If you are a Marxist like Obama, how can you love the principles that America is founded on?

Question

Marxists ave spent the last 100 years trying to undue America. Read the manifesto and look at how many planks have come to fruition. Isn't this a more LOGICAL reason why he hangs out with Communists and terrorists?

Answer 1

We turned the channel...sorry, Fox News' lies got a bit old.

Answer 2

i can't even take u seriously with a stupid question like that...take a look at bush, he's an idiot, is that what u want u moron ?

Answer 3

One sometimes  wonders what color the sun is in your world.

And what proof do you have that Obama is a Marxist ?

Not even Karl Rove is this stupid.  You have a flawed syllogism and a screaming generalization followed by a non sequitor and an unproven characterization.  

Therefore your argument fails.  You been studying Joesph Goebbels ?  Just wondering.

Some of the questions you posted almost make sense...but this one is not worthy of the Demorat.  I KNOW you can to better and be more reasonable and fair.  

I am rooting for you ! !  Meanwhile do some research on American history.  I would read up on the IWW for starts.  

I want to thank you for posting this question.  I can always count on the Demorat for amusement.

Answer 4

Obama isn't a Marxist.  However, bush is most certainly a Fascist. How can a Fascist love the principles that America was founded on?

Oh. That's right. You can't.

14 POINTS OF FASCISM

1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism

From the prominent displays of flags and bunting to the ubiquitous lapel pins, the fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy, was always obvious. Catchy slogans, pride in the military, and demands for unity were common themes in expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia.

2. Disdain for the importance of human rights

The regimes themselves viewed human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause

The most significant common thread among these regimes was the use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the regimes would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, usually communists, socialists, liberals, Jews, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Active opponents of these regimes were inevitably labeled as terrorists and dealt with accordingly.

4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism

Ruling elites always identified closely with the military and the industrial infrastructure that supported it. A disproportionate share of national resources was allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

5. Rampant sexism

Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, these regimes inevitably viewed women as second-class citizens. They were adamantly anti-abortion and also homophobic. These attitudes were usually codified in Draconian laws that enjoyed strong support by the orthodox religion of the country, thus lending the regime cover for its abuses.

6. A controlled mass media

Under some of the regimes, the mass media were under strict direct control and could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Other regimes exercised more subtle power to ensure media orthodoxy. Methods included the control of licensing and access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders of the mass media were often politically compatible with the power elite. The result was usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the regimes’ excesses.

7. Obsession with national security

Inevitably, a national security apparatus was under direct control of the ruling elite. It was usually an instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

8. Religion and ruling elite tied together

Unlike communist regimes, the fascist and protofascist regimes were never proclaimed as godless by their opponents. In fact, most of the regimes attached themselves to the predominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of that religion. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with the precepts of the religion was generally swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents of the “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the power elite was tantamount to an attack on religion.

9. Power of corporations protected

Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

10. Power of labor suppressed or eliminated

Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Under some regimes, being poor was considered akin to a vice.

11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts

Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these regimes. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities were tightly controlled; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or expressions of dissent were strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed. To these regimes, art and literature should serve the national interest or they had no right to exist.

12. Obsession with crime and punishment

Most of these regimes maintained Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police were often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. “Normal” and political crime were often merged into trumped-up criminal charges and sometimes used against political opponents of the regime. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

13. Rampant cronyism and corruption

Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. Members of the power elite were in a position to obtain vast wealth from other sources as well: for example, by stealing national resources. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

14. Fraudulent elections

Elections in the form of plebiscites or public opinion polls were usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, destroying or disallowing legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

http://www.ellensplace.net/fascism.html

**********************

"McCan't"

Can't love America, either.

Answer 5

Why do Conservatives get a kick out of calling Obama a Marxist?

That is an ignorant way to think.  

Answer 6

i don't think he is but we don't need eight more years of bush's principles either the economy is just like it was during the depression , let's give something else a try

Answer 7

sorry, the lies and spin aren't going to work anymore.  

Answer 8

As a Marxist I wish Obama was a Marxist, he's not, he's a mainstream American politician, nothing radically left about him.

"Politically, Obama is meant to forestall as long as possible the eruption of mass opposition to the existing economic and political setup. He is being marketed to the public as a caring, thoughtful black man, with hints of Lincoln in the background. He has the constructed appearance, the outer form, of opposition. But only the outer form. He’s clever and adroit. He’s not Bush.

But, minus his carefully crafted identity, he’s not terribly different"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/aug200...

I sure don't love the principals the United States was founded upon. And I don't even need Marxism to reject genocide of native Americans, slavery and denying women and non landowners the right to vote.

Appealing to the original intentions of the Founding Fathers is mistaken for three reasons:

1. The Founders were a contentious, disagreeable lot.

2. They were often personally conflicted on the issues.

3. Times change.

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-intentio...

However brilliant they were, the Founders do not deserve to be historically recast as secular saints. They were not gods -- they were quite fallible human beings. They owned slaves, denied women the right to vote, committed atrocities against Native Americans, and made clearly anti-Semitic statements. The government they created was not really of the people; it was of rich, white, male landowners. Although they created a Bill of Rights guaranteeing individual freedoms, this document was not seriously enforced for 130 years afterwards. For example, the press was frequently censored for "seditious" material, and it was not until the early 20th century that the Supreme Court actually heard its first case on free speech!

http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-reverenc...

Today's Americans do not limit themselves to 18th century medicine, 18th century science, 18th century technology or 18th century English. Why they should then limit themselves to 18th century political science and economics is therefore a challenge to conservative and libertarian thought

Answer 9

another principle that george washington wanted America to follow after he died was to never get involved with other countries conflicts, hmmmm...

basically the government today, doesn't give a **** about the "principles" this the united states was founded on.

Answer 10

I'm not, and Obama isn't either.  Grow a brain.

Answer 11

go back to sleep

Answer 12

You are asking a genuine and facts based question. Liberals and the like cant seem to grasp it. Why, they think we emotion and resort to name calling and say well Bush wasnt that strong a leader.

Democraps are unintelligent.  

Answer 13

Obama isn't a Marxist but you ARE a moron.