Tell me again about the Socialism

Since 2007 we’ve been hearing about the horrors that might loom if a certain Kenyan Muslim Communist seizes control of the White House. With each year that passes those predictions become increasingly absurd, but somehow the folks who issued them keep cranking them out.

Let’s look back at some of the less batty predictions of what Obama’s term in the White House would produce and compare them to reality:

Obama is going to destroy the economy

Obama is going to soak us in taxes

Obama will trigger runaway inflation

Obama will wreck the health care industry

Obama will blow out the Federal budget

Obama is going to shut down oil drilling

Obama is going to ruin the stock market

Obama is going to take our guns

Better stock up on gold

The most enduring trait of the apocalypse is that it’s always right around the corner. The apocalypse, therefore, never fails. So expect the predictions to continue, perhaps even after the guy has left the White House. In the meantime, enjoy the misery that is low inflation, increasing employment, accelerating economic growth, low oil prices, a recovering housing market, and, and, and…

Chris Ladd is a Texan living in the Chicago area. He has been involved in grassroots Republican politics for most of his life. He was a Republican precinct committeeman in suburban Chicago until he resigned from the party and his position after the 2016 Republican Convention. He can be reached at gopliferchicago at gmail dot com.

Tagged with: ,
Posted in Uncategorized
96 comments on “Tell me again about the Socialism
  1. Hi, its pleasant post about media print, we all know media is a
    great source of information.

  2. Bobo Amerigo says:

    WASHINGTON — An 18-month congressional investigation into the Internal Revenue Service’s mistreatment of conservative political groups seeking tax exemptions has failed to show coordination between agency officials and political operatives in the White House, according to a report released on Tuesday.

  3. CaptSternn says:

    Obama is going to destroy the economy – The economy is still stagnant for the most part and the numbers usually get revised down after the fact. Workforce participation rates are still down. Though the republicans did just win big and will soon have control of both houses of congress, so confidence will probably help the economy start moving again.

    Obama is going to soak us in taxes – Tax rates and tax revenues are not the same thing. Income tax rates were raised on a lot of people, and the PPACA represents new and more taxes.

    Obama will trigger runaway inflation – Inflation will come when the interest rates are raised. It is inevitable at this point. It won’t be “runaway inflation” by definition, but it will destroy wealth, especially for middle class retirees.

    Obama will wreck the health care industry – PPACA: Destroying the private sector health insurance companies and having government take over the health care system is the stated goal with this as being but the first major step in that direction. Obama said up front that it could take 20 years for his plan to come to fruition.

    Obama will blow out the Federal budget – Um, that has happened. We have over $8 trillion in new debt since Obama took office and over $10 trillion since democrats gained control of spending back in January 2007.

    Obama is going to shut down oil drilling – Oil and natural gas production is still falling on federal lands under the Obama administration. Thankfully state and private lands have stepped in to boost overall production in spite of the Obama administration.

    Obama is going to ruin the stock market – The stock market is being propped up at this point. That is great for the 1% that the left hates so much, except when they can use those same people to show how successful the left has been. The correction will not hurt those folks much, but it will hurt middle class people in a bad way, especially those middle class retirees.

    Obama is going to take our guns – Even as late as 2012 Obama was calling to the reinstatement of the federal Assault Weapons Ban and requiring background checks on private transactions. Obama and the left were pushing for such crazy stuff as making it a crime to hand a weapon to somebody to be examined and anther crime for them to hand it back. Making it a crime for the owner of a weapon or weapons to be out of their house for a specified amount of time if their spouse stayed at home. Seems the democrats in congress want nothing to do with it after the 1994 elections, they are still stinging.

    Better stock up on gold – Stock up on gold, silver and other metals when prices are low. I wish I had bought tons of silver back when the price was $7 per ounce. I did buy quite a bit when it was around $15 per ounce. It is back to around $15 per ounce, so maybe I will pick up a few more bars here and there if I happen across any. Maybe I should have sold it off when it went north of $45 per ounce. But then I never saw it as a short term investment, and it isn’t like I have enough to retire on. And I like silver better than gold anyway.

    • Turtles Run says:

      “Obama will trigger runaway inflation – Inflation will come when the interest rates are raised.”

      My God the economic ignorance is blinding. The reason interest rates are raised is to stop inflation. This is why no one takes you teapublicans seriously because basic economics is a complete mystery to you.

      The stock market is being propped up for the benefit of the 1% by those that hate the 1%. Makes a lot sense if you live on a diet of lead paint chips.

      As for the rest I will let other point out the stupidity or better yet just ignore you.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Makes a lot sense if you live on a diet of lead paint chips.”

        Your diet is your business. And reality still eludes you.

    • 1mime says:

      You are amazing. Obama is going to:

      Destroy the economy – oops, DJ hit 18000 today but wages down. Whose fault is that?! Who gets credit for that?

      Soak us in taxes – I don’t think so.

      Cause runaway inflation – R u kidding me? Obama doesn’t set fed policy! Come on…

      Blow out the federal budget – I don’t think so. Who controls budget? Who controls Congress? Put the two together and, voila!

      Shut down oil drilling on federal lands – do your research!

      Destroy the stock market – Obviously, you are not invested in this bull market. If you were a student of the market, you would wonder why more people aren’t taking advantage of a rare opportunity to grow income through equities. There is the matter of regulation – such a pesky thing – let’s just let the big banks and trading houses do anything they want! Bernie Madoff, eat your heart out!

      Take our guns – take “your” guns…not mine. Don’t have one; don’t want one. But, you are wrong again. RESPONSIBLE gun ownership; background checks at gun shows; NoONE is taking your guns away! Stop selling them to the mentally ill!

      Finally, stock up on gold. Again, you are no student of the stock market. Gold has a place in a portfolio but it has been a terrible investment during the bull market. If you knew more about investing, you would be one of the millions who have enjoyed tremendous gains over the past few years.

      Capt Sternn, your arguments are really pathetic.

      • CaptSternn says:

        The stock market is not the economy. Already addressed that, it is being propped up.

        Tax rates have been raised and new taxes introduced, though the left called the fines at first.

        Inflation will come with raising interest rates. Basic economics, and it will happen.

        Congress controls the budget, democrats have controlled congress since January 2007 and enough to block bills and shut down the government since January 2011.

        Oil and gas production is still declining on federal lands. Do your research.

        Stock market again, being propped up.

        Background checks are already required when buying from a licensed dealer, even at gun shows.

        As I said, buy gold when the costs are down, not when they are at their peak.

        Work on your reading comprehension.

    • goplifer says:

      That’s hilarious. Not a lot of future left to accommodate all that future-tense. Obama’s gonna, x,y,z and so on, but he’s running out of time. Not sure why he hasn’t done it already, but it can’t possibly be that my assumptions are full of shit.

  4. Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

    At a national level, I’m generally going to be voting with the Democrats if for no other reason than the hasten the death of social conservatism as it relates to abortion, women, and gays, with the additional reason that appointments to the Supreme Court are big deals.

    With no particular love or hate of Gore, McCain in 2000 could have gotten my vote, with the hope that he could stand up to social conservatives in the GOP.

    Obama was not ready in 2008, but McCain of 2008 was not the McCain of 2000, and Palin was the rotten cherry on that unappealing sundae. They were catering to the social conservatives rather than standing up to them.

    Let’s go with the assumption that Obama really wants to destroy the economy, raise gas prices, cripple industry, and that he was wholly unprepared and not competent to handle the job.

    Let’s also go with the assumption that GW Bush was at least moderately un-curious about the world, an unspectacular business leader, and a not-so-good governor of a pretty big state who made some pretty bad decisions as President.

    Now, we have these two boobs as our last Presidents, and during their tenures, the economy has gone up and down, seemingly without linkage to the particular hopes or perceived agendas of the President.

    Could it be that the President has moderately little control over the economy?

    Could it be that there are maybe 80 economic variables in play, and the President has only slight control over maybe a handful of those variables?

    I’m enjoying the robust stock market, but I’m pretty sure Obama is not the reason it is high, other than he has not done anything spectacularly egregious to screw it up.

    Not doing spectacularly egregious things is a pretty low bar, but there are plenty of times in our recent history when such a bar was not reached.

    • RobA says:

      That’s a good post and that’s pretty much where I sit and where most ppl I know sit.

      I’m 29 and pretty much everyone my age agrees with most ideas of fiscal conservatism (I.e. low deficits, paying down national debt, cut back on gov’t excess etc).

      But more important then that to me and my generation is to get away from the repulsiveness of social conservatism, such as opposing marriage equality, intrusion in women’s reproductive rights and social/racial injustice. The people who fight tooth and nail against this are going to he on the wrong side of history, and until these dinosaurs die out, I (and many people my age) would stay on the left until such a time as its safe to come back to the right without the risk of voting in these kinds of people, because the policies they would enact are absolutely unacceptable to the vast majority of people under the age of 35.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Marriage equality is a farce, one of those bumper sticker slogans that shows the depth of the leftist’s thought process like “living wage”, “social justice” and “true costs”. The left doesn’t really support such a thing. If they did, they would be screaming about laws against polygamy, group marriages, brother and sister getting married and so on.

        We don’t give a hoot about your reproductive choices, just pay for your own birth control or voluntarily buy an insurance policy that will cover it. We do care about the innocent person after the couple has already reproduced and the woman is pregnant. No living human being should be denied their very humanity and basic human rights to be treated as nothing more than property to be killed off if found to be an inconvenience. We were supposed to have gotten beyond that some 150 or so years ago.

        Speaking of race relations, the left can only focus on and work to create more racial divide. Obama is the most racially divisive president in my lifetime, and the media is working hard to fan the flames at this point.

      • Houston-stay-at-Homer says:

        When your argument against recognizing same sex marriages starts with incest and polygamy, well, let’s just say you’ve given up the argument.

        Hey, it only took one post to get from abortion to slavery. Glad to see you still have your speed.

        Shockingly, a middle-aged White dude who believes his first exposure to racism was when some Black dudes were mean to him in the Army, finds our first Black President is the most racially divisive President in history.

        Have a merry holiday you old coot.

      • CaptSternn says:

        When your argument for recognizing same sex marriages starts with comparing the idea of stripping natural born citizens of their citizenship and putting them in prison, well, let’s just say you’ve given up the argument.

        Shockingly, when an American Indian finds a white president as being the most racially divisive, your head implodes.

        What else is there to say?

    • 1mime says:

      Your premise might work if history wasn’t on the side of more Democratic tenures than Republican ones. (See: Granted, our global economy rolls on its on course and sometimes the U.S. is the beneficiary; sometimes we are the loser. But, budgets that leave wars and prescription programs out of the loop will always look better than they actually are (Iraq War/Prescription Drug Plan)….and, those costs roll downhill, fast.

      Then there is the fact that the U.S. has not engaged in a direct military offensive under Obama’s tenure. Despite the fact that America’s pentagon budget exceeds that of ALL of the rest of major industrialized nations in the world, add a war onto that tab and the burden on the taxpayer becomes a real albatross.

      Obama has his faults but if the best that can be said is that “he didn’t do any harm”, I’m not buying it. Let’s see what conservatives can do in the next two years. I’m pulling for their success, but not at the expense of social rights or on the backs of the working man.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Our defense budget pales in comparison to entitlement spending, even with war spending included. War spending is trivial compared to the overall federal budget.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        By entitlement you mean social security and medicare. They are big budget items. But in there defense they have specific taxes levied to cover them. The income from these taxes may be lower or higher than you or I like but they are there. There is not a “destabilize an entire region for oil with our military” tax.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        Capt, I have to reply twice to your comment. Subtract out the payroll taxes for ss and medicare and the ependiture and then look at what sucks up our budget. And make sure you look at the Black items that are not listed and we cannot talk about.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “There is not a “destabilize an entire region for oil with our military” tax.”

        You can thank FDR and his socialist democrats for that. Look up some history starting with FDR meeting with the Saudi King back in 1945. I don’t agree with many things that have been done in the name of that, but it is what it is. That’s why I changed my mind about the 2003 invasion of Iraq, I looked up and read the history. We are now doing the right thing in spite of the Obama administration.

        And then you want me to ignore the taxes except for the taxes. Doesn’t work that way and social security taxes have been part of the general budget because of the actions and policies of democrats. Not that republicans have been great, which is the reason for the tea party movement infiltrating the GOP and pulling it back to the right of center.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        I may regret this Capt, but what did Roosevelt do and why to cause the Iraq war?

        And I know all revenues go into one pot, but contend that there are differences between payroll taxes, income taxes, tariffs and fees. They are different in application and purpose. Tolls and gasoline taxes are compared to expenditures on roads and bridges. Taxes on riverboat fuel helps pays for dams and locks. That is the way most people consider these things. Up until recently SS taxes equaled expenditures. This is what I mean by a specific tax for the military. or the NSA. or the FBI. or Homeland Security, or …

      • CaptSternn says:

        “I may regret this Capt, but what did Roosevelt do and why to cause the Iraq war?”

        I put my head in my hands over this one. I as adamantly against the 2003 invasion of Iraq in 2002 and most of 2003. I was banging my head over the capture of Saddam Hussein because that would just give supporters of the invasion more ammunition against me. I was called a liberal for being against the 2003 invasion. I asked to be informed why it was justified, much less necessary, but nobody could give me a summary or justify it. Hint, WMD was just the tip of the iceberg, only one example of the violations of the cease-fire. I could write an entry that would be ten or twenty times the length of Lifer’s entry, but you probably wouldn’t have the patience to read it. So let me try to be brief.

        During WWII it came to the fact that scrap iron and oil were important. We cut those supplies to Japan, so Japan attacked. That caused our entry into WWII. In 1945 FDR understood the importance of those things, especially oil. Just before that, oil was discovered in Arabia, ruled by the House of Saud. FDR made a pact with the House of Saud over oil, and it became Saudi Arabia. Every congress and president since then has kept that pact. Our actions in Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and others have been to secure the flow oil.

        In 1979 the Ayatollah Khomeini took over Iran and took U.S. citizens hostage, and in that same year Saddam Hussein took over Iraq and went to war with Iran (not counting the CIA installing the Shah of Iran or backing Saddam Hussein). So the U.S. backed Iraq against Iran through a proxy war. Both Iraq and Iran used chemical weapons. But they were not being a threat to Saudi Arabia.

        Then Iraq was fought to a stalemate and was deep in debt to Kuwait, so Saddam Hussein sought to take over Kuwait and control the oil fields, which he was doing in trying to control Iranian oil fields, to control all the Middle East oil fields. Saddam Hussein idolized Adolph Hitler and tried to follow his example.

        But then he threatened Saudi Arabia, and that could not be tolerated due to the pact FDR made with the House of Saud and every congress and president had honored since then. It could not be tolerated because the global flow of oil is the blood of the global economy.

        So we had a proxy war against the USSR in Afghanistan, backing the Mujahedeen, which was al Qaeda and the Taliban, who turned against us because of our “occupation” of Muslim Holy Lands and harboring of al Qaeda after the 2001 attacks, which happened because we were defending the House of Saud because of the pact FDR made and the U.S. government has honored since then.

        And we had the oil embargos of the 1970’s, the time of odd and even license plate numbers and long gas lines.

        It is all connected. The left wants to make it all separated, the Iraq invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq are not at all connected according to the left. But it is all connected. One thing leads to another, and another, and another. There are consequences to choices and actions and policies. The dots are connected.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        Impressive. Absolutely. All connected and nothing in the comment that I would disagree with factually except when some stuff that happened prewar. I realize it was a quickly written so no biggie. I’m surprised you didn’t mention April Glaspie. A lot of work. One of my favorite books is “The Prize” by Daniel Yergin.

        So after all that, in my opinion, we did not have to invade Iraq. And we surely did not have to destroy the infrastructure. Just to rebuild it.

    • If you were dealing with one Republican president and one Democratic president then you would have a good point – pure chance would make the difference
      But when a total of 11 different presidents show a clear pattern…..

      Once – it could be chance
      Three times – its “enemy action”
      11 times?????

    • unarmedandunafraid says:

      I was a registered Republican that voted for Nixon twice. He didn’t cure me of this rightward leaning but Reagan did for the same reason Stephen comments below. To the people that I moved away from, when you go batcrap crazy and stupidly attack a political opponent, you take up space and oxygen that serious people could use to come to a conclusion.

      After the asinine attacks on Clinton, I did split my ticket to vote for a moderate republicans. After all I am a fiscal conservative, that is I think government should work efficiently. Now after Obama, it will take an apology from the head of the republican party to me and the American people to get my vote. Then I may ask for more.

      aww, Maybe if Chris runs for national office.

      • 1mime says:

        You know what I don’t get – the whole fiscal conservative badge that Republicans pin on themselves. If you look at the facts, i.e., “history”, the economy is stronger under Democratic leadership than under Republicans. See:

        So, why aren’t Dems considered fiscally conservative? Why are Dems regarded only as a party of social tolerance and not given more credit for their fiscal management and strong economies? Do Dems fail to tell their own story well, or, worse, allow Repubs to paint an inaccurate, incomplete picture, irrespective of facts? Is it because in having a bigger tent, one that supports (broadly speaking) and welcomes all people, that more are able to succeed? Is it because Dems encourage a bigger, stronger middle class? One that earns a living wage that allows children to be educated and parents to save for retirement and health? Is it because social programs such as social security and medicare help people age with financial independence and less fear? And other social safety net programs help people bridge tough times? Do we only see those who abuse the system at the bottom and not those who hurt many more, at the top?

        Republicans have great ideas and fine leaders. What they need more of is awareness of the importance of the value of the working man to the economic success of our capitalistic economy. This awareness has to trickle down to enable hard working people to feel our economy allows them to succeed – with effort, and not merely by birthright, race, or privilege. Then they need tolerance as mentioned by several commentors. We all want our country to be fiscally sound. This is not Republican or Democrat. It is American.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        1mime, I’ve often wondered about the economic cycle that favors democrats. And wondered about those things you mentioned. As a liberal, I’m afraid to say it may be those qualities and luck.

        Worse than that, maybe certain people consider themselves conservatives until they get laid off or the economy sours. Now some uncertainties sink in, they are not so full of themselves and they go looking for some security in “socialists”. So if they time it correctly, depending on the business cycle, a more socialistic government is in power while the economy improves. Cynical I know.

        But history does show that republicans are full of it when they accuse the democrats of fiscal irresponsibility. I remember the right railing against deficit spending, tax and spend, big government, … Then along comes Reagan. I remember Tip Oneal putting Ronnie in his place when Reagan was complaining about the tax and spend democrats. He called BS, said that democratic congress passed lower budgets than Reagan White-house proposed in 7 of 8 years. (maybe 6 of 8, erg, memory)

      • CaptSternn says:

        “Do Dems fail to tell their own story well, or, worse, allow Repubs to paint an inaccurate, incomplete picture, irrespective of facts?”

        Now that there is funny, I don’t care who you are. Democrats supported slavery, democrats created Jim Crowe laws, democrats created poll taxes, democrats are the reason for the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Acts and many other things having to do with oppressing “minorities”, and they are still doing it. They do it by claiming that “minorities” are inferior and need help from the white people through affirmative action, set-asides and lowered standards on things like test scores.

        Unarmed, many of us conservatives have lost jobs in the past. We work odd jobs to make ends meet until we find another job that we like. And we are still against socialism. As for fiscal responsibility, republicans forced Clinton into an almost balanced budget. They did lose their way when Bush43 was elected and did things like Medicare Part D, which caused a lot of us conservatives to start voting for a third party. We libertarian leaning conservatives are now the tea party movement. Also remember, the last GOP deficit was $161 billion. Democrats went ten times above that once they got control.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        Capt, you do know something very very big happened in Bush’s last year, don’t you?

      • CaptSternn says:

        Bush43 was a lame duck president in his last two years. Democrats were in control. You understand that, yes? Or will you say republicans have no say ion matters when they take control of congress next month? Be consistent or, well, be a hypocrite.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        Sorry if I didn’t ask that clearly. Do you know that there was a huge disruption in the financial industry at the end of Bush’s term. I wasn’t laying blame but it seems as if you don’t know about the combining poor quality mortgages and selling them, and an insurance companies insured them and they were shorted and ….. Its almost as if you didn’t know that the economy was headed for the nether regions just at the end of Bush’s term. Again not blaming it on W.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        And actually I try to be consistent. So if I’m explaining the last two years of Bush’s term, I get that he was a lame duck and the democrats were in charge. And everything was ok till Obama was sworn in. So does Bush get credit for those two years or the democrats that were in charge?

      • CaptSternn says:

        “So does Bush get credit for those two years or the democrats that were in charge?”

        No, the democrats get full credit. They get full credit when Bush43 called for more regulation and democrats locked it saying nothing was wrong. Congress gets full credit for the deficits and debt. Congress controls the federal government, except when Obama wants to be the dictator.

      • briandrush says:

        “Democrats supported slavery, democrats created Jim Crowe laws, democrats created poll taxes”

        Indeed they did, Captain. Of course, that was when the Democrats were the party of southern white men, and routinely won the South in presidential elections while Republicans won the Northeast, upper Midwest, and West Coast just as often. It was when the Republicans were the party that ended slavery, and championed civil rights, racial equality, women’s suffrage, and the Equal Rights Amendment. It was when the Republicans passed the first environmental laws in the United States.

        In short, it was when the Democrats were what today’s Republicans are, and vice-versa. It’s good that you know your history. It would be better if you also recognized that things have changed a bit since then.

      • CaptSternn says:

        No, democrats of today are the same as they ever were, as are republicans. Republicans still see all as equal while democrats still see “minorities” as being inferior. Republicans still want all to have basic human rights while democrats still see some as being less than human and nothing more than [property.

      • briandrush says:

        “No, Democrats of today are the same as they ever were, as are Republicans.”

        Really, Captain?

        Take a look at this electoral map from 1920:,_1920

        This was a Republican victory and pretty typical of the period from the Civil War until the Great Depression. Note that most of the map is red, but the entire South went blue. In particular, note that the GOP won all of New England, New York and the whole Northeast, plus Illinois and the entire upper Midwest, plus the whole West Coast.

        Now look at this one:,_2008

        2008 is fairly typical of the new political reality. Obama won that election handily, but except for three states, he lost the South. He won the Northeast, the upper Midwest, and the West Coast, all of which used to be Republican strongholds, while the South used to belong to the Democrats.

        Tell us, O Sage, if the parties have remained the same as they’ve always been, why is it that the places that used to vote for one now vote for the other — in both directions?

        Democrats used to call the South the “Solid South,” and it still is — but it belongs to the GOP now, not to the Dems. You think that’s an accident?

        No. The Democrats lost the South because they started sounding like Republicans. And the Republicans gained it because they started sounding like Democrats.

        Captain, back when the Democrats were guilty of the sins you’re accusing them of, YOU would have been a Democrat. Anyone who says the parties have remained the same over the years is one of three things: very young, very ignorant, or very dishonest.

  5. 1mime says:

    Chris, an honest man is hard to find. An humble man, harder yet. Thank you for your acknowledgement of the successes of President Obama. Yes, Obama has made mistakes, chief among them was trying to work with the very conservatives whose goal from day one was to destroy him by any means possible. Every president inherits from his/her (-: predecessor, but this president has suffered personal indignities that are unparalled in American history. Republicans have a real opportunity in the next two years to demonstrate they can govern. As a Democrat AND an American, I am pulling for their success because it benefits the people of our country. For six years we have watched roads, bridges, drainage needs fail, rather than support President Obama’s Jobs Bill. For six years we have witnessed a stock market scale unbelievable heights. Conservatives need to dig deep within themselves and acknowledge that the man they give no credit for achieving anything has done a pretty damn good job. So, thanks again, Chris, for giving credit where credit is due.

    • CaptSternn says:

      “… chief among them was trying to work with the very conservatives …”

      Telling them to sit in the back, calling his signature legislation nothing more than a prop, passing legislation with no republicans voting in favor of it, having Harry Reid block well over 300 bills from the house including dozens of jobs bills, threatening to veto bills if they did make it through the senate, ruling by speeches and decree. For eight years the democrats have been running the federal government, and then being the party of “NO”.

  6. briandrush says:

    Interesting thing here is that the respondents on the loony right typically use words and phrases like “leftist” and “far left” as if they knew what that meant. They don’t. Typically, they’re referring to mainstream media or the Democratic Party.

    For your edification, below are some links to genuinely far left web sites. They don’t all agree with each other, but each of them is arguably part of the real far left.

    The first of these is a no-pretenses socialist party. The second is a radical environmental organization. The third is a radical, anarcho-syndicalist labor union.

    Explore these sites, if you care to educate yourselves on what the “far left” actually talks about, thinks like, and wants to do. Or you can ask me; I’m pretty far left myself, although not necessarily in agreement with any of the folks above. (I feel fairly confident that I fall sharply to the left of Chris, and of most Democrats. Most Republicans, of course, need no mention.)

    Anyone is free to disagree with President Obama — God knows I do often enough. But calling him a socialist, or any kind of “leftist” or “far leftist” makes a genuine leftist like me simply roll my eyes at the ignorance.

    • stephen says:

      The fringe right ought too also learn what conservative means too.

    • GG says:

      Frankly, when I hear or read “leftist” I pretty much discount anything that person has to say. It’s a word I associate with cranky, fearful old geezers stuck in the fifties still worried about the “pinko commie queers” and bitching about rock and roll.

    • CaptSternn says:

      “Explore these sites, if you care to educate yourselves on what the “far left” actually talks about, thinks like, and wants to do.”

      A person that says every person in this nation should be given a minimum income that would comfortably support them in housing, food, clothes and everything else, without having to lift a finger to earn it, is far left.

      A person that espouses the idea of “From each according his ability, to each according his need” is far left.

      Any person that supports the idea of total government control over health care, a “single payer system” or “universal health care”, is far left, a socialist at the minimum, but more like a communist.

      Explore Lifer’s site and what he advocates and supports to educate yourself, explore what the far left actually talks about, thinks like and wants to do, if you dare. Or just roll your eyes in deliberate ignorance.

      • Xeranar says:

        I’m sorry, you do realize every US ally and frankly every member of the western first world system is then a communist, right? They all have single-payer healthcare systems, Canada, Mexico, UK, France, Germany, Japan, Etc. The point is that you’re expressing a very specific view that is largely built on the Protestant work ethic and Calvinism and claiming that anybody who opposes that view is a very specific view. You really need to say instead that ‘I’m for THIS view and those against me are wrong for X, Y, and Z reason’ because none of the labels you constantly use actually work outside of the narrow definitions and party support you live in. Go walk down the street in a major city and shout about socialism, nobody is going to cringe, this isn’t 1961, the cold war is over.

      • CaptSternn says:

        You do realize that there is no other nation as rich or powerful as the U.S., right? We didn’t build this based on socialism, we built it on individual liberty and rights, capitalism.

      • Xeranar says:

        Actually no, America’s vast wealth was built in the post-war era when Socialism was adopted in a limited format as Keynesianism and union protections. There is no solid evidence to support that America was ever successful due to some ‘individualism’ you can’t quantify.

  7. goplifer says:

    Mea Culpa here, and maybe this deserves to be a whole post, but I got Obama completely wrong.

    I was a McCain volunteer in 2000 and 2008. I really believed in the guy, at least in 2000. My impression of Obama was that he was America’s last 20th century leftist. A college professor with little understanding of middle America and no sympathy for capitalism who would be a train wreck. His naivete would ruin foreign policy. His ignorance of markets would strangle an already struggling economy and he would blow out spending from day one.

    Yes, I was nervous about Palin, but something in me said she couldn’t be quite as stupid as she seemed. And yes, McCain seemed a little doddering and erratic, but when placed next to Bush he seemed like a beacon of hope. Plus, I remembered the moxie he showed in 2000 more than I recognized the wobbling I was seeing in ’08.

    Nothing I thought about Obama turned out to be correct. All of my worst fears about McCain and Palin understated the reality. In short, I was about as wrong as I could have been and it was a stark, humbling realization.

    Yes, Obama has been remarkably slow to comprehend the actual political landscape he was dealing with. Yes, he was over-ambitious and under-prepared. Basically exactly like Kennedy on all counts.

    He took the helm during a class 5 shitstorm of incompetent leadership and corruption. In spite of all this his Administration has been easily the most stable and successful since Reagan. The measured way that he has handled crises from Libya to Syria to Ukraine and beyond has helped us avoid our natural, post-9/11 instinct to overreact and given our enemies enough rope to hang themselves.

    The man’s success has forced me to reevaluate a lot of my own political assumptions. For that, this Administration has been very uncomfortable for me. For my kids, however, I’m grateful. The guy has given us a better country in spite of my own efforts.

    • desperado says:

      A wise man changes his mind when the circumstances change, a fool never does. Ain’t that right, kabuzz?

      • 1mime says:

        A smart man changes his mind when circumstances change; a wise man thinks deeply before making decisions, looks beyond narrow personal views and encompasses a broad world view. It’s called “pragmatism”, and, it’s a quality that great leaders possess and shallow people can’t fathom. There are lots of smart people out there, but wise? These people are few and far between. Sadly, these wise people are often derided during their lifetimes. The earth is flat, remember? History tells us who the great leaders are. I don’t know where President Obama will fall in this assessment, but I will say that very few presidents have had to endure the personal abuses he has while grappling simultaneously with such grave issues. I acknowledge his lack of preparation and idealism while applauding what he has achieved. AFter all, who among us????has the right to criticize him? It’s a hard job. He could have done some things better, smarter, and, yes, more wisely. I try to focus on what he has done right which is significant and I thank him for his service to America.

    • stephen says:

      I voted for McCain too. I figured like you Obama was too inexperience for the presidency. Once Obama won I figured he would govern as a centralist. The only thing I was correct about. The man has done a jam up job. I voted for him in 2012. He is the second time I have ever voted for a Democrat for the Presidency. The other was the first time Clinton ran as I was mad as hell about the deficit that Reagan-Bush-senior left us with. And oh yea Obama has made a major dent in the deficit Bush the junior left us with. And this is not a contradiction of supporting Jeb. His time as a Governor showed he actually is a fiscal conservative. I am also thankful Obama has not entangled us in anymore foreign wars.

    • CaptSternn says:

      That’s funny, Lifer. Obama took over after the democrats had been running things for two years, they took over with a strong economy and very low unemployment rate. Obama gained office when al Qaeda had been defeated in Saudi Arabia and Iraq, then on the run in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Now we have the rise of the Muslim Brotherhood, a resurgent al Qaeda and ISIS, Russia retaking the Ukrainian Peninsula, no European missile defense system …

      Then again, after having read the things you support for a while now, the only surprise here is that you are not saying Obama is not far enough to the left for you.

      • unarmedandunafraid says:

        So you are saying the Dems were doing a good job for those two years.

      • CaptSternn says:

        “So you are saying the Dems were doing a good job for those two years.”

        Um, economy crashed, unemployment skyrocketed, debt exploded, so you say that was good?

      • Xeranar says:

        I’ve been reading this little blog for a time since an actual liberal blogger shared something from it. I get that you’re that last hold out from the cold war era who sticks his fingers in his ears and desperately shouts angrily at anybody who says anything you don’t like. I mean you actually talk about southern conservatives in the Democratic Party who supported Jim Crow as if they were modern liberals….The irony is that you’re probably in a state of the Old Confederacy or at the very least living in some rural area that supported them.

        Anyways, the point of this post is to explain to you (a man, I presume of some age…) that unless you have 66 votes in the Senate and 281 votes in the House of Representatives you do not control anything. In fact all the 2006 victory did for Democrats was stop the Republicans from passing legislation freely, but Bush 43 had stymied any major changes to the system. So this is explained in high school civic classes and if you failed to get it then and you ended up in my Poli Sci 101 class on US Politics you would get it there again. This is the core of the Federal system of legislation, you cannot change the system if the opposition’s President is able to hold the veto and Bush 43 did. So just as you caterwaul loudly about the refusal of Reid to vote on things in the senate (which wouldn’t pass anyways…) the same goes for 2006 to 2008. Laying blame for an economic crisis that developed after the Republicans got Glass-Steagal repealed and the complete support of the Republican party to allow the bubble to be created on Democrats is just obtuse and sad. You have no actual evidence to support your argument while reams of documents have come forward from Republicans in office and their think tanks that explain why they supported these moves and even NOW still support them. If it was up to Sen. Cruz and his Tea Party we would be right back at it. I really wouldn’t mind fiscal conservatives if they were actually conservative, the problem is they never are.

      • CaptSternn says:

        First you say that republicans had no power because they didn’t have 66 seats in the senate, then you blame them for repealing the Glass-Stegall Act even though democrats had to vote for it and a democratic president had to sign it.

        So tell us again, how many republicans voted for the PPACA?

      • Xeranar says:

        No, I explained how a Republican president can stymie change. Your intentional ignorance doesn’t surprise me, I see students like you occasionally and I usually don’t have to fail them because they either acknowledge their own stupidity. Why are you obsessing over the ACA still, do you think this is tit for tat? Stop trying to be partisan and use your brain…

  8. GG says:

    I’ve got my popcorn ready. This should be fun.

  9. Turtles Run says:

    Chris – Don’t forget how Obama wanted to raise the price of gasoline to $8 or $9 dollars. Now that prices are at the low $2 range it only proves what a failure Obama really is.

  10. kabuzz61 says:

    Healthcare industry is in trouble do to Obamacare. Patients can’t keep their doctors. Millions of subscribers rates jumpted 50% and millions more last their coverage.

    Obama most certainly attempted to use executive actions on gun control but I guess backed off.

    Only the past 9 months has unemployment decreased noticably. If you want to call that success after 6 years, being laser focused on jobs, go ahead.

    We are in debt.

    How about some of the left predictions:

    Florida will be covered with water by now due to melting ice caps.

    The GOP is finished as a party. (2008)

    The GOP is finished as a party. (2012)

    You have to pass bills before you can read them.

    How about some lefties actions:

    Fast and Furious

    IRS targeting conservatives.

    Secret Service scandals.


    The world will once again love us after Obama’s apology tour.

    Most of the dem’s are distancing themselves from Obama.

    Chris, each issue you wrote can be addressed but why bother. You are a committed democrat with no change of changing your ideology.

    • Turtles Run says:

      Buzzy – You forgot the FEMA camps and turning over our sovereignty to the UN.

      That is a lot of derp in a single posting, you should be proud I suppose.

    • csarneson says:

      Kabuzz, do you have any idea how absurd you sound in this post?

      I love your laundry-list of nonsense as well. Fast and Furious is the only real thing on that list. The rest is fake. You should be ashamed. While Chris is using intelligence and logic to discuss issues, you display hyper-partisanship. You are disgusting.

  11. unarmedandunafraid says:

    The 1 percent’s new rallying cry: SEND MORE KENYANS!

  12. RobA says:

    If he were white with the exact same presidential performance, I imagine he’d be leaving office as one of the more overall popular presidents in recent memory.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      Ah! The always popular racist argument from the challenged left.

      • RobA says:

        It’s the only thing that makes sense, considering the inalienable facts that the country is far better off today then it was when W. Handed over the reins.

        If the country was in the shitter now, regardless of the real reason, you can be absolutely sure Obama would be blamed for every single piece of it. But now that it’s clear that that isnt the case, the far righties STILL are insisting that somehow, Obama is still the antichrist and things are only better because he bowed to the superiority of right wing opinion.

        Which is exactly the attitude that’s going to lose the repubs the next election. How stupid are all of you going to look when the average American is CLEARLY better off and the righties are insisting that, somehow, Obama is the worst thing that ever happened.

        Who would elect anyone who is either a) so clearly out of touch with reality or b) so obviously lying?

        The reason it took Obama “so long” to finally get things going is that Bush left the country in such a state of disaster that it took that long. And that is obvious to anyone not brainwashed by the absurd vocal minority that dominates the discourse of the GOP.

        Moderate Repubs like Chris are the only hope for a relevent Republican Party in the future.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Roba, it seems you do not know how government works. The president is the executive. He or she executes/enforces laws and is commander of the military.

        The legislative branch, (I know you have heard of them) make the laws, appropriate funds, use their oversight powers and their regulatory powers to make sure things are on the up and up.

        In 2006, things weren’t so bad at all. Then the democrats took over congress with a super majority in both houses and from 2007 to 2011 they dropped the ball on oversight and regulations. They spent like drunk sailors. But the president being the president and the citizentry not knowing, blames the president for the ills of the nations. The political class, which is most of us, know where the ball was dropped. The dem’s dropped it.

        Remember a super majority is when the other party cannot stop any legislation it disagrees with. The dem’s squandered it.

      • Crogged says:

        “They squandered it”

        Good luck and hold your breath until you overturn the squandering without a Supreme Court decision or three, a super-majority and a President.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “Then the democrats took over congress with a super majority in both houses and from 2007 to 2011 they dropped the ball on oversight and regulations. They spent like drunk sailors.”

        So the Democrats are now the party of less regulations and oversight???

        They spent like drunken sailors. The biggest expenditures under the W administration occurred when the Republicans were in charge of the Congress and the White House.

        Under the GOP Congress and President we had two unfunded wars, a unfunded prescription drug plan, unfunded tax cuts, and a the largest expansion of government in decades. Exactly what did the Democrats do in the last two years of the Bush administration that would justify the claim that “they spent like drunken soldiers”. I am sure you can show that the Republican President vetoed that “drunken spending” and Congress overrode those vetoes as well.

        I anxiously await your answer Buzzy.

        The sad fact (for you) is under Obama deficits have gone from a Bush high of $1.4TN a year to less than $600MM.

      • CaptSternn says:

        Turtles, democrats ran up the $1.4 trillion deficit. Bush43 wouldn’t even sign the 2009 budget. Again, don’t let facts or reality get in your way, you never have before.

        Taking less from a person isn’t funding that person, it is taking less. How much did you spend today by not robbing a bank of $100.000? Oh right, under your logic, that cost you $100,000.

        But hey, if you want to just blame the president because you are incapable of understanding any other level of government, Clinton repealed the Glass-Stegall Act. Imagine that.

      • Turtles Run says:

        “Clinton repealed the Glass-Stegall Act. Imagine that.”

        I guess Clinton did it by himself, the GOP controlled congress had nothing to do with it. Same with the the budget Clinton had nothing to do with it it was the GOP congress that brought balanced budgets. The same GOP congress that was incapable of doing the same in the 6 years it was in control with Bush.

        I sense a pattern with you. All good things credit the GOP, all bad things credit Democrats. How do you see with that partisan plank in your eye?

      • CaptSternn says:

        The GOP only controlled congress for four years under Bush43, Turtles. Mostly I see a pattern with you, it’s always the fault of the republicans. Reality is not your friend.

    • johnofgaunt75 says:

      I think it is hard to argue that many of the accusations against President Obama would be leveled against a white man.

      Would a white man named President Smith be labeled a “Muslim?
      Would a white man named President Jones be asked repeatedly for his “long form” birth certificate?

      Let’s be honest here. There are a lot of people who don’t like President Obama because he is a black man and he is President. There is no denying that.

      • texan5142 says:

        “There is no denying that.”

        Bless the simple minded, they sure do try denying it.

      • kabuzz61 says:

        Of course. And there are a lot of people that don’t like white people because their white. What are you trying to prove? The sun rises in the East?

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Give me a break kabuzz. Sure. There are probably some racist African Americans who don’t like white people but to throw out the history of slavery and then 100 years of institutionalized racism and violence against African Americans and say “They are the same” or to even attempt to compare the two is so stupid and ignores so much history and violence and murder it is hard to even take such a statement seriously.

    • 1mime says:

      So, maybe he’ll be judged “half” as popular?

    • CaptSternn says:

      “If he were white with the exact same presidential performance, I imagine he’d be leaving office as one of the more overall popular presidents in recent memory.”

      Racists focus on race. It is all they can see. So no, we would not have supported Obama’s policies or actions no matter the fact that he is a white guy. Oh, right, Obama is white. Imagine that. White mother raised by a white family. Maybe you are a racist that thinks a person that is 1/8 or 1/16 black is still black?

      And still no. Didn’t support Clinton, who was called the first black president even though he sure looks white. Didn’t support his health care reform ideas or many other things he wanted. Don’t support any of those old white men in congress that voted in favor of the PPACA. Heck, didn’t even support Bush43 with his Medicare Part D mess, and is he white, black or other?

      No, the country is worse off than when democrats gained control in January 2007, back when the economy was growing at a steady 4%, unemployment was at 4.6% and the deficit was at $161 billion, even though that level of deficit spending was bad. That deficit included funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because congress kept voting every year or so to fund those wars. Anybody that says they were not funded is either ignorant or lying.

  13. johnofgaunt75 says:

    Fear sells and the people that were pumping out these myths were trying to sell something be it books, television viewers (Fox News), radio listeners, political support or just their personal brand so they could land a television/radio gig.

    Both sides do it, to varying degrees although I think the right has perfected it recently.

    • kabuzz61 says:

      JOHN75, the left perfected it during Reagan. Remember they put out ads in Florida to seniors that “Reagan is going to take away your Social Security”. Why the democrats don’t care about scaring the shit out of seniors is beyound me.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        Like I said, both sides do it. Many on the far left used a lot of ridiculous rhetoric about President Bush but the conspiracy theories and underlining assumptions about President Obama really take the cake. “He’s a Muslim.” “He’s a Kenyan.” “He’s a socialist.” “He’s a communist.” “He is trying to destroy American and help the terrorists.”

        This is nutcase stuff. Part of it has to be the Internet and the ability for these crack-pot theories to spread. But part of it is also Fox News, talk radio and some of the read meat throwers in the Republican Party who are completely unprofessional and out of line (Louie Gohmert, Joe Barton, Michele Bachmann, Steve Stockman and their ilk).

      • kabuzz61 says:

        You’re cherry picking. GW Bush put up with a DAILY onslaught of accusations.

      • johnofgaunt75 says:

        How many times was President Bush asked for his birth certificate and accused by members of the House of Representatives as being not an American? How many times buzz?

  14. texan5142 says:

    Chris, now you are just trolling the rabid right wing binary simpletons with this post. Thanks! I need a good laugh today. Let the bullshit begin!

    • Turtles Run says:

      I gotta imagine a couple of heads are exploding at this moment.

      • texan5142 says:

        One has for sure, look at the above post, kitty brains all over the place.

      • Turtles Run says:

        I imagine his cartoonish brother is penning a strongly worded replay as we speak. I need to get the popcorn ready. This is the second best posting on this blog in the past few days.

      • rightonrush says:

        I bet old Sternn is banging the keys frothing at the mouth! He’s got that rebel and Glasden flag flapping in the breeze.

      • Turtles Run says:

        RoR – Sternn once again does not fail to meet our low expectations of him. He truly hit it out of the park with his ravings above.

        Buzzy or Sternn???

      • texan5142 says:

        I should not laugh at crazy people, but I am, it is pure derangement coupled with insanity. It is beautiful man!

      • Turtles Run says:

        Texan – There is one big difference. In TAPS Tom Cruise played a crazy character that at least people were willing to give ammunition too. Sternn in a post last week admitted the base that he was stationed at was attacked and the Army in its opinion felt they were safer not giving him live ammunition.

        “CaptSternn says:
        December 19, 2014 at 7:31 pm

        Interesting, Bubba. I was there in the middle 1980’s. I watched the shuttle blow up in our break room, we all watched the winds when Chernobyl went off, we had bombs planted in our snack bars (on the base), and we had armed Germans breaching our walls after the bombing of Libya. My roommate got a medal for stopping one of them with an unloaded M-16. They didn’t give us ammunition, but you should already know all that.”

        emphasis mine

      • texan5142 says:

        Well then, I thank the army for not giving a crazy person ammo. The state of Texas gave a crazy person a CCL, remember that when you are out …..stay clear of the one dressed like the confederate flag, it might be him.

      • Turtles Run says:


        I served state side during pretty much period and I really could not remember any such attack.

        I am sure unless there was a real emergency no one was going to be issued rounds especially at a pretty safe location.

        But frankly if the need ever came that Cappy would be needed to defend the base I think I rather surrender.

        Merry Christmas

    • bubbabobcat says:

      Turtles, I was being polite so that means my point was probably missed but I doubt Cappy’s post was attacked. And then when pressed, he admitted it was an “inside job” so it sounds just like a twisted disgruntled employee, and not some organized anti-American group which is why if it ever existed, no one ever heard of this “attack”. And I noted the German terrorists at the time were all anti-German government rather than anti-American. The average German was more annoyed with drunk and arrogant 18 year olds living outside their hometowns for the first time in their lives serving as “ambassadors” of the US.

      And in Cappy’s defense, the 80’s were a more innocent era despite the Cold War rhetoric. The bases were all pretty open compared to current fortresses and no soldier received live ammo except for MP’s and on the rifle range.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 454 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: