Quantcast

Associated Press asks "Is Obama a Socialist?" Does a bear s**t in the woods?

Ken 2012/06/08 02:16:28
Does a bear s**t in the woods?
No! Barack Obama is not a Socialist!
Undecided
You!
Add Photos & Videos
IBD Editorials
















Democrats, Media In Denial Over Obama's Socialist Beliefs




Posted 07:03 PM ET















Ideology: A lengthy
feature by the Associated Press earlier this week asked the rather
strange question, "Is Obama A Socialist?" A better question might be:
Why doesn't the public know it?


nggsIt should come as no surprise that President Obama stands farther
left on the political spectrum than any president in history.


After all, his $831 billion stimulus, TARP, auto industry takeover,
crackdown on Wall Street and the banks, housing market manipulation,
ObamaCare, wealth redistribution, and demonization of American business
and profits are only a few examples of Obama's abiding belief in leftist
principles.


What's strange is the mainstream media's continued efforts to debunk
the idea that Obama is a socialist — recently going so far as to liken
him to President Reagan, an absurd idea if ever there was one.


Fact is, Obama's socialist background runs deep — as IBD showed in a 21-part series that ran in 2008.


Ironically, the AP piece questioning Obama's socialism ran about a
week after President Obama gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the
nation's highest civilian honor, to "civil rights" activist Dolores
Huerta. She also happens to be honorary chairwoman of the Democratic
Socialists of America (DSA), the U.S.' main socialist party and an
affiliate of Socialist International.


Obama's ties to the DSA go way back. As Accuracy in Media writer
Cliff Kincaid noted this week, in 1996 Obama won the endorsement of the
Chicago DSA in his run for an Illinois state senate seat.


Around that time Obama eulogized Saul Mendelson, "a longtime
socialist activist," as a DSA newsletter put it, and appeared on at
least one DSA panel.


As
has been documented, virtually all of Obama's early influences were
communist or socialist. His mentor was Frank Marshall Davis, a Communist
Party member. Obama's father, Barack Obama Sr., was a hard-core
Marxist. Ditto his mother, Stanley Anne Dunham.


In Chicago, where Obama came of political age after attending law
school, he likewise gravitated toward leftists, like unrepentant
terrorist Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn, and the extreme
left-wing and America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright.


And, of course, the future president was an acolyte of firebrand socialist/community organizer Saul Alinsky.


Not a socialist? Author Stanley Kurtz cites new evidence from
Illinois Acorn records that, in his words, "definitively establishes
that Obama was a member of the New Party" in the 1990s. For the record,
the New Party was a social democratic party — that is, socialist.


Of course, this is an election year, and politicians in trouble often deny the basic facts of their existence.


Yet, as recently as February 2009, Newsweek gloated on its cover,
"We're All Socialists Now," a not-so-subtle recognition the just-elected
president was one.


As far as we know, there were no angry denials to Newsweek by the triumphant Obama White House.


Today, fearing Obama will lose the upcoming election because of his
poor stewardship of the economy, Democrats and their media allies again
pooh-pooh the idea that Obama's a socialist — as they did in 2008.


Sorry, but the evidence suggests otherwise.

ObamaNewParty1ObamaNewParty2

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • crossboy56 2012/06/09 15:21:58 (edited)
    No! Barack Obama is not a Socialist!
    crossboy56
    With the help of God, and their allies in the Republican party in State government,the President O'bama Democratic Admintration have successfully saved 192 million jobs in the USA; 5.2 million jobs in England. 1.4 million jobs in Canada. 6.6 million jobs in France, Germany,Span. 9 million jobs in the old USSR. 8.9 million jobs in the UAE,Greece,Turkey,Israel,and the Arab world. 5.5 million jobs in China. 4.5 million jobs in Japan,North korea,South korea, Vietnam, and Australia,Thialand amd India. 9.4 million jobs in Africa. 7.9 million jobs in Central America, and South America. This is called a chain of job creation around the world.
  • Ken crossboy56 2012/06/09 16:55:25 (edited)
    Ken
    WOW! 192 millions jobs saved by Obama in the U.S. alone? That's odd considering that in November, 2010, there were just over 139 million jobs in the U.S., 53 million fewer than you claim Obama saved!

    "U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics:
    Number of jobs 139,415,000 (Nov 2010)"

    Insofar as Obama saving jobs in Germany, Germany is the one Euro nation that didn't follow Obama's advice and spend enormous amounts to "stimulate" its economy, and it happens to have, today, the strongest economy in Europe, the one to which all others are looking for bailouts.
  • Kaleokualoha 2012/06/09 01:32:09
    No! Barack Obama is not a Socialist!
    Kaleokualoha
    +1
    PolitiFact.com calls the "socialist" charge a PANTS ON FIRE LIE! See http://www.politifact.com/tex...

    [QUOTE]
    Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett told PolitiFact: "Socialism means public ownership of the means of production. Obama does not believe this. Therefore he is not a socialist. … Although it is true that the federal government did come to own some private businesses as a consequence of bailout policies initiated by the George W. Bush administration such as (the Troubled Asset Relief Program), the Obama administration sold many of them — such as its shares in GM — as quickly as feasible. A true socialist would have held on to them."
    [END QUOTE]

    Those fringe elements who consider Obama to be a "socialist" lack the perspective of socialism that ACTUAL socialists enjoy. It may therefore prove useful to examine Obama's policies from the perspective of avowed socialists:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/...

    http://www.laprogressive.com/...

    http://www.examiner.com/worce...

    http://articles.cnn.com/2010-...

    http://wspus.org/2008/09/is-o...

    http://www.peaceandfreedom.or...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com...

    http://socialistparty-usa.org... (refutes State of the Union speech)

    http://socialistparty-usa.org... (rejects "Obamacare")


    Authored by World Socialist Party US:
    [QUOTE]
    ...









    PolitiFact.com calls the "socialist" charge a PANTS ON FIRE LIE! See http://www.politifact.com/tex...

    [QUOTE]
    Conservative economist Bruce Bartlett told PolitiFact: "Socialism means public ownership of the means of production. Obama does not believe this. Therefore he is not a socialist. … Although it is true that the federal government did come to own some private businesses as a consequence of bailout policies initiated by the George W. Bush administration such as (the Troubled Asset Relief Program), the Obama administration sold many of them — such as its shares in GM — as quickly as feasible. A true socialist would have held on to them."
    [END QUOTE]

    Those fringe elements who consider Obama to be a "socialist" lack the perspective of socialism that ACTUAL socialists enjoy. It may therefore prove useful to examine Obama's policies from the perspective of avowed socialists:

    http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/...

    http://www.laprogressive.com/...

    http://www.examiner.com/worce...

    http://articles.cnn.com/2010-...

    http://wspus.org/2008/09/is-o...

    http://www.peaceandfreedom.or...

    http://www.washingtonpost.com...

    http://socialistparty-usa.org... (refutes State of the Union speech)

    http://socialistparty-usa.org... (rejects "Obamacare")


    Authored by World Socialist Party US:
    [QUOTE]
    "Is Obama a socialist? He does not regard himself as one. Neither do we. This issue of World Socialist Review examines Obama's outlook and life story, his packaging as a politician, and his policy in such areas as healthcare, the economy, and the environment. It also places Obama in the context of world capitalism and the American political system.

    World Socialist Review is published by the World Socialist Party of the United States, which forms part of the World Socialist Movement together with companion parties and groups in other countries. For further information and literature on other topics, please go to our website at http://wspus.org"
    [END QUOTE https://www.createspace.com/3... World Socialist Review 22]

    Those on the fringe of any group often lack the perspective to accurately gauge the position of others near the center or on the other side of the group. To a dwarf, people of average height may seem tall.



    "The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth."
    - Cicero (106 BC - 43 BC)
    (more)
  • Ken Kaleoku... 2012/06/09 15:09:00 (edited)
    Ken
    "Bruce Bartlett told PolitiFact: 'Socialism means public ownership of the means of production. Obama does not believe this.'"

    How in the hell does Bruce Bartlett know exactly what Obama believes? If you look at Obama's history of associations he certainly believes in something very close to Socialism. And stop with the technical definitions. Everyone on the left uses them to distinguish between Socialism and Communism and they're own form of "statism," but the point is they are all philosophies based on Marxism and lead to a centrally-controlled economy, whether by government ownership or regulation. It is a system that has been a failure every time it has been tried.

    It is understandable that "avowed socialists" are upset with Obama because he hasn't gone far enough to satisfy them, but he has been constrained by the Constitution and the division of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the government - alas, in their view at least, he is not yet a benevolent dictator! We shall soon see if the Supreme Court will finally put a limit on the ever-expanding powers of congress under the Commerce Clause.
  • Kaleoku... Ken 2012/06/09 19:09:48
    Kaleokualoha
    All economies have some degree of central control. This is not Marxist socialism unless capitalism is REPLACED by collective ownership.

    Just as Chicken Little started a "sky is falling" hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a "socialist" or "Marxist" Obama hysteria based on Obama's economic policies. Not only do they conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten some basics from Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.

    According 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 the stage FOLLOWING capitalism. 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 Marxist socialism, which requir...















    All economies have some degree of central control. This is not Marxist socialism unless capitalism is REPLACED by collective ownership.

    Just as Chicken Little started a "sky is falling" hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a "socialist" or "Marxist" Obama hysteria based on Obama's economic policies. Not only do they conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten some basics from Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.

    According 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 the stage FOLLOWING capitalism. 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 Marxist socialism, which requires complete public ownership. When controlled by a police state, however, limited public ownership may become fascism ("national socialism"), Marxist socialism, or even "perfect implementation of collectivist principles." Limited public ownership occurs at virtually every point on the mixed economy spectrum.

    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 requires the complete 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?" The rise of Asian economies, with their varying degrees of centralized planning, proves that economic planning helps economic development.

    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 Ayn Rand's fantasies. Extremists on either fringe are equally delusional. In some ways regulation is a necessary evil like body fat: too much or too little are both 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.

    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.

    The 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.

    To accuse a mixed economy advocate of being a socialist or communist suggests that you believe that ANY degree of government regulation qualifies as "socialism," or that you believe that any regulation beyond an indefinite "trigger point" qualifies as "socialism,", 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 the death of private enterprise. 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 most Marxist states, however, 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.
    (more)
  • Ken Kaleoku... 2012/06/09 22:42:01
    Ken
    I never said Obama wants to eliminate capitalism - he most certainly does want to socialize our medical care, and he certainly does want "redistributive justice", and "social justice," code words for socialism. Since when did asking the question constitute "chicken little" hysteria, which seems to be your favorite catch-phrase?
  • Kaleoku... Ken 2012/06/10 03:18:50
    Kaleokualoha
    If he does not want to eliminate capitalism, then he does not want Marxist socialism.
  • Ken Kaleoku... 2012/06/10 05:01:38
    Ken
    The question the AP asked wasn't whether he "wanted Marxist socialism," it was whether he is a generic socialist.
  • Kaleoku... Ken 2012/06/10 20:05:27
    Kaleokualoha
    Anyone who believes in any government regulation may be considered a generic socialist. As posted above:

    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 requires the complete 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?" The rise of Asian economies, with their varying degrees of centralized planning, proves that economic planning helps economic development.
  • Ken Kaleoku... 2012/06/10 20:46:27
    Ken
    We're talking in circles, and it's all about how one defines "socialist." If you want to define "socialist" as only those who believe in the true Marxist "socialism", as a way-station on the way to "pure" communism, then no, Obama isn't a socialist. But if you want to talk about someone who favors more government control of the economy, someone who favors "single-payer" socialized health care and more government housing programs and programs to feed the "poor", who favors government sponsored businesses to produce "green energy," then that is Barack Obama.

    Why did the AP even ask the question? Why did the left-wing Newsweek put out the cover "We are all Socialists now" after Obama was elected.?

    "The only relevant question is "WHERE on this spectrum can we achieve the greatest success?" I totally agree, though I do disagree that the Asian economies, especially China's, proves that centralized planning helps. China's economy for decades was totally centrally planned, with one "five year plan" after another failing to reach their goals. It was only with the allowance of free-market capitalism that
    China has seen economic success.
  • Cleaver62 2012/06/09 00:49:12
    No! Barack Obama is not a Socialist!
    Cleaver62
    If you look up the definition of Socialism you will see he ain't it. Facist perhaps because corporations are running the government now.
  • jackolantyrn356 2012/06/09 00:30:19
    Undecided
    jackolantyrn356
    +1
    Socialostm but is betterdefined as a Muslim Marxist.
  • ☆stillthe12c☆ 2012/06/08 22:53:50
    Does a bear s**t in the woods?
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +1
    Can they deny the fact that the Government is now holding interest in Corporation and Banks.. Can they not understand what this means
  • Kaleoku... ☆stillt... 2012/06/09 01:33:29
    Kaleokualoha
    Marxist Socialism requires collective ownership of the means of production, not just interest in corporations and banks.
  • ☆stillt... Kaleoku... 2012/06/09 02:12:18
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +1
    And where do you think they are going?
  • Kaleoku... ☆stillt... 2012/06/09 03:20:01
    Kaleokualoha
    +2
    They are going to find the optimum point on the mixed economy spectrum. Just as Chicken Little started a "sky is falling" hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a "socialist" or "Marxist" Obama hysteria based on Obama's economic policies. Not only do they conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten some basics from Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.

    According 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 the stage FOLLOWING capitalism. 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 Marxist socialism, which requires complete public ownership. When controlled by a police state, h...















    They are going to find the optimum point on the mixed economy spectrum. Just as Chicken Little started a "sky is falling" hysteria based on a falling acorn, so too are various critics pushing a "socialist" or "Marxist" Obama hysteria based on Obama's economic policies. Not only do they conveniently forget that the 2008 bailout was initiated by the Bush administration, but they also seem to have forgotten some basics from Econ 101. They could easily avoid such non sequitur nonsense by following the evidence instead of jumping to conclusions.

    According 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 the stage FOLLOWING capitalism. 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 Marxist socialism, which requires complete public ownership. When controlled by a police state, however, limited public ownership may become fascism ("national socialism"), Marxist socialism, or even "perfect implementation of collectivist principles." Limited public ownership occurs at virtually every point on the mixed economy spectrum.

    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 requires the complete 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?" The rise of Asian economies, with their varying degrees of centralized planning, proves that economic planning helps economic development.

    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 Ayn Rand's fantasies. Extremists on either fringe are equally delusional. In some ways regulation is a necessary evil like body fat: too much or too little are both 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.

    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.

    The 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.

    To accuse a mixed economy advocate of being a socialist or communist suggests that you believe that ANY degree of government regulation qualifies as "socialism," or that you believe that any regulation beyond an indefinite "trigger point" qualifies as "socialism,", 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 the death of private enterprise. 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 most Marxist states, however, 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.
    (more)
  • ☆stillt... Kaleoku... 2012/06/09 03:37:29
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    I condemn both Bush and Obama. Bush did not go in and seize the financial institution and send in the auditors to check out what happened and file charges as needed. Bush does not escape me at all. I doubt that anyone has forgot what Bush did. When I point out all his screw-ups I have never had anyone say any thing.

    In the power given to Homeland Security has been given the power to take over farms and personal property. So you are saying lets wait and see what they do. No it is time to get rid of hem and as many in Congress as we can.

    Great replay, Thank You
  • Kaleoku... ☆stillt... 2012/06/09 03:40:53 (edited)
    Kaleokualoha
    +2
    No, I am NOT saying "wait and see what they do." I'm saying there is NO evidence that he wants to REPLACE capitalism with collectivism. I am saying that 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.

    THAT'S what I'm saying!

    BTW: People of integrity across the political spectrum disagree with Bush and Obama's national security policies, but this is a separate issue from any claims of socialism.

    Thanks for keeping a civil discussion!
  • ☆stillt... Kaleoku... 2012/06/09 05:26:53 (edited)
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +1
    Do to his prior affiliation I do not trust him. He hung with a lot of Communist and Marxist. I do not care for people who rant and call people names. I figure when they do, they are not capable of defending their position.
    I disagreed with Bush and Obama national security policies. The Patriot Act and NDAA. I am always telling people that if any of their Reps voted for it they should get them out of office. I do not care what party they belong to. As far a Romney I do not care much about him either. I was hoping that Huckabee would run again as I know that he is conservative.
  • Ken Kaleoku... 2012/06/09 16:03:51 (edited)
    Ken
    +1
    Do you really believe that Obama, if he did believe in all-out socialism, would come right out and advocate an unconstitutional takeover of the means of production by the government while running for the presidency?

    If you see what he has advocated in the past, such as "single payer," socialized health care (which he denied Obamacare is) you can understand that changing the U.S. to a socialist system is most certainly in his plans. The fact is that Obamacare was designed to put private insurance companies out of business, over time, and have us end up with a "single-payer" system. For example, the "fine" a business has to pay for not providing health insurance to its employees in only 8% of its payroll, far less than the cost of a health care plan. Businesses will be opting to drop private coverage in favor of the "public option," leading, eventually, to a single payer system.



    Dissembling in 2009 and saying he didn't want a "single payer" plan, watch what he said back in 2003, about 1:59 into the video: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care plan." He then goes on to explain it will take a few years to end up with the single-payer system.

    This is Ronald Reagan's warning back in 1961 about the incremental way in which socialists attempt to implement so...
















    Do you really believe that Obama, if he did believe in all-out socialism, would come right out and advocate an unconstitutional takeover of the means of production by the government while running for the presidency?

    If you see what he has advocated in the past, such as "single payer," socialized health care (which he denied Obamacare is) you can understand that changing the U.S. to a socialist system is most certainly in his plans. The fact is that Obamacare was designed to put private insurance companies out of business, over time, and have us end up with a "single-payer" system. For example, the "fine" a business has to pay for not providing health insurance to its employees in only 8% of its payroll, far less than the cost of a health care plan. Businesses will be opting to drop private coverage in favor of the "public option," leading, eventually, to a single payer system.



    Dissembling in 2009 and saying he didn't want a "single payer" plan, watch what he said back in 2003, about 1:59 into the video: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care plan." He then goes on to explain it will take a few years to end up with the single-payer system.

    This is Ronald Reagan's warning back in 1961 about the incremental way in which socialists attempt to implement socialism:

    "Now back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
    . . . .
    "James Madison in 1788, speaking to the Virginia Convention said: “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpations. ”
    . . . .
    "One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine. It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project. Most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
    . . . .
    "But let’s also look from the other side, at the freedom the doctor loses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms; it’s like telling a lie, and one leads to another. First you decide that the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government. But then the doctors aren’t equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him you can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go someplace else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.This is a freedom that I wonder whether any of us have the right to take from any human being."

    This is from an interview with Barack Obama in 2001 on NPR:

    "But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. . . . one of the,I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, 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 activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."

    Simply put, Barack Obama would have the Supreme Court "interpret" the Constitution so as to bring about "redistributive change," and he views it as a "tragedy" that it didn't happen with the civil rights movement. Regarding Obama's reference to "community organizing" activities, Saul Alinsky once explained in an interview with Studs Terkel that a community organizer is in reality an "outside agitator." http://yourdaddy.net/2011/03/...

    Obama's entire NPR interview is available here:
    http://www.americanthinker.co...
    (more)
  • Kaleoku... Ken 2012/06/09 19:13:24
    Kaleokualoha
    Even a single payer health system is not Marxist socialism, which requires the ELIMINATION of capitalism and collective ownership of the means of production and distribution.

    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.

    The 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 ...







    Even a single payer health system is not Marxist socialism, which requires the ELIMINATION of capitalism and collective ownership of the means of production and distribution.

    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.

    The 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.

    To accuse a mixed economy advocate of being a socialist or communist suggests that you believe that ANY degree of government regulation qualifies as "socialism," or that you believe that any regulation beyond an indefinite "trigger point" qualifies as "socialism,", 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 the death of private enterprise. 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 most Marxist states, however, 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.
    (more)
  • ☆stillt... Kaleoku... 2012/06/09 22:13:01 (edited)
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +1
    We have already made many steps under Obama towards more and more socialism and it is time to stop the trend and take it back a few notches. What they are trying to do is step by step lead us into socialism. We have far to many regulation that are hampering manufacturing. I heard a banker today say that he is now expanding to England because it is to difficult to open banks here in America. They showed a stack of bank regulation before Obama then he added another stack almost as tall on top to show the added regulation since Obama took office. I live California which eve has more regulation and they have driven out manufacturing do to their regulation of which many make no sense. Like I had a cleaning tank of solvent which go replaced ever 2 months. They outlawed it and then I had to go to spray cans. Now the spray cans put all kinds of pollution in the air when at the end of 2 months I had very little loss of solvent. I doubt it was more than 2 can of the spray solvent. I use to use alkaline to clean before they outlawed it. I tried to explain the process of how I added vinegar to it and brought it down to a ph of 7 before I disposed of it. Apparently they had forgot their 8th grade science class.
    When it comes to manufacturing it is even worse. These new regulati...

    We have already made many steps under Obama towards more and more socialism and it is time to stop the trend and take it back a few notches. What they are trying to do is step by step lead us into socialism. We have far to many regulation that are hampering manufacturing. I heard a banker today say that he is now expanding to England because it is to difficult to open banks here in America. They showed a stack of bank regulation before Obama then he added another stack almost as tall on top to show the added regulation since Obama took office. I live California which eve has more regulation and they have driven out manufacturing do to their regulation of which many make no sense. Like I had a cleaning tank of solvent which go replaced ever 2 months. They outlawed it and then I had to go to spray cans. Now the spray cans put all kinds of pollution in the air when at the end of 2 months I had very little loss of solvent. I doubt it was more than 2 can of the spray solvent. I use to use alkaline to clean before they outlawed it. I tried to explain the process of how I added vinegar to it and brought it down to a ph of 7 before I disposed of it. Apparently they had forgot their 8th grade science class.
    When it comes to manufacturing it is even worse. These new regulation were mainly from the EPA. This year there are 33 coal fired plants that are scheduled to close. The generating capacity has not been made up so this means that there will be more shortages after these are shut down. You can not open a new plant when you have no idea as to whether you are going to have the power for the plant and what the cost of the energy is going to be. I wrote the President on this very issue and suggest that he build some of the 23 nuclear plants that have been waiting for permits for over a decade. He wrote back and told me that they we not in the works and he wanted cleaner energy projects. Now after that he did go ahead and permit one plants in the south. The problem is mostly in the north east.
    How many engineers or chemist do you think that we have in Congress. There are 7 with only one being a chemist. If you are not some green nut you can not get hired in the EPA.
    Any way I think it is about time that we reverse much of the cancer of socialism in our laws and regulations and allow more free enterprise. As well as overhauling our tax codes.
    (more)
  • Ken Kaleoku... 2012/06/09 22:42:48
    Ken
    Who said it was Marxist socialism? I said it is a move towards socialism.
  • Kaleoku... Ken 2012/06/10 03:22:12
    Kaleokualoha
    The only actual "socialism" in the mixed economy spectrum IS Marxist socialism. Every other point on the mixed economy spectrum is not truly socialist.
  • Ken Kaleoku... 2012/06/10 05:02:39
    Ken
    So what it China right now, a dictatorship with a mixture of socialism and capitalism/
  • Kaleoku... Ken 2012/06/10 20:08:28
    Kaleokualoha
    It is a police state with a mixed economy.
  • Ken Kaleoku... 2012/06/09 15:21:41
    Ken
    +1
    It is true that the TARP program was initiated during the Bush administration, but the loans to financial institutions made under Bush have been repaid, with interest. On the other hand, the "loans" to GM and Chrysler during Obama's administration were based on illegally subordinating the secured-interest of bondholders to the rights of the unions - which ended up owning a sizable share of both GM and Chrysler.
  • ☆stillt... Ken 2012/06/09 16:58:01
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    Not all the Banks have given back the money Ken. I forget which large banks it was, but they paid the government back with stocks under Obama. This and holding stock in the auto industry is what I see as a real danger. I have not heard about the smaller banks that Obama was refusing to take back the payment after he forced them to take Government loans that they did not want nor needed. Thank You for jarring my memory.
  • Ken ☆stillt... 2012/06/09 17:15:58
    Ken
    +1
    You are correct - this is from the April 16, 2012 Orange County Register:

    "Westminster-based Saigon National Bank is among 434 small banks and financial institutions that still owe the taxpayers a combined $15 billion, according to a report issued Wednesday by the inspector general for the Troubled Asset Relief Program."
  • Ken Kaleoku... 2012/06/09 15:16:13
    Ken
    +2
    The question isn't whether we are already a socialist nation -- the question is what does Obama advocate.
  • Kaleoku... Ken 2012/06/09 19:15:46
    Kaleokualoha
    Indeed! As posted above, 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.
  • Ken Kaleoku... 2012/06/09 22:45:54
    Ken
    Once again, I have never said that Obama wants to eliminate capitalism, he does want more government control over our economy, including the complete takeover of over 1/6th of the economy - health care.

    Speaking of "strawmen", you are the one using that tactic, setting up the "strawman" of hysteria over alleged claims that Obama wants to eliminate capitalism when no one has made that claim.
  • Ken ☆stillt... 2012/06/09 15:14:58
    Ken
    +1
    Can they deny that there's been a 25% increase in the Federal Government's share of the GDP under Obama, in just under four years? Can they deny that if Obamacare were to stand he would have the government taking over 1/6th of the economy, in addition to what they own now in GM and Chrysler.
  • ☆stillt... Ken 2012/06/09 17:12:39 (edited)
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +1
    I can not find the video where he was sitting on a program tell them that he would get his government run health program and it would take 10 or so years for it to eliminate health insurance companies and would lead to a single payer government run health program. This video spells it out but they cut out when Obama explains what is going to happen, but a lady tells that it will end all private insurance companies.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?...
  • Ken ☆stillt... 2012/06/09 22:47:47
    Ken
    +1
    I posted it above. Let me see if I can find it for you. Here it is:

    Dissembling in 2009 and saying he didn't want a "single payer" plan, watch what he said back in 2003, about 1:59 into the video: "I happen to be a proponent of a single payer health care plan." He then goes on to explain it will take a few years to end up with the single-payer system.
  • ☆stillt... Ken 2012/06/09 23:41:18
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    I went back threw my history on my Youtube account and found that the video I had in mind was deleted. He was on a program where he was sitting down for an interview and he goes threw what he was going to do when if he were elected as President on getting a single payer plan. He outlined that you would not be able to get it right away. He told how the insurance companies would have to be driven out of business over time and then a single payer plan would have to be put in its place.
  • Ken ☆stillt... 2012/06/10 02:32:11
    Ken
    +1
    I know which one you are talking about, where he says it will take five to ten years. If you go to 1:55 of the video above he says, to great applause, that he's happens to support single-payer health care, then he goes on to tell them they can't get there immediately, but not with the specificity of the video you are talking about. I can't find that one either. I just saw him in a video of one of his debates with Hillary claim he wasn't in favor of single-payer because of all the private coverage that exists. What a lying SOB!
  • ☆stillt... Ken 2012/06/10 02:44:52
    ☆stillthe12c☆
    +1
    I saw part of the clip in one of you videos where was sitting down. So part of the video is there. He really laid it out in that one video, Yes I know the guy lies all the time and is all over the place with his statement. One time he talks about universal health care then then the next time he uses single player and other times together. Then he will deny that he wants single payer. I wish I had kept all the videos that I had of him. I had to clean my hard drive to have room for other things. I even tried to get started saving them on on a Chinese video site. Could not figure out how to sign up. That was when they were having all kinds of his videos removed from youtube.
  • bob'45 2012/06/08 17:48:53
    Does a bear s**t in the woods?
    bob'45
    +2
    That's a given....surprised the AP has to even ask.
  • Tuna 2012/06/08 16:04:20
    Undecided
    Tuna
    +2
    BREAKING NEWS !!!!! O didn't bring the socialism seed; he just watered it. As soon as "they" got Reagan out of office, "they" went back to work. "They" found a new home in the USA (right here on our soil) from which to work.
    united nations building

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/08/01 03:49:06

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals