Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Why Obama is a Socialist

JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 8:59:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Article by Stanley Kurtz:

"On the afternoon of April 1, 1983, Barack Obama, then a senior at Columbia University, made his way into the Great Hall of Manhattan's Cooper Union to attend a "Socialist Scholars Conference." There Obama discovered his vocation as a community organizer, as well as a political program to guide him throughout his life.

The conference itself was not a secret, but it held a secret, for it was there that a demoralized and frustrated socialist movement largely set aside strategies of nationalization and turned increasingly to local organizing as a way around the Reagan presidency — and its own spotty reputation. In the early 1980s, America's socialists discovered what Saul Alinsky had always known: "Community organizing" is a euphemism behind which advocates of a radical vision of America could advance their cause without the bothersome label "socialist" drawing adverse attention to their efforts.

Advertisement

A loose accusation of his being a socialist has trailed Obama for years, but without real evidence that he saw himself as part of this radical tradition. But the evidence exists, if not in plain sight then in the archives — for example, the archived files of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which include Obama's name on a conference registration list. That, along with some misleading admissions in the president's memoir, Dreams from My Father, makes it clear that Obama attended the 1983 and 1984 Socialist Scholars conferences, and quite possibly the 1985 conclave as well. A detailed account of these conferences (along with many other events from Obama's radical past) and the evidence for Obama's attendance at them can be found in my new book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.

The 1983 Cooper Union Conference, billed as a tribute to Marx, was precisely when Obama discovered his vocation for community organizing. Obama's account of his turn to community organizing doesn't add up. He portrays it as a mere impulse based on little actual knowledge. But that impulse saw Obama through two years of failed job searches. Clearly he had a deeper motivation. The evidence suggests he found it at the Socialist Scholars conferences, where he encountered the entrancing double idea that America could be transformed by a kind of undercover socialism, and that African Americans would be the key figures in advancing community organizing.

The 1983 conference took place in the shadow of Harold Washington's first race for mayor of Chicago. Washington was not only Obama's political idol, he was the darling of America's socialists in the mid-1980s. Washington assembled a "rainbow" coalition of blacks, Hispanics, and left-leaning whites to overturn the power of Chicago's centrist Democratic machine. Washington worked eagerly and openly with Chicago's small but influential contingent of socialists, many of whom brought the community organizations and labor unions they led onto the Washington bandwagon.

America's socialists saw the Harold Washington campaign as a model for their ultimate goal of pushing the Democrats to the left by polarizing the country along class lines. This socialist "realignment" strategy envisioned driving business interests out of a newly radicalized Democratic party. The loss was to be more than made up for through a newly energized coalition of poor and minority voters, led by minority politicians on the model of Harold Washington. The new coalitions would draw on the open or quiet direction of socialist community organizers, from whose ranks new Harold Washingtons would emerge. Groups like ACORN and Project Vote would swell the Democrats with poor and minority voters and, with the country divided by class, socialism would emerge as the natural ideology of the have-nots.

Figures pushing this broader strategy at the 1983 Socialist Scholars Conference included ACORN adviser Frances Fox Piven and organizing theorist Peter Dreier, now a professor at Occidental College and an adviser to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. That is to say, Obama's connection to socialist ideologues didn't end with his recruitment into the ranks of community organizers. It began there and blossomed into a quarter century of intricate relationships with both on-the-record and in-all-but-name socialists. I've spent the last two years in the archives unraveling the connections. Here are a few.

By the mid-1980s, James Cone, Jeremiah Wright's theological mentor, had struck up a close cooperative relationship with the DSA. Cone and a prominent follower spoke at the conferences Obama attended. Shortly after the 1984 conference, Cone joined Reverend Wright in Cuba, where they expressed support for the Cuban social system as a model for the United States. Wright touted his Cuba trips to his congregation for years. Obama would have quickly discovered Wright's ties to the liberation theologians he'd first learned of at the Socialist Scholars conferences. The connection helps explain Obama's choice of Wright as his pastor.

Advertisement

A little-known Chicago training institute for community organizers, the Midwest Academy, is in many ways the key to Barack Obama's political rise. The Midwest Academy was closely allied to the DSA, which sponsored the Socialist Scholars conferences in New York. Most Midwest Academy leaders remained quiet about their socialism. Inspired by the success of the American Communist "Popular Front," and by 19th-century American reformers who used populist and communitarian language to achieve socialist ends through incremental legislative means, the Midwest Academy's leaders advocated a strategy of stealth.

In the '70s and '80s, theory was put into action in a series of "populist" coalitions quietly controlled by the socialist leadership of the Midwest Academy and the DSA. The Citizen/Labor Energy Coalition, for example, fought a series of legislative battles against oil and gas companies. Its signature proposal was its call for a public energy corporation to "compete" with private companies.

Officials from the Midwest Academy network trained Obama, supplied him with funds, and got him appointed head of Illinois Project Vote. Years later, Obama sent foundation money to the Midwest Academy. Barack and Michelle Obama ran a project called "Public Allies" that was effectively an extension of the Midwest Academy. Alice Palmer, the Illinois state senator who chose Obama as her successor, was once a high official in the Midwest Academy network. Several Midwest Academy leaders advised Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. Academy founder Heather Booth is now a key figure in coordinating grassroots support for the president's budget, health-care, and financial-reform plans.

The leaders of the Midwest Academy were eager to avoid public exposure of their socialism. Yet they trusted Obama enough to put him on the board of their satellite organization, Chicago Public Allies, and to succeed one of their own as state senator.

As I detail at length in Radical-in-Chief, deceptions and glaring omissions about his radical past reach far beyond Obama's involvement with the Socialist Scholars conferences and the Midwest Academy. Archival documents reveal that Obama lied during the 2008 campaign about his ties to ACORN. New evidence confirms that Obama has hidden the truth about his relationships to Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers. The unknown story of Obama's deep involvement with a radical group called UNO of Chicago is revealed. The claims of candidate Obama and his mentors that he shunned Saul Alinsky's confrontational tactics turn out to be a sugary fairy tale. The obfuscating techniques of Obama's memoir, Dreams from My Father, are exposed.

Continued below.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:00:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The pattern of misdirection upon which President Obama's political career has been built has its roots in the socialist background of community organizing. ACORN, Reverend Wright, and Bill Ayers were all routes into that hidden socialist world, and that is why Obama has had to obscure the truth about these and other elements of his past. More important, the president's socialist past is still very much alive in the governing philosophy and long-term political strategy of the Obama administration.

As we move into the first national election of the Obama presidency, Americans are confronted with a fateful choice. Either we will continue to be subject to President Obama's radical and only very partially revealed plans for our future, or we will place a strong check on the president's ambitions. Knowing the truth about Obama's past is the best way to safeguard our future."

http://www.nationalreview.com...
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:23:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
NYTimes Webpage:

Subscribe: Digital / Home Delivery Log In Register Now Help HOME PAGETODAY'S PAPERVIDEOMOST POPULARU.S. Edition

Search Opinion

WORLD U.S. N.Y. / REGION BUSINESS TECHNOLOGY SCIENCE HEALTH SPORTS OPINION ARTS STYLE TRAVEL JOBS REAL ESTATE AUTOS

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Obama the Socialist? Not Even Close
By MILOS FORMAN
Published: July 10, 2012 378 Comments
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
E-MAIL
SHARE
PRINT
REPRINTS

Warren, Conn.

Connect With Us on Twitter
For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.
Readers' Comments
Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
Read All Comments (378) »
WHEN I was asked to direct "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," my friends warned me not to go anywhere near it.

The story is so American, they argued, that I, an immigrant fresh off the boat, could not do it justice. They were surprised when I explained why I wanted to make the film. To me it was not just literature but real life, the life I lived in Czechoslovakia from my birth in 1932 until 1968. The Communist Party was my Nurse Ratched, telling me what I could and could not do; what I was or was not allowed to say; where I was and was not allowed to go; even who I was and was not.

Now, years later, I hear the word "socialist" being tossed around by the likes of Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and others. President Obama, they warn, is a socialist. The critics cry, "Obamacare is socialism!" They falsely equate Western European-style socialism, and its government provision of social insurance and health care, with Marxist-Leninist totalitarianism. It offends me, and cheapens the experience of millions who lived, and continue to live, under brutal forms of socialism.

My sister-in-law's father, Jan Kunasek, lived in Czechoslovakia all his life. He was a middle-class man who ran a tiny inn in a tiny village. One winter night in 1972, during a blizzard, a man, soaked to the bone, awakened him at 2 in the morning. The man looked destitute and, while asking for shelter, couldn't stop cursing the Communists. Taking pity, the elderly Mr. Kunasek put him up for the night.

A couple of hours later, Mr. Kunasek was awakened again, this time by three plainclothes policemen. He was arrested, accused of sheltering a terrorist and sentenced to several years of hard labor in uranium mines. The state seized his property. When he was finally released, ill and penniless, he died within a few weeks. Years later we learned that the night visitor had been working for the police. According to the Communists, Mr. Kunasek was a class enemy and deserved to be punished.

I found myself in an equally absurd, but less depressing, situation when I was moonlighting on Czech TV as a moderator, introducing movies, in the early '50s. It was live, so there was no chance to bleep politically undesirable words. Every utterance, even in supposedly spontaneous interviews, had to be scripted, approved by the censors, learned by heart and repeated verbatim on the air.

When I was preparing to interview one Comrade Homola, a powerful Communist, I sent him questions, but didn't receive his answers. My boss, also a powerful party member, told me: "He is lazy! Write his answers for him, and remind him to learn them by heart." So I did.

Comrade Homola arrived at the last moment. When the red light went on and I asked the first question, he reached into his pocket, took out my answers and started to read them, awkwardly and obediently — including my inadvertent grammatical mistakes. And thus, to my consternation, went the whole interview. In the control booth, my boss hit the roof. I was fired the next day for ridiculing a representative of the state.

Whatever his faults, I don't see much of a socialist in Mr. Obama or, thankfully, signs of that system in this great nation. Mr. Obama is accused of trying to expand the reach of government — into health care, financial regulation, the auto industry and so on. It's fair to question whether the federal government should have expanded powers: America, to its credit, has debated this since its birth. But let's be clear about how frightening socialism actually could be.

Marx believed that we could wipe out social inequities and Lenin tested those ideas on the Soviet Union. It was his dream to create a classless society. But reality set in, as it always does. And the results were devastating. Blood flowed through Russia's streets. The Soviet elite usurped all privileges; sycophants were allowed some and the plebes none. The entire Eastern bloc, including Czechoslovakia, followed miserably.

I'm not sure Americans today appreciate quite how predatory socialism was. It was not — as Mr. Obama's detractors suggest — merely a government so centralized and bloated that it hobbled private enterprise: it was a spoils system that killed off everything, all in the name of "social justice."

What we need is not to strive for a perfect social justice — which never existed and never will — but for social harmony. Harmony in music is, by its nature, exhilarating and soothing. In an orchestra, the different players and instruments perform together, in support of an overall melody.

Today, our democracy, a miraculous gathering of diverse players, desperately needs such unity. If all participants play fair and strive for the common good, we can achieve a harmony that eluded the doctrinaire socialist projects. But if just one section, or even one player, is out of tune, the music will disintegrate into cacophony.

I am not asking Mr. Obama and the Republican leaders to stop playing instruments of their choosing. All I am asking is that every player keep in mind the noble melody of our country. Otherwise the noisy dissonance might become loud enough to wake another Marx, or even worse.

Milos Forman won Academy Awards for best director for the films "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" and "Amadeus."
A version of this op-ed appeared in print on July 11, 2012, on page A25 of the New York edition with the headline: Obama the Socialist? Not Even Close.
FACEBOOK
TWITTER
GOOGLE+
E-MAIL
SHARE
Get 50% Off The New York Times & Free All Digital Access.
378 Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
ALLREADER PICKSNYT PICKS
Newest
Comments Closed

Get Free E-mail Alerts on These Topics

Socialism (Theory and Philosophy)Obama, Barack
Presidential Election of 2012Czechoslovakia
Ads by Googlewhat's this?
250 Business Cards - $10
New Thicker Stock!
Plus, Free Shipping.
www.vistaprint.com
Log In With Facebook
Log in to see what your friends are sharing on nytimes.com. Privacy Policy | What's This?
What's Popular Now

Pakistan's Imran Khan Must be Doing Something Right

Ecuador Grants Julian Assange Asylum
Advertise on NYTimes.com

MOST E-MAILEDRECOMMENDED FOR YOU
1.
STATE OF THE ART
A Tablet Straining To Do It All
2.
Romney Says He Paid at Least 13% in Income Taxes
3.
Long-Term Jobless Regroup to Fight the Odds
4.
ECONOMIC SCENE
America's Aversion to Taxes
5.
Job Losses Persist for the Less-Educated
6.
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR
Paul Ryan's Fairy-Tale Budget Plan
7.
THE CAUCUS
Romney Says 'I've Paid at Least 13%' in Taxes in Past Decade
8.
CITY ROOM
City's Unemployment Rate Remains at 10 Percent
9.
Jobless Claims Inch Higher, But It's Not All Bad News
10.
THE CAUCUS
Tax Analysts, Responding to Critics, Reaffirm Findings on Romney Plan
Log in to discover more articles
based on what you‘ve read.PRESENTED BY

What's This? | Don't Show

Fall trends
ALSO IN T MAGAZINE »
The Daily Shoe: Valentino Garavani
The Daily Shoe: Walter Steiger

Ads by Googlewhat's this?
Secured Credit Cards
Apply For Secured Credit Cards Now!
Compare & Apply- Fast, Easy, Secure
CreditCards.org/Secured-Cards

INSIDE NYTIMES.COM

ART & DESIGN »
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:23:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The drought represents an opportunity to reimagine how we manage, use and even think about water.
TRAVEL »

36 Hours in Johannesburg
OPINION »

Should the Capital Gains Tax Be Eliminated?
TELEVISION »

Fighting Crime in an Older, Dirtier Manhattan
ART & DESIGN »

Ancient Havens of Reflection and Renewal
T MAGAZINE »

Cold Feat
MUSIC »

How Hollywood Films Are Killing Opera
OPINION »

Reality Is Flat. (Or Is It?)
Adopting the reductionism that equates humans with other animals has a serious downside: it wipes out the meaning of your own life.
MAGAZINE »

What Does Obama Really Believe In?
OPINION »

Op-Art: On This Date in Future History
Home World U.S. N.Y. / Region Business Technology Science Health Sports Opinion Arts Style Travel Jobs Real Estate Autos Site Map
© 2012 The New York Times Company Privacy Your Ad Choices Terms of Service Terms of Sale Corrections RSS Help Contact Us Work With Us Advertise

http://www.nytimes.com...
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:25:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"He portrays it as a mere impulse based on little actual knowledge. But that impulse saw Obama through two years of failed job searches. Clearly he had a deeper motivation. The evidence suggests he found it at the Socialist Scholars conferences, where he encountered the entrancing double idea that America could be transformed by a kind of undercover socialism, and that African Americans would be the key figures in advancing community organizing."

Ok im gonna stop reading right there.

At this point the only way this could possibly be known is if he was actually inside Obama's head when these things happened. However the references to "transforming America to undercover socialism" and "African Americans would be key figures in advancing community organizing" makes this all seem like any other conspiracy theory dreamed up by Geo....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:26:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
JR,

Interesting article. Doesn't refute anything though.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:27:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:25:42 PM, imabench wrote:
"He portrays it as a mere impulse based on little actual knowledge. But that impulse saw Obama through two years of failed job searches. Clearly he had a deeper motivation. The evidence suggests he found it at the Socialist Scholars conferences, where he encountered the entrancing double idea that America could be transformed by a kind of undercover socialism, and that African Americans would be the key figures in advancing community organizing."

Ok im gonna stop reading right there.

At this point the only way this could possibly be known is if he was actually inside Obama's head when these things happened. However the references to "transforming America to undercover socialism" and "African Americans would be key figures in advancing community organizing" makes this all seem like any other conspiracy theory dreamed up by Geo....

It's not.

But, if you aren't gonna read it, that's fine.

But, you can't accuse me of not offering evidence if you refuse to read the evidence I offer.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:27:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:26:14 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
JR,

Interesting article. Doesn't refute anything though.

JM,

Interesting article. Doesn't prove anything though.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:28:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:27:22 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:25:42 PM, imabench wrote:
"He portrays it as a mere impulse based on little actual knowledge. But that impulse saw Obama through two years of failed job searches. Clearly he had a deeper motivation. The evidence suggests he found it at the Socialist Scholars conferences, where he encountered the entrancing double idea that America could be transformed by a kind of undercover socialism, and that African Americans would be the key figures in advancing community organizing."

Ok im gonna stop reading right there.

At this point the only way this could possibly be known is if he was actually inside Obama's head when these things happened. However the references to "transforming America to undercover socialism" and "African Americans would be key figures in advancing community organizing" makes this all seem like any other conspiracy theory dreamed up by Geo....


It's not.

But, if you aren't gonna read it, that's fine.

But, you can't accuse me of not offering evidence if you refuse to read the evidence I offer.

There you go again, taking credit for someone else's work.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:29:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:27:59 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:26:14 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
JR,

Interesting article. Doesn't refute anything though.

JM,

Interesting article. Doesn't prove anything though.

Not definitively.

But, there is a lot more evidence that Obama was a socialist than there is that he wasn't.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:29:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
JM,

Obama is not a Socialist.

My evidence: Every article, blog post, book, and forum post that says as much.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:29:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:29:10 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:27:59 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:26:14 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
JR,

Interesting article. Doesn't refute anything though.

JM,

Interesting article. Doesn't prove anything though.


Not definitively.

But, there is a lot more evidence that Obama was a socialist than there is that he wasn't.

What would hypothetically count as evidence that Obama is not a socialist?
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:30:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:29:10 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:27:59 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:26:14 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
JR,

Interesting article. Doesn't refute anything though.

JM,

Interesting article. Doesn't prove anything though.


Not definitively.

But, there is a lot more evidence that Obama was a socialist than there is that he wasn't.

Oh, I see. Obama is/was (not definitively) a Socialist.

You should make a new thread with the correct title.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:31:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 8:59:45 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
Article by Stanley Kurtz:

"On the afternoon of April 1, 1983, Barack Obama, then a senior at Columbia University, made his way into the Great Hall of Manhattan's Cooper Union to attend a "Socialist Scholars Conference." There Obama discovered his vocation as a community organizer, as well as a political program to guide him throughout his life.

The conference itself was not a secret, but it held a secret, for it was there that a demoralized and frustrated socialist movement largely set aside strategies of nationalization and turned increasingly to local organizing as a way around the Reagan presidency — and its own spotty reputation. In the early 1980s, America's socialists discovered what Saul Alinsky had always known: "Community organizing" is a euphemism behind which advocates of a radical vision of America could advance their cause without the bothersome label "socialist" drawing adverse attention to their efforts.

Bare assertion fallacy.

Advertisement

Cool copy paste fail, bro.

A loose accusation of his being a socialist has trailed Obama for years, but without real evidence that he saw himself as part of this radical tradition. But the evidence exists, if not in plain sight then in the archives — for example, the archived files of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), which include Obama's name on a conference registration list.

Having your name on the DSA registration list does not make you a radical socialist. It means you attended a meeting. Did you know that I'm a member of Mises, Revleft, and Stormfront? I must be an AnCap Commie Fascist!

That, along with some misleading admissions in the president's memoir, Dreams from My Father, makes it clear that Obama attended the 1983 and 1984 Socialist Scholars conferences, and quite possibly the 1985 conclave as well.

Such as?

A detailed account of these conferences (along with many other events from Obama's radical past) and the evidence for Obama's attendance at them can be found in my new book, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.

Please present evidence rather than "give me money and I'll tell you."


The 1983 Cooper Union Conference, billed as a tribute to Marx, was precisely when Obama discovered his vocation for community organizing. Obama's account of his turn to community organizing doesn't add up. He portrays it as a mere impulse based on little actual knowledge. But that impulse saw Obama through two years of failed job searches. Clearly he had a deeper motivation. THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS he found it at the Socialist Scholars conferences, where he encountered the entrancing double idea that America could be transformed by a kind of undercover socialism, and that African Americans would be the key figures in advancing community organizing.

Again, what evidence? This is all Bare Assertion.


The 1983 conference took place in the shadow of Harold Washington's first race for mayor of Chicago. Washington was not only Obama's political idol, he was the darling of America's socialists in the mid-1980s. Washington assembled a "rainbow" coalition of blacks, Hispanics, and left-leaning whites to overturn the power of Chicago's centrist Democratic machine. Washington worked eagerly and openly with Chicago's small but influential contingent of socialists, many of whom brought the community organizations and labor unions they led onto the Washington bandwagon.

Cool revisionism bro. Washington's tenure as Mayor of Chicago was characterized by race, not politics (blacks vs white on the redistricting that would essentially kill the black vote). Of course, some people consider fighting against racism as "extreme socialism" but whatever.

America's socialists saw the Harold Washington campaign as a model for their ultimate goal of pushing the Democrats to the left by polarizing the country along class lines. This socialist "realignment" strategy envisioned driving business interests out of a newly radicalized Democratic party. The loss was to be more than made up for through a newly energized coalition of poor and minority voters, led by minority politicians on the model of Harold Washington.

You mean the minority blacks (that were 40% of the city population) compared to the majority whites (that were also 40% of the city population)? Where the blacks were represented with 32% of the city council and the whites with 66% (Hispanics had 1 of 50, only 2%, despite having 15% population). But in itself is nothing wrong, however the city council was trying to redistrict the city to make it so fewer blacks would be elected.

Of course, after the rezoning was undone, and the leader of the eddies lost his re-election, several members actually came forward admitted that they were pressured against voting for things they supported, just to undermine Washington.

The new coalitions would draw on the open or quiet direction of socialist community organizers, from whose ranks new Harold Washingtons would emerge. Groups like ACORN and Project Vote would swell the Democrats with poor and minority voters and, with the country divided by class, socialism would emerge as the natural ideology of the have-nots.

Bare Assertion


Figures pushing this broader strategy at the 1983 Socialist Scholars Conference included ACORN adviser Frances Fox Piven and organizing theorist Peter Dreier, now a professor at Occidental College and an adviser to Obama's 2008 presidential campaign. That is to say, Obama's connection to socialist ideologues didn't end with his recruitment into the ranks of community organizers. It began there and blossomed into a quarter century of intricate relationships with both on-the-record and in-all-but-name socialists. I've spent the last two years in the archives unraveling the connections. Here are a few.

By the mid-1980s, James Cone, Jeremiah Wright's theological mentor, had struck up a close cooperative relationship with the DSA. Cone and a prominent follower spoke at the conferences Obama attended.

OMG IT IS SO CLEAR NOW! He spoke somewhere that Obama was! Clear 100% proof for brainwashing!!

Shortly after the 1984 conference, Cone joined Reverend Wright in Cuba, where they expressed support for the Cuban social system as a model for the United States. Wright touted his Cuba trips to his congregation for years. Obama would have quickly discovered Wright's ties to the liberation theologians he'd first learned of at the Socialist Scholars conferences. The connection helps explain Obama's choice of Wright as his pastor.

A little-known Chicago training institute for community organizers, the Midwest Academy, is in many ways the key to Barack Obama's political rise. The Midwest Academy was closely allied to the DSA, which sponsored the Socialist Scholars conferences in New York. Most Midwest Academy leaders remained quiet about their socialism. Inspired by the success of the American Communist "Popular Front," and by 19th-century American reformers who used populist and communitarian language to achieve socialist ends through incremental legislative means, the Midwest Academy's leaders advocated a strategy of stealth.

More bare assertion.


In the '70s and '80s, theory was put into action in a series of "populist" coalitions quietly controlled by the socialist leadership of the Midwest Academy and the DSA. The Citizen/Labor Energy Coalition, for example, fought a series of legislative battles against oil and gas companies. Its signature proposal was its call for a public energy corporation to "compete" with private companies.

As is the rest of this...
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:31:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:29:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:29:10 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:27:59 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:26:14 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
JR,

Interesting article. Doesn't refute anything though.

JM,

Interesting article. Doesn't prove anything though.


Not definitively.

But, there is a lot more evidence that Obama was a socialist than there is that he wasn't.

What would hypothetically count as evidence that Obama is not a socialist?

If he were to offer a substantive defense of free enterprise, I would believe it.

Saying "I believe in capitalism" before going on to advocate policies contrary to capitalism does not count.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:33:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:30:22 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:29:10 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:27:59 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:26:14 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
JR,

Interesting article. Doesn't refute anything though.

JM,

Interesting article. Doesn't prove anything though.


Not definitively.

But, there is a lot more evidence that Obama was a socialist than there is that he wasn't.

Oh, I see. Obama is/was (not definitively) a Socialist.

You should make a new thread with the correct title.

In my opinion, and I have evidence to support this, he still is in his heart.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:34:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:27:22 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:25:42 PM, imabench wrote:
"He portrays it as a mere impulse based on little actual knowledge. But that impulse saw Obama through two years of failed job searches. Clearly he had a deeper motivation. The evidence suggests he found it at the Socialist Scholars conferences, where he encountered the entrancing double idea that America could be transformed by a kind of undercover socialism, and that African Americans would be the key figures in advancing community organizing."

Ok im gonna stop reading right there.

At this point the only way this could possibly be known is if he was actually inside Obama's head when these things happened. However the references to "transforming America to undercover socialism" and "African Americans would be key figures in advancing community organizing" makes this all seem like any other conspiracy theory dreamed up by Geo....


It's not.

But, if you aren't gonna read it, that's fine.

But, you can't accuse me of not offering evidence if you refuse to read the evidence I offer.

JM, open your eyes, the evidence you provided is as saturated with conservative bias as any of your normal posts. The author claims to know what impacted Obama and how he thought based on events that happened more than 20 years ago now, and that simply isnt possible, its all just someones biased interpretation of what they thought Obama was thinking when these events happened.

Hell I was accidentally drafted into a christian cult once and I spent 5 hours at the indoctrination meeting but they didnt affect or change me at all, but to a noted conservative who is an outspoken critic of Gay marriage then according to him this would be the place where I allegedly pledged my loyalty to satan.

Point is: He cannot claim to know what how Obama was impacted by events in his life that happened over 20 years ago, and put such an extreme twist on it for it to be correct and for you to actually believe him.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:36:50 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:34:20 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:27:22 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:25:42 PM, imabench wrote:
"He portrays it as a mere impulse based on little actual knowledge. But that impulse saw Obama through two years of failed job searches. Clearly he had a deeper motivation. The evidence suggests he found it at the Socialist Scholars conferences, where he encountered the entrancing double idea that America could be transformed by a kind of undercover socialism, and that African Americans would be the key figures in advancing community organizing."

Ok im gonna stop reading right there.

At this point the only way this could possibly be known is if he was actually inside Obama's head when these things happened. However the references to "transforming America to undercover socialism" and "African Americans would be key figures in advancing community organizing" makes this all seem like any other conspiracy theory dreamed up by Geo....


It's not.

But, if you aren't gonna read it, that's fine.

But, you can't accuse me of not offering evidence if you refuse to read the evidence I offer.

JM, open your eyes, the evidence you provided is as saturated with conservative bias as any of your normal posts. The author claims to know what impacted Obama and how he thought based on events that happened more than 20 years ago now, and that simply isnt possible, its all just someones biased interpretation of what they thought Obama was thinking when these events happened.

Hell I was accidentally drafted into a christian cult once and I spent 5 hours at the indoctrination meeting but they didnt affect or change me at all, but to a noted conservative who is an outspoken critic of Gay marriage then according to him this would be the place where I allegedly pledged my loyalty to satan.

Point is: He cannot claim to know what how Obama was impacted by events in his life that happened over 20 years ago, and put such an extreme twist on it for it to be correct and for you to actually believe him.

The point is that, if Obama was secretly a socialist but also a political realist, what would he be doing?

Probably, exactly what he has been doing/
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
imabench
Posts: 21,220
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:42:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:36:50 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:34:20 PM, imabench wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:27:22 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:25:42 PM, imabench wrote:
"He portrays it as a mere impulse based on little actual knowledge. But that impulse saw Obama through two years of failed job searches. Clearly he had a deeper motivation. The evidence suggests he found it at the Socialist Scholars conferences, where he encountered the entrancing double idea that America could be transformed by a kind of undercover socialism, and that African Americans would be the key figures in advancing community organizing."

Ok im gonna stop reading right there.

At this point the only way this could possibly be known is if he was actually inside Obama's head when these things happened. However the references to "transforming America to undercover socialism" and "African Americans would be key figures in advancing community organizing" makes this all seem like any other conspiracy theory dreamed up by Geo....


It's not.

But, if you aren't gonna read it, that's fine.

But, you can't accuse me of not offering evidence if you refuse to read the evidence I offer.

JM, open your eyes, the evidence you provided is as saturated with conservative bias as any of your normal posts. The author claims to know what impacted Obama and how he thought based on events that happened more than 20 years ago now, and that simply isnt possible, its all just someones biased interpretation of what they thought Obama was thinking when these events happened.

Hell I was accidentally drafted into a christian cult once and I spent 5 hours at the indoctrination meeting but they didnt affect or change me at all, but to a noted conservative who is an outspoken critic of Gay marriage then according to him this would be the place where I allegedly pledged my loyalty to satan.

Point is: He cannot claim to know what how Obama was impacted by events in his life that happened over 20 years ago, and put such an extreme twist on it for it to be correct and for you to actually believe him.


The point is that, if Obama was secretly a socialist but also a political realist, what would he be doing?

Probably, exactly what he has been doing/

JM, there are a million interpretations of what Obama's actions say about his character, and nobody can know for certain that their interpretation is the right one.
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"
Geogeer: "Nobody is dumb enough to become my protege."

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
JaxsonRaine
Posts: 3,606
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:45:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
ATTENTION DDOians!

JM would like to apologize for the misleading forum title... it should read as follows:

Obama is/was (not definitively) a secret Socialist.

That is all.
twocupcakes: 15 = 13
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:57:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:31:20 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:29:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:29:10 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:27:59 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:26:14 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
JR,

Interesting article. Doesn't refute anything though.

JM,

Interesting article. Doesn't prove anything though.


Not definitively.

But, there is a lot more evidence that Obama was a socialist than there is that he wasn't.

What would hypothetically count as evidence that Obama is not a socialist?


If he were to offer a substantive defense of free enterprise, I would believe it.

Saying "I believe in capitalism" before going on to advocate policies contrary to capitalism does not count.

That's because he's intelligent. Look economists generally agree that NO country is purely communist, capitalist, socialist or decentralized. By definition every country is a pure mixed economy. We just say China is communist because they generally favor those policies. We say the US has capitalism because they favor those. HOWEVER, in China's city of Hong Kong, it is ranked as one of the most free places in the world due to it's splitting into two districts (one of which has self government and is far more capitalistic) by allowing for private ownership there. The US reallocates resources via income taxes, healthcare taxes, et cetera ...

So therefore, lets say hypothetically Obama really WAS a socialist (even though he's just center-left which you imply is socialist). Let's look at some more 'socialist' countries by your definition shall we?

-Canada
-Sweden
-Iceland
-Norway
-France
-UK
-Germany
-Belgium

What do they all have in common?
http://internationalliving.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

better places to live than the US.
Now the source I have given you may have two issues 1) some countries are ranked less than the US in general and 2) subjective opinions
While 2 is up to your opinion, from what I see the only more generally right-leaning state up there is the US. That's it. Left leaning states generally fair better. Why? Because we allocate resources! The taxes you pay are for a BETTER LIFE. Women are treated more equally, minority rights are protected, better healthcare (all of which smoked the US by the way for that area alone) , the working class are accounted for should you lose your job (EI for example), pensions for the elderly, you name it!

Therefore, with the objective evidence I have thus provided, in combination with the generalizations that YOU make, AND deductive logic, we find that your point is null-and-void. Who cares if Obama likes more reallocation of resources? Does it make him socialist? No, he's just more left leaning than what you think is right. To denounce him as otherwise is nothing more than republican propaganda inline with the Chomsky propaganda model. Your not using objectivity your using subjectivity. Now I will not contest if socialism or capitalism is better/worse, I'm saying it's about goddamn time the US got some fresh air of ideas at least to make the US a better place to live within the world.
Example on healthcare:
The late Jack Layton by the way is a Canadian politician who passed away last year. However, you can see the biases in Republican ideals.

Agree? Disagree?
Thank you for voting!
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 9:59:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:53:29 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
JM, read through those, and tell me if any of them counter any of the points made in your source. If not, I have more. Don't worry :)

http://www.businessweek.com...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.ocregister.com...

http://www.noquarterusa.net...

http://articles.cnn.com...

http://blogs.villagevoice.com...

http://www.thenation.com...

IMO, there are 2 defendable positions here:

1.) Obama is a socialist who sees socialism as unfeasible so is pursuing a solid left, democratic agenda instead.

2.) Obama is a solid left democrat who is pushing a solid left democrat agenda.

I happen to believe #1. But, we will never know for sure.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:02:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:57:42 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:31:20 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:29:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:29:10 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:27:59 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:26:14 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
JR,

Interesting article. Doesn't refute anything though.

JM,

Interesting article. Doesn't prove anything though.


Not definitively.

But, there is a lot more evidence that Obama was a socialist than there is that he wasn't.

What would hypothetically count as evidence that Obama is not a socialist?


If he were to offer a substantive defense of free enterprise, I would believe it.

Saying "I believe in capitalism" before going on to advocate policies contrary to capitalism does not count.

That's because he's intelligent. Look economists generally agree that NO country is purely communist, capitalist, socialist or decentralized. By definition every country is a pure mixed economy. We just say China is communist because they generally favor those policies. We say the US has capitalism because they favor those. HOWEVER, in China's city of Hong Kong, it is ranked as one of the most free places in the world due to it's splitting into two districts (one of which has self government and is far more capitalistic) by allowing for private ownership there. The US reallocates resources via income taxes, healthcare taxes, et cetera ...

So therefore, lets say hypothetically Obama really WAS a socialist (even though he's just center-left which you imply is socialist). Let's look at some more 'socialist' countries by your definition shall we?

-Canada
-Sweden
-Iceland
-Norway
-France
-UK
-Germany
-Belgium

What do they all have in common?
http://internationalliving.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

better places to live than the US.
Now the source I have given you may have two issues 1) some countries are ranked less than the US in general and 2) subjective opinions
While 2 is up to your opinion, from what I see the only more generally right-leaning state up there is the US. That's it. Left leaning states generally fair better. Why? Because we allocate resources! The taxes you pay are for a BETTER LIFE. Women are treated more equally, minority rights are protected, better healthcare (all of which smoked the US by the way for that area alone) , the working class are accounted for should you lose your job (EI for example), pensions for the elderly, you name it!

Therefore, with the objective evidence I have thus provided, in combination with the generalizations that YOU make, AND deductive logic, we find that your point is null-and-void. Who cares if Obama likes more reallocation of resources? Does it make him socialist? No, he's just more left leaning than what you think is right. To denounce him as otherwise is nothing more than republican propaganda inline with the Chomsky propaganda model. Your not using objectivity your using subjectivity. Now I will not contest if socialism or capitalism is better/worse, I'm saying it's about goddamn time the US got some fresh air of ideas at least to make the US a better place to live within the world.
Example on healthcare:
The late Jack Layton by the way is a Canadian politician who passed away last year. However, you can see the biases in Republican ideals.

Agree? Disagree?

Disagree.

I made a thread the other day which I gave a study showing that the more capitalistic the country, the better standard of living.

Socialism is a horrible, horrible thing... including in HC.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:05:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:59:15 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:53:29 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
JM, read through those, and tell me if any of them counter any of the points made in your source. If not, I have more. Don't worry :)

http://www.businessweek.com...

http://www.forbes.com...

http://www.ocregister.com...

http://www.noquarterusa.net...

http://articles.cnn.com...

http://blogs.villagevoice.com...

http://www.thenation.com...


IMO, there are 2 defendable positions here:

1.) Obama is a socialist who sees socialism as unfeasible so is pursuing a solid left, democratic agenda instead.

2.) Obama is a solid left democrat who is pushing a solid left democrat agenda.

I happen to believe #1. But, we will never know for sure.

So either Obama's a socialist manchurian, or he believes in the policy options he risks his political capital for...but the choice would not be observable on how he acts as President?
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:06:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 10:02:36 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:57:42 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:31:20 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:29:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:29:10 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:27:59 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:26:14 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
JR,

Interesting article. Doesn't refute anything though.

JM,

Interesting article. Doesn't prove anything though.


Not definitively.

But, there is a lot more evidence that Obama was a socialist than there is that he wasn't.

What would hypothetically count as evidence that Obama is not a socialist?


If he were to offer a substantive defense of free enterprise, I would believe it.

Saying "I believe in capitalism" before going on to advocate policies contrary to capitalism does not count.

That's because he's intelligent. Look economists generally agree that NO country is purely communist, capitalist, socialist or decentralized. By definition every country is a pure mixed economy. We just say China is communist because they generally favor those policies. We say the US has capitalism because they favor those. HOWEVER, in China's city of Hong Kong, it is ranked as one of the most free places in the world due to it's splitting into two districts (one of which has self government and is far more capitalistic) by allowing for private ownership there. The US reallocates resources via income taxes, healthcare taxes, et cetera ...

So therefore, lets say hypothetically Obama really WAS a socialist (even though he's just center-left which you imply is socialist). Let's look at some more 'socialist' countries by your definition shall we?

-Canada
-Sweden
-Iceland
-Norway
-France
-UK
-Germany
-Belgium

What do they all have in common?
http://internationalliving.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

better places to live than the US.
Now the source I have given you may have two issues 1) some countries are ranked less than the US in general and 2) subjective opinions
While 2 is up to your opinion, from what I see the only more generally right-leaning state up there is the US. That's it. Left leaning states generally fair better. Why? Because we allocate resources! The taxes you pay are for a BETTER LIFE. Women are treated more equally, minority rights are protected, better healthcare (all of which smoked the US by the way for that area alone) , the working class are accounted for should you lose your job (EI for example), pensions for the elderly, you name it!

Therefore, with the objective evidence I have thus provided, in combination with the generalizations that YOU make, AND deductive logic, we find that your point is null-and-void. Who cares if Obama likes more reallocation of resources? Does it make him socialist? No, he's just more left leaning than what you think is right. To denounce him as otherwise is nothing more than republican propaganda inline with the Chomsky propaganda model. Your not using objectivity your using subjectivity. Now I will not contest if socialism or capitalism is better/worse, I'm saying it's about goddamn time the US got some fresh air of ideas at least to make the US a better place to live within the world.
Example on healthcare:
The late Jack Layton by the way is a Canadian politician who passed away last year. However, you can see the biases in Republican ideals.

Agree? Disagree?


Disagree.

I made a thread the other day which I gave a study showing that the more capitalistic the country, the better standard of living.

Socialism is a horrible, horrible thing... including in HC.

Prove me wrong sir!

When Ireland is beating you in quality of life and they're -by your own standards- socialist, I think I have the right to contest the notion of an evil 'socialism' never mind if it is right or wrong or not. You run off of the assumption Socialism is evil first before even showing Obama is one. The only thing it does so far for you guys is put more money to the government and the rich.
Thank you for voting!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:06:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 9:27:22 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:25:42 PM, imabench wrote:
"He portrays it as a mere impulse based on little actual knowledge. But that impulse saw Obama through two years of failed job searches. Clearly he had a deeper motivation. The evidence suggests he found it at the Socialist Scholars conferences, where he encountered the entrancing double idea that America could be transformed by a kind of undercover socialism, and that African Americans would be the key figures in advancing community organizing."

Ok im gonna stop reading right there.

At this point the only way this could possibly be known is if he was actually inside Obama's head when these things happened. However the references to "transforming America to undercover socialism" and "African Americans would be key figures in advancing community organizing" makes this all seem like any other conspiracy theory dreamed up by Geo....


It's not.

But, if you aren't gonna read it, that's fine.

But, you can't accuse me of not offering evidence if you refuse to read the evidence I offer.

That's no more evidence than this...

Mitt Romney's decent into Nazism extends deep into his youth. In 1965, he began attending Stanford University for the purpose to later claim that he did not attend any extreme right wing universities, such as Hillsdale College, but he received private tutoring from right wing extremist and neo-nazis. In 1966 he counter protested a sit-in that was protesting the draft. His mentors knew that having people fight and kill without questioning is key to their rise.

Unable to stay in such a university, he claimed to have left on a religious missionary trip to France, but spent the next 30 months receiving a more indepth trainning for the likes of George Rockwell (founder of the American Nazi Party) and J.B. Stoner (co-founder of the National State's Rights Party, a front party for racial segregation and nazism).

In 1969, he attended BYU just to marry Ann (whom he married the next month) and remained because it would be good for his image. His working with the Nazi taught him the importance of flip flopping based on public opinion. He knew that he could never be open about his views, and so simply goes with whatever seems popular. His ability to control his racial hate and pull off this off, while so many others find it extremely difficult.

Romney and his mentors started early, setting their sights for the presidency in late 2000's or early 2010's. In the early 80's, he and his Nazi grooms began looking for an opportunity to build a financial empire that would allow them to achieve that white house seat. In 1983, they began targeting Bill Bain to get his company. He eventually offered to sell, but the Nazi kept working him with threats until Romney got the company at a dirt rate price. After only 1 year, Romney took all he needed from Bain and Co to create a new company. This was done in order to create distance from what happened with Bain and Co.

The Nazi almost destroyed Bain and Co in order to erase it from history, but there was fear that killing it might create back lash, so they secretly worked to revive it going into the 90's.

As the 2000's were approaching, Romney's goal became set on 2004, 2008, and 2012, depending on who won the next elections. If a republican won in 2000, then he would not run against them in 2004 and go for their replacement in 2008. If a Democrat won in 2000, he would have opportunities in 2004 and 2008. If, for some reason, a republican won in 2000 but was outted in 2004, he could run 2008 and 2012.

Running the Olympics was perfect for him to show that he could do more than just the economy. It also allowed easy venues for him to meet with Nazi around the world without having any attention on it. When Bush won in 2000, he knew that his next chance would be 2008, so he took up a governors role that was given to him by Nazi supporters crushing opposing voters. However, 2008 turned bad for him because he was unexpectedly meet with a black opponent. This got most of his base focused on Obama, and they failed to get him through the primary. He then worked with his base to allow Obama to continue on to win the White house, so that he could aim for 2012. This time, the Nazi are more organized and were more focused to get Romney through the primary. They've worked their magic through thug tactics to get voting restrictions in multiple states, in order to squash minority voters and ultimately help Romney in the election.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
TheHitchslap
Posts: 1,231
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:08:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 10:06:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:27:22 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:25:42 PM, imabench wrote:
"He portrays it as a mere impulse based on little actual knowledge. But that impulse saw Obama through two years of failed job searches. Clearly he had a deeper motivation. The evidence suggests he found it at the Socialist Scholars conferences, where he encountered the entrancing double idea that America could be transformed by a kind of undercover socialism, and that African Americans would be the key figures in advancing community organizing."

Ok im gonna stop reading right there.

At this point the only way this could possibly be known is if he was actually inside Obama's head when these things happened. However the references to "transforming America to undercover socialism" and "African Americans would be key figures in advancing community organizing" makes this all seem like any other conspiracy theory dreamed up by Geo....


It's not.

But, if you aren't gonna read it, that's fine.

But, you can't accuse me of not offering evidence if you refuse to read the evidence I offer.

That's no more evidence than this...


Mitt Romney's decent into Nazism extends deep into his youth. In 1965, he began attending Stanford University for the purpose to later claim that he did not attend any extreme right wing universities, such as Hillsdale College, but he received private tutoring from right wing extremist and neo-nazis. In 1966 he counter protested a sit-in that was protesting the draft. His mentors knew that having people fight and kill without questioning is key to their rise.

Unable to stay in such a university, he claimed to have left on a religious missionary trip to France, but spent the next 30 months receiving a more indepth trainning for the likes of George Rockwell (founder of the American Nazi Party) and J.B. Stoner (co-founder of the National State's Rights Party, a front party for racial segregation and nazism).

In 1969, he attended BYU just to marry Ann (whom he married the next month) and remained because it would be good for his image. His working with the Nazi taught him the importance of flip flopping based on public opinion. He knew that he could never be open about his views, and so simply goes with whatever seems popular. His ability to control his racial hate and pull off this off, while so many others find it extremely difficult.

Romney and his mentors started early, setting their sights for the presidency in late 2000's or early 2010's. In the early 80's, he and his Nazi grooms began looking for an opportunity to build a financial empire that would allow them to achieve that white house seat. In 1983, they began targeting Bill Bain to get his company. He eventually offered to sell, but the Nazi kept working him with threats until Romney got the company at a dirt rate price. After only 1 year, Romney took all he needed from Bain and Co to create a new company. This was done in order to create distance from what happened with Bain and Co.

The Nazi almost destroyed Bain and Co in order to erase it from history, but there was fear that killing it might create back lash, so they secretly worked to revive it going into the 90's.

As the 2000's were approaching, Romney's goal became set on 2004, 2008, and 2012, depending on who won the next elections. If a republican won in 2000, then he would not run against them in 2004 and go for their replacement in 2008. If a Democrat won in 2000, he would have opportunities in 2004 and 2008. If, for some reason, a republican won in 2000 but was outted in 2004, he could run 2008 and 2012.

Running the Olympics was perfect for him to show that he could do more than just the economy. It also allowed easy venues for him to meet with Nazi around the world without having any attention on it. When Bush won in 2000, he knew that his next chance would be 2008, so he took up a governors role that was given to him by Nazi supporters crushing opposing voters. However, 2008 turned bad for him because he was unexpectedly meet with a black opponent. This got most of his base focused on Obama, and they failed to get him through the primary. He then worked with his base to allow Obama to continue on to win the White house, so that he could aim for 2012. This time, the Nazi are more organized and were more focused to get Romney through the primary. They've worked their magic through thug tactics to get voting restrictions in multiple states, in order to squash minority voters and ultimately help Romney in the election.

^^^
Love this guy!
Thank you for voting!
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:09:53 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 10:08:02 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/17/2012 10:06:39 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:27:22 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:25:42 PM, imabench wrote:
"He portrays it as a mere impulse based on little actual knowledge. But that impulse saw Obama through two years of failed job searches. Clearly he had a deeper motivation. The evidence suggests he found it at the Socialist Scholars conferences, where he encountered the entrancing double idea that America could be transformed by a kind of undercover socialism, and that African Americans would be the key figures in advancing community organizing."

Ok im gonna stop reading right there.

At this point the only way this could possibly be known is if he was actually inside Obama's head when these things happened. However the references to "transforming America to undercover socialism" and "African Americans would be key figures in advancing community organizing" makes this all seem like any other conspiracy theory dreamed up by Geo....


It's not.

But, if you aren't gonna read it, that's fine.

But, you can't accuse me of not offering evidence if you refuse to read the evidence I offer.

That's no more evidence than this...


Mitt Romney's decent into Nazism extends deep into his youth. In 1965, he began attending Stanford University for the purpose to later claim that he did not attend any extreme right wing universities, such as Hillsdale College, but he received private tutoring from right wing extremist and neo-nazis. In 1966 he counter protested a sit-in that was protesting the draft. His mentors knew that having people fight and kill without questioning is key to their rise.

Unable to stay in such a university, he claimed to have left on a religious missionary trip to France, but spent the next 30 months receiving a more indepth trainning for the likes of George Rockwell (founder of the American Nazi Party) and J.B. Stoner (co-founder of the National State's Rights Party, a front party for racial segregation and nazism).

In 1969, he attended BYU just to marry Ann (whom he married the next month) and remained because it would be good for his image. His working with the Nazi taught him the importance of flip flopping based on public opinion. He knew that he could never be open about his views, and so simply goes with whatever seems popular. His ability to control his racial hate and pull off this off, while so many others find it extremely difficult.

Romney and his mentors started early, setting their sights for the presidency in late 2000's or early 2010's. In the early 80's, he and his Nazi grooms began looking for an opportunity to build a financial empire that would allow them to achieve that white house seat. In 1983, they began targeting Bill Bain to get his company. He eventually offered to sell, but the Nazi kept working him with threats until Romney got the company at a dirt rate price. After only 1 year, Romney took all he needed from Bain and Co to create a new company. This was done in order to create distance from what happened with Bain and Co.

The Nazi almost destroyed Bain and Co in order to erase it from history, but there was fear that killing it might create back lash, so they secretly worked to revive it going into the 90's.

As the 2000's were approaching, Romney's goal became set on 2004, 2008, and 2012, depending on who won the next elections. If a republican won in 2000, then he would not run against them in 2004 and go for their replacement in 2008. If a Democrat won in 2000, he would have opportunities in 2004 and 2008. If, for some reason, a republican won in 2000 but was outted in 2004, he could run 2008 and 2012.

Running the Olympics was perfect for him to show that he could do more than just the economy. It also allowed easy venues for him to meet with Nazi around the world without having any attention on it. When Bush won in 2000, he knew that his next chance would be 2008, so he took up a governors role that was given to him by Nazi supporters crushing opposing voters. However, 2008 turned bad for him because he was unexpectedly meet with a black opponent. This got most of his base focused on Obama, and they failed to get him through the primary. He then worked with his base to allow Obama to continue on to win the White house, so that he could aim for 2012. This time, the Nazi are more organized and were more focused to get Romney through the primary. They've worked their magic through thug tactics to get voting restrictions in multiple states, in order to squash minority voters and ultimately help Romney in the election.

^^^
Love this guy!

I just need to make up more bovine excrement, turn it into a book, and thus, I can call it evidence, right?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
JamesMadison
Posts: 381
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/17/2012 10:10:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/17/2012 10:06:05 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/17/2012 10:02:36 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:57:42 PM, TheHitchslap wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:31:20 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:29:50 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:29:10 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:27:59 PM, JaxsonRaine wrote:
At 8/17/2012 9:26:14 PM, JamesMadison wrote:
JR,

Interesting article. Doesn't refute anything though.

JM,

Interesting article. Doesn't prove anything though.


Not definitively.

But, there is a lot more evidence that Obama was a socialist than there is that he wasn't.

What would hypothetically count as evidence that Obama is not a socialist?


If he were to offer a substantive defense of free enterprise, I would believe it.

Saying "I believe in capitalism" before going on to advocate policies contrary to capitalism does not count.

That's because he's intelligent. Look economists generally agree that NO country is purely communist, capitalist, socialist or decentralized. By definition every country is a pure mixed economy. We just say China is communist because they generally favor those policies. We say the US has capitalism because they favor those. HOWEVER, in China's city of Hong Kong, it is ranked as one of the most free places in the world due to it's splitting into two districts (one of which has self government and is far more capitalistic) by allowing for private ownership there. The US reallocates resources via income taxes, healthcare taxes, et cetera ...

So therefore, lets say hypothetically Obama really WAS a socialist (even though he's just center-left which you imply is socialist). Let's look at some more 'socialist' countries by your definition shall we?

-Canada
-Sweden
-Iceland
-Norway
-France
-UK
-Germany
-Belgium

What do they all have in common?
http://internationalliving.com...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

better places to live than the US.
Now the source I have given you may have two issues 1) some countries are ranked less than the US in general and 2) subjective opinions
While 2 is up to your opinion, from what I see the only more generally right-leaning state up there is the US. That's it. Left leaning states generally fair better. Why? Because we allocate resources! The taxes you pay are for a BETTER LIFE. Women are treated more equally, minority rights are protected, better healthcare (all of which smoked the US by the way for that area alone) , the working class are accounted for should you lose your job (EI for example), pensions for the elderly, you name it!

Therefore, with the objective evidence I have thus provided, in combination with the generalizations that YOU make, AND deductive logic, we find that your point is null-and-void. Who cares if Obama likes more reallocation of resources? Does it make him socialist? No, he's just more left leaning than what you think is right. To denounce him as otherwise is nothing more than republican propaganda inline with the Chomsky propaganda model. Your not using objectivity your using subjectivity. Now I will not contest if socialism or capitalism is better/worse, I'm saying it's about goddamn time the US got some fresh air of ideas at least to make the US a better place to live within the world.
Example on healthcare:
The late Jack Layton by the way is a Canadian politician who passed away last year. However, you can see the biases in Republican ideals.

Agree? Disagree?


Disagree.

I made a thread the other day which I gave a study showing that the more capitalistic the country, the better standard of living.

Socialism is a horrible, horrible thing... including in HC.

Prove me wrong sir!

When Ireland is beating you in quality of life and they're -by your own standards- socialist, I think I have the right to contest the notion of an evil 'socialism' never mind if it is right or wrong or not. You run off of the assumption Socialism is evil first before even showing Obama is one. The only thing it does so far for you guys is put more money to the government and the rich.

Never said evil.

But, Ireland... has a 12% corporate tax rate... not very socialist.

And, Sweden has school choice, privatized SS, and no estate tax.
As a general rule, you'll find that, when a conservative is talking about policy, history, economics, or something serious, liberals are nowhere to be found. But, as soon as a conservative mentions Obama's birthplace or personal life, liberals are everywhere, only to dissappear again when evidence enters the discussion.