President Obama: On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space.
President Medvedev: Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…
President Obama: This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.
President Medvedev: I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir.
Good question – “Obama won’t share these plans with the American people. However, he’ll share them with the Russians, and ask for their help in influencing the election. . . . What other nations has Obama asked for ‘space’ on American foreign and national-security policy so that he can win a second term? And what American interests is Obama willing to trade for that ‘space’?”
Via Drudge.
Yes. Once he proclaims himself President-for-Life, he will have more flexibility to ruin America even more quickly.
“Once FEMA gets those camps open Dmitri, I can do whatever the hell I want. Michelle be gettin’ new shoes, baby!”
The US and Russia are at fateful crossroads, but the world must wait for a puppet show.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/stephen-f-cohen/us-russia-policy_b_1307727.html
I don’t think Barry wants to be President-for-Life as he really appears to hate the job and he only needs one more term to exact the damage to America he has in mind.
“Wait until after I’m re-elected, then I will gut the defense budget, cancel all missile defense spending and R&D, mothball our navy, and recall all our soldiers from everywhere.”
Does he want Russian money into his Super-Pac election campaign funding?
He’s an extremely dangerous person because he has no principles, no ethics, is a pathological liar and compulsive manipulator and has a deep hatred for America, the West, capitalism and – anyone whom he can’t control.
Who was it that first referred to Obama as Manchurian Candidate?
Mr. Obama later remarked that Russia was one of the United State’s best allies and they punch above their weight.
Just kidding.
Syncro @ 11:44:
I think that’s what’s called “wishful thinking.” ;~)
And, that attitude, which you interpret as his dislike for the job, is, I think, his hatred of all the silly people who fail to appreciate his singular magnificence; who resist Him; who cling to their “guns and religion”.
Yeah-
When he steps into his office for the
‘president re-elect.’
He and Vadler Putin can go to a Russian gym in St. Petersburg,
flex their biceps,
work out and pump each other.
You make a good point Nick. Disdain does appear to be a primary Barry characteristic.
I do however stand by my assertion that he only needs one more term to effect the damage to America that he set out to inflict.
By the end of a second Obama term the United Nations will be his oyster.
Well, after all, the Russian community is already “organized”.
“I can’t do anything about it now, but after I’m elected I’ll most certainly kill missile defense.”
Yes, they have an understanding.
Dystopian Optimist, from the HuffPost column:
“- Even worse, ‘democracy-promoters’ and leaders of opposition groups they sponsor are moving in a profoundly reckless direction. Increasingly, they speak of ‘delegitimizing’ and ‘de-stabilizing’ Russia’s political system, even of a ‘revolution,’ but without asking what that might mean for a vast state with uncertain control over its enormous, sprawling quantities of devices of mass destruction.”
Reckless interference in how other countries function and are governed seems to be the order of the day for those pushing for global dominance. The human response can get messy, though.
All true, ET. But “hatred of capitalism” is a principle. If you hate capitalism you necessarily favour socialism (of some variety). That’s a principle.
ET, investment guru Doug Casey had a long piece up recently about how MOST of the political class today are “sociopaths”. That has been my own conclusion for a very long time. My only quibble is that I don’t favour this putatively gentler term for “psycopath”. Pace Hollywood, a psychopath does not necessarily wield a chainsaw. He simply has no conscience. He may or may not be violent. I believe that, in the right circumstances, Obama could be violent in the order of a Pol Pot, Mao, or Stalin.
syncodox: I think it’s no longer an extreme view that Obama has deliberately set out to destroy America. And the West.
I may be best for him to get that second term as it would be nice for the HARD LEFT Dems to own the inevitable collapse.
mnd – No, I don’t think that a rejection of X means that you favour Y. It can simply mean that you reject X. With regard to Obama, I maintain that he has no ideology of ‘what’s the best form of society’. He focuses only on ‘how can I be The Most Powerful’.
His hatred of capitalism stems from its basic mode of empowering individuals. Obama doesn’t like anyone to have power – other than Himself.
I see your point about a lot of the political class but I’ll reject that; I think that there are still a lot of decent and principled people in politics. I think that Harper is one of them – and so are people like Paul Ryan, Eric Cantor, Rubio, West – and Bush.
I totally agree with you about Obama’s violent nature. He could match up with any and all of the last century’s most deranged dictators. He IS a dictator, he IS contemptuous of people, he has no ethics, no principles, no integrity, no empathy and has a deep psychological need to conquer and destroy – a need that increases as his power increases.
Me No Dhimmi, “I think it’s no longer an extreme view that Obama has deliberately set out to destroy America. And the West.”
He was raised, groomed, promoted and funded for this role. There’s a lot of information available on the ‘net regarding his background.
It irks me how stunned media bigwigs such as Bill O’Reilly are when it comes to Obama. No, Bill, Obama is NOT a “nice man.”
ET: Agree that rejection of X doesn’t mean favouring Y if there’s a T, or Z option.
Much of our exchange on this topic is (and has been) semantical. But really, there’s only capitalism or socialism, properly understood (I know that’s a weasel phrase!). And there are degrees, of course.
Authoritarian capitalism (fascism), for example, is socialism. Interventionism (the mixed economy) is socialism-lite on the path to full-on socialism. China doesn’t have capitalism (properly understood :)).
GLAD we agree on his violence potential. I paused before typing that, but I sincerely believe it. I say this to my wife frequently before we silence him on TV.
I agree with your sociopath exceptions (that prove the rule?).
I like your observation of his essential boredom as evidence in those clips on the Danish rhretoric thread, and nothing mystifies me as much as his repuation for soaring oratory. He is a soul-less automaton.
… more,
von Mises often points out that there’s no third way which you will recall was Tony Blair and Bill Clinton’s calling card. That’s the sense in which I meant my comment. It’s either capitalism or socialism. There’s no third way. Obama’s hatred of capitalism is a principled favouring of socialism.
And remember Steyn’s point about doc feces and ice-cream!
mnd- because there are only two economic modes -and I agree with such an analysis: individual driven or state driven, does not mean that Obama favours one of them.
We’ve been over this argument many times – and I remain firm in my viewpoint. Obama has no societal ideology; he has only a psychological nature. That is – he has no ideology, only psychological needs. He’s not an intellect; he doesn’t have a thought in that empty head. He has no involvement in ‘what’s best for a society’. He only has the need-to-control. And, socialism is, if you are in politics, the best way to control the peasants.
I wouldn’t call fascism ‘authoritarian capitalism’! Capitalism can’t be authoritarian because its basic axiom is freedom of the private individual! Fascism is most certainly a leftwing ideology, it’s collectivist; it inserts the state as the ultimate authority and the state is usually a homogeneous nature (ethnic, religious).
As for Obama and his capacity for malice and open violence – I’d say it’s increasing as both his sense of power, and his sense of possibly losing that power, both increase. He’s a vicious, deeply manipulative and pathological person and his time as president has increased all of these characteristics.
He’ll use surrogates to spread dissent and violence, including the OWS crowd – and others – and then, step in with more Executive Orders to control and destroy American freedoms.
Notice the things he’s done already – and he’s not stopped; the bills passed without due process in Congress; his appointments without authority of Congress; his war in Libya; his suing of any and all States who oppose Him; his surrogate denigration of any and all who oppose Him; well – you know it all.
chutzpahticular at March 26, 2012 1:58 PM
Man, you got that right about O’Reilly!
He really has brought “fair and balanced” into disrepute. And yeah, he is NOT a nice man.
McCain threw the election (deliberately?) following this premise: nice man, nice family.
And Mitt has intimated that he’ll follow this precendent.
And many conservatives are guilty of subscribing to the utterly wrong-headed bumper sticker: Not evil, just wrong. WRONG.
I wouldn’t call fascism ‘authoritarian capitalism’! Capitalism can’t be authoritarian because its basic axiom is freedom of the private individual!
I AGREE with you, here ET. It’s not my term.
But it’s a useful analytical term I’ve recently encoutered in a superb piece at Mises.org to denote a hybrid form like fascism, in which there is still titular private property and related income with severe restrictions on its use and disposal.
In that same piece, the useful term for communism: egalitarian socialism to distinguish it from fascism which of course is socialism but not egalitarian in the same sense.
SO, in our interminable semantical debate I could easily concede that Obama may not be a Marxist while concluding that it really doesn’t matter.
To which, I can see the communal eye-roll of our confreres at SDA.
SO, I hope you’ll re-consider that F you’ve given me :).
Me No Dhimmi, from Terry Glavin:
“From the moment Barack Obama walked into the Oval Office he has run the American project in Afghanistan along the lines of his own *ELEGANTLY BRUTAL BINARY CALCULUS. A. Give me a stage with a wind machine fluttering an American flag in the background and the text of a speech with the words ‘victory’ in it just in time for the 2012 elections. B. Barring that, give me a ‘narrative’ that presents Afghanistan as a hopeless quagmire and the ‘War in Afghanistan’ as the hideous warmongering legacy of the hated George Bush, from which I have bravely exerted my charms to extricate the long-suffering American taxpayer.”
http://transmontanus.blogspot.ca/
*words capitalized by me, for emphasis*
Capitalism can’t be authoritarian because its basic axiom is freedom of the private individual!
For an academic to mistake capitalism for free enterprise means you are as ignorant as the leftists. Capitalism is authoritarian. Capitalism refers to the use of capital to create more capital, whereas free enterprise refers to the freedom to indulge in any enterprise. Even to produce something where there was nothing. Something capitalism cannot do.
Free enterprise has a much richer meaning than the term capitalism coined by Marx.
“McCain threw the election (deliberately?) following this premise: nice man, nice family.”
First ‘black’ President. A done-deal. McCain STILL makes comments that make me wonder if he’s all there.
“And Mitt has intimated that he’ll follow this precendent.”
What did he say?
fiddle, you are incorrect. Capitalism is not necessarily authoritarian. Capitalism refers to a philosophy of encouraging economic growth. And Marx did not coin the term capitalism.
Capitalism refers to capital, free enterprise refers individual initiative that can be free of the need for capital.
Capitalism is an inaccurate term to describe free enterprise.
Secondly, capitalism is authoritarian. Who do you think controls the creation of capital out of nothing? And gets paid interest on what is created out of nothing.
What did he say?
Posted by: chutzpahticular at March 26, 2012 3:05 PM
Don’t have quote chutz, but I think he’s made comments along the lines that he won’t be going negative on Obama, not beating on him.
Now, some people think that’s “presidential”.
I think it’s silly and defeatist against a THUG.
But now that I finally GET what this damn “etch a sketch” thing is, he may do an etch a sketch on this kindness threat!
ET: Your correct view that “authoritarian capitalism” isn’t really capitalism is EXACTLY my argument long ago when I disputed your claim that China had capitalism. Exactly! Authoritarian capitalism = state capitalism.
fiddle – I’ll disagree.
Free enterprise, as you define it, as the ‘freedom to indulge (sic) in any enterprise’ can’t get that enterprise off the ground without capital, ie, Investment.
Investing money in an economic production to create more capital (to invest) doesn’t have a whiff of authoritarianism about it.
All capitalism means is that the triad of Investment, Production and Consumption are within the will and private ownership/control of private individuals.
The production of surplus (above the costs of production and consumption) is vital in any and all growth economies. You need that surplus, ie, wealth, to enable the economy to continue into the future. Does a grain farmer consume all his seeds or retain a surplus to sow next year’s crop?
Capitalism is an ancient term, many centuries old, used to refer to the accumulation of private wealth/assets. Most certainly didn’t originate with Marx!
fiddle – I’m afraid that, outside of the magical realm, I’ve never heard of anything being created out of nothing. And, most certainly not capital.
mnd – ahh, but I still say that China has moved into capitalism! It’s still, at the political level, socialist – but, from what I hear, no-body pays much attention to the govt. But, economically, China has moved into capitalism, enabling private enterprises, private businesses and allowing its citizens to accumulate a lot of wealth – and, to focus on purchasing the Name Brand results of wealth.
can’t get that enterprise off the ground without capital, ie, Investment.
Investment is not the same as capital. For instance, digging a ditch to drain land to make it productive doesn’t necessarily need capital. The investment can be only labor.
I’m presently involved in a beginning enterprise whose only investment is labor. Capital is not needed. There are many such opportunities. Labor and knowledge are the only requirements.
Capitalism is a very inaccurate term to describe free enterprise.
Capitalism is an ancient term
Ancient Babylonian term, actually. Marx resurrected it.
Which is why I wan’t you to become an “austrian” ET. Read Human Action.
Mises sez production and consumption, conflating investment and production. Semantics again.
As you know, Krugman and Keynesians of his ilk consider “savings” unpatriotic. Krugman tells us that his favourite class is the teaching of the so-called Paradox of Thrift.
Flashback: Chretien eschewed tax cuts ‘cos he thought the money would be “hoarded”. Same thinking.
fiddle, ET is right vis-a-vis your enterprise/capitalism argument but I certainly didn’t know that the word capitalism pre-dated Marx. Are you sure, ET?
I’m afraid that, outside of the magical realm, I’ve never heard of anything being created out of nothing. And, most certainly not capital.
You might want to check into the operations of the Federal Reserve. Can tell you aren’t very Mises educated.
fiddle- you are merging the terms of Investment and Production.
Investment involves using capital (surplus wealth) to purchase that land – and the tools that were made for the digging. Production is the digging of the ditch. Oh, and the fact that your labour doesn’t involve any wealth to purchase it doesn’t mean that capital isn’t involved.
And ‘free enterprise’ is the action of individual freedom of will and choice. I think we have to get our semantic terms in agreement!
No, Marx didn’t resurrect the term of capital and capitalism. Check it out, even in Wikipedia. And according to Fernand Braudel, an eminent historian of ‘The Wheels of Commerce’, it dates from at least the 13th century, was used to define the assets of a trading firm; found everywhere in the 14th c, and began to have its modern sense with Turgot, the 18th c French economist. Politically, it came into more common use to define the opposite of socialism, with the rise of the nation-states of the 18th-19th c. Certainly not resurrected by Marx.
fiddle – printing money, which is a symbol of fiscal exchange, is not ‘making capital’. I repeat: capital is the surplus wealth arrived at after the Investment and Production and Consumption phases of an economy. This surplus must be re-invested in a growth economy to enable future growth.
The only economies that do not require capital or surplus wealth are No-Growth economies, which are primitive horticultural or pastoral nomadic modes. These economic modes would not support our current world populations which are Growth economies and must engender wealth to Invest in new enterprises.
This is what happens when America goes all Isolationist. Before WW2 The US had only a small army. In a Nuclear age you cannot be a wuss about defense. The World is full of wolves just waiting for Pollyanna’s to disarm themselves.
Do Americans really think they are loved by all, enough to give up defense to foreigners. For what. Junkie needle shoot up galleries? Welfare for every minority?
Investment involves using capital (surplus wealth) to purchase that land – and the tools that were made for the digging.
Typical academic, how did we come by this land in the first place? Sure as hell didn’t buy it. Everything that follows is just making use of what’s already here.
Anyway, haven’t time to argue with someone who produces nothing but words. Have to go produce something real.
fiddle – running away from a debate? Is that how you deal with reality? Insults on your way out?
Don’t get into this ‘naturalistic Gaia’ theme. You haven’t answered my question – how did you come to own the land? Did you ask the gods and they handed it over to you? Why you and not someone else?
And don’t try to tell me that your shovel was just sticking up there in the ground, made by Madam Nature, and not Produced by some factory, who had to Invest money (wealth) into the means to make that factory.
Oh, and was your computer also just growing in the spring sunshine on ‘your’ land? Did you dig it up? Or did someone Invest in its production? Hmmm?
Don’t have quote chutz, but I think he’s made comments along the lines that he won’t be going negative on Obama, not beating on him. MND
He can leave that to the SuperPacs; Romney is the only one of the 3 remaining candidates who defends free enterprise clearly and without carrying water for Occupy a la the amphibian, or calls for more large spending programs, a la the painfully ambitious yet inept Santorum.
Barry the gaffe machine will provide plenty of additional ammo as the campaign runs on.
small c conservative, did Ron Paul drop out?
I am sure that Romney sent him a thank you for the script for the ad. Romney is that kind of guy.
He, Obama, is having trouble getting finacial support from the old/big money Democrat
Nobody wants to become an easy target!!!!!!!
ET IMHO is mostly right, how can an Chicago street thug actually be a serious marxist…He takes the easy road that Soros & others have provided…It has worked.. What happens when Soros gets his payback from his Candle making….
I thought that European missile defence was about Iran et al and not about Russia.
How wrong I am: it’s all about Russia.
tim @ 6p.m…exactly my thought.
Now waiting for Romney to use Instapundits’ points as the theme for his election campaign…
Not likely. That would be too assertive for Caspar Milquetoast.
And I don’t watch MSNBC or CNN but this should have been the lead story…Americans need to know…did they even cover it?
Whoever chooses to merely dismiss the significance of today’s exchange between our President and Russia’s President should have their intelligence and patriotism questioned. Let this exchange be a warning to voters: President Obama will have “more flexibility” to weaken us if he’s re-elected in November.
[…]
Our president has done nothing to alleviate this vulnerability; in fact, he’s done just the opposite. He has consistently taken a position of weakness and naïve trust in Putin’s Russia. Consider that one-sided New START Treaty as an example of this. Or consider those cuts to Alaska’s missile defense system, which leaves us much more vulnerable in the face of a nuclear North Korea. Now consider the state of our national defense under a President who whispers to a foreign power that he needs even “more flexibility” to weaken us further.
– Sarah Palin
ET:
Please note I have replied to your post re:
March 24, 2012
Great Moments in Socialism
ET, when you can create wealth, and not only words, I will give you some credence. Until then, you are running on about that which is only a theory to you.
But, but, fiddle – how do you know when, if, whether, I create wealth?
And apart from your own words, how do we know when, if, whether, YOU create wealth?
Now, how about that computer of yours – did it emerge fully formed from the earth? hmmm?
ET, you are well and truly an idiot. And your arguments are mostly based on sophistry. I’ve been reading your writings long enough to know the real world scares you. Best stay with your theories.
Little Fiddle, you’re calling one of SDA’s brightest commenters “an idiot”. Oh my. Please, please, please find a mirror. And a whole lot of soap to wash your filthy mouth out with.
I bet you voted for Trudeau, didn’t you? Or some such politician. But you could never be led astray. Lol