Marc Lamont Hill's racist/elitist tirade on O'Reilly

[Selene]

Obama flubs places and people all the time because Obama is only about Obama and his relentless crusade for communism. Plus, he is a collectivist, and all that matters are the ends.-why bother with people, places, or things?

Um, Rick Perry flubbed one-third of his entire policy statement -- was that because he is only about Perry and a relentless crusade for communism?

Carol:

Rick Perry is not the President. Also, Rick Perry is not the smartest person to ever occupy the White House. Rick Perry is not too smart for us to understand which is what the entrenched state media has been telling us for the last four (4) years.

Therefore, there is no comparison to be made.

Adam

[caroljane]

Obama flubs places and people all the time because Obama is only about Obama and his relentless crusade for communism. Plus, he is a collectivist, and all that matters are the ends.-why bother with people, places, or things?

Um, Rick Perry flubbed one-third of his entire policy statement -- was that because he is only about Perry and a relentless crusade for communism?

Carol:

Rick Perry is not the President. Also, Rick Perry is not the smartest person to ever occupy the White House. Rick Perry is not too smart for us to understand which is what the entrenched state media has been telling us for the last four (4) years.

Therefore, there is no comparison to be made.

Adam

Disagree. Between Presidents and aspiring Presidential candidates, comparisons can be made and always are.

[Selene]

Carol:

Rick Perry is not the President. Also, Rick Perry is not the smartest person to ever occupy the White House. Rick Perry is not too smart for us to understand which is what the entrenched state media has been telling us for the last four (4) years.

Therefore, there is no comparison to be made.

Adam

Disagree. Between Presidents and aspiring Presidential candidates, comparisons can be made and always are.

Ok. I will cede that point.

[blackhorse]

Obama is a communist.

[caroljane]

Obama is a communist.

Obama is a communist.

No, he isn't. Did you not even read Studio's thoughtful and accurate post on his political orientation? These knee-jerk "communist" comments are the equivalent of liberals calling Ayn Rand a fascist.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Obama is actually a progressive. Just about as pure a progressive as I have ever seen. Stealthy creeping for big government is his middle name, except he adds sneak attacks to it.

I happen to agree with Dinesh D'Souza, too, that Obama is an anti-colonialist seeking modern justice (basically, to punish England and all who have fallen in with it, including the USA and Israel) for wrongs long in the past. His attitude is leftist because his education was leftist, but I believe his true heart is in Kenya at his father's grave--with all that means politically.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Obama is a communist.

Repeating that line won't make it true.

To be a "communist" in the sense of the term you are using (i.e. Marxist), you have to subscribe to a very specific political philosophy that begins with meta-anthropological assumptions and builds from there.

Even if we broaden things to allow non-Marxist forms of communism, Obama STILL doesn't make the cut because he doesn't advocate collective ownership of the means of production!

Obama is a redistributionist and a welfare-statist and a corporatist (the left are no less corporatist than the right; "corporatism" means "the incorporation of large and established economic institutions into the State," whether these organizations are defense contractors/oil companies or public sector unions/solar energy companies makes no difference). This makes him closer to an economic fascist than a communist.

Obama is actually a progressive. Just about as pure a progressive as I have ever seen. Stealthy creeping for big government is his middle name, except he adds sneak attacks to it.

I agree that Obama is a progressive, although he's not the same as the progressives of the FDR era. Modern "progressives" have a different ideology to the FDR "progressives" at least outside of economics. That said, he's not the purest progressive I've ever seen, not at all.

I happen to agree with Dinesh D'Souza, too, that Obama is an anti-colonialist seeking modern justice (basically, to punish England and all who have fallen in with it, including the USA and Israel) for wrongs long in the past.

Thaddeus Russell (no relation) takes down Dinesh's argument here: http://reason.com/archives/2011/09/26/empire-of-the-son

ANYTHING that comes out of Dinesh D'Souza's mouth is bound to be idiotic. His attacks on Ayn Rand and Christopher Hitchens, his argumentum ad nauseum with the Dostoyevsky Gambit ("if God is Dead, everything is permitted"), and his conservative Roman Catholicism make this all quite clear.

[Selene]

Michael:

Agreed. He is not a nice person. He is actually, quite hateful. A seething anger exists at his core. You can see it in his eyes. He is also very insecure and demands obedience to his wishes and whims because he knows he is right. His arrogance is mostly front.

Pressed by Kroft to explain Gingrich’s recent surge in the polls, Obama attributed it to the former speaker’s longevity. “He's somebody who's been around a long time, and is good on TV, is good in debates.”

Here is an interesting example of his arrogance from tonights interview.

Defiantly proclaiming “it doesn’t really matter” who the Republicans nominate against him, President Obama declared that he is ready to take on either Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney and ask voters to contrast his vision with that offered by the GOP nominee. In an at-times feisty interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes,” the president suggested there is little difference between the two front-runners for the nomination.

Pressed by Kroft to explain Gingrich’s recent surge in the polls, Obama attributed it to the former speaker’s longevity. “He's somebody who's been around a long time, and is good on TV, is good in debates.” [by the way Kroft did not "press" O'biwan, he is a complete brownnosing toady]

He boiled down the 2012 campaign to a single question to be answered by the voters:

“Do they see a more compelling vision coming out from the other side?”

He characterized

the Republican vision as more tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations and “gutting” regulations.

“If the American people think that that’s a recipe for success and… a majority are persuaded by that, then I’m going to lose.”

“It is my job to put forward a vision of the country that benefits the vast majority of Americans,” he said. “It is my job to make sure that my party is behind those initiatives, even if sometimes it's breaking some china and going against some of the dogmas of our party in the past. We've done that on things like education reform. And it's my job to rally the American people around that vision.”

And he left no doubt that the vision he will champion during the upcoming campaign was reflected in last week’s speech in Kansas in which he decried income inequality and the decline in the middle class.

Obama strongly disputed Kroft’s suggestion that his speech was either socialistic or promoting class warfare.

“Everybody’s concerned about inequality,” he said, adding that he will continue to ask, “What's happened to the bargain? What’s happened to the American deal that says, you know, we are focused on building a strong middle class?”

http://nationaljourn...inates-20111211

I detest this man.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thaddeus Russell (no relation) takes down Dinesh's argument here: http://reason.com/ar...pire-of-the-son

Andrew,

That's a take-down? Claiming that Obama is a proponent and supporter of American imperialism?

Sorry. I can't go there.

I see a corrupt power monger, an inept administrator who doesn't have a clue about how to lead on the world stage, and a stealth back-room politician who vastly prefers ambush to battle, but I don't see a neocon. His crony capitalism falls to green and social issue companies--and banks--not the war and nation-building machine.

I didn't see Russell explicitly call Obama a neocon, but what he did say--the parts of the article I read with attention--falls perfectly within that concept.

Full disclosure. I only skimmed the article. After that weird American imperialist characterization of Obama (because supposedly Obama's infancy would not exist without the CIA, etc. etc, etc.), I didn't feel it was worth more than a skim.

I'm not going to defend Dinesh D'Souza (I don't know that much about him). But on the issue of Obama's anti-colonialism, I became familiar with several parts of his case from watching his speeches and interviews--and I went through his book, albeit lightly. I also watched him several times being contested by people who disagree. He convinced me through logic and facts.

I didn't bother to think about D'Souza's personal history as I mulled this over. His theory--on its own--explains a lot of things that Obama does that don't make sense otherwise. Until I see his facts discredited, I'm on board with his view.

This doesn't mean I think Obama is exclusively anti-colonialist. He is several things as a politician. Anti-colonialism is just one of the major ones.

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Full disclosure. I only skimmed the article.

Thanks for the honesty.

I'm not going to defend Dinesh D'Souza (I don't know that much about him).

D'Souza wrote a book called "The Virtue of Prosperity" where he tried to morally defend market economics. His "defense" was that "capitalism civilizes greed, like marriage civilizes lust" and he completely dismissed Rand's argument with no actual consideration (but with plenty of ad hominem).

When arguing Hitchens, he has two techniques...

1) "If God is Dead, everything is permitted" (repeat ad nauseum)

2) "No one should believe Hitchens because he's a drunk" (argumentum ad hominem)

That, plus he's a filthy faithist.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Andrew,

I have problems with the kind of argument you report D'Souza and Hitchens got into.

Whether God being dead means "everything is permitted" is totally irrelevant until some clarification happens. The statement, "God is dead," implies that He was alive at one time.

And I don't know what to do with that premise except walk away from the argument. But some questions come to mind when I look a second time.

What killed God, for instance? The devil? Another God? Old age? Illness? An accident?

The metaphysical mind boggles...

Michael

[studiodekadent]

Andrew,

I have problems with the kind of argument you report D'Souza and Hitchens got into.

Whether God being dead means "everything is permitted" is totally irrelevant until some clarification happens. The statement, "God is dead," implies that He was alive at one time.

And I don't know what to do with that premise except walk away from the argument. But some questions come to mind when I look a second time.

What killed God, for instance? The devil? Another God? Old age? Illness? An accident?

The metaphysical mind boggles...

Michael

All Dinesh was arguing is that without religion, no morality is possible. His "proof" consisted of repeating the quote from Dostoyevsky over and over. When Hitchens proved Dinesh wrong, Dinesh retorted by accusing Hitchens of being an alcoholic.

[Selene]

Further ? about your client, what part of Toronto does he live in? In 1998 there was a forcible amalgamation of the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) in which former boroughs like East York and cities like North York which surrounded the "old" Toronto became Toronto also. This was supposed to save money ("economies of scale") but of course it didn't.

Mayor Ford comes from Etobicoke, a former suburb city, and has an active distrust and dislike of core Torontonians.

Carol:

My client is in Brooklyn NY. This is the negotiator for the Bank who works and lives in Toronto that I am interacting with. Sorry if I was not clear.

I will be able to find out that info though. because I am very good at bonding with folks in these types of interactions.

Adam

Carol:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Robert-Ford-Toronto-Mayor-Must-Go-NOW/150551448355586

Impeach Mayor Bob petition!

[caroljane]

Further ? about your client, what part of Toronto does he live in? In 1998 there was a forcible amalgamation of the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) in which former boroughs like East York and cities like North York which surrounded the "old" Toronto became Toronto also. This was supposed to save money ("economies of scale") but of course it didn't.

Mayor Ford comes from Etobicoke, a former suburb city, and has an active distrust and dislike of core Torontonians.

Carol:

My client is in Brooklyn NY. This is the negotiator for the Bank who works and lives in Toronto that I am interacting with. Sorry if I was not clear.

I will be able to find out that info though. because I am very good at bonding with folks in these types of interactions.

Adam

Carol:

http://www.facebook....150551448355586

Impeach Mayor Bob petition!

Heh. RobDoug just had a temporary upsurge in popularity after appearing with the National Ballet as the Cannon Doll in the Nutcracker.

Seriously.