Does anyone not hate Obama?

[Jegra]

It seems like the right wing is united in opposition against his leftism and the libertarians and capitalists hate him as well for his support of regulations against the insurance industry.

However, it looks like most people here also hate him because of his strategy in Afghanistan or for him not being socialist enough.

[the last donut of the night]

A whole bunch of Democrats love him for being the spineless, capitalist prick he is.

[GPDP]

I don't hate him. At least, not anymore than I would hate any member of the ruling class.

I just see him for what he is: a capitalist, moderately conservative, corporate-friendly imperialist politician, albeit one with actual intellect and smooth rhetoric, which have worked wonders for defusing much of what passed for the anti-war movement, as well as almost killing off the movement toward real, meaningful health care reform.

[Jegra]

as well as almost killing off the movement toward real, meaningful health care reform.

[citation needed]

[GPDP]

Alright, to be fair, he didn't do that on his own. The Democrats in Congress did plenty to do that. Nevertheless, he once counted himself as an advocate of single-payer, and what's the first thing he does? Declare it as being off the table, a position which the likes of Baucus were more than happy to oblige upon.

Say what you want about single-payer being impossible to pass in the here and now. You don't compromise right off the bat if you truly desire such a system. If he really prefers single-payer, then that makes him spineless as fuck. Assuming he does, of course, which I'm not so sure about, considering how much backing he got from the insurance companies, and how friendly he has been towards them in giving them a seat at the reform table, while excluding single-payer advocates.

[gorillafuck]

Contrary to a lot of people here it seems, I don't think he originally set out with bad intentions. But obviously the current system in place wipes out even the best of intentions.


which have worked wonders for defusing much of what passed for the anti-war movement
http://blogs.laweekly.com/fish/assets_c/2009/12/PeaceRemovement-thumb-480x428.jpg

[Jegra]

The Democrats in Congress did plenty to do that.

Well you're right, they did delay it, but they united against a filibuster, and as a bonus, the house bill has a public option!


Nevertheless, he once counted himself as an advocate of single-payer, and what's the first thing he does? Declare it as being off the table, a position which the likes of Baucus were more than happy to oblige upon.

I disagree with Baucas's leaving the public option out.

I don't see single payer as being a good system. Most countries in Europe don't have single payer, this is because some people want quick care for non-emergencies such as lasik and cosmetic surgeries, or even quicker than a week or two for surgery that they need.

Canada has single payer, but they suffer more from wait times than anyone else. Besides, the public option loses less money.

[Realism]

However, it looks like most people here also hate him because of his strategy in Afghanistan or for him not being socialist enough

He would shoot you in the back for $5. His "Strategy" for Afghanistan should be GET THE FUCK OUT, not send two times as many troops.

[Plagueround]

or for him not being socialist at all.

Fixed that for you.

[Drace]

It seems like the right wing is united in opposition against his leftism and the libertarians and capitalists hate him as well for his support of regulations against the insurance industry.

However, it looks like most people here also hate him because of his strategy in Afghanistan or for him not being socialist enough.

His not socialist at all.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Obama said that the US would continue exercising its imperialist control, but in a more considerate, fair and diplomatic manner. For some reason, everybody ate it up like the morons they are. Obviously his promises were totally inconsistent with themselves and with the nature of imperialism and the interests of international captal. He was doomed to fail. The far right and the radical liberals (in the classical sense) hate him because they want merciless, unapologetic imperialism and because he's black and symbolizes many peoples' hope for change (yes, even if it's frustrated). The rest of us hate him because he's still an imperialist and a big fuck liar who managed to misslead a remarkale amount of people including the likes of the Nobel committee.

[Axle]

It seems like the right wing is united in opposition against his leftism and the libertarians and capitalists hate him as well for his support of regulations against the insurance industry.

However, it looks like most people here also hate him because of his strategy in Afghanistan or for him not being socialist enough.

I don't hate the man. In fact, even though I didn't support him, I actually kind of admired him during the campaign. Unlike so many other candidates, he seemed to have his act together and at least seemed to have good intentions. In general I don't like him because he's just another capitalist, imperialist President (he's not socialist in any regard)...but at the moment I'm really not fond of him for sending 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan.

[RHIZOMES]

Ah, a pro-Obama troll. A welcome change from the usual rightists we get, but anyway...


However, it looks like most people here also hate him because of his strategy in Afghanistan or for him not being socialist enough.

It isn't because he isn't "socialist enough" it's because being the head of the biggest imperialist and capitalist power in the world, he isn't socialist at all. You're confusing socialism with social democracy and Keynesianism, like many liberals do.

Actual socialists (like the ones on this board) don't support existing capitalist state superstructures and the bureaucrats who run them, they're the ultimate expression of domination by one class over another. That's the source for our "hatred", not because he isn't "socialist enough".


Contrary to a lot of people here it seems, I don't think he originally set out with bad intentions. But obviously the current system in place wipes out even the best of intentions.

He didn't set out with "bad" intentions. He set out with "ruling class" intentions. He probably has very good intentions from the perspective of the US ruling class. Anyway, how would you call intensifying the war in Afghanistan "good intentions"?

[Jegra]

Anyway, how would you call intensifying the war in Afghanistan "good intentions"?



silly me, i missed the meeting where we unanimously decided that continuing the war in afghanistan was bad.

you can't expect him to pull out immediately, that would create a power vacuum.

[Axle]

silly me, i missed the meeting where we unanimously decided that continuing the war in afghanistan was bad.

you can't expect him to pull out immediately, that would create a power vacuum.

No one expects to pull out immediately. But sending in an extra 30,000 troops and basically stating that we're going to continue the war doesn't sound like "pulling out" to me.

And I know, I know...Afghanistan is the "good war", but could you just refresh our memories real quick as to why that is exactly?

[Spawn of Stalin]

Or perhaps you could tell why we shouldn't hate Obama, rather than asking why we do? I mean, he's empowered Wall Street and capitalism, fired drones over the Pakistani border, and raped his own health care bill. I suppose for he's not actually doing too bad considering he's only been in office a little under a year. He sucks, face it, the most progressive thing about Obama is the fact that he is black, and a black President was long overdue anyway, so yeah, don't be liberal.

[Jazzratt]

Hating him is pointless. He's just another part of the capitalist mechanism. He's the head of the largest imperialist state and that will remain there regardless. Supporting him however means you have to necessarily support capitalism, imperialism and other forms of oppression. His rhetoric does nothing to change this because when the dust settles he's another right wing dickhead looking after his own (i.e the ruling classes).


silly me, i missed the meeting where we unanimously decided that continuing the war in afghanistan was bad.

you can't expect him to pull out immediately, that would create a power vacuum.

You're on the wrong site if you think invading afghanistan was justifiable. may I recommend www.myliberalheadupmyliberalarse.com? It's a fucking appaling point of view I hear often off of people who condemned attacking Iraq but some how feel the motives behind this imperial venture were somehow pure. It's a fucking crock of shit if you ask me. Also, as the poster above me pointed out, there is trying to avoid leaving a power vacuum when you finally fuck off and there's sending thousands of lads and lasses to kill and die. Obama is doing the latter.

Moved to the correct forum.

[gorillafuck]

silly me, i missed the meeting where we unanimously decided that continuing the war in afghanistan was bad.

you can't expect him to pull out immediately, that would create a power vacuum.
You don't want single payer health care and you support the war in Afghanistan? May I ask what you're doing here?


He didn't set out with "bad" intentions. He set out with "ruling class" intentions. He probably has very good intentions from the perspective of the US ruling class. Anyway, how would you call intensifying the war in Afghanistan "good intentions"?
I'm referring to when he first got his start in politics and was a left-liberal nobody rather than center-right, though it's just speculation by me. And I think that escalating the war on Afghanistan is despicable.

[IcarusAngel]

He isn't even as progressive as say, FDR, economically. Not even all social liberals like him. Check out commondreams for instance or Huffington Post, and of course Democracy Now, which document his massive spending on war and corporatism while leaving crums for the working class.

To be honest he seems even further to the right than Clinton.

[IcarusAngel]

Question: Why do you favor Obama when his policies are exactly the same as Bush?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/03/jon-stewart-obama-is-chan_n_378283.html


Another reason Obama sucks is because he took away one of my arguments agianst Reagan.

I used to say that Reagan was the biggest corporate welfare whore of all time due to his bailouts.

I can't say that anymore.

[jake williams]

I think I'm actually unusual here in disliking him personally. Most leftists I know, Jazzrat here is a good example, tend to de-emphasize is personal importance compared to institutional and economic forces. A few others point out that his individual personality, regardless of their actual political outcomes, can have mobilizing (or possibly de-mobilizing) effects on the population.

But really, I just think he's an usually arrogant prick. I think Bush was a lazy Yale brat, and basically knew it, and while he might have talked a lot about how he was saving the world (and conversely his false humility was pretty ugly) neither was as bad as the same characteristics of Obama. I think Obama is actually a true believer in his own well-groomed Harvard intellect, and while it's just my own personal impression, you asked for the very same.

[IcarusAngel]

Bush also went to Harvard in addition Yale, likely to his political connection and their standards on admitting legacy applicants. Bush received the same political indoctrination that Obama did, and likely believes as well that the US had a just purpose in the world. The only difference is that Obama actually did work at his Ivy League institutions.

The liberal intelligentsia at these schools have very sophisticated propaganda for capitalism and imperialism, it is true, and likely both Bush and Obama believed it. Bush talked about it all the time, far more than even Obama. Another complete idiot who repeated the same idiocy was Reagan.

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

to be perfectly honest, I haven't seen any evidence of his Harvard intellect
same for Bush, Clinton and any American Ivy League politician
has to do with the Big Tent two-party system, I reckon

[graffic]

Hating him is pointless. He's just another part of the capitalist mechanism.

of course



It's a fucking appaling point of view I hear often off of people who condemned attacking Iraq but some how feel the motives behind this imperial venture were somehow pure. It's a fucking crock of shit if you ask me.

Do you not respect other peoples views?

The CIA "believed" (those were their words) that al-qaeda or more specifically Osama Bin Laden and his associates were involved with hatching the 9/11 plot. They did not say they "know" that what they were doing was 100% accurate but the government had to respond to what happened on 9/11.

What has happened since is perhaps terrible and the worst thing is that nobody actually asks the Afghani's what they want. I know it would be a hard thing to conduct but it is possible. I don't see how you can say that it is a "fucking appalling view" that most people supported justice for 9/11 terrorists, leaving aside the perhaps questionable intelligence they had at the time.

[Jazzratt]

Do you not respect other peoples views?

I have been known to have little patience for people's views in the past yes. I'm definately not going to resort to a thought terminating cliche like "it's just their opinion" when people are dying because of it and places are being fucking carpet bombed.


The CIA "believed" (those were their words) that al-qaeda or more specifically Osama Bin Laden and his associates were involved with hatching the 9/11 plot. They did not say they "know" that what they were doing was 100% accurate but the government had to respond to what happened on 9/11.

Al-qaueda was a fiction. IT always has been. They got the name off some bloke they'd tortured into feeding them some cock-and-bull story about a massive centralised terrorist network rather than the reality that the groups were much smaller and less centerally organised. Regardless of these facts though you do not "bring justice to the terrorists" by bombing the shit out of a nation they happen to be hiding in.


What has happened since is perhaps terrible and the worst thing is that nobody actually asks the Afghani's what they want.

That's because the answer ("stop shooting us please") isn't what the imperialist governments want to hear.


I know it would be a hard thing to conduct but it is possible. I don't see how you can say that it is a "fucking appalling view" that most people supported justice for 9/11 terrorists, leaving aside the perhaps questionable intelligence they had at the time.

It's fucking appaling because they are using the excuse of justice to give a military wing to their imperial efforts. It's not like the US hasn't invaded Afghanistan before now. The view that invading another country had anything to do with justice is as naive as the decision to link the invasion to terrorist attacks in america was cynical.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well you're right, they did delay it, but they united against a filibuster, and as a bonus, the house bill has a public option!Hardly a bonus for the uninsured like myself. The Baccus plan to make people pay fines for not having healthcare is just corporate welfare for the insurance companies - delivering to them millions of new customers.

Right now we do have death panels and rationing and it's called privatized health care and the insurance companies reap huge profits from our misery. Real reform of the health system here needs to take on the insurance companies otherwise you are closing the chicken coop with the foxes still inside.


Canada has single payer, but they suffer more from wait times than anyone else. Besides, the public option loses less money.The public option is more costly than socialized plans like in the UK. The US spends a higher percentage of the GDP on healthcare than France or the UK or Canada and has poorer service. The only accurate criticism against the Obama plan that the right has brought up is that the public option will essentially be a dumping ground and companies will shove off their employee coverage and tell them to get on the public option.

The health insurance industry has been playing both sides of the isle and working with Democracts and Republicans. If the Dems were actually interested in the working class and actually our allies (or actually even believed in the democratic process) why did they agree in early closed talks to remove universal or single-payer health care as even a debatable option - why did they convince national liberal groups to go from advocating single-payer to this plan?

This week we found out that someone at my work committed suicide. Apparently he just found out he was diagnosed with diabeties and since he has now health coverage he decided to kill himself rather than deal with costly medicine and ongoing treatment which would bankrupt him and his family. This is the reality of health care in the US.

[fabiansocialist]

Contrary to a lot of people here it seems, I don't think he originally set out with bad intentions. But obviously the current system in place wipes out even the best of intentions.

He never had any intentions, good or bad. He's the ideal ruling class stooge: he does what he's told. I'm not disappointed in him because like Chomsky, I never expected anything from him. Black progressive voices were pointing out last year that he was a complete utter fraud. Larry Flynt, writing about Obama in 2006, asserted that Obama's progressive credentials were "DOA" (dead on arrival) when he arrived in DC as a senator. Everything about Obama is bullshit. He has to look grave and sombre when he spouts bullshit (Bush always looked like he was going to break into a smirk when he spouted his bullshit), plus his black skin makes people on the left reluctant to criticise for fear of being labeled racist. To repeat, he's the ideal ruling class stooge

[fabiansocialist]

to be perfectly honest, I haven't seen any evidence of his Harvard intellect...

Just another public myth. He spouts the same cliches again and again. But his grave, sombre face fools the people into thinking he's intelligent.

[graffic]

The view that invading another country had anything to do with justice is as naive as the decision to link the invasion to terrorist attacks in america was cynical.

I'm presuming your not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist... 9/11 happened then on October 7th in the same year the US began it's armed conflict. Regardless of what Bush should have done or not done, or whether it was "planned" before hand, the government, in my view, had to do something in response to what happened. I can't see how supporting this concept is in any way moronic or naive

[Jimmie Higgins]

I'm presuming your not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist... 9/11 happened then on October 7th in the same year the US began it's armed conflict. Regardless of what Bush should have done or not done, or whether it was "planned" before hand, the government, in my view, had to do something in response to what happened. I can't see how supporting this concept is in any way moronic or naive

The US also had to respond to the gulf of Tonkin, or the sinking of the Maine or the Lusitania... all of which turned out to be lame pre-texts to get the US population to support wars our rulers already wanted.

There is no conspiracy, the US didn't plan 9/11 but they saw it (in the words of several Bush administration officials as an "opportunity"... Ms. Rice compared it to Pearl Harbor saying that Pearl Harbor was an opportunity for the US to remake Europe for the better and that 9/11 was the US's opportunity to remake the middle east for the better.

The US has come up with so many different reasons for the war... do you honestly believe that the US military has been in Afghanistan for 8 years looking for one old diabetic in a cave?

The best thing for everyone would be for the US to simply leave. Power vacuum? What circular logic for occupation! Isn't that the argument that was used against ending apartheid in South Africa... against pulling out of Vietnam... I bet the USSR used the same argument to get support for their war in Afghanistan.

Yes if Nazi Germany occupies France and sets up a puppet Vichy government, there would be a power vacuum if the NAZIs left and stopped supporting a government with no support in the population. In fact there might be a civil war between the resistance and the Vichy supporters like there was in Greece between the antifascist resistance and the monarchists. But your argument is that the occupation should go on!?

[Jazzratt]

I'm presuming your not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist...

Not inasmuch as I believe it was orchestrated by the US, no.


9/11 happened then on October 7th in the same year the US began it's armed conflict. Regardless of what Bush should have done or not done, or whether it was "planned" before hand, the government, in my view, had to do something in response to what happened. I can't see how supporting this concept is in any way moronic or naive

They knew for years thattrouble was brewing with muslim terrorists all they had to do was sit tight until something big enough happened to allow them their invasions. Even if that's not the case and they actually gave a monkey's toss about bringing justice to the terrorists (and later still their "bringing democracy to the middle east" bullshit) it's still not really grounds for their invasion and terroristic tactics such as carpet bombing.

The reaction of the far right US & UK governments was somewhat akin to if you or I reacted to a close friends' murder by petrol bombing the town they came from and then kicking the shit out of people who vaguely looked like him. That you find it at all defensible is worrying but I'm glad you're restricted.

[graffic]

That you find it at all defensible is worrying but I'm glad you're restricted.


I havn't said that anything is defensible. I said that I thought it was unreasonable of you to say that supporting "justice" for 9/11 terroists was a "fucking appaling view to hold" (which is what you said).

I think the most important thing, going back to the topic of the thread, is that Obama has been a huge let down. He is sending more troops into Afghanistan despite the rhetoric he spouted before he was president. But then I suppose, people would argue, it was inevitable he would do that

[Bud Struggle]

The best thing for everyone would be for the US to simply leave. Power vacuum? What circular logic for occupation! Isn't that the argument that was used against ending apartheid in South Africa... against pulling out of Vietnam... I bet the USSR used the same argument to get support for their war in Afghanistan.


Best for whom? It would be best for me if the US stays in Afganistan and makes some sort of sense of the mess over there and then sets us a puppet government that is kindly to the US interests. BECAUSE the interests of the US is roughly in sync with the interests of half the population of Afganistan--that is--women.

The US departs and women go back to where they were before--virual slaves of the Muslem men, and that's not something I'll easily agree to. The US is there NOW, there is nothing to be saved in resuming the autocratic, chauvinist Moslem culture of the past. Maybe the US shouldn't have gone in--but as they occupy the country, they should do some good for the women, gays, minorities, etc. that live there.

[#FF0000]

Best for whom? It would be best for me if the US stays in Afganistan and makes some sort of sense of the mess over there and then sets us a puppet government that is kindly to the US interests. BECAUSE the interests of the US is roughly in sync with the interests of half the population of Afganistan--that is--women.

The US departs and women go back to where they were before--virual slaves of the Muslem men, and that's not something I'll easily agree to. The US is there NOW, there is nothing to be saved in resuming the autocratic, chauvinist Moslem culture of the past. Maybe the US shouldn't have gone in--but as they occupy the country, they should do some good for the women, gays, minorities, etc. that live there.

The puppet gov't we prop up there passed a law legalizing rape. And sticking around for an unwinnable war and killing civilians isn't going to really change that.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Best for whom? It would be best for me if the US stays in Afganistan and makes some sort of sense of the mess over there and then sets us a puppet government that is kindly to the US interests. BECAUSE the interests of the US is roughly in sync with the interests of half the population of Afganistan--that is--women. Christ, this golden oldie?

Everytime you pin down one bullshit excuse for imperial war, another pops up. As someone who worked in an elementary school for a while one of the first things you learn is if a child gives you 7 different reasons for something they did, THEY'RE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH! This war is for... stopping al quieda... women's rights... stopping the opium trade... stop Iraq from aquireing nuclear weapons... UN violations... noncompliance with inspectors... compliance with inspectors so they must be hiding WMDs.

Well first of all under the US's selected leader Karzai, things are back to the way they were before. In fact in the spring of this year he passed a law restricting women's freedom to leave the home.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/hamid-karzai-afghanistan-law

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/afghanistan-womens-rights-hamid-karzai

Second, if backers of the US war cared about the well-being of women, they wouldn't drop bombs on them their friends and their relatives!

Third, social change can not be imposed on a society from above. Women's oppression in Afghanistan doesn't come from a single group of people or a religion. It is social and poor agricultural always tend to be oppressive towards women because while families let men go to the city for work while women must stay with the family to raise children and work in the field or domestically. Bombing the country back to the stone age will not change this situation - in fact it undoubtedly makes it worse. If women's opression is to end in Afghanistan, or anywhere for that matter, it will come from the struggle of women and men in that society.


The US departs and women go back to where they were before--virual slaves of the Muslem men, and that's not something I'll easily agree to.Well, you've already agreed to it by supporting the US war. You are enabling it. See the posts above about legalization of rape within marriage.


The US is there NOW, there is nothing to be saved in resuming the autocratic, chauvinist Moslem culture of the past. Maybe the US shouldn't have gone in--but as they occupy the country, they should do some good for the women, gays, minorities, etc. that live there.Liberate the savages, I say old chap. Civilize them by jingo! Bullah bullah.:rolleyes:

When you are relying on a country... that did not grant women's rights until forced to, did not grant minorities the rights it promised after the Civil War for 100 years until forced to, still has not granted gays equal rights... to liberate women, gays, and minorities, you don't have a leg to stand on.

Next someone will argue that the US needs to be there to stop the opium trade... let me save you the trouble.

Did you read about how Karsai's brother is one of the major players in the opium trade and on the CIA payroll?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html

The best thing the US can do is leave. If they were interested in the well-being of Afghanistan, they could take half of the money they spend on the military operation there and totally modernize the country... urbanization and industry would do more for women's rights than bombs and death.

[Red Icepick]

It's obvious to me why you all hate Obama: you're racists.

[GPDP]

It's obvious to me why you all hate Obama: you're racists.

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5840/1254630830564.png

[Bud Struggle]

Christ, this golden oldie?

Everytime you pin down one bullshit excuse for imperial war, another pops up. As someone who worked in an elementary school for a while one of the first things you learn is if a child gives you 7 different reasons for something they did, THEY'RE NOT TELLING THE TRUTH! This war is for... stopping al quieda... women's rights... stopping the opium trade... stop Iraq from aquireing nuclear weapons... UN violations... noncompliance with inspectors... compliance with inspectors so they must be hiding WMDs. While you are obviously mixing your wars--I'll grant you that both the Iraq and the Afghanistan wars are both Imperialistic, the later isn't quite so bad. I mean you just can't run a couple of planes into some American building and get away with it. It's the nature of the tit-for-tat junkyard dog politics that goes on all over the world. You hit me and I'll hit you back. Everyone knows the rules before they get into these kinds of things.


Well first of all under the US's selected leader Karzai, things are back to the way they were before. In fact in the spring of this year he passed a law restricting women's freedom to leave the home.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/31/hamid-karzai-afghanistan-law

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/apr/01/afghanistan-womens-rights-hamid-karzai Obviously Karzai isn't the optimum choice for leader of Afghanistan, but America has to live with what we have. He's corrupt and stupid, but he works with us and is of the right tribal group. Overall, women are making progress-and agreed it's not the real reason we are over there--things are better than under the Taliban.

http://www.afghan-web.com/woman/


Second, if backers of the US war cared about the well-being of women, they wouldn't drop bombs on them their friends and their relatives! It's a WAR! Civilians sometimes get hurt. It is unfortunate.


Third, social change can not be imposed on a society from above. Of course it can. Gay marriage is legal in Iowa and Mass because a court said it could be done--it would lose if brought to a vote (as it has in every other state it's been voted on.)


Women's oppression in Afghanistan doesn't come from a single group of people or a religion. It is social and poor agricultural always tend to be oppressive towards women because while families let men go to the city for work while women must stay with the family to raise children and work in the field or domestically. Yes it dos. This has a LOT to do with Islam--or at least the type of islam practiced on that country.



Bombing the country back to the stone age will not change this situation - in fact it undoubtedly makes it worse. If women's opression is to end in Afghanistan, or anywhere for that matter, it will come from the struggle of women and men in that society. That's just Communist sloganeering.


Well, you've already agreed to it by supporting the US war. You are enabling it. See the posts above about legalization of rape within marriage. And again, it's a long slow process in Afghanistan and it takes time.


Liberate the savages, I say old chap. Civilize them by jingo! Bullah bullah.:rolleyes: Add a bit of rhetoric about "class struggle" and you have the same old same old that Marxist spout, too. Marxist, Capitalists, Moslems, Christians--we are all in the same business, the assent to power. (Anarchist do seem to be somewhat immune to it's allure.)


When you are relying on a country... that did not grant women's rights until forced to, did not grant minorities the rights it promised after the Civil War for 100 years until forced to, still has not granted gays equal rights... to liberate women, gays, and minorities, you don't have a leg to stand on. What changes unless it's forced to? The thing is that the US does change and is changing. You have no leg to stand on about change, your only complaint is that the timetable isn't fast enough for you.


Next someone will argue that the US needs to be there to stop the opium trade... let me save you the trouble.

Did you read about how Karsai's brother is one of the major players in the opium trade and on the CIA payroll?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/28/world/asia/28intel.html [/quote) As I said it is corrupt over there--that's the way those third world places sometimes are. We just have to work with such things.


The best thing the US can do is leave. If they were interested in the well-being of Afghanistan, they could take half of the money they spend on the military operation there and totally modernize the country... urbanization and industry would do more for women's rights than bombs and death. I don't quite know if "modernization" is what the Afghanistanis really need. There is a lot that is good about their life, they just need to grant more freedoms to their people--it's a process that takes a bit of time.

[#FF0000]

Of course it can. Gay marriage is legal in Iowa and Mass because a court said it could be done--it would lose if brought to a vote (as it has in every other state it's been voted on.)


Legalizing gay marriage doesn't make homosexual any more acceptable in a society, so his point stands.

I'm going to reply to the rest later. Sort of a touchy subject here, so.

[Jimmie Higgins]

While you are obviously mixing your wars--I'll grant you that both the Iraq and the Afghanistan wars are both Imperialistic, the later isn't quite so bad.THe ruling class doesn't look at the wars (or the "Long War" or "The War on Terror") in isolation and so I don't either.


I mean you just can't run a couple of planes into some American building and get away with it.When did the Taliban crash planes into US buildings? Wait, I thought the war was about women's rights - now it's about 9/11 again? So confusing.


Obviously Karzai isn't the optimum choice for leader of Afghanistan, but America has to live with what we have. I think that was the same line when the US supported the Taliban.


Of course it can. Gay marriage is legal in Iowa and Mass because a court said it could be done--it would lose if brought to a vote (as it has in every other state it's been voted on.) Gay marriage does not get rid of oppression first of all. Second, these initiatives from above are not because some state governments suddenly grew their hears 3 sizes bigger and realized the error of their ways. This legislation is still the result of SOCIAL changes FROM BELOW over the last generation. The state didn't come in and force a bunch of straight people to get married, they came in and ended a proabition which millions of people wanted to end. Sure the votes lost by a margin of 3-8 percentage points, but if gay marriage had somehow been initiated in 1985, then gay people would have been beaten in the streets and the right-wing would have attacked court-house marriages like they attacked abortion clinics.


Yes it dos. This has a LOT to do with Islam--or at least the type of islam practiced on that country. So then you supported the Stalinists in taking over the country in the 80s - against the US policy? Religion is the branch, politics are the trunk - the IRA doesn't bomb because of Catholocism - hell even the inquisition was about politics, not religion.


What changes unless it's forced to? The thing is that the US does change and is changing. You have no leg to stand on about change, your only complaint is that the timetable isn't fast enough for you.Sure the US changes - and I agree with you because it's forced to. But what side are you on the right of people to rule their own lives or the right of the US ruling class to not only control our lives, but the lives of people all over the world.


As I said it is corrupt over there--that's the way those third world places sometimes are. We just have to work with such things.Did you miss the point completely? For years the US claimed to be involved in Afghanistan to stop the drug trade - they even gave the Taliban millions of dollars to burn poppy fields. The US doesn't care about these things and Karsai's brother demonstrates this... it's all pretense for imperialism.

Remember that the CIA is paying a drug lord (who uses the US military to take out his competition) the next time politicians in the US talk about intervening in Latin America to stop the drug trade or talk about creating tougher sentencing at home against drug-dealing gang members.

[Bud Struggle]

Legalizing gay marriage doesn't make homosexual any more acceptable in a society, so his point stands.

I'm going to reply to the rest later. Sort of a touchy subject here, so.

Sorry about the touchy subject. But people in general couldn't care less about gays in society for the most part--one way or another. The media somewhere along the line though it was a good cause to fight for and so they did and that changed a lot of people's attitudes. I'm not saying that the attitudes shouldn't have been changed, but it was the media and the courts.

[Bud Struggle]

THe ruling class doesn't look at the wars (or the "Long War" or "The War on Terror") in isolation and so I don't either. OK. But there's no such things as the ruling class.


When did the Taliban crash planes into US buildings? Wait, I thought the war was about women's rights - now it's about 9/11 again? So confusing.

I think that was the same line when the US supported the Taliban. America didn't care about the Taliban until 9/11. The Taliban wouldn't give us those rrsponsible for the attack so we let the "Northern Alliance" with help from our Air Force take over the country. If they gave us the people we wanted there never would have been a take over. Woman's rights are a complication that came in AFTER the take over.


Gay marriage does not get rid of oppression first of all. I agree there, but it's a start.


Second, these initiatives from above are not because some state governments suddenly grew their hears 3 sizes bigger and realized the error of their ways. This legislation is still the result of SOCIAL changes FROM BELOW over the last generation. The state didn't come in and force a bunch of straight people to get married, they came in and ended a proabition which millions of people wanted to end. Sure the votes lost by a margin of 3-8 percentage points, but if gay marriage had somehow been initiated in 1985, then gay people would have been beaten in the streets and the right-wing would have attacked court-house marriages like they attacked abortion clinics. I have to say I think that this is less of a up from the ranks rebellion than a media fueled effort. The gay issue fits in with with the media wants to persue. Look, you could say that Fundamental Christianity is an "up from the ranks people's struggle" too--but that's something the main stream media does not want to persue.


So then you supported the Stalinists in taking over the country in the 80s - against the US policy? Religion is the branch, politics are the trunk - the IRA doesn't bomb because of Catholocism - hell even the inquisition was about politics, not religion. I agree that it's politics, but that's at the top--how that politics is translated to the masses is (in this case, and as you said the Crusades and lots of other cases) through religion. The rank and file in this case aren't interested in global politics--they are just doing the will of Allah.


Sure the US changes - and I agree with you because it's forced to. But what side are you on the right of people to rule their own lives or the right of the US ruling class to not only control our lives, but the lives of people all over the world. That's a difficult one to answer. I certainly was for the US (and allies) taking down Hitler and Nazism--there they did the right thing. I'm not for them proping up third world dictators that squeeze ever penny they can from their people. Like most things in this world, things are a lot more complicated than just he USA--BAD, every other country no matter how slimeball--GOOD.


Did you miss the point completely? For years the US claimed to be involved in Afghanistan to stop the drug trade - they even gave the Taliban millions of dollars to burn poppy fields. The US doesn't care about these things and Karsai's brother demonstrates this... it's all pretense for imperialism. Things aren't static. Relationships between countries change as time goes by. Like with the Russians in the '80s Afghanistan is one poor choice of a country to be "Imperial" over. There's nothing there--just some poor peasents with sucky attitudes and some worthless land. America went over there to give the Taliban a whack and now that they did--we're stuck.


Remember that the CIA is paying a drug lord (who uses the US military to take out his competition) the next time politicians in the US talk about intervening in Latin America to stop the drug trade or talk about creating tougher sentencing at home against drug-dealing gang members. Oh, I'm not for any of that stuff. Playing off one drug lord of another isn't the business the US should be in. I think they should legalize (most) drugs and leave people alone with that.

[ComradeMan]

I don't hate Obama, I am sure he is a very decent man in his own way. I mate his actions, I might show frustration at his policies but I try to separate the man from the politician. I was not much convinced by all the hype about him however. How much is the president of the US actually in command or merely a political "sockpuppet" for other more "serious" and less visible interests?

[mykittyhasaboner]

OK. But there's no such things as the ruling class.:lol::lol::laugh::laugh::laugh:

Watching self professed capitalists stumble over themselves to justify US imperialism is hilarious.

[Robert]

Boner, don't listen to Karl Marx. Bud is right. There are rulers who come and go, of course, but they do so largely democratically in this country. They comprise a "class" only in a very limited (and useless) sense.

George Herbert Walker Bush's father was a northeastern banker, but Bush I himself was a Navy pilot who got shot down in WWII by Japanese AA, at age 20, who went on to become a millionaire in a speculative business (oil), then CIA chief. So far so good. Sounds very ruling class, like something out of the 19th century.

But Bill Clinton's father was a traveling salesman who died when Clinton was a tot. Clinton himself was then raised by his grandparents who ran a small grocery store catering to blacks and whites, and this was before desegregation, in rural Arkansas.

Obama's father wasn't even born a U.S. citizen; he was a Luo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luo_%28Kenya_and_Tanzania%29) born in Kenya who met Obama's mother in a Russian language class in Hawaii. They divorced and she married an Indonesian.

Nixon, Ford and Johnson all were born into very ordinary, in some case impoverished households. Democrat Carter's father was a "bidness" man, but his mother was a registered (working) nurse.

Truman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman) , who dropped the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was born to a farmer/rancher and worked on the farm himself when he wasn't sleeping in hobo camps.

Even the much maligned George W. Bush, who was born into wealth, doesn't rule anything anymore.

Now ... Clinton and all these other hayseeds (the Bushess excepted) grew up to be President. You think the "ruling class" got behind that idea? Why? If not, then they don't "rule" anything!

You, my friend, have as much of a chance to be the President as Clinton did. Maybe more, I don't know. Face it. And rule well.

[#FF0000]

Folks in government =/= the ruling class.

[Lyev]

I think any justification for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and consequently the defense of President Obama is going to be highly tenuous. I liked him at first, because of the election campaign, the speeches and being the first African-American President, but I feel as though he hasn't truly lived up to the "change" he promised in the run-up to the election. A few points:

I don't think you can justify the wars in the east for the liberation of oppressed woman because Obama and the US are good friends with Saudi Arabia where it's illegal for woman to drive under Sharia law; but the USA needs Saudi for their oil and they can just happen to get it through diplomacy and peaceful means.

And it's all very well to justify the occupation of these sovereign states because "we're on their side" (I mean fighting along side the Afghan army and police) because totally irrelevant of whether civilians are meant to be; they are killed by NATO forces. The elderly, men, woman, young children killed by the people that are meant to be "helping" them. And is an Afghan/Iraqi civilian going to coherently distinguish between the Taleban/Islamic "terrorists" and NATO troops? When it comes down to it they're both hostile, foreign men with guns. There's always going to be innocents caught in the crossfire. This is not to mention torturing of Iraqis and Afghans by US and UK troops.

Another point is I don't think you can justify these wars because of 9/11 and 7/7, in both of these attacks combined 3,026 western civilians were killed. In the imperialist wars in the east the estimates for Iraqi and Afghan civilian deaths are very varied, but at any rate much higher than were killed in the previously mentioned terrorist attacks. So, in Iraq the civilian death rate has estimates starting at roughly 100,000 and ranging right up to some 1,300,000. Obviously it's very hard to count how many have perished. In Afghanistan it's a lesser amount but still more than were killed in the west. The lowest estimate for Afghanistan is roughly 8,000 and the highest is about 28,000. I think these statistics speak for themselves, and make it very hard to defend the recent decision to send in 30,000 US troops and 7,000 NATO and UK troops. Oh and two quotes from Hamid Karzai;

"The continuation of civilian casualties can seriously undermine the legitimacy of fighting terrorism and the credibility of the Afghan people's partnership with the international community.” and "Several times in the last year, the Afghan government tried to prevent civilian casualties, but our innocent people are becoming victims of careless operations of NATO and international forces."

[Robert]

Folks in government =/= the ruling class.Okay, then what is it? And what do they rule?

[Honggweilo]

Okay, then what is it? And what do they rule?

http://www.michaelparenti.org/DemocracyForFew.html

[#FF0000]

Okay, then what is it? And what do they rule?

The Bourgeoisie, you silly goose. And they rule the means of production.

You guy you.

[Skooma Addict]

Folks in government =/= the ruling class.

Were kings the rulers of their countries in your opinion?

[#FF0000]

Were kings the rulers of their countries in your opinion?

Yeah, in Feudalism.

[Jazzratt]

Were kings the rulers of their countries in your opinion?

It differed king to king; british monarchs after the magna carta for example were controlled a lot more heavily by nobles and later parliment (it was Charles' attempts to reassert the dominance of the crown over parliment that led to the english civil war). Even in feudalism, however, there was a bloody salient ruling class in the form of the nobility who had a very much autonomous run of their domain even under the strongest of kings; even in cases where de jure the king could do as he fucking pleased he was still kept in check by powerful members nominally below him; not to mention that should there be no bloodline claimants to the throne it would inevitably be claimed by the most powerful dukes or most influential barons (or, I suppose, counts).

Placing "monarch" in a class of its own is a dead end and comparing capitalism to feudalism is apples and fucking oranges.

[maya]

Obama has lulled many activists I know into a false sense of security.

If McCain had won then the grassroots would have remained energized and the democrats in congress could have frustrated him at every turn. All the while the socialist movement could have been drawing on the discontent that has been harnessed instead by the right.

[Robert]

The Bourgeoisie, you silly goose. And they rule the means of production.

As a petit bourgeois myself, I feel so empowered. :rolleyes:

But seriously, do you see yourself (or average workers if you don't want to personalize it) as necessarily, inexorably excluded from some impermeable "class" of non-political rulers?

I think this is the question that is currently separating the typical OI-er from the anointed. To the extent that you see, as we do, opportunities for anyone to accumulate and control some amount of capital, say, enough to open a modest business and employ (enslave?) your neighbor, then we find that "bourgeois" label as meaningless. Or maybe we just don't define class the way you do.

[Skooma Addict]

Yeah, in Feudalism.

So why were kings and nobles the rulers in feudalism, but members of the government not the rulers in a democracy?


It differed king to king; british monarchs after the magna carta for example were controlled a lot more heavily by nobles and later parliment (it was Charles' attempts to reassert the dominance of the crown over parliment that led to the english civil war). Even in feudalism, however, there was a bloody salient ruling class in the form of the nobility who had a very much autonomous run of their domain even under the strongest of kings; even in cases where de jure the king could do as he fucking pleased he was still kept in check by powerful members nominally below him; not to mention that should there be no bloodline claimants to the throne it would inevitably be claimed by the most powerful dukes or most influential barons (or, I suppose, counts).

Placing "monarch" in a class of its own is a dead end and comparing capitalism to feudalism is apples and fucking oranges.
Fine, instead of a monarch as the ruling class, how about the monarch and the nobles.

[Jimmie Higgins]

In feudalism, the large landowners made up the ruling class and I suppose you could say that the monarch is more of a figurehead. US politicians and the president are essentially representatives of the ruling class. They need large sums of money to run campaigns; they consult with major companies and their representatives (lobbyists - who generally float from corporate jobs to public office, to appointed government positions to think tanks and lobby firms); and they take their political cues from think tanks which are funded through major corporations like Ford and so on. This is how the relationship works between the ruling class and elected officials in the US and it's different from country to country, but it give you a sense of that relationship.

In marxist terms, the state is the body for collective decision-making for the ruling class. In later-feudalism, individual landed nobles may have tried to outmaneuver each other to get more power or land but they also needed a place to sort out decisions that were best for their system as a whole.

In a similar way, Walmart and other big employers may want some kind of national health program since it's a major cost to business and a major point of conflict between companies and unions/employees. However, the insurance industry obviously doesn't want anything that would hurt the super-profits it's been reaping. So the Obama administration, the Democrats, and the Republicans have all been worked on by corporate groups and what we end up with is a few plans that will be more or less approved of by both large employers and the insurance industry. In fact every plan out there has been designed to preserve the insurance industry or even hand over more customers to it while taking the heat off employers to provide health care.

Maybe people get a false image of what we're talking about when we say "ruling class". We don't mean a group of people dictating laws or proclamations. The don't meet in an underground lair like James Bond villains and orchestrate Obama or Bush's every move or decision. They do meet together in small groups and make decisions all the time however: through conferences, industry meetings and so on. But mostly they can set things in motion through influence and the organizations they have set up: think tanks, academic funding, lobbying politicians and so on.

[Robert]

Maybe people get a false image of what we're talking about when we say "ruling class". We don't mean a group of people dictating laws or proclamations. The don't meet in an underground lair like James Bond villains and orchestrate Obama or Bush's every move or decision.I know generally who you are talking about, but it sounds like not even you think that they "rule" in the traditional sense of exercising power and exacting punishment for non-compliance with stated norms. So they aren't really "rulers." They do influence culture (my principal objection to corporate giants), and they do absorb a lot of wealth, but we are free to form our own local cultures if we want. You don't have to drink coca cola or shop at Wal Mart. (But you [the middle class at least] do so.)

And I still can't get a clear answer as to whether you think it is a closed society. If not, and I don't think it is, then it isn't really a "class" either.

[Jimmie Higgins]

As a petit bourgeois myself, I feel so empowered. :rolleyes:You're not the ruling class - when your shop or whatever can buy-out Target, then you'll have the power and influence to hang with the real playas.

And yes, individuals who make up the ruling class are fluid - they were not chosen by God. But considering the low number of small businesses, the high failure rate of small business, and the fact that even if you are successful you probably won't be the next Google... hoping to someday join the ruling class is less likely than hitting it big in the lotto. In fact I've had 2 acquaintances who've won more than $100,000 from the lottery but I've never met anyone who founded a think-tank or had a university building named after him for funding academic programs or set up a major foundation or whatnot.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I know generally who you are talking about, but it sounds like not even you think that they "rule" in the traditional sense of exercising power and exacting punishment for non-compliance with stated norms. So they aren't really "rulers." They do influence culture (my principal objection to corporate giants), and they do absorb a lot of wealth, but we are free to form our own local cultures if we want. You don't have to drink coca cola or shop at Wal Mart. (But you [the middle class at least] do so.)

And I still can't get a clear answer as to whether you think it is a closed society. If not, and I don't think it is, then it isn't really a "class" either.

Well class is fluid unlike castes. So many people who were rich become poor - small business goes out of business and the owner has to become a worker - working poor loose their jobs or go into debt and become lumpen - lumpen become workers - workers can become professionals or small business owners - small business owners can become major capitalists.

While caste systems are set by birth, class in capitalism is a lot of gray areas. Marx talks about this at the beginning of the capitalist manifesto: classes are in motion but tend to pull individuals towards one or the other of the two main opposing classes - capital and labor.

[graffic]

Boner, don't listen to Karl Marx. Bud is right. There are rulers who come and go, of course, but they do so largely democratically in this country. They comprise a "class" only in a very limited (and useless) sense.

George Herbert Walker Bush's father was a northeastern banker, but Bush I himself was a Navy pilot who got shot down in WWII by Japanese AA, at age 20, who went on to become a millionaire in a speculative business (oil), then CIA chief. So far so good. Sounds very ruling class, like something out of the 19th century.

But Bill Clinton's father was a traveling salesman who died when Clinton was a tot. Clinton himself was then raised by his grandparents who ran a small grocery store catering to blacks and whites, and this was before desegregation, in rural Arkansas.

Obama's father wasn't even born a U.S. citizen; he was a Luo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luo_%28Kenya_and_Tanzania%29) born in Kenya who met Obama's mother in a Russian language class in Hawaii. They divorced and she married an Indonesian.

Nixon, Ford and Johnson all were born into very ordinary, in some case impoverished households. Democrat Carter's father was a "bidness" man, but his mother was a registered (working) nurse.

Truman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Truman) , who dropped the bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima, was born to a farmer/rancher and worked on the farm himself when he wasn't sleeping in hobo camps.

Even the much maligned George W. Bush, who was born into wealth, doesn't rule anything anymore.

Now ... Clinton and all these other hayseeds (the Bushess excepted) grew up to be President. You think the "ruling class" got behind that idea? Why? If not, then they don't "rule" anything!

You, my friend, have as much of a chance to be the President as Clinton did. Maybe more, I don't know. Face it. And rule well.


The US is sort of like the best example and role model of liberalism in this sense but there are still massive in-equalities.

[Robert]

Agreed. The problem for the left is that most workers, and all the bourgeoisie, will keep the existing system, with all its inequalities of result, in exchange for a fighting chance to work their way up or, in some cases, just get lucky. Homelessness is a serious problem, but even that affects only about 1% (http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/526/homeless-facts.html) of the population in the USA.

Hunger is even ... well, no, arguably it isn't a lesser problem. I am surprised to see that "Food insecurity" affects a whopping 49 million (http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/11/25/the-scandal-of-hunger-in-america/)in the USA; that's 10% and frankly I question the stat, though it isn't the same as hun r,much less starvation.

But if you're going to recruit on any basis maybe that's a place to start. This "ruling class bourgeoisie" sloganeering is too vague and opaque to get any traction among the People.

[Jazzratt]

So why were kings and nobles the rulers in feudalism, but members of the government not the rulers in a democracy?

No one said that people in government are not the rulers but they are not the sole rulers. Government is not the entirety of ruling and even if it were our rulers are undeniably drawn from the ruling class. However the control of production in capitalism (i.e what the bourgeois class has) is much more powerful and the principal was even present in feudalism; lords owned the land on which peasents worked and the results of any productivity on there in the same way a fat prick in a suit owns our workplaces today.

Saying that government isn't the entirety of the ruling class does not mean governments do not rule part of society. The fact is that governments are just another faction of the ruling class drawn from the ruling class to further the interests of, guess who, the fucking ruling class.

[Bud Struggle]

Here's a GREAT movie on the topic of the ruling class aptly titled The Ruling Class. It's from 1972 with Peter O'Toole. You Commies would love it.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0069198/

[Kronos]

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs042.snc3/12940_221388238265_684458265_4414394_7110626_n.jpg

[Jimmie Higgins]

But if you're going to recruit on any basis maybe that's a place to start. This "ruling class bourgeoisie" sloganeering is too vague and opaque to get any traction among the People.Well I think it doesn't gain traction right now because the left is small and the people with power actively try and stay behind the scenes: the media, politicians and business elites actively promote a "classless society" idea. Look at Hollywood or sports for example - everyone complains about over-paid sports stars or actors/directors but they make peanuts compared to the owners and the film executives who actually get to make decisions about the quality of the entertainment and what/who gets promoted.

Right-wing populists gain traction with talk of mysterious "urban elites" and all sorts of other shadowy UN black-helicopter shit that's about as real as Sasquatch. It's much easier to point out what foundations pay for think tanks and promote this or that idea - for us it's a simple matter of getting our arguments out there and meeting people in our workplaces and communities to try and make our arguments. We don't have any influence in the media like the RNC and DNC and various industries (who literally pay the bills for most newspapers and all TV stations) so it's always going to be an uphill battle to get our ideas out there.

[Robert]

Well I think it doesn't gain traction right now because the left is small

That's a little circular, don't you think?

[blank]

i hate all presidents... this one i hate especially as i finding myself constantly forced to defend the president against racism. is this worth doing even? as president is representative for racist nation. is he worth defend against such attacks, as erything he is doing is to defend racist white chauvinist society. should ignore all politic of amerikkka for the joke it actually is, and concentrate solely on politics by other means so that people actually have political say so???

[Jimmie Higgins]

That's a little circular, don't you think?How so? The left can grow through concrete building of organizations and presses and so on and raise its profile to the point where even non-leftists are familiar with our arguments.

Would it be circular to say that creationists built up slowly until they had enough support that their ideas became more widely heard beyond just the immediate evangelical groups who supported these ideas?

[evangelista]

Why does anyone hate Obama? Here are some darn good reasons to:

He's an elitist
He's a capitalist
He's a globalist
He's a warmonger; I'm almost convinced he's a neo-con

[Bud Struggle]

Why does anyone hate Obama? Here are some darn good reasons to:

He's an elitist Well he started out as a middle class Black guy.


He's a capitalist I don't believe he's ever made a dime in his life that wasn't from the public coffers.


He's a globalist Aren't Communists internationalists?


He's a warmonger; I'm almost convinced he's a neo-con That's probably true.

[exist2live]

Question: Why do you favor Obama when his policies are exactly the same as Bush?


A better question is...why do Republicans, particularly pro Bush Republicans, hate Obama when his policies are similar to Bush?

[mykittyhasaboner]

A better question is...why do Republicans, particularly pro Bush Republicans, hate Obama when his policies are similar to Bush?
Racism, extreme nationalism, perceived terrorist threat :laugh::lol:, media propaganda from the likes of Glenn Beck. Take your pick. For the most part--the petit-bourgeois nationalist tea baggers don't need a reason to hate Obama, it's what everyone else is doing.

[Bud Struggle]

A better question is...why do Republicans, particularly pro Bush Republicans, hate Obama when his policies are similar to Bush?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:518W0GAO2N9IXM:http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/Colors_of_contention.jpg

[#FF0000]

Aren't Communists internationalists?

I don't think things like NAFTA fall under what we'd call "internationalism".