All of this socialism talk has me wondering

[TRFrance]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Its not "sudden outrage" (a nice attempt to obfuscate), its calling it what it is.

Thank you.

Besides, Obama would be the first US president to have openly associated with Socialists as much as he has done. And it dates back to his youth, as he himself admits in his book:

Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days:

Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college.

Barack Obama laughs off charges of socialism. Joe Biden scoffs at references to Marxism. Both men shrug off accusations of liberalism.

But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...-college-days/

[StillStanding]

The way to help out the disadvantaged (except those with mental and physical disabilities) is to teach them to fish instead of giving them a fish.

I'm for the government paying for less fortunate to attend schools, colleges and trade schools to learn a profitable trade or life skill for advancement.

Teach them to fish and you feed them for life!

Wait a minute! They already have some of these benefits! Maybe we should pay as long as they don't flunk. Maintaining a "B" average is asking too much!

Maybe class attendance shouldn't be a requirement. Come on......classes meeting before noon isn't fair to people who like to party every night!

Maybe we should give them a college degree for just trying!

If everybody was mandated to have an equal college degree, then eferyone would have an equal chance for employment. The government could require employers to pick their employees by random drawing. All promotions would also by by random drawing of names.

The Utopia of equal wealth can indeed be achieved! We'll ALL be poor!!!

[Withdrawn]

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

In the past, in recognition of the fact that the electorate historically is 60% conservative, and then some moderates/centrists, leftists and socialists needed to run as moderates or even as mildly conservative in order to get elected. Any socialism was held close to the vest, and put into policy stealthily.

Nowadays, with Republicans blatantly pushing for socialist policy in the mix of "conservative" agenda, the leftists must recognize that the time is ripe to take off the mask. There is a far greater percentage of the population that is open to socialist ideas, and there is a far greater percentage of the population that is oblivious and/or ignorant, than in the past, even the recent past.

This is true. I had a conversation with my son and one of his friends this past weekend (both are 15 years old). The friend's dad works a low-paying, physical labor job. His mother never leaves the house. They rent an apartment in a poor part of town and don't have much of their own. When he indicated that his family was for Obama because he is going to help people like them, I asked him where he thought he would get the money to do that. His response was frightening. He said, "from the rich people." When I reminded him that we are a constitutional republic, and that what he was suggesting was Marxist socialism/borderline communism, he said, "who cares. We need help."

I wasn't trying to get into a brawling argument with this kid, but I wanted to say that the help they need is for his dad to get out of the bottle and try to improve his own self and his own life. His mom needs to get the mental help she needs to get out of the house and help contribute to her family instead of being a financial and emotional drain on it. There are plenty of (admittedly socialist) programs already in place to help people that want help and are willing to do a little work. But come on!!!

Originally Posted by OP_Carl

Some of us are still cognizant of the fact that back when patriotic Americans were still eager to bust communists in the chops, Saul Alinsky and William Ayers were the sorts of communists whose chops made the menu. It's clear that those whose values are wholly or in part inherited from the John Birch society or the Reagan defeat of communism can connect the dots and see that Obama is the most blatantly Marxist person to ever seek the presidency.

I'm 41 years old, so I don't have first hand knowledge and experience of the passion with which Communists were exposed and demonized. I do remember learning of the McCarthy hearings in school, though, and even back then (70's and 80's) the liberal/social agenda had already creeped into the schools because of the spin that was put on how this was carried out. I'm not saying mistakes weren't made, but the way this is taught in school is much like how we pentecostals would look at the Inquisitions.

This is a VERY sad and troubling time in the USA. I've told my family, and I honestly believe, that if BO is elected the USA of history will be no more. The foundation has already been laid.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by MikeinAR

When Bill Clinton raised the $250K and above crowds tax level up to 39%, I don't remember all of this boogie man socialism stuff. When GWB took office, he then lowered the $250K and above tax level back to 36%, it's pre-Clinton level.

Now Obama is proposing that rate be moved back up to the Clinton level of 39%, and now the uggie boogie socialists are forcing wealth redistribution on all of us. Why wasn't any of this brought up 16 years ago if the threats so real?

Because this is a part of the fear mongering that the Republicans have tried to run this campaign with.

Plus, Sen. Obama's (alleged and confirmed) past associations and some of his own words (in and out of context) have given the Republicans an opportunity to attack him unfairly.


I said it before: stir up enough smoke, create enough doubt-- that's the Republican plan.

The plan is sad indeed. This election has never been about Sen. McCain and what he will do for America.

It has been about Sen. Obama, negatively and positively, and about Gov. Palin, positively but more negatively. I think she painted her own red wagon concerning the negative press, most (not all) of the time.


It is Sen. McCain's and the Republican hacks' fault that the media has spent more time talking about Sen. Obama. They spent too much time going after him, trying to attack him, and not enough time building a strong, solid platform for Sen. McCain to stand on. The "socialist talk" is an example of this.


Many of the folks voting for Sen. McCain are voting for him because they don't want to see Sen. Obama as President for valid and invalid reasons-- none of which that have anything to do with the specific plans of Sen. McCain.


Rush told Republicans to register a Democrats and vote for Clinton to sully the Democrat primary process.

Hannity had the, "Stop Obama" express.

This election process has never been about Sen. McCain and it is the Republican's fault.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by jaamez

This is a VERY sad and troubling time in the USA. I've told my family, and I honestly believe, that if BO is elected the USA of history will be no more. The foundation has already been laid.

Hey buddy, the USA of history is ALREADY no more, in many aspects, negative and positive.

9/11 changed us forever and I don't think it necessarily had to. But it did and now we are not as free as we were before 9/11. Everyone is more careful, some say it's good, I'm sure it's not-- I just don't know how to put words to it without seeming irresponsible in terms of "security and safety".

Another glaring example is America's invasion of Iraq. With that one act, we lost years and years of credibility as a just nation in the eyes of the international community.

Most folks don't realize how unjust this action was-- not the actions of the troops, but the action of the Government that dictates the actions of the troops. Hussein got what was coming to him, but it should not have been us.


GWB's pumping of government cash into private, commercial banks HAS NEVER been done before and is THE CLOSEST TO SOCIALISM our country has lurked, ever. It happened on a Republican's watch, after 6 years of Republican domination of the House and Senate.

What he did will prove to be wise financially, but that man has violated a founding principle.

He has crossed a line that our country will never retreat from. He did so in the name of money.


Yes, the foundation for change has been laid, thanks to our Republican leadership!

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by 1399

Hey buddy, the USA of history is ALREADY no more, in many aspects, negative and positive.

9/11 changed us forever and I don't think it necessarily had to. But it did and now we are not as free as we were before 9/11. Everyone is more careful, some say it's good, I'm sure it's not-- I just don't know how to put words to it without seeming irresponsible in terms of "security and safety".

How are we not as free? Because of the domestic and international survelliance conducted by the goverment? Please. You don't want the CIA or FBI listening to phone conversations between terrorists and thier sympathizers here in the US? They can listen to me all they want. I have nothing to hide. I'm in no danger. The only folks who should worry are terrorists and those that would aid and abet them.

Another glaring example is America's invasion of Iraq. With that one act, we lost years and years of credibility as a just nation in the eyes of the international community.

Most folks don't realize how unjust this action was-- not the actions of the troops, but the action of the Government that dictates the actions of the troops. Hussein got what was coming to him, but it should not have been us.

Okay. Let's talk about the FACTS here. I know its not always a convenient factor when it comes to the Bush bashers on Iraq but the truth can make you free if you're willing to embrace it. First, EVERYONE, including nations that opposed our actions against Hussein, all were in agreement that Hussein had WMDs in violation of the original cease-fire agreement of 1991. The info was proven to be faulty, but no one at the time had any reason to believe it was not true.

The loss of credibility was not with the US but with the UN since Hussen had violated 17 UN Resolutions and they did not have the integrity to back up those resolutions. Bush showed leadership, with a coaliton of many nations including Britian, Poland, Spain, Italy and dozens of other countries in support.

We did not lose a reputation as a just nation, just ask the millions of Iraqis who are living with more freedom than ever, more security, democracy, and prosperity. If we were unjust, 1399, why haven't we helped out our economy by trading the so-called "blood for oil" that the Bush bashers love to chant? We traded blood for freedom and justice in Iraq, as we always do. We are rebuilding this nation, its infrastructure and its fundamental institutions for a stable and freedom loving nation. Time is proving our credibility.

GWB's pumping of government cash into private, commercial banks HAS NEVER been done before and is THE CLOSEST TO SOCIALISM our country has lurked, ever. It happened on a Republican's watch, after 6 years of Republican domination of the House and Senate.

What he did will prove to be wise financially, but that man has violated a founding principle.

He has crossed a line that our country will never retreat from. He did so in the name of money.

Yes, the foundation for change has been laid, thanks to our Republican leadership!

Nothing Bush has done has come near FDR's New Deal or LBJ's Great Society. It is my understanding that private industry is supposed to pay the taxpayers back with interest and the ownership of the banking industry will return to the private sector. Lee Iacocca paid the US Treasury back the money we pumped into Chrysler to save it and the taxpayers actually made a profit. The S & L bailout did essentially the same thing. There is no plan or design for the government to own these financial institutions permanently.

1399 I see a trend in your posts. Much like the Obama campaign you repeat the talking points to dodge and weave and point the finger to divert the attention away from the truth. If the media wasn't so in the tank for BO and pro-Democrat, much of the misinformation out there about Iraq, the economy, the Obama campaign, Sarah Palin, etc would not exist.

Thanks for continuing to spread the false assertions and Bush bashing. Keep saying it enough times and people will eventually believe it. It has been effective for the NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, et al. It might be effective for you too.

Except for those of us who won't drink the Kool Aid without checking for the cyanide first.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Lol

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

How are we not as free? Because of the domestic and international survelliance conducted by the goverment? Please. You don't want the CIA or FBI listening to phone conversations between terrorists and thier sympathizers here in the US? They can listen to me all they want. I have nothing to hide. I'm in no danger. The only folks who should worry are terrorists and those that would aid and abet them.

We are not as free as in we are not as carefree. That's mainly what I was pointing to. However, there are other ways in which there is a heightened tension, call it scrutiny if you will, on some of the mundane.

[deacon blues]

Originally Posted by TRFrance

Thank you.

Besides, Obama would be the first US president to have openly associated with Socialists as much as he has done. And it dates back to his youth, as he himself admits in his book:

Obama Affinity to Marxists Dates Back to College Days:

Barack Obama shrugs off charges of socialism, but noted in his own memoir that he carefully chose Marxist professors as friends in college.

Barack Obama laughs off charges of socialism. Joe Biden scoffs at references to Marxism. Both men shrug off accusations of liberalism.

But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."


http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10...-college-days/

Great post TR. Of course you muddy the issue with FACTS in Obama's own words. Funny how MikeinAR and 1399 fail to even acknowledge let alone respond to FACTS that fly in the face of this curious amazement at this "sudden rage" about charges of socialism/marxism. Obama's socialist/marxist leanings are well documented and apparent.

One will find it hard to see what is obvious to everyone else when one's head is buried deep in the sand.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Okay. Let's talk about the FACTS here. I know its not always a convenient factor when it comes to the Bush bashers on Iraq but the truth can make you free if you're willing to embrace it. First, EVERYONE, including nations that opposed our actions against Hussein, all were in agreement that Hussein had WMDs in violation of the original cease-fire agreement of 1991. The info was proven to be faulty, but no one at the time had any reason to believe it was not true.

The loss of credibility was not with the US but with the UN since Hussen had violated 17 UN Resolutions and they did not have the integrity to back up those resolutions. Bush showed leadership, with a coaliton of many nations including Britian, Poland, Spain, Italy and dozens of other countries.

We did not lose a reputation as a just nation, just ask the millions of Iraqis who are living with more freedom than ever, more security, democracy, and prosperity. If we were unjust, 1399, why haven't we helped out our economy by trading the so-called "blood for oil" that the Bush bashers love to chant? We traded blood for freedom and justice in Iraq, as we always do. We are rebuilding this nation, its infrastructure and its fundamental institutions for a stable and freedom loving nation. Time is proving our credibility.

The WMD's argument was not worthy of an invasion, according to the U.N.
When we did it anyway, GWB gambled with our Country's credibility and our credibility suffered a black eye because of it.


Though your assessment is fair and truthful, it is not debatable that the American Government was and still is frowned upon for our actions in Iraq.

Fairly or unfairly, we loss credibility in the international community.
GWB's perceived bungling of Hurricane Katrina feeds the idea that America is more interested in fixing other countries without trying to fix her own.

We know that GWB was the last person to fail the residents of New Orleans, but that's the burden of leadership. Fairly or not, GWB's actions are perceived to have damaged badly our credibility.