Obama '08?

Really/ You may not be aware( I am since I lived in Chicago where President Obama was a community organizer and so I know who the community organizers were and what they believed) that one of President Obama's heroes was Saul Alinsky. I need not tell you that Alinsky was a doctrinare Socialist.

In his book, Dreams from my Father, Obama tells the story of how in 1985 he responded to a job advertisement he saw in the newspaper. He was called by a certain Jerry Kellman who told him that the C alumet Community Religious Conference was trying to 'CONVERT THE BLACK CHURCHES OF CHICAGO'S SOUTH SIDE INTO AGENTS OF SOCIAL CHANGE"

Kellman's organization was a product of Saul Alinsky's Organization. Change, for Aliknsky, was radical Socialism.

President Obama worked as a community organizer and was hired by one of Alinsky's disciples.

Does that make President Obama a Socialist--No,but it shows that he had a strong tie to Socialist Organizations.

The "fantasy" is yours, Monterey Jack---Read President Obama's books and other books thatcomment on his life in Chicago. I have!

Social change is not socialism. I've known a fair number of people who had a lot of contact with Alinsky. Socialism wasn't high on their agendas, if there at all. I've known a lot of Marxists too, and I think most of them, in their devotion to ideology and their disjuncure with what actually happens in the world were basically wearing blinders--actually they remind me of a whole lot of conservatives who are equally devoted to ideology (tho of course a different one) and equally disjoint with what actually goes on in the world. Some socialists are Marxists. Most aren't. Most socialists are commited to democracy. Nothing I've hear Obama say, and nothing he's done in office suggests he's a socialist. As I say, purely a right wing fantasy.

Well, one of my teachers at the University of Chicago would not agree with you.

Mortimer Adler wrote, in his book "Haves Without Have Nots" that

quote

"Such enactments as the inheritance tax, ownership by the state instead of private corporations of certain economic agencies, establishment of national banks and credit facilities and welfare entitlements by which the national income is REDISTRIBUTED, have moved private-prpoerty capitalist societies in the direction of SOCIALISM,"

Adler called it creeping Socialism.

People like you are so used to the REDISTRIBUTION OF INCOME that you don't recognize it for what it is--theft of a person's labor.

Excessive entitlements lead to what George Bernard Shaw's admonition-

When you rob Peter to pay Paul, if you have more Pauls than Peters, then Peter is in trouble. Socialists like Obama prate endlessly about the "poor" when the "poor" in the United States live much better than 90% of the rest of the people in the world.

The best government is the one which governs least. That is not what President Obama believes.

I have known a fair number of people who had a lot of contact with Mayor Richard J. Daley( the first), and "shooting to kill" protestors was not high on their agendas.

You really don't understand, do you? If you are a very very bright person and President Obama certainly is most intelligent, you don't ally yourself with A KNOWN AGENT OF ALINSKY UNLESS YOU HAVE SYMPATHY WITH HIS IDEALS.

You don't know much about Alinsky, do you? You don't know much about the various kinds of uses that people put his principles of organizing to, do you? I know you regard union organizing, community organizing, and civil rights organizing as socialistic. So be it. You're wrong. You're making "socialism" into a catchall term so broad it equates with "democracy" as most people use that term. It isn't. Social justice and social change aren't socialism. Those are what Alinsky was all about. And even if Alinsky were a socialist, so what? It's perfectly legal. It's compatible with the Constitution, as a number of variations of the democratic process are. It's not what Obama is about, however.

genoves, Well, your teacher is wrong. Socialism means all productive means are owned by the government. He was your professor? ROFL

It is if its toward more socialism.

Put your hearing aids on, Jack.

Thats pure socialism taken to the extreme. We have many socialistic aspects to our society now. Taken to the extreme, it becomes communism / Marxism.

okie, Your ignorance is eternal. You don't even use the word "socialism" correctly. Socialism is when the government owns all means of production. What most countries have are a capitalistic economy with social programs.

okie, Your ignorance is eternal. You don't even use the word "socialism" correctly. Socialism is when the government owns all means of production. What most countries have are a capitalistic economy with social programs.

No, you are wrong; many countries are capitalistic concerning its economy with differing degrees of social programs. It's the economy, stupid!

Try not to be so ignorant, ci. The government owns a goodly portion of our retirement investment business in this country right now, its called the Social Security Administration. Just one example of many. Another is the education business.

The government doesn't

Please show us proof of your claim that the government "owns" the Social Security Administration and anything that has to do with its funds.

You do understand the word "administration" don't you? If not, look in any dictionary.

Run by the government, and they loan the money to themselves. Ponzi Scheme supreme. Ignoramus.

How is it a ponzi scheme, oh wise one?

Okie- Don't waste your time. Cicerone Imposter is a fraud. All he does is write one or two lines and almost never gives any evidence. He is gaming you. Everyone with two ounces of brains( that leavesout Cicerone Imposter) knows that there is no lock box with Social Security Money in it and that Social Security is being paid with CURRENT FUNDS.


That, for me, is the definition of a Ponzi sc heme, but Cicerone Imposter would rather cut off his hand than admit that. Do yourself a favor, Okie--get a good link on Social Security as a Ponzi Scheme and post it. Cicerone Imposter can't read very well sohe will never be able to rebut your post.

But, don't bother to respond to his useless one liners/ When, he, Cicerone Imposter gives you evidence an ddocumentation that Soc ial Security is not akin to a Ponzi Scheme, then you respond, but other wise, since he has not rebutted you but has only provided his usual intellectu al flatulenc e,just continue to post your idea!

I'm only a fraud to the extent you can prove what I say are false or not supported by credible sources.

That said, you have never responded to my many questions to your posts to provide credible source evidence.

People can make up their own minds as to who the fraud is.

A Ponzi Scheme by definition is illegal. Where in our constitution does it say the social security system is illegal or a Ponzi Scheme?

Its unbelievable how much time I've wasted on this forum, debating with nonsensical opinions by Liberals. I guess I actually believed some people could be swayed with common sense reason. I have not yet seen one single case of this happening yet, not here.

But the corruption, lousy cabinet picks, tax evaders, total duds, total dud legislation in the works, it is discouraging. The entire country suffers because of a bunch of socialist amateurs that don't have a clue what they are doing, they do not understand reality, the economy, nothing. But if there is a silver lining in all of this, they will actually have a chance to take responsibility for something, or they will be forced to, finally. Obama is going to be one huge dud of a president, worse than I thought. And with the sorry Congress, Katie bar the door.

Of course, Socialism is legal. It is not the type of government I want to live under. You know that Alinsky was a Socialist. Everyone identifies him as a Socialist. You still have not responded to me with regard to the ou tline given by Mortimer Adler. He defined certain legislation as Socialistic. I do not see your rebuttal. The record is clear. President Obama worked as a community organizer and was hired by a acolyte of ALinsky's. I am sure that you will not agree but that, as far as I am concerned, tells me that President Obama at the very least is sympathetic to Socialist legislatin

And,please cut the BS about Social Justice. You and I know that it just a nice sounding term for REDISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS.

My definition of Social JUSTICE is a goverment which is minimalist and which allows the individuals and the states to do everything which they can do for themselves. I am sure that you are aware that originally the founders of our country took pains to limit the powers of the central government and state that all unenumerated powers still belonged to the state.

That conforms to MY idea of Social Justice--not a populist president's idea of doling ou t Billions to welfare types who never did a day'swork in their lives.

Some people just can't handle truth; A Few Good Men.