Glenn Beck and Nazis

[VaporTrail]

This thread is now about trains.

 

[Westside Steve]

Heck, how about a response?

I'm serious.

As we all know I'm not a religious guy.

However I respect those who are.

 

But the Antichrist (as I understand it) is a world leader who captivates the emotions of billions.

I'm assuming the message he'll bring is one of peace equality and prosperity in a secular world.

 

See that'd be in opposition to the spiritual path set out in the Bible.

 

Now if you believe that part of revelations (isn't it?) then Obama seems to have a little of that worldly appeal and to be sure the tower of Babel has fallen thanks to world wide communications.

Hey if the end is near why not now?

 

So, again, if you believe that then why would it be outrageous to think the antichrist was already here and might be this guy who seems to have a lot of acolytes?

 

 

Also since you feel think Christianity is a load of rubbish why are you afraid to call people who believe in it lunatics?

(Unless they're Republicans.)

 

 

I think this is a fairly interesting topic worthy of a better resdponse than the typical bluster.

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

Well, I really don't. Honestly, it just reminds me how we live in entirely different worlds. That you would even sit down and type what you just typed is equal parts pathetic and sad, and uses the same kind of ridiculous logic and false premises that you used to tie him to Hitler, or that you use in a lot of arguments. The fact that you can't see the flaws in this these types of arguments, and continue to think and argue that these are entirely reasonable positions to take, doesn't say good things about you. But this is also nothing new. It's just a more ridiculous topic than usual.

 

You should really get beyond the "I can make these two things sound vaguely alike, therefore we can confuse the motives of one with the other" arguments. Because you're a grown man, and you're supposed to outgrow these types of lazy techniques somewhere around your junior year of high school. It's a pretty pathetic trick to use.

 

As for Christianity, obviously its adherents run the gamut from the thoughtful and loving and the truly spiritual to the fundamentalist, the dogmatic, and the intolerant. I would never dismiss them all as lunatics, and you should probably stop making up that I do.

 

After all, according to you, I think my wife is a lunatic.

 

So again, if you guys want to talk about how Obama using strong language about Wall Street, which is equal parts justifiable and an obvious political calculation, or wanting to re-establish higher tax rates on upper incomes to where they were in the 90s in order to increase tax revenue - which everyone on the planet who isn't insane understands we need to do - is really him "scapegoating the rich", and that someone named Hitler also scapegoated people, so therefore Obama is doing things that Hitler did, you're going to have to do it without me.

 

It just makes me worry about the possibility of meaningful compromise with, and serious governance from, a party largely controlled by its angry, fearful, and illogical base.

 

[Mr. T]

I take it that Heck has never worked in the private sector.

 

 

Heck have you ever owned your own business?

[Chicopee John]

>>That you would even sit down and type what you just typed is equal parts pathetic and sad >>

 

That is an opinion not shared by, at least, me. What Steve typed does require some education on your (and others) parts but all I'd expect from you is a statement that people who believe such and such are nuts.

 

Christianity isn't a buffet table where you take what you want and leave the rest. Clearly, you disagree with the concept of Anti Christ (and God and Heaven and Hail, etc). IMHO, your opinion is based on blindness and an unwillingness to venture outside of your squared comfort zone. You don't like something or are unable reconcile the real world with what is written in the Bible, so you dismiss it as hogwash.

 

Talk about junior high school approaches. And you like to come across as so 'sophisticated'.

 

 

>>As for Christianity, obviously its adherents run the gamut from the thoughtful and loving and the truly spiritual to the fundamentalist, the dogmatic, and the intolerant. I would never dismiss them all as lunatics, and you should probably stop making up that I do. >>

 

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth, Heck. You cannot dismiss aspects of anything as being insane or illogical (or stupid) without implying or stating that those who do believe are, at least, 'troubled'.

 

 

>>After all, according to you, I think my wife is a lunatic.>>

 

Actually, I fear that good woman married a lunatic

 

>>It just makes me worry about the possibility of meaningful compromise with, and serious governance from, a party largely controlled by its angry, fearful, and illogical base.>>

 

You really don't want a dialogue, Heck. You continue to pretend that you do but I don't believe you are open minded about this topic and others.

[Westside Steve]

After all, according to you, I think my wife is a lunatic.

 

Thanks for the bitter spew. Takes a special kind of moxie to keep whining about how grumpy I am huh?

 

Does your wife believe that Jesus is the Son of God who was sent to die on the cross for the sins of man?

And that He was born of a virgin?

And that there is a God who cares about us?

Does she believe that the book of revelations has meaning?

Does she believe in Heaven or Hell?

The devil?

That you can get to one or the other by accepting Jesus as your savior (or not)?

 

Do you find those statements rational and believable?

If not, what would you call someone who believes in non rational ideas like those?

 

WSS

[calfoxwc]

Heck, is there anyone you won't ridicule?

 

The baloney of yours, talking down to Steve, is almost laughable,

 

yet pitiful.

 

You DO have a lot to learn, and what I consider to be your arrogance

 

has you suspended in perception quicksand.

 

Get a grip. John and Steve have made some very solid points,

 

and you are just critizing their points with no justification.

 

Hardly the muster of one who considers himself superior in all ways,

 

on all subjects.

 

"This is fun !"

[heckofajobbrownie]

Thanks for the bitter spew. Takes a special kind of moxie to keep whining about how grumpy I am huh?

 

Does your wife believe that Jesus is the Son of God who was sent to die on the cross for the sins of man?

And that He was born of a virgin?

And that there is a God who cares about us?

Does she believe that the book of revelations has meaning?

Does she believe in Heaven or Hell?

The devil?

That you can get to one or the other by accepting Jesus as your savior (or not)?

 

Do you find those statements rational and believable?

If not, what would you call someone who believes in non rational ideas like those?

 

WSS

 

Steve, what do you want me to say? That using flawed arguments like the ones you continually use is really insightful? That it's brilliant? It's not. Would you like me to speak to you more gently when you're arguing that it's perfectly reasonable to think the president is the antichrist? I can't even believe I respond to idiocy like this at all.

 

Here's some more of your favorite brand of logic:

 

- George Bush and Dick Cheney wanted to invade Iraq. 9/11 gave them the pretext to invade Iraq. Therefore, George Bush and Dick Cheney were in on 9/11.

 

And even that is more evolved than what you're doing.

 

As for your and John's reduction of Christianity to the point where you either accept it all as literally true or you're not a Christian, that's horseshit. None of you accept it all as literally true either, or believe in everything the Bible says. Because if you did everything the Bible says you should do you'd be in jail by now. So give me a break with this "it's not a buffet table". It clearly is a buffet table. You have to be completely irrational or completely lost to take everything in the Bible as literally true. So much of it is allegorical, especially in the Old Testament.

 

So yes, my wife believes that Christ is the human representation of God. No, she doesn't believe in all the born of a virgin/hell/devil stuff, or that the Book of Revelations or Leviticus has any useful, modern day purpose. I think that makes her more of a Christian, not less. But let's stop talking about my wife.

 

As for me not being open-minded about this stuff, John, give me a break. I have opinions that don't conform to yours. I don't agree with you. If you want to go back a ways and check, you can find me and Tupa discussing this stuff at length, and over the course of weeks. We even still do from time to time.

 

And I don't think he'd find it very useful to begin with a discussion about whether or not Obama is the antichrist. Trust me, as a devout religious person himself, he'd tell you just how lost you were too. He'd just probably be nicer about it.

 

 

[Chicopee John]

And I don't think he'd find it very useful to begin with a discussion about whether or not Obama is the antichrist.

 

 

I never said he was the Anti Christ, Heck. Neither did anybody else. Vape said his dad believes he is but that isn't germane.

 

I clearly said that I fear he is the Anti Christ. I stand by that statement. I also am on record as saying I hope he isn't.

 

However, somewhere, someday, the Anti Christ will rise and people will dismiss it.

 

Jesus walked the face of this earth and people dismiss his teachings and miracles.

 

FWIW, I have no problem with Toop. However, you are gravely mistaken is you - somehow - believe I will be upset IF he were upset. Don't benchmark me, bro.

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Oh, thank God. You only fear he's the antichrist. I feel so much better.

 

Honestly.

 

[Chicopee John]

Oh, thank God. You only fear he's the antichrist. I feel so much better. Honestly.

 

Only time will tell, Heck.

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Are you serious? You're not joking?

 

Yeah, well, some of us don't need time to tell. We know you're laughably lost right now.

 

Honestly, John, this ranks up there with some of the craziest shit anyone has ever said on this board, and that's saying something.

 

He's a man from Hawaii - and a Christian - who you disagree with. Trust me, the easiest explanation is the one you should go with here.

 

But if you want to join Cal out in front of the cameras and tell the world how you fear Obama is the antichrist, please do. This kind of religious-based nonsense has a way of scaring the shit out of voters.

 

 

[Chicopee John]

But if you want to join Cal out in front of the cameras and tell the world how you fear Obama is the antichrist, please do. This kind of religious-based nonsense has a way of scaring the shit out of voters.

 

I'm comfortable with my beliefs, Heck, and am humble to know that I might not be right - especially all of the time.

 

YOU raised the issue, not me. I only responded because you posted something that said a quarter of polled Republicans believe that Obamma may be the Anti Christ.

 

I chimed in only as an example of an unaffiliated voter who feels the same way - this is not monopolized by Republican voters (your secular version of same).

 

What percentage of Democrats feel he may? I don't know and neither do you.

[heckofajobbrownie]

John, really. You're not unaffiliated. I read what you write. You are not unaffiliated. You lean heavily conservative.

 

Lots of people like to think of themselves as independents. Most of them are not. And you're not.

 

This was a poll of self-identified Republicans. I think we can be pretty sure Democrats, who still give Obama an 82% approval rating, don't also think he may be the antichrist.

 

Let's not waste our time being coy/stupid.

 

And I wouldn't be so comfortable with this particular belief. It's beyond foolish.

 

[Chicopee John]

And I wouldn't be so comfortable with this particular belief. It's beyond foolish.

 

Exactly what Saul thought as he got on his mule for the ride to Damascus.

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

Right, John. Supernatural things will be happening to you and all of us any day now. Because Obama may be ushering in the return of Christ.

 

 

[Mr. T]

This was a poll of self-identified Republicans. I think we can be pretty sure Democrats, who still give Obama an 82% approval rating, don't also think he may be the antichrist.

 

Let's not waste our time being coy/stupid.

 

And I wouldn't be so comfortable with this particular belief. It's beyond foolish.

 

 

And the foolish nature of your approval rating makes up less than 20% of Americans and illegal aliens.

[calfoxwc]

<H2 id=main-poll-title>I went to realclearpolitics... I don't see any kind of approval rating Heck just made up from the mistaken past.

 

I guess lying is fun when you're a liberal.

************************

 

Let's all go and see where Heck's "82% approval rating" is.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/ot...roval-1044.html

[heckofajobbrownie]

It's because you can't read, Cal: "I think we can be pretty sure Democrats, who still give Obama an 82% approval rating, don't also think he may be the antichrist."

 

It's right here.

 

It's okay. You do this stuff all the time.

 

But let's try this for fun: you were wrong, right? You accused me a being a liar when it was you, in fact, who were wrong. Isn't that right?

 

 

[calfoxwc]

I call a manipulative half-truth a lie. LOL

 

I KNEW you'd come back with that. LOL, ROF,L !

 

Btw, There are NO NON-COLLEGE DEMOCRATS who are white who were in your poll?

 

Or, all cherry-picked black liberals?

 

Many, many blacks give Obama high ratings because he's black, and like you,

 

they think he's pretty.

 

But taking a poll, and limiting it to only Dems, and a lot of black Dems,

 

and getting a popularity rating doesn't impress me, and it makes your numbers

 

worthless. But you like em, so you say they are the end all.

 

The end all of nothin, says I.

************************************

Obama's Poor Approval Rating With Working Class Whites Threatens The Democrat MajorityNews Type: Opinion — Seeded on Tue Dec 15, 2009 8:09 AM ESThttp://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/...connections.php Seeded by JohnRussell

Just 38 percent of noncollege whites approved of Obama's performance in the latest weekly Gallup average. The president's difficulties extend beyond manner. Polls show most working-class whites doubt that his flotilla of federal initiatives will help them. In a recent survey by the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, only one-third of noncollege whites said that their families would be better off if health care reform passes. In a Garin poll for the Economic Policy Institute, just one-fifth of working-class whites said that Washington's response to the recession had benefited them. Many more identified Wall Street and large banks as the big winners. Their view, Garin says, is that Washington is reserving its "urgency" for "people at the top."

 

These attitudes threaten Democrats in 2010. Nationwide, about 30 percent of whites over 25 hold college degrees, according to new census figures. The share of whites with college degrees runs below that national average in 241 House districts; Democrats now hold 128 of them and Republicans 113. Those Democratic seats, particularly in interior states, present big opportunities for Republicans: Those districts include 25 of the 39 that my colleagues at The Cook Political Report rate as most vulnerable to a GOP takeover.

 

A possible Republican surge next year in blue-collar "beer track" districts remains the biggest threat to the Democrats' House majority. The Democrats' vulnerability will deepen, however, if they cannot hold the line in "wine track" districts whose education levels exceed the national average. That's one way a difficult 2010 election for Democrats could turn catastrophic.

 

 

[calfoxwc]

Your "approval rating" is skewed in a huge way:

 

"The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern"

 

You know, there were Germans who loved Hitler as Jews were being sent to death camps.

 

Your pres is very, very, very destructive to our American unity, to our safety,

 

to our morale, to our troops' ability to do what they do, and to our freedoms.

 

He also reeks of burnt sulfur.

 

Gosh. I wonder why. @@

 

"This is fun"

[heckofajobbrownie]

Like I said, it was entertaining.

 

"I was wrong" is generally easier. And less embarrassing for you.

[smalls1129]

You know Heck, I hear you all the time talk about there not being any real conversation around here. Well, I took my time and gave you what I thought was a well reasoned response to the rep poll you posted. Do you have anything to say concerning my response or would you prefer to just keep with the status quo of responding to people who by your own admission you already know what they're going to say?

[heckofajobbrownie]

Sorry, I didn't see it. I'll go back.

[heckofajobbrownie]

"And I do believe the President leans much closer to the prospect of collectivism than individual's freedoms."

 

What individual freedoms are you suggesting that he's making us give up? The right to not own health insurance, and to have other people pay for your health care? Okay. Of course, this is a policy tool necessary to make the ban on pre-existing conditions work. If you want the ban, and most people do, you have to have the mandate, which most people don't like. Otherwise it doesn't work. You can't have one without the other. His problem is that he didn't make that point clear enough. (Republicans, of course, like to pretend you can have the ban without the mandate. It's a real profile in courage.)

 

Is that an acceptable trade off between liberty (your right not to own health insurance) and making our health care system function more sensibly? This is why we have elections.

 

Otherwise, I can't think of a single individual freedom he's proposed ceding to a program of the state.

 

Overall, I'd say that if what you're saying is that he sees societal goals and individual freedoms as a balance, and isn't a strict libertarian, I have no problem with that, mostly because I think you're right, and because I think strict libertarians are mostly unreasonable and unrealistic.

 

But also, this really doesn't have anything to do with him being a socialist. And you make that distinction somewhat. Socialism is an economic system that he clearly doesn't subscribe to, and you can't find someone even remotely like that on his economic team. Pushing for higher taxes on the wealthy in a time of growing deficits does not make him a socialist. It makes him a realist.

 

Otherwise the two biggest socialists in the last 75 years are Truman and Eisenhower.

 

 

 

[Mr. T]

How many times does someone have to tell a lie before everyone is fooled into thinking it is a true statement?

 

 

 

Socialism? Socialist? Fascism? Fascist? Communism? Communist?

 

 

Whis one shall we describe our organizer and chief by?a hard-core academic Marxist?

 

Obama’s Communist Mentor, there are word links at the source to back up all that is said in this article.

 

AIM Column | By Cliff Kincaid | February 18, 2008

 

Is “coalition politics” at work in Obama’s rise to power?

 

In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama's life as a "secret smoker" and how he "went to great lengths to conceal the habit." But what about Obama's secret political life? It turns out that Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.

 

In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist," which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes.

 

However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."

 

The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.

 

Trevor Loudon, a New Zealand-based libertarian activist, researcher and blogger, noted evidence that "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis in a posting in March of 2007.

 

Obama's communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party frontrunner for the U.S. presidency. In the latest Real Clear Politics poll average, Obama beats Republican John McCain by almost four percentage points.

 

AIM recently disclosed that Obama has well-documented socialist connections, which help explain why he sponsored a "Global Poverty Act" designed to send hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action.

 

But the Communist Party connection through Davis is even more ominous. Decades ago, the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members, some of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. Government. It received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union.

 

You won't find any of this discussed in the David Mendell book, Obama: From Promise to Power. It is typical of the superficial biographies of Obama now on the market. Secret smoking seems to be Obama's most controversial activity. At best, Mendell and the liberal media describe Obama as "left-leaning."

 

But you will find it briefly discussed, sort of, in Obama's own book, Dreams From My Father. He writes about "a poet named Frank," who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of "hard-earned knowledge" and advice. Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had "some modest notoriety once," was "a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago..." but was now "pushing eighty." He writes about "Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self" giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.

 

This "Frank" is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis's career, and notes, "In Davis's case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II-even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership." Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis.

 

Is it possible that Obama did not know who Davis was when he wrote his book, Dreams From My Father, first published in 1995? That's not plausible since Obama refers to him as a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes and says he saw a book of his black poetry.

 

The communists knew who "Frank" was, and they know who Obama is. In fact, one academic who travels in communist circles understands the significance of the Davis-Obama relationship.

 

Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, talked about it during a speech last March at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University. The remarks are posted online under the headline, "Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party."

 

Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 "at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson," came into contact with Barack Obama and his family and became the young man's mentor, influencing Obama's sense of identity and career moves. Robeson, of course, was the well-known black actor and singer who served as a member of the CPUSA and apologist for the old Soviet Union. Davis had known Robeson from his time in Chicago.

 

As Horne describes it, Davis "befriended" a "Euro-American family" that had "migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago."

 

It was in Chicago that Obama became a "community organizer" and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.

 

The SDS laid siege to college campuses across America in the 1960s, mostly in order to protest the Vietnam War, and spawned the terrorist Weather Underground organization. Ayers was a member of the terrorist group and turned himself in to authorities in 1981. He is now a college professor and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Davidson is now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA, and helped organize the 2002 rally where Obama came out against the Iraq War.

 

Both communism and socialism trace their roots to Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, who endorsed the first meeting of the Socialist International, then called the "First International." According to Pierre Mauroy, president of the SI from 1992-1996, "It was he [Marx] who formally launched it, gave the inaugural address and devised its structure..."

 

Apparently unaware that Davis had been publicly named as a CPUSA member, Horne said only that Davis "was certainly in the orbit of the CP [Communist Party]-if not a member..."

 

In addition to Tidwell's book, Black Moods: Collected Poems of Frank Marshall Davis, confirming Davis's Communist Party membership, another book, The New Red Negro: The Literary Left and African American Poetry, 1930-1946, names Davis as one of several black poets who continued to publish in CPUSA-supported publications after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact. The author, James Edward Smethurst, associate professor of Afro-American studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, says that Davis, however, would later claim that he was "deeply troubled" by the pact.

 

While blacks such as Richard Wright left the CPUSA, it is not clear if or when Davis ever left the party.

 

However, Obama writes in Dreams From My Father that he saw "Frank" only a few days before he left Hawaii for college, and that Davis seemed just as radical as ever. Davis called college "An advanced degree in compromise" and warned Obama not to forget his "people" and not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit." Davis also complained about foot problems, the result of "trying to force African feet into European shoes," Obama wrote.

 

For his part, Horne says that Obama's giving of credit to Davis will be important in history. "At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack's memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis' equally affecting memoir, Living the Blues and when that day comes, I'm sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside," he said.

 

Dr. Kathryn Takara, a professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa who also confirms that Davis is the "Frank" in Obama's book, did her dissertation on Davis and spent much time with him between 1972 until he passed away in 1987.

 

In an analysis posted online, she notes that Davis, who was a columnist for the Honolulu Record, brought "an acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the world" and that he openly discussed subjects such as American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. She described him as a "socialist realist" who attacked the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee.

 

Davis, in his own writings, had said that Robeson and Harry Bridges, the head of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and a secret member of the CPUSA, had suggested that he take a job as a columnist with the Honolulu Record "and see if I could do something for them." The ILWU was organizing workers there and Robeson's contacts were "passed on" to Davis, Takara writes.

 

Takara says that Davis "espoused freedom, radicalism, solidarity, labor unions, due process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights, Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics."

 

Is "coalition politics" at work in Obama's rise to power?

 

Trevor Loudon, the New Zealand-based blogger who has been analyzing the political forces behind Obama and specializes in studying the impact of Marxist and leftist political organizations, notes that Frank Chapman, a CPUSA supporter, has written a letter to the party newspaper hailing the Illinois senator's victory in the Iowa caucuses.

 

"Obama's victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle," Chapman wrote. "Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the MOLE, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary ‘mole,' not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through."

 

 

 

Accuracy in Media, Obama’s Communist Mentor

[calfoxwc]

so, we have a DICtator who wants control over schools, education loans, banks,

 

all healthcare, auto mfg's, and now, churches, our entire financial system,

 

won't close our borders *mining for votes.......

 

And our food. and our income. and our land, and part of our farms,

 

and wants to put the coal industry out of business, our retirements,

 

our guns, our Constitution *see 1st and 2nd Amendment for starters,

 

our Bill of Rights, our history, our voting booths, any and all dissent they don't like,

 

tea partiers, the internet,

 

and they want to allow total freedoms of abortion on demand, and he talked about

 

being president for "EIGHT to TEN YEARS"...

 

but Heck thinks he's a "realist", not a danger to our country.

 

Nobody should wonder why I call liberalism/leftist Marxist/progressivism... a CULT.

[Westside Steve]

"And I do believe the President leans much closer to the prospect of collectivism than individual's freedoms."

 

What individual freedoms are you suggesting that he's making us give up? The right to not own health insurance, and to have other people pay for your health care? Okay. Of course, this is a policy tool necessary to make the ban on pre-existing conditions work. If you want the ban, and most people do, you have to have the mandate, which most people don't like. Otherwise it doesn't work. You can't have one without the other. His problem is that he didn't make that point clear enough. (Republicans, of course, like to pretend you can have the ban without the mandate. It's a real profile in courage.)

 

Is that an acceptable trade off between liberty (your right not to own health insurance) and making our health care system function more sensibly? This is why we have elections.

 

Otherwise, I can't think of a single individual freedom he's proposed ceding to a program of the state.

 

Overall, I'd say that if what you're saying is that he sees societal goals and individual freedoms as a balance, and isn't a strict libertarian, I have no problem with that, mostly because I think you're right, and because I think strict libertarians are mostly unreasonable and unrealistic.

 

But also, this really doesn't have anything to do with him being a socialist. And you make that distinction somewhat. Socialism is an economic system that he clearly doesn't subscribe to, and you can't find someone even remotely like that on his economic team. Pushing for higher taxes on the wealthy in a time of growing deficits does not make him a socialist. It makes him a realist.

 

Otherwise the two biggest socialists in the last 75 years are Truman and Eisenhower.

 

 

Don't wanna mention LBJ huh?

And lets go back a little further to FDR and Lincoln.

We're sliding down the slope. Some grease the skids more than others.

 

Health care isn't a right. It's a service. But sure I want it free too.

Lots better to let you pay for it. I'll send you my bar tab if you want.

 

 

But to the religion bit, I guess you're just too angry to have a discussion with.

And hey you're the guy who brought your wife into the conversation.

 

But the stuff I listed (besides the Revelations part) is the basis of Christianity AFAIK.

I don't expect anyone to buy in unless they want to, but if you don't belive it call yourself something else. That's all.

 

WSS

 

[heckofajobbrownie]

One, you're entirely missing the point about tax rates.

 

Two, for the 76th time, stop saying health care is now free for people. It isn't. Get it through your mane.

 

Three, we already had that discussion about Christianity too, and you're wrong. That isn't the checklist that everyone must agree with in order to call themselves a Christian. You just keep pretending it is.

 

The Jesuit priest who performed our wedding doesn't believe some of that stuff, and I do believe he's a Christian.

 

But other than everything in that post, great job.

[Chicopee John]

The Jesuit priest who performed our wedding doesn't believe some of that stuff, and I do believe he's a Christian.

 

 

What are examples of some thing he doesn't believe, Heck. I am truly interested (this isn't a wise crack).