In The New York Times today appears "The President Is on the Line to Follow Up on Socialism," by Jeff Zeleny. The article's first three paragraphs:
Less than 90 minutes after Air Force One landed, the telephone rang. President Obama was on the line, wanting to add one more point to a response he gave during an interview with The New York Times.
On a flight from Ohio to Washington on Friday, Mr. Obama was asked whether his domestic policies suggested that he was a socialist, as some conservatives have implied.
“The answer would be no,” he said, laughing for a moment before defending his administration for “making some very tough choices” on the budget.
Obama's protestation aside, the article should have been balanced with an acknowledgment that implications the new president is a socialist are hardly limited to some conservatives.
Less than a decade ago, for example, the Chicago affiliate of the Democratic Socialists of America endorsed Obama for the state senate. They admiringly quoted him: "Few are thinking of harnessing the internal productive capacities, both in terms of money and people, that already exist in communities."
At the beginning of last year's primary season, the Communist People's Weekly World printed a letter celebrating an early Obama win:
Happy New Year and congratulations on a job well done. These have been trying times when the hyenas of war have again been turned loose on humanity by a greedy ruling class.
Now, beyond all the optimism I was capable of mustering, Mr. Obama won Iowa!. . .
Obama’s victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle. Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. .
In August, the same publication carried an editorial written by Sam Webb, chairman of the Communist Party USA. Webb used the opportunity to give his comrades their marching orders:
In order to advance one iota of a pro-people’s agenda, the people’s movement has to elect Obama and to enlarge the Democratic Party majorities in Congress. Without that everything else is wishful thinking.
Days after the inauguration, Webb addressed a People's Weekly World event held in Cleveland and began:
I was standing on the Washington Mall on Inauguration Day, alongside nearly two million other people on Inauguration Day, and proudly watched the first African American take the oath of office in our nation’s history. That alone made the day deeply memorable, joyful, and historic. But I couldn’t help but think – and I’m sure that millions of others had the same thought – that the transfer of power from Bush to President Obama not only tore down a barrier that once was thought near impenetrable, but also signified the fading away of one era and the beginning of another.
It was hard not to think on that cold day in our nation’s capital that the worst of the past 30 years of right wing extremist rule is behind us and that an era of progressive change is within reach, no longer an idle dream.
Later in his address, Webb observed:
We now have not simply a friend, but a people's advocate in the White House.
Joelle Fishman is the chair of the political action committee of the Communist Party USA. On the party's Web site she analyzed the election results. The article started:
Congratulations on an extraordinary history making election!
We can think back with pride to decades of hard work toward our strategic goal of a big enough, broad enough and united enough labor and all-people’s movement that could overcome the ultra-right blockage to all progress. That all people’s movement has come to life, it is dynamic and it has the potential to keep growing.
The election of Barack Obama and a strengthened Congress creates new conditions in our country. There is now the possibility to shift gears and move forward. This new day requires us to further develop our tactics in order to continue to deepen and broaden labor and people’s unity. . .
The tears of joy we all shared as crowds gathered to watch the election results here and throughout the world dramatize the new moment we are in.
Socialists and Communists may argue that Obama isn't radical enough, that he's much too conservative to be deemed a socialist. Yet their enthusiastic support and words belie that contention. Not just "some conservatives" have implied Obama is a socialist. People on the far left have given some might big hints.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
As conservatives have implied? The NYT reporter can't even . . .
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 12:46 ET by CKA in Red State USA. . . muster the courage and intellectual honesty to state that conservatives have said, not implied, that Obama's a socialist.
Or Marxist.
Or anything but someone who loves America and actually meant what he said when he took the oath of office.
We know what the NYT doesn't or won't admit: EVERYTHING that Barack Obama says has an expiration date.
Everything.
WHAT MATTERS...AND MATTERS NOT
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 12:52 ET by reelman46WHAT MATTERS…AND MATTERS NOT
It does not matter that you lead the league in Obama cartoon e mailing.
It matters that you Fax congress every week.
It matters not that you discover past liberal plot after past liberal plot.
It matters that you encourage others to contact congress and write letters to papers.
It matters not that you battle liberal thick-heads on some kook Blog every week.
It matters that you know Obama’s record and congressional actions.
It matters not that you watch the biased TV networks (and raise their ratings).
It matters you watch Fox some and visit a few reality-based websites.
It matters not that you are in a deep funk over the surge of secular socialist Obama.
It matters that you tell others you reject secular socialism and we will all pay dearly.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
AS I POSTED MARCH 4TH...HERE IT IS
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 12:54 ET by reelman46Obama-Pelosi-Reid are not confused, are not moderates, are not off track...they are (and have been) TRUE BELIEVERS in secular socialism.
No, they are not a surprise to anyone who cared a wit all of last year to research these three radical socialists. They really believe we can have a "prosperous Cuba", that we can do better IF the gov-meant extends its reach 10 or 20 fold (and its borrowed spending).
The slogans they use like "shared sacrifice" and "economic justice" are just code for tight socialism run by hundreds of thousands of new gov-meant employees (unionized and faithful voters of course).
They simply do not trust the voters with a real tax cut because only gov-meant can spend wisely (your money). All the jive, smoke and mirrors talk is simply what they do to get more secular socialism.
They have learned nothing from Carter or Castro because they are not reality-based...they are the secular socialist borg...the true believers who will make excuses and blameshift for years if need be. It matters not that your IRA is down 30% next Labor Day or Christmas. True believers will find strawmen even if the DOW sinks to 4,000. Its always somebody else's fault...never the principles of secular socialism.
Thus 2009 will only be the first year of the Obama MISERY INDEX. Carter never gave up and neither will Obama.
True believers go down with the ship (or economy in this case). The awful part is YOU are chained to the deck.
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Obama Is A Socialist
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:05 ET by 10ksnookerMight want to remember what Lenin said ... A couple of his more famous
quotes:
Fascism is capitalism in decay.
Vladimir
Lenin
The goal of socialism is communism.
Vladimir
Lenin
Implied?
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 15:26 ET by dborschjr68No, you silly NYT liberal sycophants, we have stated time and again that this "president" IS indeed a Socialist. Duh.
Newsweek magazine, one of YOUR liberal rags, even told you this, or didn't you pay attention? What's your game, now, liberal puppets? What are you trying to accomplish by saying these things...?
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” -Winston Churchill.
F**K Socialism. -Me.
Y THE DOW CONTINUES SCARED
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 21:27 ET by reelman46WHY DOW CONTINUES SCARED
from Paul Jacob March 8.2009:
“It’s premature to say we need another stimulus,” offers Mark Zandi
at Moody’s Economic.com, an advisor to Democrats, “but the economy is
performing much worse than when [the $787 billion stimulus legislation]
was signed, and the odds are increasing that we’ll need a bigger policy
response.”
Zandi adds that policy has thus far been a step behind the recession. “It’s important to get a step ahead.”
Indeed.
Most of all, if this new, bigger stimulus doesn’t work, we must stay the course, ready to enact an even newer, even bigger one.
How big?
Big enough. “I don’t know what the number is going to be, but it’s
going to be a big number,” said Austan Goolsbee, one of Obama’s favored
economic advisers. The first stimulus was big, of course. Huge — as the
next stimulus shall be, because as Goolsbee put it, “The point is to,
kind of, get people back on track and startle the thing into
submission.”…
CRAWFISH NOTE: The the lib-land of economic Oz (aka
Carterland)…if a borrowed vote-buying waste of a trillion is fair…then
another one will be fairer (better)…doubling down on stupidity…or
tripling down. You wonder who is gonna pay ALL that back plus interest
via incredible tax hikes? Connect the dots. You are a taxable dot.
http://conservablogs.com/theconservativecrawfish/
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D. (theconservativecrawfish)
Is it time to turn the
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 01:25 ET by MrSnugglesIs it time to turn the liberal meme against them? Where is our exit strategy? How much longer can we stay the course? We need regime change at home!
Just The Facts Ma'am
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 12:56 ET by flyingmonkeyImplied??? Personally I'm not "implying" anything. The Affirmative Action Hero is, and always has been, a dyed-in-the-wool socialist, if not a full-fledge communist.
Like Sgt. Friday said, "Just the facts ma'am."
He laughs?
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:02 ET by StarAZAll I can picture is that phony smile with all the teeth.
When you're smilin'
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:05 ET by Mike BatesAll I can picture is that phony smile with all the teeth.
When he's next to Caps Biden, though, he looks like Gabby Hayes. (This reference may not be apparent to the pre-geezer set.)
What's a Gabby Hayes? Do
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:48 ET by SRPwrdWhat's a Gabby Hayes? Do are they a Youtube star or something? (Reference not gotten by 18 year old) :D
"two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century" - PEBO
Gabby Hayes
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:02 ET by Mike BatesAs someone pointed out to me, God invented Al Gore so he could invent the Internet so you could Google stuff like Gabby Hayes.
What's a Gabby Hayes? Are
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:49 ET by SRPwrdWhat's a Gabby Hayes? Are they a Youtube star or something? (Reference not gotten by 18 year old) :D
"two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century" - PEBO
Thanks Michael
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:03 ET by cocodrieMy memories of Gabby remind me of my happier years.
Much to America's loss, he is not the only thing that has been forgotten.
Jesus Loves You
Gabby, cocodrie
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:17 ET by Mike BatesYears ago I read that Gabby - unlike his screen persona - was a very dapper, articulate fella. Yessiree Bob.
→ Articulate?
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:23 ET by Cool ArrowWas he clean too?
I'm just sayin' you're bordering on racism with that "articulate" comment.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Cool, Gabby
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 15:56 ET by Mike Bateswas a real storybook. Man.
Michael
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:29 ET by cocodrieAw shucks, he was all that and more. I saw him in an old John Wayne movie without his beard. Before that, I believed that he was born with a beard.
Jesus Loves You
I met Gabby Hayes once. And I still have . . .
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 19:05 ET by CKA in Red State USA. . . an autographed headshot of him.
Thanks for bringing up his name.
Though, truly, to compare physically of these Marxists to him is unsettling.
More Gabby
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 19:15 ET by Mike BatesThat's great. Don't sell it on eBay.
I still have a pic of myself and my very young - he's 30 now - son taken with Clayton Moore. The real Lone Ranger.
Now I'm starting to look like Gabby Hayes. An old Gabby Hayes. Goldurnit.
It's all He knows
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:02 ET by slickwillie2001Every father-figure mentor Obammy ever had taught him socialism -Obama Sr, Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and Jeremiah Wright and certainly a few others less well known. Should anyone be surprised that his politics are socialist as well?
Frank Marshall Davis
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:06 ET by Mike BatesThere's a name much of the mainstream media appeared unacquainted with for most of the last year.
→ Marshall Davis
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:29 ET by Cool ArrowObama looks a lot like his daddy, don't you think?
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Documentation
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 10:22 ET by nofateThere was plenty of documentation that he was very progressive at the least, probably socialist, and very possibly communist. He was a Red Diaper Baby- his mother and schools were all chosen to embed strong marxist leaning philosophy into his very being. This was well documented on our side of the media aisle, but the other side either ignored or was complicit in not reporting all the information that was out there. Here's another one, Making the World Safe for Marxism, that gets it right (but instead we have the NYT speculating about some conservatives calling Obama socialist as if it were a smear):
Note that Obama is the one that made it to the top. How many others have also been imbued with the same philosophical approach to the overarching role of government, as opposed to the founders approach that the people needed to be protected from the government? Emmanuel, Geithner, etc. and as his name is scrubbed from Obama's history, William Ayers. Obama's approach has been a progressivist's dream ever since Bismarck's Kulturkampf. TR, Wilson, FDR, Johnson all tried some form of it. He is just the first that has been able to get this far with it in this country. We'll see what the next few years bring.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
The MSM are brain-dead.
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:05 ET by rbosqueThe MSM are brain-dead.
brain-dead
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:07 ET by Mike BatesAnd their souls don't appear to be in such good shape either.
brain-dead 2
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 15:29 ET by dborschjr68And what they are doing to the ignorant masses should be considered as brainwashing and bamboozling. I would horse-whip each and every one of 'em, even the chicks, and make them formally apologize to the American public for being such manipulators and liars.
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.” -Winston Churchill.
F**K Socialism. -Me.
Guess why he returned...
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:37 ET by Dont_Like_TheBluesGuess why he gave the statue of Winston Churchill back to the Brits? Churchill was an ardent anti-socialist and anti-communist in his words and deeds. He's the one who coined the term "Iron Curtian". Maybee Ayres or the ACORN folks objected to it. Maybee he wants to replace it with a bust of Lenin or Stalin ?
"The interests of [radical Facist] Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders[USA]."
Osama bin Laden - March 2003
That never occured to me,
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 01:27 ET by MrSnugglesThat never occured to me, but it makes almost too much sense. He can't even be seen or photographed with military personnel, so how could he have a bust of a capitalist pig in his office?
Brain dead? No.
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 18:48 ET by CKA in Red State USAThey're soul dead, ethics dead, professional dead.
They know exactly what they are doing.
Ayn Rand nailed Marxist Obama 50 years ago
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:12 ET by Jack BauerI don't agree with all of Rand's ideas (certainly on religion and abortion) but her laser-sharp defense of capitalism and freedom is so remarkable, that she demonstrates how we have reached the end of one long road, and we are on the path of collectivist totalitarianism. She nailed this nearly 50 years ago.
If anyone wants to hear this lecture that is SO RELEVANT it could could have been given yesterday, and it could be talking about the last election, instead of Nixon v Kennedy.
Click here.
Truly ear-opening.
Ayn, Jack
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:18 ET by Mike BatesShe gave that talk shortly after JFK boldly talked about asking not what your country can do for you. . . As Bill Buckley pointed out, within months Kennedy had all sorts of suggestions about what your country can do for you.
Yet he was a rank amateur compared to Obammy.
MMB -- at least in America,
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:29 ET by Jack BauerMMB -- at least in America, socialism is still such a dirty word that actual socialists and their Marxist ilk feel compelled to DENY it. They seem to be all a twitter whenever the Ess word in thrown.
If Ayn Rand were still alive she would undoubtedy be excoriating the current administration. Do you think Robert Gibbs would be mentioning her by name in his little Puff Pieces with the Press Corps?
Michael.. interesting the origins of that JFK talk
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 17:42 ET by Gary HallKahil Gibran's, the Lebanese born Christian who lived in America, wrote that most famous line of all that inspired John F. Kennedy's often quoted "Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You," from his 1961 inaugural address. The quote was inspired by a 1925 article, in which he said:
I've often thought, that had say a Ronald Reagan, used such a powerful statement from another, that the national media would have never let go of the want to smear Reagan for stealing it. But then, who would doubt that?
(;~/ gary
Thank you Jack..
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:29 ET by Dont_Like_TheBluesJB Thanks for the Rand quote. Many of my conservative friends totally reject her due to her views on religion. However she does have many valid points about the true evil of socialism, facism and communism. After all, she lived through the hell of the USSR herself.
One other point she made was from Atlas Shrugged. I can't find the exact quote but
....the government will bind the hands and feet of companies, making them incapable of any action. Then when they inevitably fail, they will tell you that freedom does not work....
(anyone who has the whole quote, please post/send it)
Does this sound like CRA of 1977 and the "give mortgages to idiots" legislation of the Klinton years ?
and remember one of the best supporters of socialism....
"The interests of [radical Facist] Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders[USA]."
Osama bin Laden - March 2003
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Where are today's Ayn Rands?
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 00:47 ET by HillbillyKingI cannot find the exact quote you are referring to, but it's probably somewhere in where I found these:
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate
inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it
pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the
stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by
brute force.
The only power any government has is the power to
crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one
makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes
impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
The man who lets a leader prescribe his course is a wreck being towed to the scrap heap.
It only stands to reason that where there's
sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where
there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to
you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be
the master.
Government "help" to business is just as disastrous
as government persecution... the only way a government can be of
service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off.
A government is the most dangerous threat to man's
rights: it holds a legal monopoly on the use of physical force against
legally disarmed victims.
Whoever claims the “right” to “redistribute” the wealth produced by others is
claiming the “right” to treat human beings as chattel.
Every government interference in the economy consists of giving an
unearned benefit, extorted by force, to some men at the expense of
others.
And a personal favorite of mine,
Francisco's money speech.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Hillbilly -- the quote is
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 04:56 ET by Jack BauerHillbilly -- the quote is taken down verbatim from Ayn's spoken lecture which I link to above. I can't remember exactly where in the 50 minute talk it occurs, though it is just the opening sakvo to a far more expansive theme -- about half-way through, if I recall correctly.
Thanks for the others -- great stuff. And so timely today to be reminded.
Thanks Jack...
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 13:52 ET by HillbillyKingI'll bookmark the link and listen to it when I get more time.
Sadly, her words are extraordinarly timely today.
BTW, you don't know the way to Galt's Gulch do ya?
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
→ Conservatives Imply?
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:14 ET by Cool ArrowI don't see any reason to "pussyfoot" (to quote a famous Democrat racist, George Wallace).
Some conservatives aren't implying it, we're saying it, and shouting it. Obama's a Socialist!!!
Problem is, too many liberals are in love with the idea of socialism, and thus, in love with Obama.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Pussyfootin'
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:20 ET by Mike BatesNever voted for George Corley, but he certainly had a way with words.
Well what did you expect from a pig...
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:14 ET by Lord Erond..but a grunt?
"To sin by silence when we should protest, makes cowards of men" -Ella Wheeler Wilcox
I agree with BARRKY. He's no Socialist. He's a FULL BLOWN ...
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:19 ET by Jayke... COMMUNIST! And that's on top of being the PRINCE OF ABORTION.
Only Some Conservatives Have Implied Obama Is a Socialist?
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:23 ET by lareeOnly Some?
The Big Dog Race Started Yesterday In Alaska Gov Sarah Palin was there. I voted For Gov Sarah Palin and Cindy McCain’s husband:)
http://youhavetobethistalltogoonthisride.blogspot.com/2009/03/iditarod-7...?
Some conservatives
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:25 ET by Mike BatesOnly Some?
Some have been too busy wishing him success. Or voting for "his" (Pelosi-prepared) legislation.
Not that it matters, from
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:26 ET by robert108Not that it matters, from the individual citizen's point of view, but what Obama is doing right now is fascism. Socialism, and it's most extreme incarnation, Marxism, involves State ownership of the means of production, up to and including all capital and property. With fascism, there is still the illusion of private ownership, but the State controls everything, so the outcome is the same: it's all totalitarianism. Obama is a totalitarian.
Implied????
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 13:56 ET by pgrossjrI knew the NYT needed a number of things (better P/E ratio), but I didn't think a dictionary was one of them.
→ pgrossjr
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:09 ET by Cool Arrow→ Are you referring to the newly-minted Obama Profit/Earnings Ratio?
Obama - Change you can bereave in
→ Think about it
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:02 ET by Cool ArrowThe New York Times asks Obama "Are you a Socialist?"
Can there be better proof of Obama's socialist lean than the NYT providing an opportunity for political cover?
It's like when the MSM gave Teddy Kennedy prime time so he could explain his part in Chappaquiddick.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
I need to thank the NYT
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:13 ET by gmg2aeEverytime I see something from them it reminds me I need to get down to bullets, bayonets and beyond.
Have thought about it.
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 18:54 ET by CKA in Red State USAThe probablity of Barack Obama being honest and answering affirmatively equals the probablity of the advocacy/adversary media being objective.
The New York Obama Times knew Obama would NEVER answer honestly.
But the NYOT can now say it asked and got an answer.
They and Obama deserve each other, given their intellectual and moral bankruptcy.
But we don't deserve their corruption.
Some of us Conservatives
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:18 ET by tomnkikiSome of us Conservatives have "implied" that Obama is a Socialist? Well, I must STRINGENTLY apologize for that offensive, denigrating insult. I am thoroughly ashamed of my fellow Conservatives. In good faith, let me attempt to set the record straight about what we wanted to say, but just didn't seem to get across in an appropriate manner.
OBAMA IS AN OUTRIGHT, FREAKING, WHINY, MANIPULATIVE, CONTROLLING, IRRESPONSIBLE, LYING, HATEFUL, DESTRUCTIVE, UNAPOLOGETIC, LETHAL, CONTEMPTUOUS, COMMUNIST "DICK"TATOR(emphasis on the dick) BASTARD!!
Ummm...I hope that clears things up a bit better. I certainly wouldn't want someone in this Great Land(that would be the USA, not Europe or Germany) to get the wrong idea that we Conservatives don't truly comprehend the despicable and frightening creature that is Obama.
Make sure you lock all your doors and windows at night, and keep an eye on your babies and older children, especially as they are rounded up to be sent to the Indoctrination Ca...I mean, schools. I shall go now. I feel the need to cling a little tighter to my "religion and my guns", and if I had children, I'd cling to them so tightly, they couldn't breathe. Guns, Religion, Fellow Conservatives :-)....Life doesn't get much better than that, now does it? Go out and cling, My Dear Conservative Friends!
Go Ahead and Say It ! tomnkiki
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:56 ET by Retired GeekYou shouldn't hold your true feelings inside you - it is not healthy.
WARNING Liberals are the only ones who can follow the Barack Obama logic.
Obama's Logic:
--------------
1) Bankrupt the coal industry. Cutting out 50% of electrical production in the US.
2) Stop importing steel, only use American steel.
3) Coal is the only way to produce heat to make steel.
4) Make and buy only American cars out of steel, this will save the US auto industry.
5) Don't drive those cars, because that will minimize the environmental gains of bankrupting coal.
6) Build highways and bridges to drive the cars on that we shouldn't drive to save the planet.
7) Don't build nuclear power plants or drill for oil, so America can reduce its dependence on foreign oil imports.
8) Give money to mis-managed business's and then act indignant and betrayed, when those bad money managers mis-manage the money you gave them.
9) Give money to those who cannot manage their own budgets and buy things they cannot afford, so they can catch up with everyone else.
The Obama financial 'Doctrine' - if you have spent to much money on credit and cannot pay your bills, spend much, much more on credit to decrease your debt and ensure financial success.
Invest in failure to secure success.
'Failing Upward' is the Obama plan for success.
tnk... Well
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 18:57 ET by Clear thinkertnk...
Well said!
More Red Obama Connections
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Clear Thinker...Red Obama Connections
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 05:39 ET by JerBack in the 60's, my college roomates and I would often dial up Let Freedom Ring, an organization funded by the ultra-right billionaire H.L. Hunt, and listen to a two-minute spiel about how the USA was on the very brink of total destruction from within by hordes of communist subversives. It was always good for a little comic relief amidst the rigors of studying for exams, etc.
The Red Obama Connections brought back those distant memories. Thanks for the laugh.
Jer
Conservatives say?? Hey Michael.. Newsweek announced
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:22 ET by Gary HallConservatives say?? Hey Michael, as you noted - it's more than a few conservatives saying it. In fact, seems to me that Newsweek announced to America on it's cover story, that "We are all Socialists Now."
Conservatives must simply be more observant than the NY Times.
(;~> gary
Newsweek, Gary
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:03 ET by Mike BatesBut maybe they don't believe their own propaganda and the cover was just wishful thinking. For a little while.
Socialism/communism is
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:25 ET by MidAmericaSocialism/communism is based on a flawed theory that a whole society can be motivated to do their best for the common good. No matter how many failed attempts have been made this wrongheaded idea keeps popping back up like a persistant weed. Why? Power. This egalitarian society breaks down when it comes to the 'leaders' of this classless society. The leaders are the only ones who have status, wealth and power. Socialism, as implemented, is more closely compared to the medieval courts with Kings, Knights and Nobles living the good life while being surrounded by the peasants, who by their status and meager posessions are no threat to the ruling class. If you look at our Lord and Master obama you'll see that while this country is on the brink of a depression he throws nightly parties and jets around the country. He is far removed from any discomfort suffered by the peasantry. And that is what the world is like living in a 'classless' society.
NYTimes asks the hard questions!!!
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:26 ET by Jack BauerMore penetrating hard-hitting questions from upcoming New York Times interviews
Charles Manson:
NYT. Are you a psychotic serial killer?
CM. Not at all. I just wanted to take from the rich and give to the poor.
NYT: Can we help with your next Parole hearing, to continue your work?
Hugo Chavez:
NYT. Are you a socialist?
HC. No not at all. I just want to destroy capitalism and enslave the Venezuelan people.
NYT: Good luck to you sir in all you wonderful endeavors.
Robert Mugabe:
NYT: Some people say you are a thuggish Marxist who has destroyed a country that used to be known as The Bread Basket of Africa. Is this true?
RM: No not at all. I love my people.
NYT: Thank you sir. Good luck with your important work that isn't remotely socialist.
Those are great questions
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:36 ET by Carl KolchakThose are great questions and the NYT has great interviewers. I think if those questions are given to those people by the NYT that the reporters should win Pulitizer Prizes, because only the most worthy win Pulitzer Prizes.
Yours Truely
Walter Duranty
Walt -- you old commie
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:41 ET by Jack BauerWalt -- you old commie rascal!! What's it like in hell?
Ditto!
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:49 ET by jed58Was thinking along the same lines while reading the article
My 2 Cents
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:44 ET by stratmanNixon: I am not a crook
BJ Clinton: I did not have sexual relations with that woman (video)
Obama: I am not a socialist
Each of these three men also attempted deflection away from themselves by stating "we" must get back to the business of the people.
Bush is the only one that did not lie yet he was branded a liar. Go figure.
maobama can lie all he wants
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:31 ET by RD KingBut this AmCon says it straight up, this marxist socialist is as hardcore a sorry communist as ever came down the pike and it's time for him to go.
Barack Obama wants the Middle Class Destroyed.
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:45 ET by Retired GeekOne of the tenets of Marxism, is to destroy the Middle Class. The destruction of the middle class is avery important step for Barack Obama.
The Black Liberation document, that Barack Obama approved at Mentor Jeremiah Wrights church, stated "Disavowal of Middle Class".
Marxism must pit the poor against the rich (soon to be anyone who makes more than Minimum Wage) - the Middle Class must be destroyed.
By destroying all pensions and raising taxes and making energy costly, will result in the destruction of the middle class.
Every time Barack Obama speaks, the Stock Market drops, much to his delight and to the delight of the Obama Administration.
When the Stock Market drops, pension plans are hurt, 401K's are hurt, IRA's are hurt - this makes Barack Obama and his 'Glassy Eyed' followers giddy with delight.
Barack Obama believes the 'Success' of his administration will be the 'Destruction' of the middle class and their pensions.
Maybe He's just lazy
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:49 ET by slickwillie2001A blogger is compiling an interesting set of evidence, anecdotal and otherwise, of Obammy's laziness and absent work ethic:
Is Obama Lazy?: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/03/is_obama_lazy.html
Excerpt: "Allison Davis, a former partner in Miner's firm (and the son of a prominent U. of C. professor), occupied an office next to Obama's at 14 West Erie Street. "He spent a lot of time working on his book [Dreams from My Father]," Davis recalls. "Some of my partners weren't happy with that, Barack sitting there with his keyboard on his lap and his feet up on the desk writing the book.""
Note: The Chicago law firm Obama worked for was Davis Miner Barnhill & Gallan.
Far from proof of the thesis, but an interesting collection. A work ethic has to be developed in a person at an early age. This is why welfare dependency is passed down from generation to generation. Let's see if the liberal media keeps a running count of Obammy's vacation/work ratio as they did with President George W. Bush.
SOME Conservatives? SOME?
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:51 ET by BondPlainBondHow about the 48% of voters that did NOT vote for Obama?
That 48% of voters most assuredly and definitively state, not imply, Obama is a dyed-in-the-wool Socialist.
His policies, plans, ideas, and actions all bear that out without a shred of doubt.
How about 'some journalists' pull their heads out of the place where the sun don't shine and start cooking on the front burner?
Wake up (liberal) journalists - your reporting comes from only one place - DENIAL.
And that denial is assisting Chairman O with his socialist dream of leading this country to wreck and ruin. Chairman O will not be satisfied until we are all on our knees and enslaved by his sweeping socialist changes.
Quite true, Bond
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 14:53 ET by BlondeDenial is the river that flows through the Main Stream Media.
I hope he fails, too.
Obama Wants America Bankrupt
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 15:09 ET by Retired Geek"Socialism
is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of
envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." -Winston
Churchill
Barack Obama believes the 'Bankruptcy of America' will be the 'Success' of the Barack Obama Administration.
Burning Questions
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 15:15 ET by iveseenitallTwo burning questions:
Is Obama an indoctrinated socialist/communist?
Is the Pope a Catholic?
Duh! Anyone who knows anything about anything knows the answers to those questions.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Barack Obama wants Individualism Destroyed
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 15:15 ET by Retired Geek"America
is like a healthy body and its resistance is three fold: its
patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine
these three areas, America will collapse from within." Joseph Stalin
"Why do I have to keep proving to people that I am not a liar?" Hillary Clinton
"It's time to put the common good, the national interest, ahead of individuals." Hillary Clinton
It's
time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the
few, and for the few, and to replace it with shared responsibility for
shared prosperity."
Hillary Clinton
"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
Hillary Clinton
"Comrades!
We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for
all." -- Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev, addressing the 20th
Congress of the Soviet Communist Party, 2-25-56
"The unity of a
nation's spirit and will are worth far more than the freedom of the
spirit and will of an individual; and that the higher interests
involved in the life of the whole must here set the limits and lay down
the duties of the interests of the individual." -- Adolph Hitler
"We need to spread the wealth" Barack Obama
"To
be a socialist is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing
the individual to the whole." -- Joseph Goebbels, Minister of
Propaganda, National Socialist German Workers' ("Nazi") Party
"...true patriotism also means a willingness to sacrifice for our common good..."
Barack Obama July 6, 2008
diversity you can belive
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 15:32 ET by gmg2aediversity you can belive in...5.56, 7.62, .45 just hope when push comes to shove people against socialism remember theres no shame in fighting to the death for freedom. I will take my insperation from the framers of our wonderful constitution, not some chimp from kenya
Just "implied" ?
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 15:36 ET by katainkentWe obviously need to try harder.
Try harder, katainkent
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:12 ET by Mike BatesPerhaps "implied" was used to suggest that conservatives aren't really sure, but a few think maybe, possibly, just a wild guess sort of thing, Obammy could - just once in a while, of course - be an itsy bitsy little socialistic. But in a nice way, of course.
→ Point taken
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:17 ET by Cool ArrowIn other words, conservatives almost maybe, but sometimes hardly never, say of a certainty that something's certain.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Exactly, Cool
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:19 ET by Mike BatesCouldn't have said it better myself.
lol
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 17:00 ET by katainkentyou're making my head spin! I didn't have time before so I will expand on my thought :
Obama's interview in your first linked article was filled with half-truths that have been ingrained into the general public's knowledgebase that somehow Bush got carte blanche for the programs he instituted. It further implies that since GWB is not considered "socialist" that when he violated free market principles that doing so was not socialist, therefore, continued action down that path should not be considered socialist either.
Anyone who listens to Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham, and even Rush Limbaugh could give that a categorical "no!". They were driving their listeners to contact their congressmen and reject TARP, calling it a socialist act.
In general, building on that base of false premise Obama makes it therefore "ok" to continue making socialist choices and never really has to answer the question! Seriously, who didn't see this coming? If conservative people are still being portrayed as anything but "firm" on their principles then I still say "we aren't trying hard enough".
You said "knowledgebase"
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 17:02 ET by BlondeSends blonde screaming from the room.
Aye, carumba!
I hope he fails, too.
doh!
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 17:07 ET by katainkentI promise to try and not let it happen again! :) Google spellcheck missed it I swear...
Sorry, Blonde
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 17:13 ET by Mike BatesHe meant to say "skill set."
She, Mike!
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 17:20 ET by BlondeIt's okay, kata's a pal.
Same diff, tho, skill set, knowledgebase (only libtards say knowledge base, tho...sorry kat!).
I hope he fails, too.
Thanks, Blonde
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 17:24 ET by Mike Batesfor the correction. It's easy to presume that almost everyone in cyberspace is of the male persuasion.
*raspberry*
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 17:24 ET by katainkentmy point is still valid. If my vocabulary is the most liberal thing about me I can live with that.
I'm not implying, I'm
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 15:47 ET by SlicksterI'm not implying, I'm stating it. obama is a socialist thug.
Comrades
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:00 ET by bknownstDoes anyone doubt Comrade Obama is the new head of the American Comunist Party formerly known as Social Democrats or Progressive Democrats? All hail Oh Bama!
Of Course He's Not, lol
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:05 ET by Reaganite RepublicanAnd what relevence does "what he says" have?
Two weeks ago, he portrayed himself as a deficit hawk... three days after signing an $800B pork-n-welfare bill. And he said there'd be no lobbyists in his cabinet. And that he'd be "post-partisan"... but said "I won" and "I'll trump you on that" when questioned on his profligate spending. And that he wouldn't let earmarks past his desk... except for the 8500+ in the new $400B omnibus bill.
Like Pat Buchanan said: If he's not a socialist, he does the best impression of one I've ever seen."
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
the new $400B omnibus bill
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:14 ET by Mike BatesAs we've been counseled by the Obamatons, that's old business, old news, and there's nothing here to see. Better move on.
Had our press spent any time at all vetting Obama...
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:12 ET by ThalpyHad our press spent any time at all vetting Obama rather than insisting that he be elected, this question would have been moot. The footprints of socialism and radicalism are all over his life and most of his associates, but you would never hear it from our seditious press. Judged by the nonsense our press spews, there really isn't any good reason for them except as propagandists and indoctrinators.
Don't need no steenking vetting
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:15 ET by Mike BatesIt would've been tough for the MSM to vet him. They were too busy campaigning for the boob.
Being a history buff of our
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:35 ET by ricklailBeing a history buff of our history known as the Wild West, I see how the eastern press took an outlaw like Henry McCarty, most don't know that was Billy the Kid's real name, and turned him into somewhat of a hero. They did the same thing with Wyatt Earp and John "Doc" Holiday who were really no better than the bad men they killed or put away.
Not just the eastern press but all the press and most of the broadcast media took a man and in less than a year turned him into a legend. This man's only claim to fame was that he was community organizer. In my opinion he is no more of a hero or great man than was Frank and Jesse James. He is to me just another in the long line of outlaws that were romantized by a press looking to sell papers.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same. RWR
Good point ricklail
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:55 ET by Dont_Like_TheBluesYou nailed that point historically. Unfortunately for many Americans, history will teach them nothing. It's scary how many people take 100% of MSM garbage as an absolute truth.
When sHitler took over, he had to do some killing & make arrests to take control of the media. Here, the MSM suck up to any lefty so much that they don't need public relations staff.
"The interests of [radical Facist] Muslims and the interests of the socialists coincide in the war against the crusaders[USA]."
Osama bin Laden - March 2003
Wyatt Earp
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 17:16 ET by Mike BatesThey did the same thing with Wyatt Earp and John "Doc" Holiday who were really no better than the bad men they killed or put away.
I cut Wyatt some slack; he was a Republican. And his opponents Dems.
Obama Wants Reparations
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:44 ET by Retired GeekIn a 2001 radio interview with Chicago station WBEZ-FM, Obama discusses the “redistribution of wealth” from whites to blacks.
Obama
remarks, “…and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil rights
movement was, because the civil rights movement became so
court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the
political and community organizing and, and activities on the ground
that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through
which you bring about redistributive change. And, uh, in some ways we
still suffer from that.”
He continued, “I’m not optimistic
about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts.
The institution just isn’t structured that way.”
Barack Obama
→ That's funny Geek
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:50 ET by Cool ArrowHe owes himself reparations for the two Slaves his g-g-g-grandpappy owned.
Obama - Change you can bereave in
I don't think Obama
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 16:45 ET by ConservativeRexI don't think Obama would be uncomfortable being called a Socialist. It is in fact what he is. And someone is surprised?
If Obama says otherwise it is just another in a long line of deceptions he has spouted since the beginning. The people that follow him lock-step are Socialist. They make no bones about it. They want other peoples wealth to go to people who don't have it. Is there another word than Socialist to describe this way of thinking?
They're not fooling anyone.
Deceptions? Please, let's call a spade a spade . . .
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 18:57 ET by CKA in Red State USA. . . and that is not a racist statement.
Barack Obama lied, lies and will lie.
EVERYTHING he says has an expiration date.
EVERYTHING.
I am a Conservative and...
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 17:28 ET by jawebster1I will say it outright...Obama is a Socialist! If your money is still in stocks, do what Jim Cramer advised recently...Get out of stocks now! Jim Webster
“The answer would be
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 18:21 ET by GregE“The answer would be no,” he said, laughing for a moment before defending his administration for “making some very tough choices” on the budget.
Oh well then, if the messiah says no, who are we mere mortals to question? So he said no, so shall it be no. Anyone with a socialist agenda, in America, who actually wants people to follow his lead, isn't dumb enough to say "yes my plans are socialist."
Note the first 15 seconds of this... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRdLpem-AAs
→ Tough choices
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 18:28 ET by Cool ArrowWhat tough choices would those be?
He sent Joe Biden down to Florida to promise them he would bail out the snivelling 2 (Auto Makers).
Is he now making the tough choice to give the UAW money while letting the Snivelling 2 fail?
Obama - Change you can bereave in
Tough choices, my arse.
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 23:14 ET by GregETough choices, my arse. He also said that about the budget. Yes, very tough choices had to be made to squeeze down his real agenda into a mere $3.5 trillion budget.
The toughest choice for a liberal is what income level to force to pay for everyone else in America.
Obama, Commander in Chief of class warfare.
Marxist Socialism?
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 18:20 ET by KaleokualohaAccording to dictionary.com, socialism is "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. In Marxist theory, it is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."
Please note that it is a stage FOLLOWING capitalism. Socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive. Capitalism has many forms in a mixed economy, with public (collective) ownership of various enterprises based upon economic conditions. Limited public ownership does not comprise actual socialism, which requires complete public ownership.
Every advocate of greater government economic control might be called a "socialist," but none are true socialists unless they advocate the complete elimination of private enterprise, which means the replacement of capitalism with collectivism. True (laissez-faire) capitalism means zero government control of private enterprise, which is economic anarchy. Neither of these extremes works in the long run. Every successful economy is a mixed economy, existing somewhere on a spectrum between both extremes. Every successful economy is part capitalist and part socialist. They all contain a mix of private and public ownership, and they all have some government control of private enterprise. The only relevant question is "WHERE on this spectrum can we achieve the greatest success?"
Unless someone advocates the complete replacement of capitalism with collectivism, they do not truly advocate socialism or communism. To accuse them of either, when they have not explicitly advocated as much themselves, suggests either unfamiliarity with mixed economies or intellectual dishonesty. Even George W. Bush and John McCain were accused of advocating socialism based upon their support of 2008 bailout legislation.
To accuse a mixed economy advocate of being a leftist, socialist, or communist suggests that either you believe that ANY degree of government regulation qualifies, or that you believe that any regulation beyond an indefinite "trigger point" qualifies, and that YOU get to set the trigger point. The "trigger point" explanation reminds me of the egocentric explorer who says that anyone who explores farther into dangerous territory is a fool, but anyone who doesn’t explore as far as he does is a coward. His arrogance presumes that his own boundaries are common standards.
Marxist "socialism," in contrast to European "democratic socialism," requires collective ownership of the means of production in lieu of capitalism. That IS "all or nothing." We may or may not be on a path to collectivism, just as a dating couple may or may not be on a path to pregnancy. Traveling on a path in any direction does not imply any specific goal. For example, traveling on Interstate 10 does not imply that either coast is the goal.
"Direction" is one thing. "Goal" is another. All mixed economies exist at some point in the spectrum between the fatal terminuses of unregulated capitalism and true socialism. In history, socialism/communism was reversed and capitalism reappeared as people recognized the lethal consequences of such extremes. Russia, China and other communist nations now recognize the virtue of mixed economies. They learned the hard way.
I await empirical evidence, instead of specious speculation, that Obama wants to eliminate capitalism by moving to that extreme. To say Obama advocates the goal of socialism, based upon his movement on the spectrum instead of being based on his explicit advocacy, is to create a straw man. It is intellectually dishonest and unworthy of serious debate.
kale... Oh
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 18:37 ET by bigtimerkale...
Oh really....
Listen to this and get back to me.
...Or read this and get back to me...I have plenty more.
Make sure you at least read down to Sweeney's name, you know, head of the AFL-CIO...
I hope you really listen and read, but I fear you are another traveling salvation show...with your brother O and his team.
bigtimer and Retired Geek
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 19:09 ET by Mike BatesThis fella's rant seemed like a cut and paste job. And it was. And it was.
On the second citation, he identifies himself as "the son of Frank Marshall Davis."
BTW, I have nothing against cut and paste jobs. And the poor guy's been awaiting "empirical evidence" for more than a month.
Evening Mike... Nothing
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 19:16 ET by bigtimerEvening Mike...
Nothing like a time now in this country's atmosphere but to be proud to claim you're the son of Frank Marshall Davis...now is there?
Btw...I know he is a troll...and a drive-by at that, just wanted to see if he would respond for the heck of it...lol
Like Blonde says. . .
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 19:23 ET by Mike BatesWe need a better class of troll around here.
If I were Frank Marshall Davis's
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 19:33 ET by cocodrieIf I were Frank Marshall Davis's son I would change my name to Frank Marshall S---.
Jesus Loves You
LOL, Mike....
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 19:37 ET by BlondeWe need a better class of troll, here. ©
I hope he fails, too.
Michael M. Bates...
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 03:20 ET by JerThis fella's rant seemed like a cut and paste job. And it was. And it was.
Well, the second linked blog was just fine. The first, however, was shameful and disgusting.
Jer
You are Incorrect Kaleokualoha
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 18:38 ET by Retired GeekWhy should or would the US Government EVER own any means of production?
Where is that in the Constitution? You are obviously a Barack Obama apologist.
What is the difference between socialism and communism?
Socialism can only grow directly from Capitalism.
“The goal of socialism is communism.” Vladimir Lenin
Communism can only be achieved from Socialism or by violent revolution.
Socialism's slogan is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his DEEDS."
Communism's slogan is: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his NEEDS."
Major difference is between 'DEEDS' and 'NEEDS'
Socialism and communism are alike in that both are systems of production for use, based on public ownership of the means of production and centralized planning.
Socialism is the first step in the process of developing the productive forces to achieve abundance and changing the mental and spiritual outlook of the people.
Socialism is the necessary transition stage from capitalism to communism unless there is a violent revolution. (Dialectics)
There are two kinds of property to a Socialist:
----------------------------------
1) Property used for private enjoyment, i.e. Automobile (if by deeds you can pay for it).
2) Property used to produce the Automobile.
Socialists will allow you personal property i.e. Automobile, but will take away and own the property used to manufacture the Automobile.
There is one kind of property to a Communist:
----------------------------------
That which is owned by the state (everything), including the citizens of that state.
The communist principle of distribution according to needs, is not immediately possible and practical until the Socialist framework is in place.
The conjecture that the Barack Obama Socialism, is NOT Marxist thinking is both foolish and plain silly.
http://hisfacts.blogtownhall.com/2008/10/21/obamas_radical_ and_communist_alliances.thtml
Has Barack
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 04:34 ET by KaleokualohaHas Barack Obama EXPLICITLY advocated the replacement of capitalism with collectivism? (Everything else is still a mixed economy according to Econ 101. Let's avoid jumping to conclusions.)
If not, then you are assuming that is his hidden agenda, and you have created a straw man. But if so, then please provide the link.
BTW: I didn't post anything about what the US Government should or should not do. The issue is the statements made by President Obama, in contrast to various inferences as to what he might WANT to do.
Has Barack Obama
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 05:43 ET by Jack BauerAre you kidding? What the hell sort of logic is that.
Oh -- well, did Jeffrey Dahmer EXPLICITY advocate murdering homeless homosexuals?
Oh I guess then he's not really a killer because you know, he never like EXPLICITY said he was going to chop people up.
Open your eyes. It's utterly IRRELEVANT what Obama says (although he has made MANY comments which EXPLICITY state his intent to collectivize.) as he is currently pushing through a full on Marxist grab of citizens money.
That is SOCIALISM, I could care less whether you think it is, or not. Though it would be nice if you were awake.
Non Sequitur Nonsense
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 17:28 ET by KaleokualohaJeffrey Dahmer did not need to say it because he did it. Obama has neither SAID that he intends to replace capitalism with collectivism, nor has he ACTUALLY replaced capitalism with collectivism. You are speculating as to his goal because of his direction, just like speculating that a motorist on Interstate 10 has a goal of reaching the ocean because of his direction.
In the absence of compelling evidence, that is called a "non sequitur," or a conclusion unsubstantiated by the evidence. Jumping to conclusions is common among logically challenged debaters.
BTW: The 2008 bailout bill was a Bush administration initiative. Do you also contend that those Republicans are "socialists," like those wingnuts at Accuracy In Media (see http://www.aim.org/aim-column/bush-embraces-obamas-socialism/)?
Also: It doesn't really matter what I think because "socialism" is defined by dictionary.com as ""a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole. In Marxist theory, it is the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles."
Bailing out companies does not a socialist make. Capitalism must be REPLACED by collectivism to become actual socialism instead of another mixed economy. Do we need to define "replace" for you?
Supercilious Nonsense
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 01:16 ET by nofateDo we need to define "supercilious" for you? Surely not, as you are so superior, you know the definition of any word or philosophy we mention. Amazing as that is, I will define it anyway for the edumacation of us poor Newsbuster readers. According to the American Heritage Dictionary:
Any or all of the above suffice to describe the attitude you project.
BTW, re: your contention that:
Not necessarily. In your words:
"In the absence of compelling evidence, that is called a "non sequitur," or a conclusion unsubstantiated by the evidence."
It depends on the nature of the oligarch and henchmen who ascend to the halls of power in the particular nation being discussed. Lenin? Collectivism. Hitler? Not collectivism but more of a nationalistic, twisted socialism (that final solution thing, you know?), but still the state controlling nearly every aspect of the economy. Mussolini? Not collectivism, not as twisted, but still a form of socialism with the state again controlling nearly every aspect of the economy. Obama? Well, he hasn't been in office long enough to have very many deeds, besides, like with Brown, he tires easily, you know? And when the NYT asks a question like if he's a socialist, he thinks they're joking. Then when his handlers, er, associates inform him they were serious he calls them back to tell them what it really is. You are right, many of us here are "speculating as to his goal because of his direction, just like speculating that a motorist on Interstate 10 has a goal of reaching the ocean because of his direction." And we do so with the full knowledge that this man has a long history of association with people, organizations, and the philosophies of socialism and communism. Many of those individuals now reside in his administration. His endorsements, including by William Ayers and Tom Hayden, are from documented socialist individuals.
"Obama has neither SAID that he intends to replace capitalism with collectivism, nor has he ACTUALLY replaced capitalism with collectivism." You are correct again! But he has certainly hinted all around that he intends to re-distribute the wealth of this nation, although, as you will certainly be aware, I don't think he has ever said those exact words. Words can be so slippery in the hands of avowed progressivists, don't you think? Buying up lots of banks and auto companies is a good start, don't you think? Then there was that stuff about getting rid of coal and oil as energy sources- does that mean we won't get to use cars? Oh, no, no, we'll have electric and hydrogen cars in a year or so, and those noisy windmills? Well we'll just have to get used to 'em.
Did you know that Mussolini and Lenin were buds back in the old days? I bet you did, you supercilious intellectual powerhouse, you! Just don't forget, though, that according to a very intelligent poster on this site, "Jumping to conclusions is common among logically challenged debaters."
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Fater,
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 02:25 ET by HillbillyKinggreat post.
But be careful, the overwhelmingly compelling evidence suggests that Mr. Davis is a churlish niggler. :-)
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
HK
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 14:00 ET by nofatePersonally, I like that word niggler. It's so utterly edgy, given todays environment. So un-PC.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Another one for you, nofate
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 14:10 ET by BlondeObama is going to renege on his promise not to raise taxes on those making less than $250K per year.
That'd send Sharpton and Jesse skyward like a rocket, LOL.
I hope he fails, too.
How 'bout this one?
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 14:17 ET by nofateBarack Obama is being niggardly with the American people's money by not allowing them to keep more of what they earn. People are now having to work for government nearly six months of every year before they reach a point where the money they work to earn becomes their own. And Obama wants to take even more of it.
Livin' on the edge.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Well nf,
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 14:25 ET by HillbillyKingyou know how it is up here in Galt's Grove. ;-) We strive to utilize language that is appropriate to the situation, along with many other practices that are the antithesis of p.c. group think.
Oh, and I got that fiver waitin on ya next time your in this neck of the woods. ;-) Bein honest and stand uppish are some more of those pesky traits we like to practice in GG. It must be that damn Taggart blood showin through.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
LOL!
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 14:31 ET by nofateWhat can I say, I've been Limbaughtomized!
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Limbaughtomized?
Wed, 03/11/2009 - 01:41 ET by JerLimbaughtomized? Outstanding! Is that a nofate original, and if so may I borrow it periodically? I think I would have far more occasion to use the term than you. :-)
Jer
Jer
Wed, 03/11/2009 - 21:35 ET by nofateI cannot claim credit. That came from a Clay Waters post that quoted a NYT writer,
I thought it was funny, just another lib blowing a cork over the truth. You have my permission to steal it too, as long as you give me credit for stealing it first :-)
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
nofate, you get the NB post cookie of the day.
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 14:36 ET by R D HelmLOL-I don't have the patience fordoing those anymore.
Middle age, ya know. Every second counts. :-)
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
R D
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 14:41 ET by nofateMmmmmmmm! Mmmmmm! Mmmm! Mm! Me LOVE Cooooookieeeees!
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Kaleokualoha, here is your link,
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 14:26 ET by R D Helmhttp://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&refer=columnist_hassett&...
Unlike you, most of us figured out nearly two years ago, and many more have, particularly over the last seven weeks, that what Obama says is very different from what he actually does.
Many times, it is the exact opposite.
Like no earmarks in spending bills, to name one of many.
-Dave
This coup has gone on long enough. The time to put it down is NOW.
Social Justice means Socialism
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 18:43 ET by Retired GeekCapitalism by default, places humans in different 'Economic Classes' - self determination and 'Hard Work', simply produces more than indolence, 'Play Times' and the life of a professional beggar (welfare).
Social Justice (Socialism) wants 'Equal Outcomes' based on the theory that all humans would do well, if given the proper Social Justice.
Barack Obama and Liberals, 'Hate America', not only because America is rooted in the 'Rule of Law', but fits their theory that all 'Oppression' is caused by the powerful.
Not only is America the most powerful Nation in the world, but the rights Americans have, is predicated on the inalienable rights granted by the Creator - God.
Barack Obama and Liberals believe that not only is 'Man' the cause of all problems - 'Man' also can be the cure of all problems.
Some simple illustrations of that thinking, is 'Global Warming' and the 'War on Poverty'.
Barack Obama and Liberals think their Quest for Social Justice is so 'Noble and Pure' that it should NOT be questioned nor criticized.
Barack Obama's clarion call is that a true American Patriot should be willing to 'Sacrifice for the Common Good' - even if that means giving up your personally held values and property.
Capitalism has many forms
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 05:33 ET by Jack BauerYou see, there is your first false statement, upon which you build a false dichotomy supposedly contrasting socialism with capitalism.
Capitalism DOES NOT have many forms. A mixed economy is by definition NOT a "capitalist" economy. It is merely a form of collectivism with elements of a "free enterprise system" bolted on. It's one more step on the road to Totalitarian Collectivism.
Please read Ayn Rand, she explains in easy to understand language exactly how and why capitatism with NO "government" control is the only true expression of mans' liberty and freedom.
You fall into the trap of using the malignant Marxist mindset to describe capitalism. Sorry, but that doesn't really cut it.
You await "empirical data." Are you joking? Are you not paying attention.
Why do you feel the need to wait for someone to tell you something you can see by merly opening your eyes and looking at what Obama is presiding over. A massive Marxian expansion of a tyrannical collectivist ideology.
But you do sound like the sort of willing dupe the Marxists love to control. No offense, but I do object to people who sell out my liberty for their false comfort.
Back to The Dictionary
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 17:40 ET by KaleokualohaSorry to rain on your parade, but you need to return to Econ 101. According to dictionary.com:
cap⋅i⋅tal⋅ism /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Did you notice that it said "chiefly" and not "exclusively"?
" . . . capitatism with NO "government" control is the only true expression of mans' liberty and freedom."
While that may be true, it is unrealistic. It is economic anarchy, and will self-destruct quickly. Disagree? Has any such economy survived?
Supercilious Nitpicking
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 01:57 ET by nofateHere is the American Heritage Dictionary (online) definition of capitalism: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market"
Did you notice that it said neither "chiefly" nor "exclusively"?
Please notice that all definitions are from the online version of the American Heritage Dictionary.
Here is the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "supercilious": "Feeling or showing haughty disdain." Did you notice that it said "haughty disdain"?
Here is the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "haughty": "Scornfully and condescendingly proud." Did you notice the use of the word "scornfully"?
Here is the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "disdain": "A feeling or show of contempt and aloofness; scorn." Did you notice the use of the words "contempt" and "scorn"?
There's something else I wonder if you've noticed in your next comment following the "Back to The Dictionary" comment, i.e., Ayn Rand's first name is spelled "Ayn", not "Ann". Did you notice that the word "The" in the title of your comment is capitalized? I'm sure you are aware that "the" in a title is normally not capitalized if it is not the first word. We here at Newsbusters tend to overlook those sorts of things, as our fingers often get to moving faster than our mental spell and style checkers. Or had you not noticed that?
Just noticing.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Fate,
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 02:34 ET by HillbillyKingI'm givin ya 5 to1 odds that the first thing that's niggled is your choice of dictionary. ;-)
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Was Going to Say...
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 02:54 ET by nofateBut he got in afore me. Doesn't get it at all. Since I was here, thought I'd cover Jack's back a little. He tends to do alright for himself, though, mostly ;-)
"BTW, you don't know the way to Galt's Gulch do ya?"
No, but is it near Taggart's Hollow?
How's things in God's country? Did you get snowed in?
G'Night.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Supercilious Nitpicking
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 02:34 ET by KaleokualohaThanks for your supercilious nitpicking. I will probably continue to make typographical errors.
Dictionaries may differ as to the degree of government ownership within capitalist economies, but the fact remains that unregulated capitalism is an artificial construct that is unsustainable because it is economic anarchy. Can you provide ANY examples of an economy that has unregulated capitalism?
If not, doesn't it mean that all successful economies are part free enterprise and part collectivist (i.e. mixed economies")? None are pure capitalist or collectivist. As I originally posted, the only issue is finding the optimum point on the spectrum.
BTW: Do you seriously advocate an economy without regulatory agencies such as the FDA, FCC, DOE, and FAA?
Last Line
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 02:40 ET by nofateYes. And I hope Obama fails in his policies, too.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Damn Mr. Davis....
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 02:45 ET by HillbillyKingcouldn't you have put the dictionaries thing first. Now I gotta pay up. ;-)
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
False "False Dichotomy"
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 22:02 ET by Kaleokualoha"You see, there is your first false statement, upon which you build a false dichotomy supposedly contrasting socialism with capitalism."
Since you don't seem to have been paying attention, I did NOT build a false dichotomy with socialism and capitalism. In their pure forms, they are at opposite ends of a spectrum, with an unlimited number of possible combinations between them.
Both laissez faire capitalism and true communism are artificial constructs, as impossible to sustain as cold fusion. Every successful society requires private enterprise regulated by public policy, regardless of Ann Rand's fantasies. Extremists on either fringe are equally delusional.
Supercilious non Attention Payer
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 02:21 ET by nofate" Since you don't seem to have been paying attention, I did NOT build a false dichotomy with socialism and capitalism."
If you didn't build a false dichotomy, then you must have built a dichotomy, correct? That would mean that socialism and capitalism are divided, or two contradictory parts. And that is false. Socialism is a form of government. Capitalism is a type of economic system, at this time, normally contained within a republican form of government. Socialism does not allow for capitalism, because, by definition, all the means of production are either controlled or owned by the state and bureaucrats make all the economic decisions. Capitalism exists within the framework of a republican system of government because individuals are protected from the government and bureaucratic excess and are free to invest and risk capital according to the demands of the marketplace. A very scary proposition for a true progressivist of whatever stripe, socialist, nazi, communist, marxist, whatever. The problem with any progressivist government is that they tend toward oligarchy. Some- Lenin, Stalin, Hitler- more so than others- Bismark, Wilson, FDR. Obama???
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
"Dichotomy"
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 02:41 ET by Kaleokualoha"If you didn't build a false dichotomy, then you must have built a dichotomy, correct?"
No, not correct. Pure capitalism and Marxist socialism do not form a dichotomy. From Wikipedia:
"When two alternatives are presented, they are often, though not always, two extreme points on some spectrum of possibilities. This can lend credence to the larger argument by giving the impression that the options are mutually exclusive, even though they need not be. Furthermore, the options are typically presented as being collectively exhaustive, in which case the fallacy can be overcome, or at least weakened, by considering other possibilities, or perhaps by considering a whole spectrum of possibilities, as in fuzzy logic."
Helpful hint Mr. Davis...
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 02:56 ET by HillbillyKingthink twice about using Wikipedia as a reference when defending your contentions here at NB. Its track record as a reliable source is rather deficient.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Reference Material
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 05:00 ET by KaleokualohaWikipedia is fine for uncontroversial subjects. You will probably find similar entries in most reference sources.
But I'm still waiting for an example of an unregulated capitalistic society. Or do you agree that it is just a fantasy?
Nice try....
Wed, 03/11/2009 - 12:35 ET by HillbillyKingMr. Davis. However, since any response I provide will be measured against your previously stated definitions I refuse to provide answers to your leading questions.
Ah, if only Roberts Rules were applicable to NB wouldn't things be so much easier?
As an aside, was the Hegelian dialectic covered in depth in your deception analysis course?
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Read it again, please.
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 03:00 ET by nofate"No, not correct. Pure capitalism and Marxist socialism do not form a dichotomy."
That's what I said.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
I do not accept your false
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 05:31 ET by Jack BauerI do not accept your false premise that a "mixed economy" is "capitalist" It is not. You are laboring under a delusion, and the sophomoric effort to say "well my dictionary says..." is an utterly juvenile "debate" technique. Get a better dictionary.
Any subsequent "economic one Oh very wan," (about your level of drivel) arguments you make are therefore worthless, and a waste of time to address. Garbage in, garbage out.
I do not accept your further juvenile argument that unless a person says they are something, then they are not that something.
The evidence of Obama's socialism is well documented, starting with his stated collectivist/socialist desire to "spread the wealth." That is a socialist mindset. I would point out his grossly socialist plans to expand government interfernce to monstrous proportions, but the obvious seems to escape you.
Oh and I do not accept your usage of the "Marxian" analysis of economics as a useful tool. It is not.
Afternoon Jack
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 14:09 ET by nofateHK & I subbed a little for you last night. This is the first time I've run across this one, but I'm not here that much. He needs to do a little reading of the Gulag, but I'm afraid he's one of those that would say that The Black Book of Communism was a put-up job. BTW, have you seen Barack Obama and Alinsky's Rules for Psychopaths? Describes our troll to a "T".
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
"Capitalist Economy"
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 15:19 ET by KaleokualohaOnce again, I am still waiting for any example of a capitalist economy that is NOT a mixed economy. I believe it is a figment of your imagination, just as delusive as a communist utopia.
Is it fictional or real?
Narrow Or Broad
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 15:29 ET by KaleokualohaBTW: You can use either the broad or narrow definitions of capitalism and socialism, but it is intellectually dishonest to use the narrow definition of one and the broad definition of the other in a debate, and arrogant to expect others to condone such inconsistency.
The narrow definition excludes any aspects of the other that may exist in a mixed economy, while the broad definition includes such aspects. If you speak of capitalism in its pure state, then you should also spead of socialism in its pure state.
The choice is yours.
My, My, My
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 16:30 ET by nofate"The choice is yours"
That's choice, considering you've come to a site that is conservative by nature. You're offering us choices. Hey, Jack, don't the Brits call that "cheeky", i.e. "supercilious"? Maybe "ass" (2nd definition), i.e. "A vain, self-important, silly, or aggressively stupid person", would more correctly fit.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Choose!
Wed, 03/11/2009 - 01:25 ET by KaleokualohaDid you choose the narrow or broad definitions? If you insist on the narrow (unregulated) definition of capitalism, then the corresponding narrow (Marxist) definition of socialism excludes all free enterprise.
I'm still waiting for your example of a capitalist economy . . .
While you are evading questions, here are a few more to avoid. Using ANY one definition of "socialism," did the United States have a socialist economy in 1935? In 1975? In 2005? Last month?
Methinks you are pulling the Humpty Dumpty gambit one better. As you may recall, "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less'." Methinks you may be using a floating definition of "socialist" that changes as you see fit, and expect others to go along with each of your self-serving changes.
Recollections & Crayolas
Wed, 03/11/2009 - 19:54 ET by nofate"As you may recall, "When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less'.""
I do recall, only it was Bill Clinton who said that.
You might want to take a deep breath or two. We may have to take away your keyboard and give you crayons instead so you don't hurt yourself throwing all those socialist darts.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Tap-Dance
Wed, 03/11/2009 - 22:36 ET by KaleokualohaAh! So the tap-dance begins. All we need is a top hat and cane, and you'll resemble the dancing frog. There you have it, ladies and gentlemen: the epitome of right-wing fantasyland!
Now comes the test of integrity, as one discovers the internal inconsistency of his position. Does our protagonist have the scruples to step up to the plate and honestly examine his position, or will he continue to duck and weave, showering readers with red herrings (and crayolas), and pretending that he does not understand the questions?
I'm a Conservative, and I
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 18:45 ET by Clear thinkerI'm a Conservative, and I call comrade Obama a Communist. And yes, I have lot's of, what I consider proof, but this recent interview nails it for me...More Red Obama Connections
Making Fun of AGW http://giovanniworld.wordpress.com/
Geez, Clear!
Tue, 03/10/2009 - 02:32 ET by nofateWhere do you come up with these? Now I gotta find the one you put up showing the difference in forms of government. The best short explanation of types of government I've ever seen. I forgot to save it. Our supercilious friend just above that was attacking Jack needs to watch it.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Communism
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 14:49 ET by KaleokualohaYour link?
nofate: re your 'type of governments' video
Thu, 03/12/2009 - 19:28 ET by JerPM JWF...
I'm sure he still has the link. He insisted I watch it--it's about 10 minutes long--a couple of weeks ago at 5 a.m. before I could go to bed.
Jer
Gift for Obama
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 19:33 ET by BlueCat57I'm willing to chip in $5 to buy Obama a bust of Lenin or Marx. Heck if we get enough I'd say let's have a miniature Mt. Rushmore done up with Marx, Lenin, FDR and Obama on it. Or we could get bookends made with Ayers, Wright, Dorhn and that other guy on the other one.
Heck, NYT may want to check
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 19:53 ET by TN MomHeck, NYT may want to check out ABC's Stephanoupoulos comments:
The media’s drive for full-fledged socialism took a really wild turn on ABC’s "This Week with George Stephanopoulos." The former Clinton spokesman actually pressed ultraliberal Maxine Waters from the left, waving around an article by an economist named Nouriel Roubini insisting that we need to nationalize the banks: "Mr. Roubini and others say we're all Swedes now, that we should just do what they did when they faced their crisis. They nationalized the banks and they came out of it okay." We’re now not only socialists, we’re Swedish socialists.
from NB article: Newsweek, We're All Socialists Now
When will leftists ever learn?
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 21:31 ET by CrashConservatives don't imply that "Obama is a socialist" ... we come right out and say it! Obama is a socialist!!! Clear enough? Not to mention, the idea of "redistribution of wealth" is straight out of the communist manifesto.
Obama's Inner Free Market Conservative
Sun, 03/08/2009 - 22:42 ET by third eyeDeep, deep down in the depths of the socialist soul, hidden away and buried under years of frantic searching for the ultimate Che Guevara t shirt and listening to god awful lectures from choleric college professors with short trimmed beards on the evils of conformity, lies buried in the socialist unconscious what they hope will never, ever come to the surface -- their inner free market conservative.
For example, let’s take a look at Jimmy Carter's inner free market conservative. He does a pretty good job of repressing the damn thing, but it will occasionally pop up. Not for long, but just long enough to do some serious damage before it returns to its rightful position in the furthest reaches of his Zionist hating mind. Back in the day old Jimmy was handed a spending bill chock full of wasteful earmarks and pork which, in the vernacular of our times would be labeled as "bold and progressive” but left wing talking points hadn’t evolved that far in the late 1970s and it was probably billed as “for the children.” But Jimmy's inner free market conservative knew better and he tried to rescind earmarks on water and energy projects favored by influential senators. Naturally Carter being Carter, he didn’t consult anyone and made several new political enemies in the process, all for trying to save the nation a buck or two.
Let’s fast forward to 2009. Trillion dollar giveaways to Democratic special interest groups billed as stimulus, a pork laden spending bill and a campaign promise to cut down on earmarks from the current administration—the perfect storm to unleash Obama’s inner free market conservative. Now Democrats aren’t as experienced in worrying about fiscal responsibility as Republicans, but sooner or later that worry will start to express itself. And in anticipation, I just want to say -- think of all the money you could be spending with the increased revenue you will be receiving via tax cuts for those who already pay the most. Just think about it.
Marxist/Communist
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 00:37 ET by RR GOPMarxist/Communist actually.
One of the 24% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 89% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory.
Whatchoo Talkin' 'Bout, Willis?
Mon, 03/09/2009 - 19:26 ET by DoktorFrankenIn a reply to this headline:
'Some Conservatives Have Implied' Obama's a Socialist
I am reminded of the line used by Bruce Willis in the movie 'Die Hard' when he is using the CB radio to alert the police to the bad guys and the 911 Supervisor says, "Attention, whoever you are. This channel is reserved for emergency calls only."
And Willis replies, "No f__king sh_t, lady. Do I sound like I'm ordering a pizza?"
The bottom line is
Fri, 03/13/2009 - 02:15 ET by KaleokualohaThe bottom line is simple:
- If you consider any variation of a mixed economy, including ANY public ownership or regulation of industry to be "socialism," then the United States and ALL other economies are "socialist." The debate is over, because by that definition we have been "socialist" since the 18th century.
- If you only consider complete collectivism to be "socialism," according to Marxist theory, then no successful economy is actually "socialist." The closest to a Marxist socialist economy is the economic basket case, North Korea.
- If you consider socialism to occur at some other point on the spectrum between unregulated capitalism and Marxist socialism, then any such point would be arbitrary.
HA! ......
Sat, 03/14/2009 - 23:29 ET by HillbillyKingAnd now the bottom line is mine!!!!
(trepidation inspiring maniacal laughter slowly fades away....)
;-)
I'll posed this to you again Mr. Davis; was the hegelian dialectic part of the curriculum in that deception analysis course you graduated from?
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
HILLBILLYKING WROTE:
Mon, 03/16/2009 - 20:20 ET by KaleokualohaHILLBILLYKING WROTE: "I'll posed this to you again Mr. Davis; was the hegelian dialectic part of the curriculum in that deception analysis course you graduated from?"
RESPONSE: Have you "posed this" to me before? But to answer your question, not that I recall. But it was in 1989.
BTW: Do you know of any truly capitalist economies?
Thanks Mr. Davis...
Tue, 03/17/2009 - 12:24 ET by HillbillyKingfor the reply. I had posed the question before, but with the volume of responses in this thread things tend to get garbled.
So now to this, NO I do not, by your definition, know of ANY capitalistic economies. They are ALL indeed, mixed economies. You're completely correct in your statement that absolute capitalistic or socialistic economies are fantasies.
See, I'll go so far as to say that by YOUR definitions Mr. Davis, you are correct. On the other hand, by OTHERS definitions you are incorrect Mr. Davis. As usual, how the arguement is defined makes ALL the difference.
It is imho, that the USA is moving towards a MORE socialistic economy under President Obama, rather than a LESS socialistic economy. Or, we are becoming LESS of a capitalistic economy under President Obama, rather than a MORE capitalistic economy under his leadership. I suppose in your vernacular Mr. Davis, we are removing portions of C from the mixed economy and replacing them with a greater portion of S.
Regardless of the nomenclature employed, the end result is a loss of freedom.
As an aside: I respect the way that you went after those smear merchants about your Dad. Character assassination is one of the most intellectually dishonest, vile and corrupt "methods" of debate. Realistically, once that method is utilized one is simply admitting the groundless position of one's own stance.
If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you.
Don Marquis 1878-1937
Thank YOU Sir!
Tue, 03/17/2009 - 20:45 ET by KaleokualohaAs a matter of fact it wasn't me, but nofate, who seems to believe that the only capitalist economy is pure and unregulated. My original point was that mixed economies exist on a spectrum with fatally flawed pure capitalism at one extreme, and fatally flawed pure socialism at the other extreme. Every successful economy is a mixture of the two.
Therefore, I agree with your assessment that "the USA is moving towards a MORE socialistic economy under President Obama, rather than a LESS socialistic economy. Or, we are becoming LESS of a capitalistic economy under President Obama, rather than a MORE capitalistic economy under his leadership."
Thanks for your kind words regarding my defense of my father. He wasn't a saint, and there are numerous things for which he deserved criticism. The disinformation campaigners, however, felt that fabricating evidence was the easiest way to smear Obama, because they couldn't imagine that anyone would care enough to debunk their falsehoods regarding Frank Marshall Davis.
Coda
Wed, 03/18/2009 - 01:59 ET by nofate"As a matter of fact it wasn't me, but nofate, who seems to believe that the only capitalist economy is pure and unregulated."
I've just re-read the entire thread in light of recent discussion between you and HK. Don't believe I've ever said that. If you can show me where I did, then I will have to say here that that is obviously too restrictive. You seem to be really insistent that we show you examples of pure capitalism, but I don't see you taking the first step and showing us any examples of pure socialism or communism. In my mind, the closest would have to be the old Soviet experiment or the Maoist regime, both of which killed millions in order to achieve the "utopia" of the psychopathic leaders of those regimes. But even those are not "pure" as they were more oligopolies. There were a few ruling elites who had privileges out of all proportion to those of the "workers". While ours is not and never has been a perfect example of "capitalism", it is, in my mind, a much better alternative to something like we see evolving in Venezuela or what came out of the revolution in Cuba. Unfortunately, what I see evolving around Obama is an authoritarian style of governing that you and the other Obamites were so afraid was what George Bush was doing. We have Obama, Pelosi and Reid pushing legislation through that has neither been read nor debated. Schumer got up today and threatened to take the bonuses away from the AIG recipients if they did not give it back to the "taxpayers". As if any of us are going to see a dime of it. AIG was a bunch of slugs for allowing a great company to be run into the ground like that, but the politicians are posturing politically in order to CYA. Schumer aside, Frank, Dodd, Raines, and a few others ought to be the ones being pilloried, not the executives of banks and other industries that don't produce what Obama and team don't like. If all this is moving toward capitalism, well, I don't see it. The more regulation, the less freedom. Words to fear: "Hello, I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
As for your father, if my dad were gone after in a way that I thought was unfair, I would try to set the record straight too. That being said, if what you say is true, why do you put it up on an Obama website? That puzzles me. Also, if you are as experienced as you say in detecting and exposing disinformation, that also means you are probably just as capable of spreading it, so how is a regular guy out here with only the media (both sides) as a resource supposed to make a decision? What little I have been able to read that came from your father did reveal at the least a sympathy towards communism. "One of Mr. Davis' comments on the case was as follows: “I feel strong sympathy for the Communist minority who are being oppressed for their political beliefs.” (Honolulu Record, October 20, 1949, p. 6). How far that went- I have no way of ever knowing for sure.
Leaving him out of the equation though, still paints a very poor picture for Obama, for me. Known associations: Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Pfleger, Bernadine Dorn, Tony Rezko, The New Party, and ACORN, to name just a few that I can come up with off the top of my head. Obama and associates are not a collection of normal everyday America loving republicans (in the governing, not the party sense). These are not people dedicated to continuing the vision of the founders. Instead they have big chips on their shoulders and are dedicated to their vision of "social justice", which, as far as I can tell, is socialism or at the least, statism, heading toward socialism, far beyond anything you accuse Bush et al of doing.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Two Issues
Wed, 03/18/2009 - 21:10 ET by KaleokualohaISSUE #1: Who said what?
Jack Bauer posted on March 9:
[quote]
You see, there is your first false statement, upon which you build a false dichotomy supposedly contrasting socialism with capitalism.
Capitalism DOES NOT have many forms. A mixed economy is by definition NOT a "capitalist" economy. It is merely a form of collectivism with elements of a "free enterprise system" bolted on. It's one more step on the road to Totalitarian Collectivism.
Please read Ayn Rand, she explains in easy to understand language exactly how and why capitatism with NO "government" control is the only true expression of mans' liberty and freedom.
[end quote]
So it was Jack Bauer who seems to believe that a mixed economy is not capitalist.
I posted on March 9:
[quote]
cap⋅i⋅tal⋅ism /ˈkæpɪtlˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kap-i-tl-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, esp. as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
Did you notice that it said "chiefly" and not "exclusively"?
[end quote]
My posted definition challenged Jack Bauer's claim, indicating that a mixed economy is part capitalist.
Nofate challenged my posted definition on March 10:
[quote]
Here is the American Heritage Dictionary (online) definition of capitalism: "An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately or corporately owned and development is proportionate to the accumulation and reinvestment of profits gained in a free market"
Did you notice that it said neither "chiefly" nor "exclusively"?
[end quote]
Nofate's definition seems to support Jack Bauer's purist definition of capitalist. I apologize for conflating Jack Bauer and nofate into one voice. The bottom line is that neither a pure capitalist nor a pure socialist economy can survive. The only successful economy is one with partly capitalist and partly socialist characteristics.
ISSUE #2: My Father.
Nofate asks "if what you say is true, why do you put it up on an Obama website? That puzzles me."
RESPONSE: I put it up on Obama's website for a number of reasons. Obama, not my father, was the real target in this disinformation campaign. As a family friend, it is my obligation to defend him along with my father. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Nofate asks: " Also, if you are as experienced as you say in detecting and exposing disinformation, that also means you are probably just as capable of spreading it, so how is a regular guy out here with only the media (both sides) as a resource supposed to make a decision?"
RESPONSE: Simple - follow the evidence.
a. The case of the Honolulu NAACP, as testified to Congress by board member Edward Berman and deliberately misrepresented by "Accuracy In Media," is the epitome of their disinformation. AIM provides a photocopy of the actually Congressional record of Berman's testimony, then AIM falsifies his testimony in at least four different AIM posts. Please read http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gG5kN7 for a closer examination. The evidence of misrepresentation is irrefutable.
b. The claim that Davis was a "lifelong member of the CPUSA": One of AIM's partners in disinformation, Bill Steigerwald, associate editor of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, fabricated this falsehood for a 7 June 2008 "interview" with AIM's editor Cliff Kincaid. When asked to substantiate his claim, Steigerwald stonewalls. Why don't you email Steigerwald yourself to ask about his source" Complete information is at http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Kaleokualoha/gGxyg3
Nofate posted "What little I have been able to read that came from your father did reveal at the least a sympathy towards communism."
RESPONSE: Actually, he had more sympathy for communists (people) than for communism (ideology), because communists were helping him fight Jim Crow. He commented to the effect that he would make an ally of the Devil himself if it would help him fight Jim Crow.
K
Thu, 03/19/2009 - 09:56 ET by nofateA lot to think about. But I have a couple of quick thoughts- I'm half awake, just got done working a 15 hr. shift, so please bear with me if I wander.
1. Capitalism vs. socialism- I would agree that neither is "pure", but I still think that of the two, the more desireable of the two would be a capitalistic economic form within a republican form of government. If I have understood my reading correctly, socialism is consedered to be the natural progression to capitalism with communism being the next progression, i.e. the "purer" form of socialism. Fine and dandy. But consider the French revolution. "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity" were the watchwords, the emotional appeal that brought the nation to the fight for liberty. But the liberty, equality and fraternity promised were elusive in France. F.A. Hayek writes:
There follows, a footnote giving the Saint-Simon quote, as follows:
As we all know, the revolution sparked on the ideals of liberty, equality, fraternity devolved into an out of control bloodletting and establishment of an authoritarian oligarchy. The same scenario has played out over the last century in Russia, Italy, Germany, China, North Korea, Viet Nam, Cambodia, and recently Burma. Where are the oppurtunities for the "working" man to advance himself through his own efforts in such systems? The working man is forced to go and do what is required by the state.
On the other hand, out of the same spirit of liberty, equality, fraternity, the United States was conceived as a system of laws that, theoretically, would be applied equally and allow each man to advance as his intelligence, and efforts allowed. There was no guarantee of equality of outcomes, but a guarantee in law of equality of opportunity. No bloodbath, no authoritarian figurehead, although it could have gone that way if Washington had allowed himself to be crowned king, as some wanted to do. Anyway, that last, "equality of opportunity", brings me to point number
2. "Actually, he had more sympathy for communists (people) than for communism (ideology), because communists were helping him fight Jim Crow. He commented to the effect that he would make an ally of the Devil himself if it would help him fight Jim Crow."
Jim Crow was an evil system because it made a mockery of the ideal of equality of opportunity. But I have a problem with anyone of any race or economic station allowing themselves to be used by socialist/communist elements that appear to be helping, but in which the end product is further enslavement of the human spirit. I realize that is a loaded term in the current environment, but I am thinking of the fact that slavery has been practiced all through history on all races, in nearly every society on earth at some time. I just think that the promise of equality of outcomes, or "social justice" is an elusive term hiding the true agenda of those promoting it, whether they call themselves socialists, communists, progressives, nazis, fascists, islamists, or whatever.
This country is a shining example of what can be achieved when the ideal of equality of opportunity is applied. It has not been applied perfectly, that is unarguable. But the long term impetus is to move the concept forward. My fear is that Obama and associates are turning the whole thing on its head and purposely overwhelming the social "safety net" in order to create a dependence on government and those in power, instead of relying on the collective efforts of free individuals joined by the idea that they could achieve their goals through their own efforts if they so desired. And the desire to protect that freedom to choose, if threatened by outside forces.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Great Post!
Fri, 03/20/2009 - 01:24 ET by KaleokualohaThat was a great post, Nofate! I believe we may have more in common than initially met the eye. I particularly liked the comment about "socialist/communist elements that appear to be helping, but in which the end product is further enslavement of the human spirit." It is truly unfortunate that most people were totally unaware of the heinous nature of the Soviet Union.
Without that knowledge, many people willingly joined the CPUSA while fully accepting the core Marxist principle of collectivism. Others, however, joined for different reasons.
For those who question whether anyone would join the CPUSA without internalizing collectivist values, examples abound in more recent developments. Russians and Chinese joined their respective Communist parties because membership was important to professional advancement. Mikhail Gorbachev, the highest member of the Soviet Communist Party, rejected these values in dismantling the Soviet Union. Leaders of the PRC's capitalist boom are nevertheless pro forma Party members.
In many countries, joining a church is like joining a political party. Within Western countries countless people join churches without internalizing their values, while many even join the YMCA because membership has its privileges.
The Goldilocks Test
Sat, 03/21/2009 - 01:10 ET by KaleokualohaI just thought of another analogy. Please let me know if you think it's appropriate:
Government regulation is like body fat. Either too much or too little can be lethal. The normal tendency is to add layers with age. The challenge is to find the level that will produce the optimum outcome, all things considered.
K
Sat, 03/21/2009 - 01:44 ET by nofateI agree with your analogy up to a point. This part is certainly true:
"The normal tendency is to add layers with age."
I think we started adding layers rapidly after the turn of the 20th century with TR's regulatory zeal, followed by that of Wilson, both wildly progressive types. There have been some slowdowns since, but the trend, especially with FDR and Johnson was to add more and more layers of bureaucratic regulation. Now it seems it has gone into overdrive. In order to support the regulators, taxes have to be inordinately increased. We really are starting to resemble a world where, in order to accomplish anything, you must first get a permit. We pillory businesses for outsourcing, but what choice do they have when their taxes are eating them alive? And now we are going to start "cap and trade" based on an unproven possibility of "manmade" global warming.
Estonia. You know what is amazing about Estonia, and why they are getting businesses to relocate and headquarter there? The marginal tax rate is 0%! If Obama and team would just drop the tax rate, this economy would recover almost overnight. But that is wishful thinking.
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com
Homework
Sun, 03/15/2009 - 03:07 ET by nofateWatch this (h/t Clear Thinker) and report back. Don't forget your crayons ;-)
I think it's one of the best short explanations of various forms of government I've ever seen. How 'bout you?
"The future is not set. There is no fate but what we make for ourselves."
michaelyon-online.com