Its funny but he never does answers my questions with his OWN answers.
So desperate to avoid speaking his own mind on the subject.
I did ask you if you would place President Obama in the same category as George Soros in terms of Liberalism?
I am now asking you what WOULD you call him (we know you WOULDNT call him a moderate).
Last edited by Havakasha; 05-23-2012 at 12:33 AM.
It's a stupid question that will go no where. Sorry.Originally Posted by Havakasha
Today's Quote
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish & he will
never starve.
But here is the socialistic/communistic “Hope and Change” version:
Give a man a welfare check, a free cell phone with free monthly
minutes, food stamps, section 8 housing, un-earned income tax rebates,
and he will throw the fishing gear away & vote Democrat for a
lifetime.
----------------------------------------------
Sad but true. This is how democrats derive their power. Yeah, I know. It is sickening. Did you hear that the biggest liberal mouthpiece wants to control society with mathematical formulas?? Nevermind the nonsense, the key word is "control". There are no "blessings of Liberty" with this crew.
Obama a socialist? Many scoff, but claim persists
By DAVID CRARY | Associated Press – Mon, Jun 4, 2012
NEW YORK (AP) — When President Barack Obama's re-election campaign unveiled its new slogan, some conservative critics were quick to pounce.
"Forward," they asserted, is a word long associated with Europe's radical left. Its choice reaffirmed their contention that Obama is, to some degree or other, a socialist — a claim that surfaced early in the 2008 campaign and has persisted ever since, fueling a lively industry of bumper stickers and books..
"New Obama slogan has long ties to Marxism, socialism," read a headline in The Washington Times. A column by Russian immigrant Svetlana Kunin, for Investor's Business Daily, said Obama seeks to move America forward to "total government involvement in people's lives."
This is far from a new phenomenon — the use of "socialist" as a political epithet in the U.S. dates back to pre-Civil War days when abolitionist newspaper editor Horace Greeley was branded a socialist by some pro-slavery adversaries. In the 20th century, many elements of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal — including Social Security — were denounced as socialist. So was Medicare when it was created in the 1960s.
But to many historians and political scientists — and to actual socialists as well — the persistent claim that Obama is a socialist lacks credence.
He's widely seen as a pragmatist within the Democratic Party mainstream who's had ample success raising campaign funds from wealthy Wall Street capitalists. Even some of his strongest critics acknowledge that his administration hasn't sought one of the classic forms of socialism — government control of the nation's means of production.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-socialis...dPEz4A.9rQtDMD
Give him more time and a democratically controlled house and senate THEN see what happens.
President Obama's Marxist-Leninist Economics: Fact And Fiction
By Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson
Forbes
It seems inevitable in an election year that people on both ends of the ideological spectrum resort to simplistic labels. On the political right, many call President Obama a socialist, because that is a simple, familiar term with the desired negative connotations. However, I agree with the actual socialists from the International Socialist Organization, the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, the Party of Socialism and Liberation, and the Socialist Party USA who uniformly and correctly observe that Obama is not a dictionary-definition socialist, because he has not called for the national government to nationalize the means of production.
The problem here is that the dictionary definition of “socialist” sets an almost impossibly high bar for any leader. Even Vladimir Lenin himself couldn’t meet that standard. Actually, Lenin tried to implement pure socialism when he first came to power, but when his policies caused the Russian economy to collapse all around him, in 1921 he abandoned literal socialism and replaced it with a pragmatic, expedient reform program called the “New Economic Policy.” Under NEP, Lenin permitted various privatizations while seeking state domination of the “commanding heights” of the economy.
Besides mimicking some of Lenin’s policy strategies, Obama also has adopted Karl Marx’s strategies for gradually socializing an economy. Before I spell out the Marxian nature of many of Obama’s policies, let me emphasize that I am not calling Obama a “Marxist-Leninist, period.” “Marxist-Leninist” connotes the brutal totalitarian police state of the late, unlamented Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There is no comparison between Barack Obama’s statism and the genocidal, gulag-riddled regime of the Soviet Communists. That being said, Obama’s economic program is taken directly, if not deliberately, from the Marxist-Leninist playbook, and on that basis one may say that Obama tends toward Marxist-Leninist economics.
Besides adopting the Leninist strategy of seeking greater control over the commanding heights of the economy, if one reviews Marx’s 10-point platform for how to socialize a country’s economy in stages (“The Communist Manifesto,” chapter two), one finds that Team Obama and his congressional progressive allies have taken actions to further the goals laid out in all 10 of the planks in the Marx platform. Here are some examples, with Marx’s wording being revised for simplicity’s sake:
1 - 10 can be found here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhend...t-and-fiction/
[I"]In closing, I repeat that we should not recklessly call Obama a “Marxist-Leninist.” Although it’s too long and cumbersome a label for a generation addicted to sound bites and simplistic labels, a fair description of Obama and his economic goals is to say that he is “an interventionist, corporatist, statist, Big Government progressive, free-market-hating control freak who favors economic policies of a Marxist-Leninist flavor""[/I]
That's a fair assessment.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories...367_Page2.html
Republicans accuse Obama of wanting to wage class warfare, but who is more class conscious than Romney? I can summarize what Romney said to a bunch of wealthy donors at a May fundraiser: America is divided between the deserving rich and bums who want a handout. Vote for me, and I’ll keep you rich. Thank you very much. Enjoy the chicken.
And when David Corn of Mother Jones obtained the video of those remarks and Romney was forced to hold a news conference, how did he explain them? “That’s something which fundraising people who are parting with their monies are very interested in,” Romney said.
No kidding. But no matter.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz26vZiueBE
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...y.html?hpid=z2
Published: September 18
I thought we’d reached new heights of chutzpah in 2010 when Paul Ryan claimed to be a “fiscal conservative” — even though his original “Roadmap for America’s Future” added $62 trillion to the national debt before balancing the budget a half century from now.
Then that was topped in 2011 by the GOP’s galling refusal to raise the debt ceiling — despite having passed a Republican House budget that added nearly $6 trillion to the national debt in the next decade. As Bill Clinton might have said, it takes “brass” to stonewall on the debt limit when you’ve just voted to add trillions in fresh debt yourself.
But records are made to be broken. And so Mitt Romney’s fundraiser video riff now takes the chutzpah cake. What else can we say of a man who charges 47 percent of the country with being “dependent” “entitled” “victims,” because they don’t earn enough to pay federal income taxes? When the truth is that low earners were largely dropped from the rolls thanks to (sensible) Republican-supported policy that boosted the earned income tax credit? Which was itself the brainchild of conservative icon Milton Friedman!
And when those in the 47 percent who aren’t seniors or veterans are mostly poor workers whose payroll taxes, at 15.3 percent (since the employer side of the tax effectively comes out of workers’ wages), leaves them taxed at a higher rate than was Mitt Romney on his $20 million income last year?
To be so insultingly tone deaf and self-destructive even while being dead wrong and hypocritical on the substance is a perverse sort of accomplishment. It’s not easy to be this bad — but, like Roger Federer in his chosen field, Romney somehow makes it look effortless.
John Stewart does what he does best.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1899787.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...g.html?hpid=z1
But now NBC News has obtained the rest of Obama’s comments, and it is clear his remarks were taken completely out of context. Obama is not talking about redistributing wealth at all — instead, he speaks about competition, the market place and innovation in an effort to improve government services in Chicago.
Nevertheless, the Romney campaign had seized on the remark as evidence of Obama’s apparently socialist tendencies. “You know, President Obama said he believes in redistribution,” GOP vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan said Tuesday. “Mitt Romney and I are not running to redistribute the wealth. Mitt Romney and I are running to help Americans create wealth.”
Below is the YouTube version — which now has more than 500,000 views — touted by the Romney campaign. You can see it is missing the section outlined in bold in the quote above.
A Romney campaign spokesman said that the campaign only had the clip that was used on YouTube, not the rest of the Obama’s remarks.
We realize that the Romney campaign was trying to change the subject from the damaging video of Romney’s remarks in a private gathering just a few months ago. Perhaps this is a lesson that they might check the facts before they rush out with unfounded accusations — let alone ones based on remarks from the distant political past.
Four Pinocchios
(About our rating scale)
Check out our candidate Pinocchio Tracker
Had no idea Romney was borrowing money. Wow.
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-more-cam...-election.html
Obama has more campaign money to spend than Romney
By JULIE PACE and KASIE HUNT | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — At the end of August, President Barack Obama had about $88.8 million to spend on the final months of the campaign, nearly twice as much as Republican rival Mitt Romney, according to campaign fundraising reports released Thursday.
While Romney's report showed he had $50.4 million to spend as of Aug. 31, he also owed $15 million on a $20 million loan taken that month.
The loan helped Romney pay for mailings, staff salaries and TV advertising — and it helped his finances appear healthier on paper. It also boosted his cash-on-hand total from $35.4 million — a number that's closer to a third of Obama's haul.
While Romney raised about $66.6 million in August to Obama's $84.7 million, the $20 million loan boosts Romney's total receipts to $86.6 million, slightly higher than his Democratic opponent's take.
Reply With Quote