as president does not make our country fascist. If my Marxist Communist former professor ran for president, do you honestly think we would immediately transform into a revolutionary proletarian state and see the elimination of social classes and money?

You may disagree that I have shown Obama to be communist and Bush to be fascist, that's your right. But you also have done very little to convince me they're not. I laid out in detail what they have done, what they have tried to do, and what about it aligns with fascism or communism. I also asked you to show me how they more clearly fit the definition of their party tickets, but that has not been done. I will state this again, to categorize someone, they need only to more clearly fit that definition than any other.

So doing what Obama is doing is first and foremost not communist as I've established before, but if a label should stand for him, it would be a Social Democrat, even for you as it nudges towards socialism…:

Click to expand...

Well now, wouldn't that depend to what degree Obama wants to take his ideas? No politician is going to go out screaming "I believe in fascism" or "I believe in communism" and expect to get elected in this country. He can't very well lead a social uprising on his own. Don't you think presidency would be the best way for a person to affect change to his more perfect idea of utopia?

That being said, I think you could make a compelling argument that Obama is a socialist over being a communist. But again, I haven't heard one yet.

I don't think you're being insulting and I hope you don't think I am.

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not offended in any case, but as I said early, I haven't found your comments to be insulting. Thanks for keeping it civil, I will do the best to do so as well. I'm not one to hold grudges in any case, and if we can't agree here, we might be able to agree about the Baldur's Gate series on some level.

DTE

I would agree that both of you have expanded your argument over time, but your initial complaint ignored his concept in favor of beating him over the head with a dictionary.

Click to expand...

Thank you. I don't mind debating some of the specifics, but as usually happens, the conversation gets stuck spinning its wheels in the mud over semantics. Then again, I suppose this is what congress deals with regularly. Maybe that's why they maintain part-time hours…

Zahratustra

In communism you don't have social welfare beyond Disability Benefit. There was no Social Security or Unemployment Benefit.

Click to expand...

not communist. In fact, because of the (theoretical) "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" approach there is no room for credit in communism.

Click to expand...

I feel like I have discussed in detail how to create the vision of a communist state while working with what you have available. In a purely communist state, there would be no need for Social Security or Unemployment, but that would be because they would have another system in place to subsidize everyone's lifestyle. How do you create that in the world we live in now? Through social programs. We are getting a little off topic though, since Obama himself wasn't responsible for creating those programs. Let me state this again, just to make it clear, having a communist president does not make the U.S. a communist country. No more so then having a communist program head at my former university makes that program communist.

I feel your second line is addressed here too. It's a small step towards creating a moneyless society.

Jemy have dealt with this point but let me add that Obama have said "current model of free market" and not free market as such.

Click to expand...

Again, we're going to be getting into arguing what Obama meant - semantics. I am not going to bother looking for a link saying exactly what he said, I saw him say it on TV. To me, it's a giant red flag to blame the "free" market, and nothing else, for the failure of the economy.

bailout programs for PRIVATE ENTERPRISES communist? Dude!

Click to expand...

At the cost of capitalism, there is no doubt about that. How can it get any worse than government supporting bloated, failing businesses full of unethical individuals? To call these organizations "private enterprises" is tenuous at best. How do you not see government being in bed with the private sector as potentially a communist approach to changing the way we do business? It's collectivist and requires centralized planning. I suppose nationalizing a business is not communist (or fascist) either.

That being said, I believe that Bush and Obama had different motivations for the bailouts, as explained before.

universal health care is universal in Europe and none of those countries is communist.

Click to expand...

This has little to do with the argument at all. But as I have said repeatedly, having a communist president does not make the U.S. a communist country. As far as I'm aware, there are multiple countries in Europe that have communist parties, that do in fact run for office and try to make changes when they are elected. Correct me if I'm wrong (could be just South America, but if any other place did, I would imagine it would be some of our friends across the pond).

as Jemy have said: nothing to do with communism.

Click to expand...

You read his argument and I would hope you bothered to read my rebuttal before responding to me, because it is really forcing me to say the same concepts over time and time again. As I have previously stated, it is an incremental step towards putting every person on "equal" footing. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need". Demonstrate to me how this has "nothing to do with communism". Don't just tell me it doesn't. I have shown you how it does. Show me how it doesn't.

and it's a well know fact that only communists suffer from increasing governmental debts?

Click to expand...

This is a way of demonstrating how Obama has increased the role of government and centralized powers through various means. Temporary government fixes regularly lead to permanent government programs, which stifles the private sector and civil society.

dteowner said:

A textbook definition of certain terms isn't really critical to his original point—that the traditional left/right spectrum is inadequate to describe various political positions. .

Click to expand...

Yes! Thank you! Stated succinctly in a way I seem to have been unable to do.