Ray Jay wrote:Yes," politician who wants to get re-elected", which essentially supports Steve's position, no?

On leadership? I'd say it was unrelated. In large part I agree that Obama could have displayed more leadership, but that's a side issue to reelection. It's the socialist label I was reacting to.

Keynesian feels right, but I don't see him as a conservative in any sense of the word. He's a Keynesian pragmatist as best, and a Keynesian vote buyer at worst.

I'd agree with that assessment, he falls somewhere in-between best and worst probably.

How about a Keynesian liberal? Isn't he being as liberal as he can be considering the constraints of the other branches of government?

With new programs, that might be right, but if Obama was really a socialist, the gov't wouldn't be trying so hard to extricate itself from the bailout by selling all the assets they acquired back in 2008 and 2009. They would be completely happy running GM, AIG, Ally, etc. and would be trying to expand their power at every failure, when in fact, they're trying as hard as they can, within the limits of market conditions, to get out of government ownership.

danivon wrote:The rate of new threads has slowed from nearly 15 a month (Jan-Nov 2011) to just over 12 a month, but the share of threads on Obama by you has declined slighly slower.

I'm calling you a liar again. Why? Because you are lying. That seems your strong suit.

There are not 12 new threads a month in the Political Discussion forum, which is obviously the only pertinent measurement.

*To wit: this was the first new thread of May.*

Sigh...

I counted 73 started since the beginning of November in the Political Forum. That's about 12 per month. I counted them. Can you rather than just call people 'liars' provide us with a correct figure?

Or at least look up basic mathematical concepts like 'averages'.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Did you not read?

I said he is a Democratic Socialist. The definition suits him to a 't.'

hmm, seems you are the one who was failing to read properly here. geojanes knows you called Obama a socialist ('Democratic Socialist' would be a kind of socialist, the kind that I and most European socialists are) and he's responding to that.

Check it here: viewtopic.php?f=4&t=921&p=14469#p14469 Bold added to aid your comprehension.

Doctor Fate wrote:Tweak the wording a bit and President Obama is very plainly a democratic socialist.

I'm not sure you are clearing up how you understand the definition of the words you use, though - a democratic socialist seeks to change the ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. I don't see much in the way of nationalisation or public ownership in Obama's policy making.

He did take over college loans. He has refused to let GM buy back the remaining GM stock the government owns. Under him, the EPA has extended its reach beyond anything seen before. He has pushed for more and more Federal "investment" in speculative technologies and companies. He has fairly consistently pressed for higher taxes on corporations and "the rich" so that more money could be "invested" in his preferred projects. His sole goal has been to increase the power of the Federal government in nearly every aspect of life. Centralization by incremental steps is democratic socialism.

Ok steve, I give up. You quote yourself calling Obama a socialist to prove that when geojanes said you'd called Obama a socialist it was a failure of reading comprehension on geojanes' part?

truly you have jumped the shark.

danivon wrote:Sigh...

I counted 73 started since the beginning of November in the Political Forum. That's about 12 per month. I counted them. Can you rather than just call people 'liars' provide us with a correct figure?

Or at least look up basic mathematical concepts like 'averages'.

Zero in May prior to mine. As in none.

How many in April? Averages can be deceiving in any event: without the GOP primary, there would have been very few. I had not started one in some time, so I chose something different: an opportunity for liberals and socialists to proclaim the virtues of their Man. Of course, they could not do this without attacking Romney. That's probably because so many of the Man's accomplishments were not brought about via his leadership but in spite of it.

President Obama campaigned as post-partisan and yet has been more partisan than any President since . . . Nixon?

President Obama campaigned as post-racial and yet has been more focused on race than any President in recent memory (I would point to his comments and the policies of the Justice Department).

President Obama campaigned on the basis that he would unite, yet he has demagogued Republicans as no other President ever has demagogued his opponents.

He has been the campaigner-in-chief since taking office and has led on few issues.

Oh, for the love of mike! You told me to look at the last 6 months. I did. You now claim that I'm wrong to have done so and should have looked only at the last few weeks. Nothing to do with you not liking the data that resulted?

Moving goalposts, accusing people of not reading properly, straw men, ignoring points that are inconvenient, name calling...

isn't that the kind of stuff you claim pushed you away back in September?

danivon wrote:Ok steve, I give up. You quote yourself calling Obama a socialist to prove that when geojanes said you'd called Obama a socialist it was a failure of reading comprehension on geojanes' part?

truly you have jumped the shark.

No, he is ignoring the definition of democratic socialism. A socialist does not have to lead a revolution or force change via the barrel of a gun.

The differences between an avowed socialist, like Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama, are pretty slim.

Doctor Fate wrote:He has refused to let GM buy back the remaining GM stock the government owns.

Really? I had not heard this. I know that the gov't divested itself of a large chunk of GM about a year ago when GM sold in the mid 30s. But then the price dropped and it hasn't sold any more because they want to get more money for their investment. If/when the price is back to the mid 30s again, they'd sell as much as they could.

But they've been selling AIG mostly back to AIG, the last bunch just a couple of weeks ago. When did the gov't refuse to sell GM it's own stock back? I did a quick Google and didn't find anything.

danivon wrote:Oh, for the love of mike! You told me to look at the last 6 months. I did. You now claim that I'm wrong to have done so and should have looked only at the last few weeks. Nothing to do with you not liking the data that resulted?

Moving goalposts, accusing people of not reading properly, straw men, ignoring points that are inconvenient, name calling...

isn't that the kind of stuff you claim pushed you away back in September?

Since December 1, 2011, I counted 58 topics, 7 started by me.

Seven. And, one was a comedic bit on a toy on amazon.com.

Doctor Fate wrote:No, he is ignoring the definition of democratic socialism. A socialist does not have to lead a revolution or force change via the barrel of a gun.

The differences between an avowed socialist, like Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama, are pretty slim.

You mean me? I have no quibble with the defintion you quoted here:

socialist economic system would consist of an organisation of production to directly satisfy economic demands and human needs, so that goods and services would be produced directly for use instead of for private profit driven by the accumulation of capital

Clearly, the gov't doesn't want to be in the business producing goods and services for the people. It wants the private sector to do that, as witnessed by this completely messed up health care law, which ensconces private insurance companies at its center for cripes sake. As I said, if he was really a socialist, they'd be fighting to keep all the assets acquired during the financial crisis, because you control the production of goods and services by owning them, and they are trying like hell to get out of that business without taking a bath.

Steve, it fits nicely in your faith-based ideological system to call Obama a socialist, but for people who have no faith it makes absolutely no sense. It's like you looking up at the sky and saying its red. Well, maybe it is a little bit at sunrise and sunset, but the sky is blue.

And, frankly, you and all the bots that repeat this meme are doing the conservative cause of this country a disservice because you're alienating everyone who can see that the sky is blue.

How many of those seven were about Obama?

4.

3 of which had his name in the thread title. That's still consistent at about 60% of your threads. November and (within the last 6 months) was more prolific for you and us, and some time after your initial flounce.

But it's hilarious that you see starting a thread in which you can rubbish Obama and slur anyone who doesn't agree with you as 'something different'.

When you set up a thread devoted to slagging off Gingrich, that was kind of a departure...

geojanes wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:He has refused to let GM buy back the remaining GM stock the government owns.

Really? I had not heard this. I know that the gov't divested itself of a large chunk of GM about a year ago when GM sold in the mid 30s. But then the price dropped and it hasn't sold any more because they want to get more money for their investment. If/when the price is back to the mid 30s again, they'd sell as much as they could.

But they've been selling AIG mostly back to AIG, the last bunch just a couple of weeks ago. When did the gov't refuse to sell GM it's own stock back? I did a quick Google and didn't find anything.

Right you are. I apologize. I have the story slightly askew.
*fixed*

The administration’s 26 percent of GM stock gives it a hook into the company, though it hasn’t exploited its shares to interfere with corporate decisions. But when GM had an initial public offering in November 2010, the Obama team declined to sell all its shares, despite Whitacre’s pleas.

“There was so much interest in that IPO because we were making money,” Whitacre told me. He said he “begged” administration officials to “sell all their stock” and pay back more of the tab for the $50 billion bailout. “The government had the final say,” Whitacre says. It sought merely to give up its position as the majority (61 percent) stockholder.

So, GM wanted the government to divest itself during the IPO, while demand was high.

It is possible the government could have lost money had they done this. However, one has to wonder how long we will have to wait to break even on the GM bailout.

danivon wrote:How many of those seven were about Obama?

4.

3 of which had his name in the thread title.

In nearly six months. That's what . . . wow . . . nearly one every two months!

But it's hilarious that you see starting a thread in which you can rubbish Obama and slur anyone who doesn't agree with you as 'something different'.

I did not slur anyone. I pointed out the truth about you.

What I have done is point out that not everything that happens in the US that liberals view positively is something Obama accomplished by virtue of dogged determination.

When you set up a thread devoted to slagging off Gingrich, that was kind of a departure...

All I said was he had a lot of baggage and would not be the nominee. I was right on both counts.

If they had sold at IPO and lost money as a result, you would be screaming from the rooftops at the waste of money, the sheer incompetence of the government and how it's all down to Obama's cold Marxist heart.

They should not sell at risk of losing money. It's taxpayers' money. So they will of course want to see the price rise. That ain't 'socialism', boy. It's 'captalism' - seeking to obtain a return from a capital investment.