Record Number Of Americans Give Up Their Citizenship In 2014

[Matt84]

Don't forget Baruch Soetoro is also the first expat president - or the first president who grew up as an expat.

 

[steveinbsas]

Steve, I think that anyone describing Pres Obama as a "the Kenyan Marxist Usurper"deserves mockery. Can you supply any evidence that he's not a US citizen? I did ask you once how you'd define a socialist but you didn't reply, which is fair enough, there's no obligation to answer the question, but no libertarian I've ever met has managed to give me a rational reply.

Actually, I replied to your question about this definition over a year ago (November 22, 2013).

StevePalermo, on 22 November 2013 - 01:58 AM, said:

...I've asked steveinbsas a couple of times about his definition of socialism/communism but he hasn't responded. I know a few genuine card carrying communists and they always laugh when they see him described thus. They think he's a puppet of Wall Street and big business. Can he be both?

steveinbsas on 22 November 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

Most mainstream socialist and communists would not call BHO one of their own, To them he just isn't Marxist enough.
While might not fit their definition of either socialism or communist, he is hardly an advocate of free market capitalism.
Being a "puppet" of bankers doesn't mean he endorses free enterprise. It just means he is corrupt.

As I previously wrote, he is a collectivist and he clearly embraces principles of the Marxist ideology. He is also acting outside of the powers granted to him by the Constitution, therefore he is also a criminal. He has contempt for the Constitution and would issue far more executive orders than he already has if he thought he could get away with it. He is going to "dictate"more in his second term than in the first. He is fundamentally transforming America..from the top down...and making more Americans depended on the government than ever. It's all about power and control. It has little to do with the "common good" of "society as a whole" (a collectivist concept).

http://www.forbes.co...ze-obamanomics/

And this is a very interesting blog:

http://obamaism.blogspot.com.ar/

PS (December 15. 2014) When "socialist" programs do not achieve the "desired" result (as they rarely do) the "answer is always the same: more programs (and more regulations).

It may be "difficult" for some to see that most government programs are "socialist" by definition . This includes the plethora of new EPA regulations which are not designed to improve the environment as much as they are to exercise control over individuals and property.

I can imagine that your next question could be if I am asserting that the EPA regulations are part of a communist plot,

My answer to that is, "Green is the new red."

PPS: I'm glad I'm living in Argentina, have no assets in the USA, and renouncing my US citizenship is not an issue for me.

And I couldn't care in the least if Barack Obama is actually a US citizen. That was never an "issue" for me and now it's too late for that to matter.

 

[Matiasba]

Obama marxist, ha!

 

[steveinbsas]

Obama marxist, ha!

While Obama and the Democratic Socialist Party today may not be doctrinaire Marxists, they are indeed socialists and belong to a political strand of Marxist-Leninism euphemistically referred to as “Western Marxism” and “Cultural Communism.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/is-obama-a-marxist/#miWV01O0mXmYPHcH.99

 

[Matiasba]

While Obama and the Democratic Socialist Party today may not be doctrinaire Marxists, they are indeed socialists and belong to a political strand of Marxist-Leninism euphemistically referred to as “Western Marxism” and “Cultural Communism.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2...01O0mXmYPHcH.99

IMO the matter is that everything from the republicans or tea baggers point of view is socialist, communist, marxist, etc.

 

[ariel81]

While Obama and the Democratic Socialist Party today may not be doctrinaire Marxists, they are indeed socialists and belong to a political strand of Marxist-Leninism euphemistically referred to as “Western Marxism” and “Cultural Communism.”

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2...01O0mXmYPHcH.99

Disagree,and frankly,it is pathetic the obsesion american have with socialism,talking all the tiem,and knot knowing what socialism means
Obama is disgusting and a fraud,but not for his supposed socialism

 

[ElQueso]

IMO the matter is that everything from the republicans or tea baggers point of view is socialist, communist, marxist, etc.

But not the Democrats? Just Republicans and those awful "tea-baggers", eh?

BTW - do you know what "tea bagging" is? I ask that because it is truly disgusting and the use of the word is a neat (though disgusting) play on words (although I don't know how many US citizens know what tea-bagging is and probably think it's just a funny phrase) when referring to what the Tea Party at least think they stand for. I'm assuming you know the difference between someone who is promoting getting government under control and referring to a protest that took place near the beginning of the American (sorry, US...oh, wait, there was no US at that point, was there? What should I call them then so that I don't ruffle anyone's feathers? Colonials? Maybe. But at least American-British Colonials. Damn that's getting long...) revolution related to taxation without representation - and the act of a male squatting over a person lying prone on the ground and lowering his testicles (well, OK, scrotum containing his testicles) into that prone person's mouth (that's what "tea-bagging" is).

I see Steve using what he believes are logical arguments (whether one believes them or not is up to each person) backed up with references, to explain his comments. I don't know that I recall him using actual slander (I doubt very much, for example, that Tea Partiers actually "tea bag" anyone - slander, although a mild form because no one suggests they really do that - I think) or other defamatory arguments (if someone believes that another person acts in a collectivist, or even Marxist, manner and says so, is that defamatory? Particularly if that person is providing his reasoning behind that instead of just throwing out verbal vomit?) while intimating that he doesn't like those sorts of policies and believes they are damaging to "society" or an economy.

Meanwhile, many people who have other opinions, particularly "collectivists" (I like this word much more than Marxist, communist or socialist because I believe it's more accurate), use words that positively drip with venom but have no real meaning aside from a sheer defamatory connotation. "Tea-bagger" and "wingnut" (short for right-wing nut - heaven forbid if they simply say "far right wing" or something like that, have to make sure it's as venomous as possible) come to mind immediately.

And particularly with the first black president in US history, many who support him seem to do so nearly blindly and accuse others of being racist if they fight his policies with similar logic to Steve's, at the least inferring that the real reason they don't like him has nothing to do with his policies but the "obvious" fact that those detractors are simply racist. Something Tea Partiers have been accused of time and time again, while facing verbal and physical insults from their opponents.

Can you deny that Obama's health care is not collectivist in it's intention? Let's see. We're going to take money from people who can "afford" it (and those who can "afford" it sure as hell didn't make that determination, but rather lawmakers did...the same lawmakers who get a truly sterling healthcare package as part of "serving" the country), allowing their rates to go up while those who can't afford it have either low rates or no cost, depending on their "needs". Done for the "good of the society as a whole".

After all, he has previously said he believes in wealth distribution (quite a collectivist concept if you ask me) and supports unions (collective bargaining, although collectivist only for those who belong to unions) and so on. I think the support for his collectivist leanings are there to be seen for anyone who isn't blinded by other things.

Hell, Clinton tried for public healthcare and was shot down. He (and other Democrats of the time) didn't take Nancy Pelosi's tactic of “We’ll go through the gate. If the gate’s closed, we’ll go over the fence. If the fence is too high, we’ll pole vault in. If that doesn’t work, we’ll parachute in but we're going to get health care reform passed for the America people." Not only collectivist but fairly militant. I liked Clinton (relatively), semen-stained dress and all.

Thing is, Obama's not the only one who at the very least has some collectivist leanings. Most US politicians are collectivist (whether they admit it or not), it just often is a matter of degree. After all, not many politicians get ahead by stating "what we need is less dependence on government and more dependence on individuals". To them, except those trying to reverse things, it is important that the "collective" believe government is the only way out of "the mess" (of course, they don't mention that government helps to create the mess to begin with - that would be self-defeating, wouldn't it?). And all collectivist politicians who have any success, have that success by having contacts in many places of economic altitude (such as Wall Street) because pretty much everyone knows that in politics you cannot get ahead and promote your agenda without playing with people who have ideals different from your own.

But the one thing so many people miss is that it doesn't matter if one is a collectivist or merely a rich Wall Street guy. It's about power and wealth (as a politician who is worried about getting re-elected), plain and simple, no matter what anyone says.

The best that can be said of collectivists (as related to politics and government - I know many collectivists who are quite good people ), in my opinion, is that at least there are some who truly believe that they want to make the world a better place and see collectivism as the way to go.

I'm not sure whether that group includes Obama, or whether he is just another power-hungry individual looking to put his name into relative immortality.