Is obama really a good Pres? US topic

To be fair to Obama, this is probably one of the worst congress we ever had in session. Not only are the so party motivated, they do not budge on anything, and they support only the intrests of the people who are really controlling this world. But Obama's look at by some as the greatest president alive. To me, he hasn't kept his promises, but how can you when the house is rigged against you all the time.I say that we should clean the house and congress in 2014 and 2016.

Well said.


I'm happy not everyone is a dick and calling him shit because.

Ah socialism, the last refuge for privileged children to feel edgy and rebel against their parents.

Privilaged children or do you mean people who actually have any semblence of intellegence. There are many forms of socialism, some can seem bad and some good. The general ideal of socialism is a great cause. A place of true equality.

But I'm curious to know how most first world nations that don't use socialism are fairing with their causes? It doesn't take a genius to see that free health care should be automatic for the care of any nation. That education and child welfare should be placed on the highest mantle and not sold off to corporation for their own agendas. And most certainly, a government should be controlled by the people it governs and not by multi-billion dollar companies, thugs and lobbyists.

I think to answer this question you're going to need a set of criteria. I personally don't have one and as long as a president doesn't completely take the country to rock-bottom I can't label his term as a president a failure or success.

Except said groups internalize socialism and use it to their benefit. Take the Soviet Union as an example, its constitution was so large most of the people didn't know their rights, Stalin frequently abused them, killed them and worked them off in labor camps.

I cite Before the Fall Out(2012) by Hudson Roger on France's encounter with extreme socialism/bolshevism.

el. The Socialist leader, Leon Blum, warned in vain that Bolshevism was not some energised version of the reformism and human rights they were used to but autocratic and ruthless, a denial of democracy and liberty."

Though the Founders took it a step further and stated, rather correctly that democracy is not the beacon of freedom, but rather it is the voice of the majority, suppressing the voice of the few. It deems that if enough idiots believe "X" to be true, then by golly it must be true.

Socialism and Obama talk. Neato.

Well he didn't eliminate tax loopholes for oil and gas taxes...So I guess that's pretty socialist.

That is capitalist not socialist. It's obvious when companies get tax breaks over the people.

I actually meant self-righteous, privileged children. I can tell by your tone that you already kneel at the altar of the state. So go ahead, say your prayers, drop your money in the donation box and let's get on with it.



Nothing is free especially "free healthcare". Everything within the medical system requires someone to put forth their labor to make it happen. The doctors who diagnose your illness, the surgeons who fix what's broken, the nurses who take care of you while your in the hospital, etc. All of this requires people be compensated for their time which if you disagree leads into an entirely different argument.

Socialists believe that the money required to pay these professionals should be taken by force from those who have money. Once the money has been extorted from one group, it should be given to others in various forms ranging from welfare to government services which include government healthcare and governments schools to indoctrinate the children with a robust love of the state.

Socialists prattle on with delightful talk of "if we all just cooperated, we could accomplish so much more" yet they ignore a key concept of cooperation which is the element of volunteerism. Socialism only works if everyone is participating in the system this is often enforced via taxes, penalties, fines and other "incentives" to force people into the system. To the uneducated this is perfectly fine because the ends justify the means. These individuals are so indoctrinated with the state dogma that they believe anyone who is opposed to be robbed for the benefit of others is just a compassion-less monster who wishes to see children and elderly dying in the gutter because they are simply greedy, vile, corrupt bastards won't let go of the money they rightfully earned.



tl;dr: Using force against one group to help another is just being a self-righteous bully and shows no actual compassion for others.



That is not capitalism, it's called corporatism. Learn the difference so people will at least think you stayed awake in class.

Capitalism: An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.

Corporatism: The control of a state or organization by large interest groups.

These two definitions are not mutually exculsive. Infact, you can not have one without the other. The policies made for economics by the government must coincide with what the private owners want, so they must have control in government. If they didn't have a say, it wouldn't be true capitalism.

I'll give you a "C" as your definition of Capitalism is the same as a middle school student (i.e grossly oversimplified which reflects your poor understanding of the subject).

Capitalism - an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market



You get a solid F. Why? Because Corporatism actually means "the organization of a society into industrial and professional corporations serving as organs of political representation and exercising control over persons and activities within their jurisdiction"

I was hoping you'd actually catch that and make this sporting but, I was disappointed. The term we should actually discuss is "Crony capitalism". This results in self-serving policies such as favoritism and corporate welfare.



The real definitions of Capitalism and Corporatism, they overlap as Corporatism is an element of Capitalism. However, since your definitions were flawed from the start, your conclusions as a result are also flawed.

Free market a.k.a Laissez-faire capitalism is generally considered "true" capitalism as there is no outside influence distorting the market mechanisms. So, for "true" capitalism to exist, it must exist independently from government policy.

The only way for you to be correct in your analogy would require mixed economy or state capitalism to be the "true" form of capitalism.

That isn't capitalist at all.

It reflects my poor understanding of the subject? Type in "define capitalism" and "define corporatism" into google search and those are exactly the definitions that you get. So apparently the entire world doesn't know the proper meaning but you do?

Corporatism isn't exclusive to only certain sectors of the government. It encompasses the whole thing. Do you not know english?

Break the word down.

Corporate: A corporate company or group.
Ism: A distinctive practice, system, or philosophy, typically a political ideology or an artistic movement.

A companies jurisdication is wherever it can make money. You can't even lift a finger in todays world without having involved some kind of corporation.

Miriam-Webster vs Google Search. Miriam-Webster's got a better reputation as a scholarly source. Perhaps you'd prefer the Encyclopedia Britannica definition of corporatism.. You rely too much on Google.



When you define a word using that very word, it's called a recursive definition or a tautology. They are often considered bad form as the definitions become circular. Before you question my grasp of English, perhaps you should learn to define words without resorting to using the words themselves in their own definition.



Jurisdiction:
1). The power, right, or authority to interpret and apply the law.

2). The authority of a sovereign power to govern or legislate. The power or right to exercise authority : control.

3). The limits or territory within which authority may be exercised.

The only definition that makes sense would be the third one but, once the definition is applied and put into context, the second half of the statement makes it false.

I'm not trying to be disagreeable but, we've got to be on the same page before we can even have a discussion. If our definitions of words don't even match then we can't have a good experience as we'll bicker over semantics.

We use coal.
Obama doesn't like coal.
He wants to get rid of coal.
We dont like Obama.

That sounds more like a reason to have the people who like coal. It's incredibly damaging to the environment.

http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/canada-defends-climate-record-amidst-us-keystone-xl-protests

I attended one of the meetings recently for the protest against american coal consumption and their legislation for this oil pipe line. We only have 1 planet.

He's better than bush who started a war nobody wanted.

None of the modern candidates are very good.

You must not have gotten out much that year.