Top products from r/obama

>I don't know about brainwashing

Okay, then let's start with a definition of brainwashing: any effort aimed at instilling certain attitudes and beliefs in a person — beliefs sometimes unwelcome or in conflict with the person's prior beliefs and knowledge, in order to affect that individual's value system and subsequent thought patterns and behaviors based upon the brainwashing tactics and content.

When the rightwing repeats the same lies and distortions regarding liberals until people begin to believe them, then I would say that fits the definition of brainwashing. In fact the majority of Americans hold liberal beliefs but the right has so demonized the word that many liberals will only refer to themselves as "moderates." And what passes for a "conservative" today would be more accurately described as a political extremist.

>but isn't a lot of backlash against the Left's support of communism and socialism back in the day?

How far back are you going? Are you saying the Johnson administration supported communism? That's a stretch, to say the least, especially given their expansion of the Vietnam conflict... allegedly a "fight against communism." As for socialism, it is a word that has been stigmatized in this country to the point of absurdity, often with the ridiculous claim that it is a "stepping stone to communism." Again, repeat a lie often enough and loud enough and some people can be made to accept it without question (a good question being: where has this ever happened?).

>The idea that because they are "smarter" than us they can control our funds and dispense it more appropriately?

If you look at the "socialist" polices of Democratic administrations you find that they lead to some of the most productive periods in our nation's history. Out of the New Deal and the G.I. Bill came a robust middle class. Beyond the US if you look at other nations which have accepted socialism (that would be most of Europe, Canada, Australia and Japan, among others) you'll find they are healthier, better educated, have better employment (higher wages and more time off) and overall are happier than the US. Has it occurred to you that allowing the "smarter" people control the distribution of wealth really is the best way to go? And what of the "conservatives" who balk at this notion of "helping the less fortunate" (actually, "helping everyone" would be more accurate)? Given the chance, they immediacy granted themselves huge tax breaks, shifting the burden to those least able to shoulder it, then ran up the greatest debt in history transferring the public wealth into the accounts if the the top 1-2% richest Americans. As a result the rest of us are becoming less educated, less healthy and working longer hours for less pay. The right has convinced Americans that "they" don't want a "welfare state" and effectively given them a kleptocracy in it's place. When the right claims they are against "socialism" and "New Deal policies" they are effectively declaring class warfare on the middle and lower classes. That they can convince people in those classes to fight a war on themselves either says a lot about the conniving shrewdness of the ultra-rich or the overall stupidity of everyone else... probably a degree of both.

>I think you paint a too simplistic, absolute picture.

You seem to be referring to the first sentence of my post... it's rather of difficult to make a detailed, non-simplistic analysis in a single Reddit post. If you want a more in depth analysis you could read something like What's the Matter with Kansas?... with shipping it will cost you a whole $4. There are a multitude of reasons why people vote the way they do, and Republicans have become very skilled at manipulating every human shortcoming they can find... greed, prejudice and religious superstition being chief among them.

>I think that someone being smart should neither be a reason to vote or not vote for them. Brains can be used for bad purposes.

While you've taken some down modding over this comment I think you have a point and I made a similar comment on Reddit about a month ago. Nixon was certainly smart but overall not a very good President due to his domestic corruption. Likewise I don't think the problem with Bush is his general lack of intellectual prowess but rather, like Nixon, it is his corruption that has most hurt this nation. I'd take honesty over raw intelligence any day, though ideally to be a good president requires both.

Couple points

• As for the "most support progressivism", I don't doubt they do, but at the same time, I think they support conservatism, in that I'm sure a poll could be made to say "lower taxes, less wasteful government, etc etc". I'm a bit cynical of the polls.
  
  
• As far as the left's support of socialism and communism, I sort of meant the intellectual elite of the 60's.
  
  
• I agree socialism is often used as a boogie man word, in the same way fascism is used as a boogie man everytime the police fuck up.
  
  >Out of the New Deal and the G.I. Bill came a robust middle class
  
  I thought that the world was bombed out, and our having so much industrial technology from the war was what made us "great". And I support a stronger GI bill, 100%.
  
  >Has it occurred to you that allowing the "smarter" people control the distribution of wealth really is the best way to go?
  
  Ok, this is, and I say this without hyperbole or exaggeration or lying, communism. Supporting programs or creating barriers is one thing, but a smart cabal controlling the wealth scares me.
  
  I would also ask, if you get mad at the Republicans for using government to enrich themselves, why do you wish to give the government more power over wealth?
  
  I'm a libertarian, but unlike many, I'll support common sense, workable programs that benefit all. I just am not sure that letting a central group in Washington call a bunch of shots is good. here's an example
  
  And what about "stagflation" of the 70's, wasn't that a result of too much social spending not enough growth?
  

Wow, you argue in favor of offshoring and have no idea what offshoring means.

What you describe with the Japanese televisions is normal business competition. A Japanese company with Japanese employees produced a superior product and proceeded to eat the lunch of American companies who would not or could not compete.

Offshoring is the intentional displacement of American workers by American companies because they can get an inferior product cheaply and they think they can get away with it.

Here are some examples:

Chrysler exported their auto manufacturing to Mexico to churn out cheap PT Cruisers and other vehicles. This was "the giant sucking sound" that Ross Perot warned about. They have yet to recover from that debacle.

Meanwhile Japanese companies bring more and more manufacturing to the United States due to the experience and quality of the workmanship.

Tech companies outsourced their support organizations to India because, surprise! Cheaper. Then they were shocked to find out that their customer base didn't LIKE talking to Indian or Phillipino tech support. That's all coming back now too.

The most egregious example of outsourcing was fast food restaurants connecting their drive through order boxes to prison labor in other states. Hey, why pay soneone minimum wage to take orders when you can pay Joe the Rapist pennies?

Yeah, that didn't fly either, soon reversed.

The base of all this is like most Republicans you live in your own little bubble and have no clue how the world actually works.

Please, please, please educate yourself before trying to make more silly arguments on the Internet.

In fact, here's a hand up:

Pick up a couple of books, read them and let me know what you think. They are absolute eye openers:

Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill)

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Lunch-Wealthiest-Themselves-Government/dp/1591842484

Perfectly Legal: The Covert Campaign to Rig Our Tax System to Benefit the Super Rich--and Cheat Everyone Else

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B0028QRMUK/ref=mp_s_a_1_4?qid=1450833597&sr=8-4&keywords=perfectly+legal+david+cay+johnston&dpPl=1&dpID=51Faysd7HVL&ref=plSrch

(Hot damn, he has a new one, I didn't know that! Goes to bookstore...)

The Fine Print: How Big Companies Use "Plain English" to Rob You Blind

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1591846536/ref=pd_aw_fbt_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&refRID=1BN2BNG7B1P4KN259KBF

>I'm speaking about his tactics

Really? What are they? Because at this point it looks like the tactics are; let Obama supporters make up pleasant fantasies about what they think he should be doing, so they can impose them over the reality of what he clearly is not doing, and in the process distract themselves from noticing their own lack of participation.

These Tea-Baggers are 3rd rate rent a thugs. You are going to tell me that

> the Consortium of Behavioral Scientists, a secret advisory group of 29 of the nation's leading behaviorists

couldn't anticipate this entirely predictable tea-bagger faux outrage, and that they therefore couldn't have gotten the Obama Base active in May in anticipation to completely blanket the media on this issue? Are you kidding me? Given how well this machine worked last year, how is it that everyone involved wasn't sounding alarm bells months ago when the campaign organization was put out to pasture this spring?

You don't suddenly go from being the Harlem Globetrotters to being the Washington Generals, without consciously deciding to do so. eg. It looks like we are being Woodrow Wilsoned.

Seeing it used casually on reddit turns my stomach like very few things can.

Read http://www.amazon.com/Lies-My-Teacher-Told-Everything/dp/0684818868 to gain a better understanding of US history than pop culture and high school can provide, and you'll understand why the word and all that it represents are an ongoing poison.

“This is not a book about the decline of America, but rather about the rise of everyone else.” So begins Fareed Zakaria’s blockbusting bestseller on the United States in the twenty-first century. How can Americans understand this rapidly changing international climate, and how might the nation continue to thrive in a truly global era? Zakaria answers these questions with his customary lucidity, insight, and imagination. - dust jacket quote

The economic crash of late 2008 may have rendered and lot of this book obsolete.

Well, considering it has a 4 star rating on amazon.com, I don't think that says much for most people's ability to think critically (or for themselves for that matter).

For my side, check out...

http://www.amazon.com/FDRs-Folly-Roosevelt-Prolonged-Depression/dp/0761501657

If you haven't actually read this book, I suggest you don't commence arguing against it.

I'm about to read What's the Matter with Kansas? It's supposed to answer this very question.

You think so? Read that book and you'll reconsider.

Naomi Klein does.

http://www.amazon.com/Hawaii-Cooks-Spam-Featuring-Favorite/dp/1566478537

http://mentalfloss.cachefly.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/hawaii-spam.jpg

The Wrecking Crew: How Conservatives Rule

Can I give him a set of balls as a present?

This may the pivitol attempt - the movie 'Obama's America: 2016' based on the best-seller 'The Roots of Obama's Rage'. Has anyone seen this, or comment or provide unbiased fact-checking on this?

Absolutely right. This is why I get a little frustrated when people get so deeply entrenched in two-party politics. It's kind of like, lets get the people fighting over some hot button issue, while meanwhile these big corporations have the power to control virtually every decision that comes out of Washington. There's a great book on this subject called "How Washington Really Works."
http://www.amazon.com/Washington-Really-Works-Charles-Peters/dp/0201624702

The economy is just a collection of information of decisions made by individuals. It is not a static object that can be altered on a whim. It is impossible to centrally plan the economy, even in the most minute way, without the markets rejecting the malinvestment. Market corrections (aka recessions) are good for the economy and must take place without government interference, which will just make the problem worse. I suggest you read this book.

> Can you image where we would be right now if it were McCain/Palin

Millions of people on the streets holding anti-war demonstrations. #OWS larger by 100X, probably would have gotten off the ground a year or two earlier. Wall Street and the Military Industrial Complex quaking in their boots.

Because the Ruling Class hired Obama to give the Empire a makeover.

He's not your man. He's the Plutocrats' man.

> the entire world financial system potentially seizing up and that we were facing another great depression.

And that is exactly what we still face. Because none of the fundamental problems (which is basically, too much wealth concentrated at the hands of Wall Street Banksters) have been solved.

> Yeah, it sucks to bail out banks and investment firms, but the alternative was much worse.

No. The Banks and the Investment firms have to be destroyed, crushed, their power broken. Until they do this, until they let them all fail and die, they've solved nothing.