Rex, obamacare is *evil* because it extends fed control
into every part of our lives, from the bathroom to the
kitchen, from the office to Myrtle Beach -- they will
be able to control our behavior because it relates
to our health.

it is evil, and directly violates the constitution. -- j

Rapid shove of CG to the front row.

It seems as though a lot of otherwise conservative African Americans ditch their political stripes to support him. So I would say it is possible.

What you say reads as if we had a Republic consistent with what the Founders talked about in their letters and papers until six years ago, as if we hadn't heard of taxes, subsidies, gov't loans, etc before, and suddenly we found ourselves with a bloated and intrusive gov't thanks to one politician.

Absurd as it sounds, the notion works. It works on me. The hyperbole probably encourages me to vote. It also takes time away from actual reform. If the discussion is "OMG, President Bush is the anti-christ who aims to destroy the US by turning it into an empire who enslaves the world to serve politically-connected contractors," then we're talking about that bit of stupid nonsense instead of real problem. It gets people's (e.g. like me) attention. Some people join in the name-calling and facile policy explanations. Most people who have lived a little and had a chance to build/run something know that getting things done is hard and usually when a project or org outside their expertise is struggling, the simplistic solutions are wrong.

CG, all the evils that you mentioned above did exist before Hussein. Both Bushes were socialists and, of course, so was Clinton. Hussein is much worse because he is a Muslim Communist - yes, an oxymoron, but true nevertheless. They exist - when the Iranian revolution happened in '79, there were quite a few Muslim Communists in Iran, funded by the Soviets and somehow believing that their opposite ideologies can be combined. After the Ayatollah got power, I believe they were quickly eliminated. Anyway, our Hussein is doing everything that he can to destroy the country - he has done considerably more damage than Osama. But he himself, like Hitler before him, would have amounted for nothing had he not had support from millions of extremely poorly educated (would that make them "uneducated?") Americans who fell for the Hope and Change and the Free Lunch program. I remember hearing His speech in '08 at some college and recognizing that I was listening to an almost verbatim translation of Lenin. You see, education does matter.

Thank you for the good comments.
"President Zero set out to "fundamentally transform America". To what, you might ask?"
Politicians say that sort of thing hoping the listener will fill in the blanks with something he wants.

Regarding the list of supposedly socialist comments and actions, most of them I think are either are larger problems not related to one person or are not correct. We'd have to have a thread for each of them. We could add his proposed budget with increased deficits, which I actually think his personal fault and puts us at more risk than people realize.

The personal demonization and name-calling, though, are just buying into something I long-ago figured out was nonsense.

OK, but Obama does, and you've stated, to my surprise, that you support his policies!! Why do I say that he believes in all of the above - based on his actions: Transfer of wealth, taxes, government subsidies and loans - all of those actions are taking resources (stealing, openly through the use of force) from those that have created the resource and given it to others who have not earned it. And keeping quite a bit within the government system and with his friends. I am in bondage to work for the benefit of those that do not work. And elementary economics will teach you that when you feed those that don't work, they will never want to work. This is just the economic side of Hussein's policies. As to the destruction of the US in all other areas - cultural, foreign policy, military - you must see that yourself. As to Hussein's affiliation with communists and socialists - look at his teachers, mentors and friends, without exception. So, how can you claim that you are not a socialist, do not belief in theft, bondage and slavery, and support the people that do?

This is just absurd, saying I believe in theft, bondage, and slavery. I obvious don't believe in any of that.

Not rhe Political Branch of Objectivism. While the politics of Objectivism never progressed beyond the mythical ‘limited government’ concept, the Gulch was totally voluntaryist … NO State in the Gulch

Think Eddie could pass the entrance requirement for the Gulch (meaningful articulation of the oath). I don't think so & I think that was Rand's point in leaving Eddie in the wilderness alone, clinging to fantasy and beating a dead (iron) horse..

Vinegar’s water-soluble & mixes with water quite well, just as Statism mixes easily with Objectivism, creating acidic-tasting water in the first case, and the mixed economy that’s presently destroying our civilization on the other.

Supporting ANY advocate of Statism is entirely “Anti-Gulch”. While the politics of Objectivism never progressed beyond the mythical ‘limited government’ concept, the Gulch was totally voluntaryist … NO State in the Gulch.

The basic premise that you should be concerned with, CG, if you pay even lip service to Objectivism, is whether you're OK with the government stealing money/resources from those that have earned and built them and transferring them to those who have not earned them. Regardless of the advertised "reasons." Is stealing wrong, or is it right? Is putting working people in bondage for the sake of someone's social causes OK? Is slavery OK? Perhaps, you apparently believe, slavery is OK if the slave master is a good guy and really needs the labor of the slaves? CG, if you truly believe what you're saying, your logic circuits are very faulty.

The people supporting Hussein are just as guilty. They, too, need to be held accountable.

It certainly reveals how far we have fallen.

Well I agree. I'm not sure circus guy does but most here are like-minded.

I agree totally.

Thanks, mdk2608. I have been needing to vent those comments for a long time. My blood pressure just went down a few points.

Prior to GWBush, Jimmy Carter was either last or next to last. It is a hard call as to who was the worse of GWBush or Carter. Obama makes Billy Carter look smart, let alone Jimmy Carter.

Most presidential historians rank Woodrow Wilson in their top five. I rank Woodrow Wilson in the bottom five for the reasons that such historians rank him in the top five. Wilson and FDR are the only two presidents that are even close to being as destructive as President Zero.

+1good comments

Anyone supporting Obama in anyway scares and angers me. He is the epitome of the new, soft socialism.

Rand came to America to flee Communist values. President Zero set out to "fundamentally transform America". To what, you might ask? Certainly he sought to transform America away from what Rand fled toward. Consequently Obama is trying (and frankly succeeding) in transforming America into something that is anti-Rand.

President Zero does everything he can to undermine free enterprise (You didn't build that!), undermine the truth (Look at how he twists the labor #'s.), undermine the Constitution (too many violations to count, or do I need to remind you about his pen and his phone?), undermine life (Remember his stance on abortion before he became president.), undermine the health care system (Cornhusker kickback and the payoff to Bill Nelson of Florida), undermine the university system (via nationalizing the college loan system), undermine the bond system (paying off his Detroit GM retirees before the constitutionally first bondholders), undermining the money system (How are those 0% returns on what you have in the bank working out for you?), etc. At best, he is a socialist, and that is only if you think he is a man of good will. He wants to do these things, and thus I must conclude he is an evil villain. BTW, I'm not the one down voting you.

Obama does everything possible to make sure that A is not A.

Obama makes Jimmy Carter look smart. Carter has to be in your bottom 5 too. +1

Thank you for your reply.
"Those technologies you speak of will be useless if we don't respect patents and IP rights."
Yes, or almost nothing, and less incentive for people to produce if they cannot keep what they produce.

"They will mean nothing if our economy collapses."
I'm more worried that we'll go into living-dead mode with the technologies offsetting the looting, avoiding any dramatic collapse, but with fewer game-changing revolutionary technologies.

"Obama has doubled the National Debt and done more to move us towards socialism than FDR. "
The deficit spiked due to a recession and series of stimuli that Bush started and Obama kept doing and worse. I accept the claim that the deficit is a problem, and lately with the proposed increased deficit, President Obama has clearly been part of the *problem* not the solution.

"Perhaps his most enduring legacy will be his ambivalence towards ISIS and other radical Muslim groups."
He's doing mostly the right things to fight extremists. He condemns extremists for the evil criminals they are. He supports pluralism, democratic reforms, and avoiding even the appearance of sanctimony. He avoids aggrandizing them when they operate as a loose band of criminals but willing to respond militarily when they try to form a state.

As bad as Bush was, in my mind, Obama ranks as the absolute worst president the US has had. GWBush was definitely in the bottom five, too.

I'd rather go for the visual commentary of the movie "Independence Day" and BHO as Prez and can get out of the WH.