Monday, September 3, 2012

Somebody explain to me.....

Why it's become politically correct to deride somebody's "anti-colonialism"....when we began as, and rebelled against colonialism?


  1. Are you talking about 2012? Obama's father and mentors viewed the US as a neo-colonial power, and they hated western democracy, but had no problem with leftwing kleptocrats.

  2. I mean it primarily when used in context of Obama's father and the British colonial experience in Kenya.

    The overall argument that D'Souza makes in '2016' poses even more questions regarding evidence for assertions, and jumping to conclusions.

    I have no argument against the practice of choosing kleptocratic sides...but the premise that always goes back to 'anti' or 'un' weak sauce.

  3. Go read Frank Marshall Davis's writings. That will clear it up.

  4. I'm familiar with Davis...and understand how his atheism and communist outlook riles the right.....but until I see Obama govern anywhere close to Marxism [as the right loves to paint him with]...the anti-colonial argument still falls flat with me.

  5. D'Souza was going after possible motives for Obama's thinking, not his governing style.

    Obama fits right in with the statist presidents before him. Some of his policies may be socialism lite, but the big reality is, like his predecessors of all parties, he's a corporatist crony crapitalist.

  6. I do get what D'Souza was going for...but he really strayed far afield with some of his ideas..."weirdly sympathetic to Muslim jihadists"?

    But you'll get no argument from me on the crony capitalism and statist aspects of this presidency.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.