Mao Is Mighty Popular Among Obama’s Czars

Government takeover, huh? As opposed to letting the entire auto manufacturing industry go under at the same time that all of Wall Street was also collapsing? That’s really what you would have advocated? I’m sure.

Anything else, Sonic Ninja. It hasn’t been a long day for me yet. The GM takeover was, for most economists, an absolutely necessary step to keep the entire industry from collapsing. Today’s announcement about exec pay I find to be repellent, honestly, and don’t approve of it. It’s purely for domestic political theater. But really, is that the best you got, when it comes to Maoism? Cause if it is, the assertion is a mighty FAIL.

>>OK, gotta do some others, here:

Thank you for this serious note, Kitty.

>>bailout supporter (yes, McCain was, too–don’t get me started on all these clowns)

And Bush. Everyone, in other words, who actually had, or might have, executive authority, anywhere in the developed world last fall, all did the same thing: take direct public action to prevent the global economic system from complete, profound, terrifying collapse. The bailouts are very easy to criticize. But criticizing Obama in particular is silly, and frankly, if you cannot say what you believe would have happened if the bailouts had NOT taken place, you don’t have anything significant to say at all.

From what I’ve read, without the massive bailouts last fall and winter from the successive Bush and Obama administrations, the entire global banking and insurance systems would have gone under. Nobody in human history has ever seen a collapse like that. The suffering would have been unimaginable.

So please don’t list the bailouts as some evidence of Communistic tendencies unless you’re willing to defend the position that you really don’t think they should have happened.

>>constantly suppresses, ridicules, & marginalizes dissenters

Name one instance in which Obama actually does this? Or, alternatively, name a major political party that doesn’t attempt to ridicule and marginalize dissenters. That’s pretty much all the Republican Party does anymore at all. LOL.

>>poised to support control of internet if S. 773 makes it through

“Control of the Internet?” By whom? Hang on.

This bill seems to have to do with national security and the Net? I work in the dotcom world and hadn’t heard of it, so it can’t have gotten very far yet. But certainly I’ve seen politicians of both parties take positions on Internet issues that seemed stupid to me. I’ll have to take a pass on this because I don’t know anything about it yet. But trust me — nobody is taking control of the Internet. Nobody. Can’t be done, not anymore.

>>free trade restrictions galore (yes, many others do, too–they are all corporate communists)

Yes, they are, and yes, I tend to agree with you. I don’t think this White House has been terribly egregious in this regard yet, though.

>>appointing of ‘czars’–people neither elected nor review by elected officials

LOL. As opposed to whom? The Bush White House had the worst record of appointing political hacks to important positions of any administration in history — see Michael Brown at FEMA, 25 year political operatives running the rebuilding of Iraq, evangelical zealots running health policy, etc. Obama is not a big sinner in this regard, at all.

>>imho, the whole “stimulus” package was simply a redistribution of wealth as opposed to an economic necessity

You’re wrong. It was absolutely an economic necessity. In fact, a second stimulus is probably an economic necessity. But…transfer of wealth? From whom to whom? What really happened was a transfer of wealth from future tax payments (i.e., the public) to large corporations today. If Obama is anything, he’s a robber baron: he’s transferring wealth from the middle class and the poor and giving it to the wealthy. Like I keep saying: he’s no Communist; if anything, he’s a corporatist.

>>law does not apply to him–will not address birth certificate issue directly

LOL. No comment.

>>acts like a supreme ruler as opposed to a public servant with all the trips & parties

LOL. No comment. Too silly to warrant a response.

>>executive branch takeover of 2010 census

What? Really? Citation please.

>>and the BIGGIE: supports central banking, aka the Federal Reserve. This is corporate communism, and has been going on for decades in this country, and not only has Obama not changed a thing about it, he seeks an INCREASE in the Fed’s power and control over our lives.

Uh oh. Now you’re waving your real flag. You’re a gold standard person, huh? Oy.

>>Read “End the Fed” by Ron Paul. It will open your eyes!!!

BINGO! LOL. Look, I have read Paul — the smart stuff, not the crazy stuff. I do not believe, for instance, like Ron Paul does, that there’s a secret conspiracy to merge the U.S. and Mexico. And I do have some libertarian sympathies. But I’m sorry — the economic policies the man advocates are the kind of crazy, pie-in-the-sky theoretical musing that you can do indulge in if you know you will never have power anyway. The U.S. is not going to abolish the Federal Reserve, nor should it, nor will we ever return to the gold standard. The greatest burst of prosperity in American history (roughly, 1946 – 2008) happened after we left the gold standard, established the Federal Reserve, enacted Social Security and Medicare, and so on down the “socialist” line. Hardcore libertarian ideology is bankrupt. Hardcore libertarian ideology led to the deregulation of the interlocking banking, mortgage and investment systems, which led to the derivatives debacle which cost the global economy trillions of dollars and led us all into this ditch.

And all of this happened before Obama was elected.

Pat Racimora…where are you? We need your talents.

Obama Shit Sandwich,
Heavy on the Mao!

and you need to zip it think you will find your mouth is running off on a Patriot who probably fought the war on terror that allowed you to get to the age you are today whilst being walked around in your stroller.

You need to keeep your mouth in check!

O.K. here’s more from just today. White House orders pay cuts of bailout execs by up to 90%.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/33417281

O.K. and I will go ahead and quote the wiki out of expediency.

In the economic sphere, many fascist leaders have claimed to support a “Third Way” in economic policy, which they believed superior to both the rampant individualism of unrestrained capitalism and the severe control of state communism. This was to be achieved by establishing significant government control over business and labour

Still, I see this as some new hybrid which is as much corporatism acting via insider connections and lobbying as a pseudo government.

Fascists opposed laissez-faire economic policies dominant in the era prior to the Great Depression.

Like the financial controls just recently announced.

Fascists declared their opposition to finance capitalism, interest charging, and profiteering.

Like the executive salary controls.

private property was allowed, but property rights and private initiative were contingent upon service to the state.

Like national service week for beginners.

State intervention in economic production may take place only where private initiative is lacking or is insufficient, or when are at stakes the political interest of the State.

Like the automakers, the banks and ultimately unions.

Anyway here is the link. Much more is on the Internet. To think of this as communism misses the point I believe.

Fascists explicitly promoted their ideology as a “Third Position” between capitalism and communism

Yes, more like a tweener but with a blending of corporatism. A fundamental change to the United States across the board with an unholy alliance between corporate business and government.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

Maybe he will start by getting rid of all the “typical white women.” Their pre-condition? They were women with no minority status to protect them.

Full disclosure from 0?? Right.
Why does he have to plant someone in the judge’s office when all he has to do is show the long form of his birth certificate?