Obama connections diagrams [Archive]

View Full Version : Obama connections diagrams

The Idler

26th April 2010, 19:46

Dean

26th April 2010, 20:19

Anyone care to debunk these diagrams showing Obama's purported international socialist connections.
Here (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3QqO8EXd-II/S4t_2ln9cWI/AAAAAAAAxJc/hiphxracDgE/s1600/Obama%2BSocialist%2BPast.PNG)
and
here (http://pubsecrets.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/4031380806_08eded5528_o.jpg?w=450&h=555)

Obama's Lobbyist Connection (http://www.newsweek.com/id/138519)

Obama & UBS's Robert Wolf (http://www.whowhatwhy.com/the-game-that-goes-on-and-on.html)

Democratic Party "closer to corporate America" than would like to admit (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE63K2W820100421)

It's simple... show where the ruling party is consistently in the pockets of big business, and subsequently represents their interests. They reject socialist or regulatory efforts to redistribute wealth and economic power, and like all good free-market systems, serve the interests of capitalists by providing valuable services to for-profit interests.

synthesis

26th April 2010, 21:20

Publius

26th April 2010, 22:15

Anyone care to debunk these diagrams showing Obama's purported international socialist connections.
Here (http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_3QqO8EXd-II/S4t_2ln9cWI/AAAAAAAAxJc/hiphxracDgE/s1600/Obama%2BSocialist%2BPast.PNG)
and
here (http://pubsecrets.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/4031380806_08eded5528_o.jpg?w=450&h=555)

When it was convenient for his political interests to be involved with "socialist" individuals or cliques, he was.

Now that it's in his political interests to side with Wall Street and other corporate interests, he sides with them.

There's nothing to "debunk" -- he took help from wherever he could find it in the quest to increase his political influence.

bcbm

27th April 2010, 02:32

Farrakhan is a Marxist? :laugh:

i liked the "met with arabs" on his list of anti-american qualities.

Comrade Anarchist

27th April 2010, 02:37

Dean

27th April 2010, 03:29

Quite frankly libertarians whether anarchist or minarchist really need to stop calling him a socialist. His policies more resemble keynesian and actually he has created a new type of state capitalist economy. But the loose ties and cries that he is a socialist just tie down the pro-freedom anti-state movement.
How do they resemble Keynesian economics? I've seen nothing but shallow political posturing and incredible corporate welfare/empowerment.

synthesis

27th April 2010, 03:38

i liked the "met with arabs" on his list of anti-american qualities.

Ha! I didn't even notice that. Classic.

Nolan

27th April 2010, 03:42

Quite frankly libertarians whether anarchist or minarchist really need to stop calling him a socialist. His policies more resemble keynesian and actually he has created a new type of state capitalist economy. But the loose ties and cries that he is a socialist just tie down the pro-freedom anti-state movement.

I don't entirely agree with your first points, but that has to be the smartest thing I've ever seen you say.

RGacky3

27th April 2010, 10:07

How do they resemble Keynesian economics? I've seen nothing but shallow political posturing and incredible corporate welfare/empowerment.

Exactly, what progressive thing has he actually done?

Comrade Anarchist

28th April 2010, 01:42

How do they resemble Keynesian economics? I've seen nothing but shallow political posturing and incredible corporate welfare/empowerment.

Alright stimulus, more government planning, and he is attempting financial reform. All major keynes theories. Obama is using deficit spending to "correct" the economy. He is using keynesian economics plain and simple but he is mixing it with his own brand which includes major subsides for companies that follow his ways. Paul krugman a major keynesian says obamanomics is the new keynesian economics.

Foldered

28th April 2010, 02:04

I have no sources to debunk those diagrams in the OP, but I feel like I need to point out how hilarious they are!
:laugh:

Dean

28th April 2010, 03:55

Alright stimulus, more government planning, and he is attempting financial reform. All major keynes theories. Obama is using deficit spending to "correct" the economy. He is using keynesian economics plain and simple but he is mixing it with his own brand which includes major subsides for companies that follow his ways. Paul krugman a major keynesian says obamanomics is the new keynesian economics.

In any case, its not meaningful I'd rather get it from the horses' mouths: http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20090907/citigroup-2006-americamodern-day-plutonomy.htm

Now that it has become clear that unlike the 1930s where this historic concentration of wealth was reversed for a good 4 decades post crisis, that this time around a financial crisis is actually serving to concentrate wealth even further, it might be helpful to readers to see how the entrenched money thinks on how to benefit from it. Basically the same way you'd invest in feudal Europe in the 1400s - avoid the peasants, stick with the lords. I don't see this changing anytime soon - as I said in 2007, in time you will not want to have anything to do with the bottom 80% of the country; it won't be a fun place to be.

synthesis

28th April 2010, 07:58

Exactly, what progressive thing has he actually done?

I agree with Publius, for the most part, but within the paradigm of bourgeois politics, Obama has accomplished quite a bit. Despite the bailout, you can see that he has an agenda of decentralizing capital (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/rulings/promise-kept/), which, again, is progressive within the framework of bourgeois politics.

Glenn Beck

28th April 2010, 10:24

I like how literally none of the groups in either of those charts are actually communist.

It's so stupid it doesn't actually need debunking, since anyone who can convince themselves that the SEIU and the phrase "economic justice" are diabolical forces is not generally the type to be reasoned with. But here goes anyway, just a few points

Progressive, sure, social-democratic, sure, but I can't find a single name or organization that unambiguously upholds Marxist politics. Some smartass is going to come and cite the CPUSA, they might have revolutionaries in their party but their actual platform is social-democratic: they back the Democrats, not the other way around. What it boils down to is the old McCarthyite "commies and pinkos". It's a pretty universal thing really: the Republicans' political counterparts down south in Argentina, Chile etc. did the same deal, painting everyone left of Louis XIV with the commie brush. They just had the luxury of a military dictatorship so being tarred with the commie brush had considerably higher stakes.

Alinsky's ideas and the community/social movement organizing model in general (some of SEIU's work, ACORN etc.) are clearly and explicitly reformist, they are reactions to the bureaucratization and decline of traditional unions and the increasing difficulty of strikes and organizing. They seek to apply grassroots political pressure in order to pressure politicians into passing favorable legal reforms. If political pressure and arm-twisting is unreasonable then I guess our constitution-humping conservatives are going to have to toss out the Bill of Rights because it's a pretty logical outcome of free speech and association.

The Farrakhan, Al-Mansour etc. stuff is stupid and just obvious race baiting. I'm trying to imagine what kind of person would think "holy crap the Million Man March, that's some scary shit", it's not looking good. White sheets. Obviously Obama has some ties to these networks: he's a prominent black politician in the United States.

The Bill Ayers quote about wishing he bombed more is old news, and totally wrong, he didn't say it on 9/11 but several days before which is just a total coincidence. He didn't say he wished he bombed more but he wished he did more to stop the Vietnam war, which, in context, means almost exactly the opposite because the adventurist tactics of the Weathermen didn't achieve shit and their strategy to "bring the war home" and raise political consciousness through acts of symbolic terrorism was a complete failure. He definitely should wish he did more. Ayers is garden variety "progressive" these days and is a respected professor of education. I really don't see the big deal with this considering their interaction was basically professional and really to be expected considering Obama's need to court the Chicago left in order to get elected. He's made peace with the system in his own way.

None of this is going to convince anyone really, it's all a matter of perspective. Right-wing reactionaries see all these liberal and progressive groups as horrifying subversives while I see them as rather generic activist groups, mostly pretty milquetoast and with varying degrees of sell-outery. Tbh the conservatives are right to be so totally intransigent, that's simply the agenda they sell and the role they play: bad cop to the Democrat's good cop, between the two any far reaching political demands should be taken care of before they get to be a problem. Imagining you can "debunk" this stuff is, at least to me, attributing a really naive amount of honesty to politics, but if you want to learn more about this stuff to sharpen your critical thinking skills be my guest, it's at least worth that much.