No one needs to “portray” Obama as a leftist. It’s painfully obvious just from observing him.

“Who needs roads! Let the bridges crumble. Heck, no one likes having to go to school; we don’t need no steenking education. – -???”

Funny how we keep pouring money into the educational system, and yet our children do worse and worse. Could it be that the teacher’s unions supported by Obama are wasting our money? Rhetorical question.

I wondered if this article was supposed to be humor, at least from this:

“What an amazing pile of junky, worn-out, bogus policy ideas! Equal pay for equal work. Infrastructure spending. More money to the public schools.”

Who needs roads! Let the bridges crumble. Heck, no one likes having to go to school; we don’t need no steenking education. – -???

And portraying Obama as a leftist — the whacko right and those still deluded by hope think of Obama as “let wing.” But he’s got a team of the same old people we had before, which Karl Rove of all people praised as ensuring continuity! He’s not going to shrink the military but enlarge it, adding Afghanistan and more places to the buildup of US Military forces in the Middle East.

You’re right that he’s acting just like the last administration, throwing money around in large amounts. The bankers began that swindle under Goldman Sachs personnel, and they’re continuing it under the same tutelage.

So, no, there IS NO SUCH THING as a “conservative” in the sense of “fiscal conservative” any more. Except maybe Ron Paul, who says some discomfortingly accurate things about the Federal Reserve. Obama, like the Bushies before him, just LOVES the Fed. He pretends it’s part of government.

He took Rahm Emanuel on as chief of staff, which pleases AIPAC no end. And Hillary is no beacon of light for leftwing causes herself. She has been pro-war in her voting, and just said “oh well” regarding China’s human rights behavior; she’s said she’s not going to let a little thing like that get in the way of the important negotiations.

This country has gotten so fascist that a 1980s republican, if you’d got one in stasis and woke him up, would look like a “leftie” to everyone he explained his political views to.

“Socialism” does not mean “giving money to the rich” even if you do it by giving it to bankers and large corporations. shovelling public money into the pockets of financiers, as bonuses or (MUCH worse) to ‘make them whole’ on the bad bets they made in derivatives. That’s something called “socialzing the costs/privatizing the benefits.” It is a VERY right-wing/fascist thing to do. It is not socialism.

Robin Hood was a proto-socialist, maybe. This is reverse Robin Hood — to give to the rich, by stealing from the poor, AKA business as usual. What’s new is the breathtaking scale of it: Trillions of dollars to try to bail out trillions in the deleveraging derivatives bubble.

But spending money on bridges and roads and schools — THAT is a problem???

How much do you have to hate the very concept of civilization to say that?

Hes not all in all wrong but what he doesn’t seem to realize is that liberty is a relational concept. Minus the state in either it’s left or right variety as an institutionalized force of order limiting our actions we would never speak of liberty. This is always the anarchists reply to the left and right. Problem is most of us will accept some form of authority/order because we know we need it to think and act at all. Without structure/order in some form we would have neither science nor society. It’s simply to easy to use liberty as a way to critique both the left and right without suggesting some alternative. And besides which his willingness to jump from redistribution of income to the gulag in analyzing the left is insane its like equating every liberal from now until the end of time with Fellatio because of Clinton’s indiscretions.