A different take on Obama

[nastynice]

I want to see what you guys think of my take on Obama. I kinda brought this up in another thread, but it just got lost in the mix. I was introduced to this idea by a grassroots organization called uhuru. This organization was not only against Obama being elected, but actively campaigned against him.

So basically, the premise follows what our country does on an international level. So let me first break down this foreign policy real quick. Basically, our nation operates in an imperialistic manner, just as the british did. However, one main difference, which seems to be what makes it so hard for people to comprehend this idea, is that we operate and push our agenda's through proxies. Instead of having a british man stand over and rule an outside state, as the british empire did, we choose a local man from the area, and make sure this man is operating in a manner which is in our best business interest. This can take place through proxies, various cia objectives, or even sometimes all out army assaults. This has been standard operating procedure for decades now, I think the examples are very numerous and obvious so I won't even discuss it. (I'd be happy to go into more detail if anyone wants to know). What this does is create the illusion that the given country is the one in power, rather than us who are actively working behind the scenes.

Now, before I touch on Obama specifically, I also want to bring up our own domestic prison/law enforcement system. These systems operate as capitalistic businesses, in many cases you will see the higher number of arrests = higher funding for given police department, or higher number of incarcerations = higher profits for prison owners. So, just like any business, these businesses need customers. Well who are the customers? The person that brings money to the business, right? So in this case, these customers are whoever is arrested/incarcerated. A very well thought out business, in which they have actively created situations to not only bring in customers, but make sure you have many repeat customers.

There may very well be many reasons as to why the following statement is true; but either way the main customers of these businesses are black and latino. Of course when there is no threat to the power system, we are allowed our freedom of speech. But when a true threat to this system presents itself, we have seen in the past that the government does take action in order to mow down these movements (black panthers being the most obvious example [matter of fact I know a few of the higher ups of uhuru have been jailed]). Many insiders and regular people alike say that gov't infiltrating these communities from within is a common tactic also (crack being the most obvious example).

So the idea I want to present is about Obama being the proxy agent in this domestic war. What the basic aim of him being placed in the white house is to give the previously mentioned customers, whom the government obviously does not provide the proper resources to, a false hope. A false sense of security. A feeling that the government is now working for them rather than against them. The idea being spread throughout these populations is "now you can trust the gov't, instead of having to make change on your own, you can now rely on us to make change."

I personally do not believe change can be made when these very basic (imo) government responsibilities (law enforcement, health care, education), in which you can see an OBVIOUS difference in the implementation between various communities, operate as capitalistic money making businesses. Yes, we can make certain things better or worse, but when these types of services are run as businesses, you will always have corruption, this is a guarantee.

I obviously see the changes being made in health care, and I applaud that, I really do, but there are still so many deeper issues which have not been and do not seem to be on the table to be addressed in the near future.

I was introduced to this idea a few months ago, so my thoughts (and understanding even) may not be as well thought out, organized, and cohesive as I'd like them to be.

Either way, curious as to anyone's take on this idea.

[Freakazoid]

I want to see what you guys think of my take on Obama. I kinda brought this up in another thread, but it just got lost in the mix. I was introduced to this idea by a grassroots organization called uhuru. This organization was not only against Obama being elected, but actively campaigned against him.

So basically, the premise follows what our country does on an international level. So let me first break down this foreign policy real quick. Basically, our nation operates in an imperialistic manner, just as the british did. However, one main difference, which seems to be what makes it so hard for people to comprehend this idea, is that we operate and push our agenda's through proxies. Instead of having a british man stand over and rule an outside state, as the british empire did, we choose a local man from the area, and make sure this man is operating in a manner which is in our best business interest. This can take place through proxies, various cia objectives, or even sometimes all out army assaults. This has been standard operating procedure for decades now, I think the examples are very numerous and obvious so I won't even discuss it. (I'd be happy to go into more detail if anyone wants to know). What this does is create the illusion that the given country is the one in power, rather than us who are actively working behind the scenes.

Now, before I touch on Obama specifically, I also want to bring up our own domestic prison/law enforcement system. These systems operate as capitalistic businesses, in many cases you will see the higher number of arrests = higher funding for given police department, or higher number of incarcerations = higher profits for prison owners. So, just like any business, these businesses need customers. Well who are the customers? The person that brings money to the business, right? So in this case, these customers are whoever is arrested/incarcerated. A very well thought out business, in which they have actively created situations to not only bring in customers, but make sure you have many repeat customers.

There may very well be many reasons as to why the following statement is true; but either way the main customers of these businesses are black and latino. Of course when there is no threat to the power system, we are allowed our freedom of speech. But when a true threat to this system presents itself, we have seen in the past that the government does take action in order to mow down these movements (black panthers being the most obvious example [matter of fact I know a few of the higher ups of uhuru have been jailed]). Many insiders and regular people alike say that gov't infiltrating these communities from within is a common tactic also (crack being the most obvious example).

So the idea I want to present is about Obama being the proxy agent in this domestic war. What the basic aim of him being placed in the white house is to give the previously mentioned customers, whom the government obviously does not provide the proper resources to, a false hope. A false sense of security. A feeling that the government is now working for them rather than against them. The idea being spread throughout these populations is "now you can trust the gov't, instead of having to make change on your own, you can now rely on us to make change."

I personally do not believe change can be made when these very basic (imo) government responsibilities (law enforcement, health care, education), in which you can see an OBVIOUS difference in the implementation between various communities, operate as capitalistic money making businesses. Yes, we can make certain things better or worse, but when these types of services are run as businesses, you will always have corruption, this is a guarantee.

I obviously see the changes being made in health care, and I applaud that, I really do, but there are still so many deeper issues which have not been and do not seem to be on the table to be addressed in the near future.

I was introduced to this idea a few months ago, so my thoughts (and understanding even) may not be as well thought out, organized, and cohesive as I'd like them to be.

Either way, curious as to anyone's take on this idea.

Neither Romney or Ron Paul (considering you think that government has responsibilities in law enforcement, health care, education) would have achieved the above.

Change can't occur if people are being accused of socialism/communism at every turn.

[nastynice]

Neither Romney or Ron Paul (considering you think that government has responsibilities in law enforcement, health care, education) would have achieved the above.

Yes, very true, but its more about the false sense of hope that Obama can bring to particular communities, which neither of the other two really could.

I know analogies are bad for arguments, as analogies can always be made for both sides. But use the analogy between british imperialism and american imperialism to help understand what I mean by using a "proxy", who is "one of us".

[Freakazoid]

Yes, very true, but its more about the false sense of hope that Obama can bring to particular communities, which neither of the other two really could.

I know analogies are bad for arguments, as analogies can always be made for both sides. But use the analogy between british imperialism and american imperialism to help understand what I mean by using a "proxy", who is "one of us".

It's not a 'false sense of hope'. Change can't occur if you're operating within the confines of an increasingly radical group. A group of 'personal responsibility' that believes that Obama won because of a 'ground game' and not because of the issues (http://www.npr.org/2012/11/18/165379...egy-not-issues).

[debo]

[natelpete]

Sounds like your issue lies more with the American foreign policy of recent decades than with Obama himself.

[Patsfan56]

I'm sorry Nastynice, can you reword the question? I feel a little thick here, but I am not sure I understand what you are asking.

[Labgrownmangoat]

I'm sorry Nastynice, can you reword the question? I feel a little thick here, but I am not sure I understand what you are asking.

I will try to summarize, and Nastynice should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong:

The US is an imperial power, operating its foreign and domestic policy largely for the benefit of private corporations. President Obama is a shill for those corporations, and focuses our policies on serving their needs. One of the industries that is most entrenched is the prison industrial complex. The domestic policies they demand tend towards racial discrimination and disparity, creating an internal war on minorities in our country.
-----------------

There were a whole lot of other tangents and random thoughts in there as well, but I think that's the thesis of it. The question is, what do we think of these ideas?

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, NN.

[Havoc Wreaker]

I think politicians are tied to people who have $. Therefore, some of their policies are going to be tied to how much do their friends make of off it. However, saying that he is just a proxy is taking it way too far IMO. That makes it sound like he's controlled by them, instead of him (or any other politican) making his own decisions but being biased (which is what I think happens with every politician).

If the Uhuru campaigned against Obama, was Romney their candidate? Or did they have an independent candidate?

If the answer to that is Romney, then the argument turns kind of ridiculous because Romney, more than Obama, was exposed as to respond to other people from his party and people with $$.

[nastynice]

I'm sorry Nastynice, can you reword the question? I feel a little thick here, but I am not sure I understand what you are asking.

I will try to summarize, and Nastynice should feel free to correct me if I'm wrong:

The US is an imperial power, operating its foreign and domestic policy largely for the benefit of private corporations. President Obama is a shill for those corporations, and focuses our policies on serving their needs. One of the industries that is most entrenched is the prison industrial complex. The domestic policies they demand tend towards racial discrimination and disparity, creating an internal war on minorities in our country.
-----------------

There were a whole lot of other tangents and random thoughts in there as well, but I think that's the thesis of it. The question is, what do we think of these ideas?

Again, correct me if I'm wrong, NN.

This is pretty close. One thing to clarify, all presidents before obama did the same thing, so this is not something new he brings to the table. Where the difference lies between him and previous presidents is, before it was much more open. It was much more obvious in these communities that particular entities in the gov't are against them, prey on them, and at the end of the day the gov't doesn't give a **** about them. But by bringing in a man like obama, it starts to change that perception, and people are under the false impression that somehow things have changed.

Much like the diff between british vs american imperialism. It is essentially the same thing, but notice how people don't perceive it as so, due to this rule through proxy idea.

Sorry for the confusion in my op, I know we all have diff backgrounds and understandings of how things are, I guess I kinda broke it down in the manner it was broken down to and understood by me.

*And I also realize that this man has only been here for 4 years, its hard to say anything concretely, but just an idea to ponder...

[nastynice]

Sounds like your issue lies more with the American foreign policy of recent decades than with Obama himself.

No, this topic isn't about foreign policy, but rather domestic policy. I used the foreign policy example because I think it is very clear, where as this "domestic war" I speak of isn't as clear.

[nastynice]

I think politicians are tied to people who have $. Therefore, some of their policies are going to be tied to how much do their friends make of off it. However, saying that he is just a proxy is taking it way too far IMO. That makes it sound like he's controlled by them, instead of him (or any other politican) making his own decisions but being biased (which is what I think happens with every politician).

If the Uhuru campaigned against Obama, was Romney their candidate? Or did they have an independent candidate?

If the answer to that is Romney, then the argument turns kind of ridiculous because Romney, more than Obama, was exposed as to respond to other people from his party and people with $$.

I somewhat agree with your first paragraph, perhaps poor choice of words on my part.

Uhuru didn't support a candidate. They are about empowering the community from within, and building the community from within, as they have no faith in the government to do so. They however were AGAINST obama for the reason given in op, which was hopefully rephrased more clearly two posts above.

[valade16]

I don't understand how what you described leads to Obama being the bad guy...

The Privatization of the US Prison system happened before Obama.

As you said, the imperialism of the US through Proxies happened long before Obama.

If he is indeed a Puppet or a Shill, how is getting a new figurehead going to solve anything. That's like boycotting Nike for child labor practices but demanding the only thing they change is their logo...

[nastynice]

hmm, these ideas not resonating (either for or against) with anyone?

[avrpatsfan]

hmm, these ideas not resonating (either for or against) with anyone?

I'm in partial agreement with you. I think it's pretty sad that Obama has essentially carbon copied George Bush's foreign policy and his policy on personal privacy/drug use.

It still angers me that Obama supported the Patriot act, even though he said he's against it in his 2008 campaign. It was just straight up dishonest to the American people. And it angers me that his stance on the war on drugs and the DEA has remained the same as the stance the Bush administration had.

That non-violent drug users should be sent to prison and that people who need medical marijuana to deal with cancer, PTSD, insomnia, anorexia are technically criminals under US federal law. It would be so easy for Obama to ease up on DEA crackdowns, but he hasn't lifted a finger.

The Obama administration is just the Bush administration except slightly more to the left. Corporations (private prisons, who benefit greatly from the drug war and big pharma) come first, people second.

I'm hoping we can see a real change in 2016 with Rand Paul/Elizabeth Warren/Gary Johnson becoming the next President.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/75421.html