Where is the US economy headed?

By Obama's history, by his Senate votes, by his speeches, and by his actions, Obama has demonstrated he is an adherent to the policies of Saul Alinsky.

SAUL ALINSKY POLICIES

(1) Radicals should be "political relativists and take an agnostic view of means and ends;
(2) To say that corrupt means corrupt the ends is to believe in the immaculate conception of ends and principles.
(3) The radical is not a reformer of the system but its would-be destroyer;
(4) The revolutionary’s purpose is to undermine the system by taking from the HAVES and giving it to the HAVENOTS;
(5) We are not virtuous and are really cowards for not wanting power, because power is good and powerlessness is evil;
(6) The radical organizer does not have a fixed truth—truth to him is relative and changing because everything to him is relative and changing;
(7) The most basic principle for radicals is lie to opponents and disarm them by pretending to be moderates and liberals;
(8) The stated issue is never the real issue, because the real issue is always the revolution;
(9) The stated cause is never the real cause, but is only a means to advance the real cause of accumulation of power to make the revolution;
(10) The real objective of the revolution is a democracy which upends all social hierarchies, including those based on merit.

OBAMA ACTIONS

1. He has violated his oath to defend the US Constitution by exercising powers forbidden by the Constitution.
2. He has used public money to purchase private companies.
3. He has illegally tried to use public money to create publicly owned companies.
4. He has embezzled public money allocated by Congress for rescuing distressed private financial institutions, and used it to purchase automobile manufacturing companies.
5. He has given our public money to finance foreign automobile companies.
6. He has given our public money to a foreign state to finance their state-run oil company while refusing to allow us to develop our own oil resources.
7. He has violated the balance of powers by appointing Czars with far reaching powers who are accountable to no one but himself.
8 He has as a matter of patronage stolen private industries from shareholders and given them to workers’ unions.
9. He has substantially benefitted his political financial supporters by giving public money to foreign industries.
10. He has arranged very large unscrupulous deals with private companies to exchange public money for his political advertising.
11. He has attempted to create a public industry, a health insurance company, that would compete with existing and similar private industries in open defiance of the consent of the people, and the letter and intent of the Constitution.
12. He has attempted to annul free of speech by setting up an illegal reporting system for recording the names of dissenters and by publicly attacking private citizens who oppose him.
13. He has counted illegal aliens as citizens to skew his standing with Congress.

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

Now, you say that my reply to you does not cut it. How does it not cut it? I simply made the point that being an authoritarian tyrant proves nothing about Hitler not being leftward, and I cited several examples of leftward authoritarian tyrants, which I think is self evident for every one of them. Are you going to argue with the point that I made? If so, what evidence do you have for example. Do you actually have evidence that being an authoritarian tyrant disqualifies Hitler as a leftist? I don't think there is any out there. In fact, just the opposite seems to be more true, as most of the authoritarian tyrants that come to mind are leftists, are they not?

This is the essential part where you go wrong.

The evident fact that Hitler was an authoritarian tyrant tells us nothing about the left/right characterization of his beliefs about politics or economics. It neither qualifies him nor disqualifies him as a "leftist"..

History provides numerous examples of authoritarian tyrants. Some were right wing by today's standards; some left wing. Some defied the contemporary Left/Right characterization, i.e. were neither. Consider the Ismali kingdom of the 12th century - a somewhat unique offshoot Muslim cult was clearly a tyranny, but neither left nor right - rather a religious cult. Consider also Tamerlane who engaged in constant war to extend his power and keep his army well fortified with booty. His bloody conquests and destruction made him the scourge of Central Asia, but he governed Samarkand with degrees of restraint and good will that exceeded the standards of his day. He destroyed all competing hierarchies, and in that sense could be classified as a closet leftist, but he quickly replaced them with his own, thus confounding that classification. 19th century Britain was a model of liberal democracy in its own politics and governance, but in many of its posessions and colonies it was a brutal tyranny that exploited others to sustain its own industrial class at home. How then would you classify it? Left? Right? Tyranny or Democracy. The fact is that in different manifestations it was all of those.

The Nazi regime was closer to the models of the Ismalis and Tamerlane than it was to that of Soviet Communism. That is, it contradicted the contemporary models of both left and right politicians in the actions it took while in power. Here it is important to make a distinction between what political leaders say and what they do. I know you recognize the truth of this precaution, in that I have observed you criticizing President Obama for talking like a centrist but acting like a Saul Alinski progressive. Given that, I find it odd that you rely on rhetoric Hitler used in his ascent to power during a period in which socialism was the major preoccupation of those who wanted change in Germany, and in which Hitler is known to have cleverly deceived everyone in the process.

Finally, others have noted the decidedly socialist or social democrat character of Scandanavian governments during the post WWII years (most have recently installed more right wing governments to limit the excesses of their predecessors and raise economic productivity) . None of these were tyrannical, though all of them adopted socialist, redistributionist policies - and did so successflly. That stunning fact alone thoroughly undercuts your simplistic theories. Moreover, I note that you have never replied or responded to the point.

All of this suggests the underlying reality is far more complex, having more fundamental variables that you allow in your simplistic model.

I have little hope that any of this will persuade you, and this (I promise) will be my last attempt to do so,

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

The problem george is that okie and ican have decided that all tryants are leftists.

This allows them to claim Hitler is a leftist because all tyrants are leftists.

Anyone on the right that becomes a tyrant also becomes a leftist simply because all tyrants are leftists.

2 Replies

I define LEFT WING as those policies and actions that increase statism toward dictatorship to a greater degree.

I define RIGHT WING as those policies and actions that reduce statism toward individual liberty to a greater degree.

I admit my definitions are biased by the following:

NEW WORLD TRANSLATION OF THE HOLLY SCRIPTURES
The Hebrew-Aramaic Scriptures (Old Testament)
Ecclesiastes
Chapter 10
2 "The heart of the wise is at his right hand, but the heart of the stupid at his left hand.
3 And also in whatever way the foolish one is walking, his own heart is lacking, and he certainly says to everybody that he is foolish."

1 Reply

@parados,

Logic at its finest. LOL

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

DO YOU STILL WANT TO DEFINE LEFTISTS AND RIGHTISTS ACCORDING TO PREVIOUS STANDARDS?

Let's re-examine those previous standards in the context of what we now know about Nazism and Communism.

Hitler was a tyrant! Stalin was a tyrant!

What is the LEFT/RIGHT difference between these two tyrants?

Hitler ordered the murder of about 10 million people in the lands his forces occupied, about 6 million of whom were Jews.

Stalin ordered the murder of about 60 million people in the lands his forces occupied, about 30 million of whom were white Russians.

Was Hitler a rightist because he murdered so many Jews?
Was Stalin a leftist because he murdered so many white Russians?

Or was Hitler a rightist because he murdered 10 million people to reduce the population of those he despised, and Stalin was a leftist because he murdered six times as many people to enhance his control of the distribution of wealth?

To me the only sensible distinction to be made beteen these two despicable tyrants, is that one murdered fewer people than did the other.

Collectivists are leftists. Individualists are rightists.

How do Collectivists differ from Individualists?

For one thing, Collectivist seek equalization of wealth for all law abiding people, while Individualists seek individual liberty for all law abiding people.

Communists are collectivists, and Conservatives are individualists.

Communists are leftists, and Conservatives are rightists.

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

okie wrote:

Now, you say that my reply to you does not cut it. How does it not cut it? I simply made the point that being an authoritarian tyrant proves nothing about Hitler not being leftward, and I cited several examples of leftward authoritarian tyrants, which I think is self evident for every one of them. Are you going to argue with the point that I made? If so, what evidence do you have for example. Do you actually have evidence that being an authoritarian tyrant disqualifies Hitler as a leftist? I don't think there is any out there. In fact, just the opposite seems to be more true, as most of the authoritarian tyrants that come to mind are leftists, are they not?

This is the essential part where you go wrong.

The evident fact that Hitler was an authoritarian tyrant tells us nothing about the left/right characterization of his beliefs about politics or economics. It neither qualifies him nor disqualifies him as a "leftist"..

Maybe we've made some progress, as you seem to have admitted that Hitler being an authoritarian tyrant does not indicate that he is on the right or left. It seemed to me that up to this point you have implied that since the man was authoritarian, that made him more right wing, am I wrong about that?

Quote:

History provides numerous examples of authoritarian tyrants. Some were right wing by today's standards; some left wing. Some defied the contemporary Left/Right characterization, i.e. were neither. Consider the Ismali kingdom of the 12th century - a somewhat unique offshoot Muslim cult was clearly a tyranny, but neither left nor right - rather a religious cult. Consider also Tamerlane who engaged in constant war to extend his power and keep his army well fortified with booty. His bloody conquests and destruction made him the scourge of Central Asia, but he governed Samarkand with degrees of restraint and good will that exceeded the standards of his day. He destroyed all competing hierarchies, and in that sense could be classified as a closet leftist, but he quickly replaced them with his own, thus confounding that classification. 19th century Britain was a model of liberal democracy in its own politics and governance, but in many of its posessions and colonies it was a brutal tyranny that exploited others to sustain its own industrial class at home. How then would you classify it? Left? Right? Tyranny or Democracy. The fact is that in different manifestations it was all of those.

The Nazi regime was closer to the models of the Ismalis and Tamerlane than it was to that of Soviet Communism. That is, it contradicted the contemporary models of both left and right politicians in the actions it took while in power. Here it is important to make a distinction between what political leaders say and what they do. I know you recognize the truth of this precaution, in that I have observed you criticizing President Obama for talking like a centrist but acting like a Saul Alinski progressive. Given that, I find it odd that you rely on rhetoric Hitler used in his ascent to power during a period in which socialism was the major preoccupation of those who wanted change in Germany, and in which Hitler is known to have cleverly deceived everyone in the process.

Finally, others have noted the decidedly socialist or social democrat character of Scandanavian governments during the post WWII years (most have recently installed more right wing governments to limit the excesses of their predecessors and raise economic productivity) . None of these were tyrannical, though all of them adopted socialist, redistributionist policies - and did so successflly. That stunning fact alone thoroughly undercuts your simplistic theories. Moreover, I note that you have never replied or responded to the point.

All of this suggests the underlying reality is far more complex, having more fundamental variables that you allow in your simplistic model.

I think George in all seriousness, you would be much better served to stick to contemporary politics or examples during the past 100 years or so, rather than trying to go back to some strange example from the 12th century, as the Ismali kingdom. I would venture to guess that people were not sitting around at that point even considering the concept of left vs right, and it was certainly before the advent of the Declaration of Independence and the creation of the United States, in which I believe I have rightly pointed out has probably redefined for all time what is left or liberal vs what is right or conservative. It seems that my point that this is a discussion of the right vs left context of today here in this country, as we currently understand it, it is a point totally lost on you. Yet as I have pointed out, it is the most applicable and most pertinent frame of reference.

Quote:

I have little hope that any of this will persuade you, and this (I promise) will be my last attempt to do so,

No you certainly do not persuade me, and equally I have little hope of persuding you, but I am not here to persuade people as a number one goal, I am here to express what I believe to be correct and true, along with the evidence for it. And I have done both of those. I do not think you have provided much of any evidence at all for your position that Hitler was on the right. You have not argued that any of the Nazi points or that Mein Kampf was right wing in nature. You retreat to the opinion that those don't matter, that his actions mattered, but you have not evidenced any of his actions as being right wing in nature, except that he was an authoritarian tyrant, and I have already blown that one out of the water as not being evidence of anything, but if anything it indicates more leftist than right. I have in fact cited evidence of his actions and policies being leftward in nature. Just quickly, just one for now, the confiscation of property, the taking of private property, and nationalizing businesses, I believe he did both of those, how about those for starters, as leftist policies? I really do not wish to go off on a tangent, it should be debated with the proper time and space to do it, and if you really care to try to defend your wrong position on this, I would suggest the Dictator thread. This is supposed to be on the US economy.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

The problem george is that okie and ican have decided that all tryants are leftists.

This allows them to claim Hitler is a leftist because all tyrants are leftists.

Anyone on the right that becomes a tyrant also becomes a leftist simply because all tyrants are leftists.

I think most of them have been, at least in the last 100 years.

Folks, I think a big part of the problem here separating our opinions is a lack of agreement or common understanding about what constitutes a left vs right political system. How about some of you defining what you think about this on this thread:

http://able2know.org/topic/67312-1

1 Reply

@okie,

ROFLMAO

0 Replies

@okie,

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

The problem george is that okie and ican have decided that all tryants are leftists.

This allows them to claim Hitler is a leftist because all tyrants are leftists.

Anyone on the right that becomes a tyrant also becomes a leftist simply because all tyrants are leftists.

I think most of them have been, at least in the last 100 years.

Unbelievable.

Why limit it to the last 100 years? Your twaddle about the Constitution 'redefining what left and right meant' is crap. What it basically means is that, having done practically no research, you don't know **** about the time before then and hope that nobody brings it up. When someone does, like George did above, you just discount it because you have no good response.

Quote:

Folks, I think a big part of the problem here separating our opinions is a lack of agreement about what constitutes a left vs right political system. How about some of you defining what you think about this on this thread:

http://able2know.org/topic/67312-1

Why would anyone bother? You don't give a **** what anyone else's opinions on the matter are, you've made that perfectly clear.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Communists are collectivists, and Conservatives are individualists.

That is a useful and cogent point to be made here. Communists are obviously collectivists, and Stalin was obviously the same. I have already pointed out that Hitler and Nazism was not as far left as Stalin and Communism, but it was still toward the left end of the scale because it can be solidly evidenced that Hitler was in fact a collectivist to an extent. He sought to guarantee a certain standard of living and he intended to outlaw all profits and profiteering from anything that was not considered work by the Nazi regime, all in the interest of creating equality or equal outcomes among the "folks." All individual rights were to be sacrificed at the altar of the Common Good of the German Third Reich. Sheesh, people, read the Nazi platform and Mein Kampf, this is historical fact. The Nazis were certainly no conservatives, not even anything close.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why would anyone bother?
Cycloptichorn

I dare you to try. If you have an ounce of political sense, try it. If you can't define it, why do you even pretend to know anything about politics, cyclops? If you want to put your tail between your legs and run away from it like a coward, that is your choice.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Why would anyone bother?
Cycloptichorn

I dare you to try. If you have an ounce of political sense, try it. If you can't define it, why do you even pretend to know anything about politics, cyclops? If you want to put your tail between your legs and run away from it like a coward, that is your choice.

You didn't care when anyone else on that thread tried; why would you care when I tried?

**** your dare and your accusations of 'cowardice.' I could care less, you've called me worse on a weekly basis for a year now.

Having conversations with you about politics is kind of a joke, because you are so uneducated yet loudly insist that education is crap, that people who devote their lives to studying these things couldn't possibly know more than you, and that everyone who tries to correct you is wrong. Don't you understand how ******* boring it is to do this same dance over and over with you, Okie?

You know as well as I do that no matter what anyone says, you believe that Hitler was a Leftist in every way and that Obama is the same as him. You've made it perfectly clear. It is profoundly uninteresting to discuss it further, because you refuse to take any criticism of your position whatsoever, despite glaring inaccuracies between what you say and reality.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

You know as well as I do that no matter what anyone says, you believe that Hitler was a Leftist in every way and that Obama is the same as him. You've made it perfectly clear. It is profoundly uninteresting to discuss it further, because you refuse to take any criticism of your position whatsoever, despite glaring inaccuracies between what you say and reality.

Cycloptichorn

Where have I ever said Obama was the same as Hitler? They are both leftists, I believe that, and I have solid evidence for it, which I have amply provided and cannot be disputed.

1 Reply

@okie,

Right, just don't bother responding to the rest. You're a joke, Okie, and I'm not going to waste any more time talking to you for a while.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Promise?

2 Replies

@realjohnboy,

realjohnboy wrote:

Promise?

Promise

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@realjohnboy,

Hay, leftists, define what you are? Then let's analyze the difference between what you define as leftist and what we conservatives define as rightist.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

Hay, leftists, define what you are? Then let's analyze the difference between what you define as leftist and what we conservatives define as rightist.

I believe that superficial characteristics of all people, whether it be skin color, height, weight, gross strength, sexual orientation, creed or religion, should be no reason whatsoever not to give everyone the exact same rights, in both the letter of the law and the spirit.

I believe that the strongest possible financial and social systems will be ones that encourage both competition AND cooperation. It is foolish to promote one over the other; both in equal part are necessary for success.

I believe that the USA, and by extension, Us, are no more special or blessed in history's eyes than all the others who claimed they were special or blessed in history's eyes.

I believe that only through technological advancement and the colonization of space does humanity stand a chance of surviving.

I believe that Greed is a vice, not a virtue, and that we should all strive to be generous and helpful to others, not greedy and stingy.

I believe that things are going to keep getting better for everyone as society keeps progressing. I believe that most have not a clue just how much better things are, all around, than they were in the past. I believe the internet is an unbelievably powerful force of good that has yet to even begun to be recognized.

I believe that the right thing to do politically is to elect Democrats, at this time; because they are slightly more in tune with the above beliefs than the Republicans of this time, and somewhat more likely to help see them accomplished.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

ican, Leftists like righties are made up of a combination of the two with no clear delineation from person to person. Nobody is a strict liberal or conservative. If you believe that, you're more ignorant than I suspect.

You begin with a stupid question, because you don't understand what goes on in elections; that's the reason why we have swings between the two parties on elections.

2 Replies

Where is the US economy headed?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know