Sunday, January 11, 2009
Obama, A Class Traitor
For example, this thread on the interview in which Obama says we are all going to have to sacrifice is almost entirely negative, including stuff like:
89. Unexamined Cult of PersonalityThe above is not typical, although the part about the cadres in the media is pretty much dead on.
During the election, Comrade Obama distanced himself from his progressive collectivist roots and denied that he was a true socialist.
Instead his handlers built a cult of personality and his managed speeches were only platitudes where we heard what we wanted to hear. It should have been an indicator when the only time Comrade Obama spoke truthfully about the reactionary forces in fascist Amerikkka was in front of a secret meeting with billionaires and industrialists on "Nob Hill".
The cadres in the media sold themselves to this flashy cult of personality and failed to examine why a committed progressive socialist denied his mentors - revolutionary heroes like Comrades Frank Davis; Bill Ayers; and Bernadine Dohrn - and his roots as a enemy of the plutocrats in order to curry favor with class enemies like the Wall Street blood suckers Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines.
Consider that Comrade Obama rejected public financing and his handlers deliberately set up his web site to allow fictitious donations. Who bought the election? Who bought our HOPE so they could derail CHANGE and make sure it was MORE OF THE SAME.
We have been sold a Stalin where we believed in a Lenin, comrades.
International financiers like Soros are manipulating the progressive popular front to ensure that the working classes are kept in slavery to the plutocrats. Obama is a class traitor.
These are more typical comments:
76. Sorry, no diceHere's another thread in which people have conniptions over Social Security/Medicare. One goes so far as to demand that Obama be impeached on January 20th.
Our family has already "given" it's jobs, retirement fund, savings and health insurance so that a shitty Wall Street holding company could add a penny to it's stock price.
There is nothing left for us to give.
How about raising the capital gains tax on John Paulson?
The hedge fund guy who made $10 million a day (every day) in 2007 by shorting mortgage securities.
Let him pay.
63. So is Obama going to raise taxes on the rich? Because he wasn't going to a month or so ago.
Of course, the rich aren't like everybody else, so they don't have to give diddly squat or have any "skin" in the game. :eyes:
They got their BILLION No, TRILLION dollar bailout, now didn't they? So it's ALL good. :grr:
44. But the promise we got is that 95% of working Americans would get a tax cut.
So what skin will be required from 95% of working Americans if "everyone is going to have to give?"
By the way, "giving" is something nobody "has" to do, "giving" is voluntary. If this is, as I suspect, going back on the tax cut promise and actually increasing taxes on most Americans with jobs, I REALLY want him to stop using the word "give."
44. Uh, Obama, can I have my vote back now?It goes on and on. Some want Obama impeached unless he impeaches Bush. If this were a honeymoon, a quick divorce with mutual restraining orders would be the next logical step. I kind of wonder if the habit of screaming about everything hasn't become so embedded for some of these folks that they just can't stop.
IMPEACH Obama on January 20, I say!
We are being Shock Doctrined into reductions long wanted by the right and by Obama's appointed economic team. Social Security is solvent and requires no change. Instead, what we have is a general budget in crisis. How dare any Democrat, never mind someone from the cabal of blood-sucking Republithugs, try to solve the general budget crisis on the backs of everyday Americans, Americans that were forced to pay an elevated regressive tax since Greenspan's 1983 Social Security fix. I guess in reality that "fix" was meant to disguise the extraordinary tax largess given to our upper class these last 28 years. It is a shell game, a swindle, and a theft from the American people. ---
Nor is it just the economic issues. For example, this Gitmo thread, which started with an interview in which Obama was cited as saying:
President-elect Barack Obama said this weekend that he does not expect to close Guantanamo Bay in his first 100 days in office.Well, that is one heck of a problem, especially when a lot of them can't be returned to their countries of origin. One person's response.
"It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize," the president-elect explained. "Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it's true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn't result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up."
30. Here's how I would do itBig problem, that last. I guess this poster feels that if they get to blow up Gitmo they'll get it out of their systems. It is true that Obama promised to shut it down in 100 days, to be fair. But the fine print was that he was just going to move them somewhere else.
Step One is to quit taking new detainees into the facility. President Obama can make that happen in his inaugural address. "Quit sending new people to Gitmo. I'll get you paperwork as soon as I get inside. For now, if you've got detainees on an airplane headed for Gitmo, divert to Fort Leavenworth."
I would next improve the quality of these people's living conditions. The torture stops, and I'd get rid of the torture chambers too...train some of the prisoners to use bulldozers so they can knock it down, then get Marine Corps engineers to blow up the rubble with explosives.
On the second day, we start separating the people who really need to be in jail from the al-Hatfields and al-McCoys, the multitudes who are in there because Bushler decided to pay bounties for "terrorists" without investigating any of them, leading to the jailing of people who did the heinous crime of parking on their neighbors' lawn. Give the al-Hatfields and al-McCoys some money for a home and a Toyota Hilux pickup (the Middle East's favorite vehicle), food and new clothes for their families and a nice Koran, take them home and apologize profusely for ruining their lives. The people who need to be in there can be tried, then jailed in a proper penitentiary.
The last dozen people to be repatriated from Camp X-Ray get to blow it up. Marines will set the explosive charges, the detainees will get to push buttons to set them off.
I think this will take at least a year to complete.
The only problem is, if we blow up Gitmo, where will we put Bush, Cheney, Condi, Rummy and Rove?
And then there are those who fear the coming theocracy. No, I am not making this up. Look at this thread on the latest Newdow inaugural lawsuit:
54. HE has the right to say it, but the Chief Justice DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY ITThis is so weird. It's as if all the ranting of the last 8 years is now ingrained in people's psyches. This would hardly be the first time the Chief Justice said those words, although it is the choice of the person being sworn in. The theocracy nutcases under Bush are now extending their neurosis to Obama.
Is that clear? The Chief Justice has a duty to administer the oath as it is written in the Constitution, period. If the president wants to add his beatific little flourish, he's perfectly welcome to it, and that's apparently been enough for the last 43 of them. Apparently, it's not enough for Barack Obama; apparently he wants to bring the rest of us to heel and rub our nose in the reminder that this country is wholly owned by Religion Incorporated, and fuck anyone who dares to disagree.
What's the problem here? Why is Barack Obama so hell-bent to make this a theocracy? Don't we have enough encroachment by the gods-on-earth of sanctified religion? They pay no taxes. We endorse their guess on our currency. We pay them salaries in Congress and the Military. We dump untold dollars into their coffers under the guise of Faith-Based Charities.
The question is not about what Obama says, the question is what the Chief Justice, representing the pinnacle of our law, is saying. If he's willing to OBVIOUSLY violate the law because of his fealty to a "higher power", then he should be impeached immediately for traitorously undermining the very office he's invited to uphold.
Fuck this privilege shit. Religion is not, by nature, "good", and those who demand us to turn a blind eye toward its excesses and imperial domination are commiting a crime against the Constitution of the United States. I don't just mean the hard-and-fast letter of the law, but the spirit of the whole enterprise. Got it?