Quantcast

Why didn't more of us listen?

Todd~AFCL 2012/03/19 13:13:31
You!
Add Photos & Videos
In November of 2004, we were given a warning by Mychal Massie in his column for World Net Daily, about Barack Hussein Obama. We were told then that he was a thinly veiled socialist with flowery speech. Here, why I don't I just let you read it in Mr. Massie's own words, in his column entitled "Darth Democrat" ?

Read More: http://www.wnd.com/2004/11/27577/

Add a comment above

Top Opinion

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

  • Selketskiss 2012/03/23 02:56:22 (edited)
    Other
    Selketskiss
    +1
    I listened..
  • DavE 2012/03/20 20:08:09
    Other
    DavE
    +2
    I saw the truth in Mr Massie's evaluation right away.
  • wicked soda boy 2012/03/20 15:48:39
    Other
    wicked soda boy
    +2
    When Obama was on the campaign trail in 2008, I heard him speaking to a radio interviewer about "how politics is done". He said that part of politics is to promise specific favors to specific demographic groups (racial, gender, sexual orientation, etc.) and that's how you win.
    I knew that day I didn't want Barry Hussein in the White House.
  • D D 2012/03/20 10:54:55
    None of the above
    D D
    +4
    I did not vote for him. I will never vote for him.

    bti
  • princess 2012/03/20 10:48:59
    Other
    princess
    +2
    I did my own review of OVomit, and it was clearly obvious what he was and what he stood for.
  • Radlad 2012/03/20 09:22:46
    Other
    Radlad
    After 8 years of bush bashing by the msm and lying communist...er I mean liberal dimocraps I believe most thought not another republican
  • rustyshackelford 2012/03/20 08:43:26
  • doc moto 2012/03/20 06:22:20
    Other
    doc moto
    Voted for the other guy, no matter; can we have a recount?
  • Sig Sauer P220 2012/03/20 03:21:42
    Other
    Sig Sauer P220
    +3
    I did my homework prior to the 2008 elections and did not vote for this Socialist ... I believed McCain was the lesser of the two evils ... will vote for whoever is the GOP representative again for the same reason ...
  • jwalker 2012/03/20 03:01:00
    None of the above
    jwalker
    +2
    I didn't vot for the SOB. I was one of they guys running around in a tin foil hat trying to get everyone to understand how bad Barry was/is.
  • H H 2012/03/20 01:52:18
    None of the above
    H H
    +1
    Most voters are clueless idiots. Modern America does not have a good record of making wise political choices.
  • Radlad H H 2012/03/20 09:15:37
    Radlad
    +1
    It's kinda hard to make a wise political choice when you don't pay much attention until a few months before the election. At that point you start getting you information on the candidates by way of the lame stream media(msm)
  • Sam Nielsen 2012/03/20 01:42:22
    Other
    Sam Nielsen
    +3
    Because those of us who speak the truth are scorned as "conspiracy theorists" and marginalized by the media until the general public wont believe the truth even after it hits them in the face... Dare I say Told Ya So!??
  • cut and paste king 2012/03/20 01:40:47
    Other
    cut and paste king
    PROJECT 21 THE AFRICAN AMERICAN CONSERVATIVE NETWORK . I SEE ENDOWMENT MONEY I SEE MONEY FOR A BUNCH OF CAUSES . APPROVED BY CONGRESS AND PAID BY TAX PAYERS PROBABLY IN THE MILLIONS . SEEMS LIKE YOUR BREAD AND BUTTER WENT OUT THE DOOR WITH BUSH ON JAN 2008
  • marylou5 2012/03/20 01:37:48
    None of the above
    marylou5
    +3
    I heard him. I heeded his message!

    Those of you who did not can correct your big fat mistake in 2012!
  • holly go lightly 2012/03/20 01:22:48
    None of the above
    holly go lightly
    +5
    Never would have considered voting for 0.His fakish phoniness was incredibly obvious .
  • marylou5 holly g... 2012/03/20 01:39:21
    marylou5
    +5
    I was amazed how many people let themselves be fooled!
  • holly g... marylou5 2012/03/20 01:47:04
    holly go lightly
    +4
    It has been amazing hasn't it?And it goes on and on .I think a good portion of them got exactly what they wanted,and still want.
  • marylou5 holly g... 2012/03/20 02:48:39
    marylou5
    +3
    Entitlement checks......back to slavery!
    Massa will take care of me!
  • holly g... marylou5 2012/03/20 02:55:19
    holly go lightly
    +2
    Until they realize they have no choices of anything anymore.
  • marylou5 holly g... 2012/03/20 03:03:07
    marylou5
    +3
    With entitlements comes loss the of freedom and free will.
    When Massa owns you, you are really owned!
  • holly g... marylou5 2012/03/20 03:09:26
    holly go lightly
    +2
    You got that right.
  • ray holly g... 2012/03/20 14:38:50
  • ray marylou5 2012/03/20 14:38:24
  • marylou5 ray 2012/03/20 17:12:39
    marylou5
    +1
    Guess I'm not the Lone Ranger! Thank you for the link.
    It should be obvious to all thinking Americans!
    Anyone who thinks government handouts are free is totally delusional...or just plain clueless! You always have to pay the piper...and the price will be your freedom!
  • Selkets... marylou5 2012/03/23 03:07:33
    Selketskiss
    +1
    I can not understand how so many people did not see through him. Before he ever ran and was on Oprah the first time I knew what he was about.
  • Randice 2012/03/20 01:18:53
    None of the above
    Randice
    +4
    Some of us did our homework and looked into President Obama's background. Some of us were sounding the alarm very loudly. The only thing that I didn't expect from President Obama that he has given this country so far, is just how bad he would screw it up and how fast.
  • Beagle Mom 2012/03/20 00:55:30
    None of the above
    Beagle Mom
    +1
    Wow..who knew? This is interesting and prophetic.
  • ed 2012/03/19 23:55:08
    None of the above
    ed
    +4
    most people got caught up on the moment and on obama being a black man[no racism intended] running for the highest office in this country.,and obama fooled them all.
  • marylou5 ed 2012/03/20 01:41:21 (edited)
    marylou5
    +2
    Maybe the message is...you don't vote for skin color...black or white.
    You have to know the issues and do your research and then vote!
  • Joey 2012/03/19 22:53:21
    None of the above
    Joey
    +3
    People really need to learn what Socialism is .
  • Aqua Surf BTO-t-BCRA-F 2012/03/19 21:54:39
    None of the above
    Aqua Surf BTO-t-BCRA-F
    +6
    Because in 2008, about half the nation had their heads in the clouds, thinking the Messiah had arrived. It should be against the law to be gullible AND eligible to vote.
  • Randice Aqua Su... 2012/03/20 01:19:48
    Randice
    +4
    or stupid and eligible to vote.
  • potlatch 2012/03/19 21:40:30
    Other
    potlatch
    +5
    Many of us knew. I was on the forum where the Obama File was being gathered and compiled. We knew his heritage and background as a community organizer.
    http://theobamafile.com/

    Cheney knew;
    obama file gathered compiled heritage background community organizer httptheobamafile cheney
  • John "By God" American 2012/03/19 21:35:06
    None of the above
    John "By God" American
    +4
    I remember hearing about him but I disregarded all of the talk about his meteoric rise. I just thought he was another big gov't a**hole... Mea Culpa...
  • Thisismyname 2012/03/19 21:29:30
  • Randice Thisism... 2012/03/20 01:20:31
    Randice
    +2
    To what in it do you claim is false?
  • Kaleokualoha 2012/03/19 21:03:51 (edited)
    None of the above
    Kaleokualoha
    ". . . thinly veiled socialist with flowery speech"? "Socialist Muslim"? My, what an ACTIVE imagination. But this is par for the course from WND, which is one of the primary propagandists of the Conservative Disinformation Network (see http://kaleokualoha2878577.ne... ). You might as well get your news from The Star or National Enquirer.

    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. Capit...


















    ". . . thinly veiled socialist with flowery speech"? "Socialist Muslim"? My, what an ACTIVE imagination. But this is par for the course from WND, which is one of the primary propagandists of the Conservative Disinformation Network (see http://kaleokualoha2878577.ne... ). You might as well get your news from The Star or National Enquirer.

    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.

    "Have patience awhile; slanders are not long-lived. Truth is the child of time; erelong she shall appear to vindicate thee."
    - Immanuel Kant
    (more)
  • John "B... Kaleoku... 2012/03/19 21:32:47
    John "By God" American
    +5
    He doesn't want to eliminate capitalism. He's actually a Fascist/Statist where the government and the bureaucrats get rich on the backs of the public. Not really a new concept since Congress has been doing that for years. obama is just far more blatant about his desire for dictatorship...
  • prosperhappily 2012/03/19 20:54:20
    None of the above
    prosperhappily
    well, ya know I actually didn't read it.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2014/10/24 10:22:10

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals