You can't fool all of the people all of the time

From a comment on the Atlantic Business Channel :

... richardAH March 30, 2009 4:59 PM
Concerned: "Now you've got yourself a car company, President Obama, what are you going to do with it??"

I think it imperative to recognize that the president is not a practical man. He is an ideologue, as should be obvious from his insistence on pursuing his agenda no matter what the cost. "He will print money until the presses melt," is, I think, what Rahm Emmanuel said a week or two ago. Now that he has a car company, here is what he will do with it: He maintain control indirectly by placing his people on the board; he will probably remake the company into a producer of a green fleet that matches his ideas about energy and global climate change. Since very few people want such cars, the next challenge will be to get Congress to pass legislation mandating fuel efficiency and emissions standards that only the GM cars (and a few imports) can meet, thereby forcing the more successful, mostly Japanese, companies to retool in order to compete in the American market. It probably wont work, but this is how Obama thinks. COMMAND and CONTROL. He wants to control three things: Education (to indoctrinate children), Energy (to control not only the economy but the shape of society itself), and Health Care (so the government can decide who lives and who dies). His father was a Communist; his mother was a Communist. What did you expect? a Centrist? a Humanist? He is very consistent if you don't listen to what he says (except when he slips up), but pay attention to what he does."

Share this

I've been shocked

I've been shocked by how extremely and unabashedly left wing Obama turned out to be once he was in the White House. It's not that I didn't already know he was left wing. I knew he was much more left wing than he was being made out to be by the majority of babble. There's a difference between knowing something is going to happen and not being shocked by it. There is nothing more certain than death, but each death comes as a shock. We all know we are going to die, but many of us hope we won't.

Maybe this is the audacity of hope: to hope for something that you already know is not going to happen.

misplaced shock...

Okay. Respectfully, I see overstatement in both the initial post and the response. Does this President have his own ontology? Of course, and moreso than the previous one did--which I see as a good thing because the man in office now is the smartest to hold it in my lifetime thus far. Now, here's the thing: these economic circumstances present a quandry much more messy than anything in recent times. The safe place to be right now is on the sideline where one can chirp sans responsibility. What this situation is making clear is that Obama approaches problems from the liberal side of things, it is in fact in his genes (misled Communist references aside). The liberal perspective is now clearly one which says we need to make bold moves and they need to have the foundation of this country--the bottom half or 2/3 as opposed to the top. To be unabashed in support of freedom's extension to the poor, working, and middle classes via Education and Health is as American as it gets.

Energy is something that to improve will require a paradigm shift and populations will not voluntarily change, even when it's for their own good--traditional market exploiters know this as well as anyone-- so incentives are surely needed.

See who defends him

Eugenic,

I think you've confirmed my point. I find your way of talking about policy as you defend Obama's policies to be well to the left of liberal. Is this what the defense of Obama comes to? I believe so. Specifically, I draw attention to these lines:

To be unabashed in support of freedom's extension to the poor, working, and middle classes via Education and Health is as American as it gets.

Expanding government's role in medicine is freedom?

The following was written by Bakunin to criticize Marx:

Neither do we understand how anybody could speak of the freedom of the proletariat or of the real deliverance of the masses in the State and by the State. State means domination, and all domination presupposes the subjection of the masses and consequently their exploitation to the profit of some minority or other.

It applies as well to your own statement.

populations will not voluntarily change, even when it's for their own good--traditional market exploiters know this as well as anyone

Populations will not voluntarily change? First of all, that's collectivist wording (treats a population has having a will). Second, even deciphered it's completely wrong. Third, it says that there can only be societal change through the state. Fourth, it blames the current problems on the "population". Market exploiters? Can one get much more Marxist in two words?

Defenders of the state

Eugenic's thinking is exactly what I've come to expect from people herded through the brainwashing experiment euphemistically referred to as government mandated education.

Couldn' t have said it better myself....

...but fortunately Jon Stewart could.