Ah sooooooo, the plot thickens.

#51
#51
gsvol said:
FDR had some communist agents highly placed in his administration but that is NOTHING to compare with the Obama administration.
Click to expand...

1) Your source is a joke.

2) It is not a secret that Obama has communist leanings. Socialism is a form of communism. But it begs the question, who cares? America wanted what he was selling and voted him into office.
 
#53
#53
utvolpj said:
I don't truly believe that
Click to expand...

So America didn't want what he was selling? That would be preposterous. They didn't care? Definitely some fall into that category.

I think most were just too ignorant to know that he was selling them a bill of goods.
 
#54
#54
PKT_VOL said:
So America didn't want what he was selling? That would be preposterous. They didn't care? Definitely some fall into that category.

I think most were just too ignorant to know that he was selling them a bill of goods.
Click to expand...

I think you down play white guilt
 
#55
#55
PKT_VOL said:
So America didn't want what he was selling? That would be preposterous. They didn't care? Definitely some fall into that category.

I think most were just too ignorant to know that he was selling them a bill of goods.
Click to expand...

I don't think most of America even knew/understood what he was selling. They got caught up in the excitement of voting for a black man (making history is also a big factor to many) who gave a good speech for POTUS that they didn't even listen to the words. Add in the fact that he was "not GWB" and running against McCain/Palin and he was going to win.
 
#56
#56
Honestly, gsvol, and I am asking you this as nicely as possible: do you have, uh, social skills? I know it's just the internet, but posting a nonstop barrage of things without any real awareness or regard for anyone's interest or tolerance in it isn't making you come across as very...normal.
 
#57
#57
utvolpj said:
I don't think most of America even knew/understood what he was selling. They got caught up in the excitement of voting for a black man (making history is also a big factor to many) who gave a good speech for POTUS that they didn't even listen to the words. Add in the fact that he was "not GWB" and running against McCain/Palin and he was going to win.
Click to expand...

I'll give you the charismatic charm and him not being Bush. His message was inspirational though.

There is an uber famous quote that I can't remember off the top of my head that says something about politicians being the ultimate dealers of hope. Obama fit that to a T.
 
#58
#58
UTRavens said:
Honestly, gsvol, and I am asking you this as nicely as possible: do you have, uh, social skills? I know it's just the internet, but posting a nonstop barrage of things without any real awareness or regard for anyone's interest or tolerance in it isn't making you come across as very...normal.
Click to expand...

Crusty old vietnam vet, what do you expect?
 
#63
#63
I didn't "oversell" anyone or anything, that's ridiculous. I just felt in 2008 that we needed someone who could make the trains run on time. As between McCain and Obama, I thought Obama certainly met that standard a lot better. Throw in Palin as the VP for an older guy with real long term health issues and the choice was that much easier.

Has Obama accomplished everything I hoped ? No, of course not. But I'm not convinced that is because of him as much as it is in spite of him. My overall sense is that the economic problems are so deep that no POTUS could have turned things around much better, much faster.

As to Romney, I guess I just remain unconvinced as to his mettle. All politicians say what they need to in order to win. But he seems to me to have taken that to a whole new level.
 
#64
#64
PKT_VOL said:
I'll give you the charismatic charm and him not being Bush. His message was inspirational though.

There is an uber famous quote that I can't remember off the top of my head that says something about politicians being the ultimate dealers of hope. Obama fit that to a T.
Click to expand...

see I don't even see how someone can listen to him and get any hope out of his speeches. He grabbed the low hanging fruit with his cradle to grave ideas and the rest jumped on the American Idol style popularity of his campaign. He had no record and no history. I doubt many in 2008 could actually explain what his true stances on the issues were. Obama could make any claim he wanted because he had no previous stance/experience on anything

PKT_VOL said:
I think that angle is way overplayed. On the other hand, the hatred for Bush is underplayed in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's overplayed. Obama was the ultimate "I have a black friend" trump card. "I can't be racist because I voted for Obama" was definitely in play, especially since his opponents were being shouted down as racist for trying to investigate anything about his life
 
#65
#65
Some of you guys are a little to hard on GS. Some of this stuff is just down right funny, some truth sprinkled in there too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#68
#68
PKT_VOL said:
Horrible example. LG can only see color. You know this.

I tend to believe LG is the exception, not the rule.
Click to expand...

12-570x515.jpg










PKT_VOL said:
I think that angle is way overplayed. On the other hand, the hatred for Bush is underplayed in my opinion.
Click to expand...

2zjgoro.jpg


2ex67tx.jpg








UTRavens said:
Honestly, gsvol, and I am asking you this as nicely as possible: do you have, uh, social skills? I know it's just the internet, but posting a nonstop barrage of things without any real awareness or regard for anyone's interest or tolerance in it isn't making you come across as very...normal.
Click to expand...

The height of your ambition is to appear normal?

I declare your socialsit indoctrination a success.

Happy trails comrade.

Occupy Wall Street: A failed, Communist Trojan Horse - YouTube






OrangeEmpire said:
I think you down play white guilt
Click to expand...

Ya think some of them got over it in the last 3 1/2 years?

george_romney_marches_civil_rights.jpg


Some black folks as well.





PKT_VOL said:
1) Your source is a joke.

2) It is not a secret that Obama has communist leanings. Socialism is a form of communism. But it begs the question, who cares? America wanted what he was selling and voted him into office.
Click to expand...

What he sold was a pack of lies.

J Edgar Hoover wrote an excellent book on the topic titled; "Master of Deceipt."

jk7odu.jpg


2ntv4au.jpg
 
#69
#69
lawgator1 said:
I didn't "oversell" anyone or anything, that's ridiculous. I just felt in 2008 that we needed someone who could make the trains run on time. As between McCain and Obama, I thought Obama certainly met that standard a lot better. Throw in Palin as the VP for an older guy with real long term health issues and the choice was that much easier.

Has Obama accomplished everything I hoped ? No, of course not. But I'm not convinced that is because of him as much as it is in spite of him. My overall sense is that the economic problems are so deep that no POTUS could have turned things around much better, much faster.

As to Romney, I guess I just remain unconvinced as to his mettle. All politicians say what they need to in order to win. But he seems to me to have taken that to a whole new level.
Click to expand...

Moussolini was another socialist who made the trains run on time, Obama can't even do that.

Obama_Baghdad_Bob_Spot_Diff.jpg


f4igpd.gif


BTW, Palin is way smarter than you and BHO put together.
 
#70
#70
The Red Side of Life: Socialists & Communists: We Operate Through the Democrat Party

The Socialists and Communists in America operate
through the Democrat Party. This is no secret - the
Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) openly state
this fact, here,(link) and the Communist Party USA
(CPUSA) states it here.(link) If you can stomach their
websites, you will find this fact reiterated throughout.

There is a movement in the media underway, led by
the New York Times, to whitewash Socialism - and to
disabuse the public of the notion that Barack Obama is
a socialist. This must be countered, and could not be
further from the truth.

In fact, Obama's program is more in line with the
Communist movement than the Socialist movement!
Consider the bullet-points set forth by the CPUSA:
(list follows)
Click to expand...

The Ten Planks of Karl Marx's Communist Manifesto
(and How Democrats Implement Them)

Abolition of private property rights (via high property
taxes, eminent domain, restrictive zoning laws, "fair
housing" edicts and UN Agenda 21)

Institution of a heavily graduated income tax (by
calling it "taxing the rich")

Abolition of all rights of inheritance (through a
confiscatory estate tax on "the rich")

Confiscation of the property of enemies of the state
(through lawless application of asset forfeiture)

Centralization of credit into the hands of the state
(Federal Reserve, Federal Trade Commission, "bailouts"
of crony-capitalists, etc.)

Centralization of the means of communication and
transportation into the hands of the state (FCC, DOT,
FEMA, etc.).

Consolidation and subjugation of all major industries to
central government control (EPA, OSHA, ICC, NLRB,
EEOC, etc.)

Mandatory labor union membership (public-sector
unions, automatic withholding of forced union
dues, "card check," etc.)

Equitable redistribution of all wealth (TANF, SSI, EITC,
SNAP, etc.)

Free public education (and food and health care and
cell phones and Internet access, etc.)

Importantly, what should be automatically associated
with socialists are their major political ideological axioms
and goals:

1) Nations are arbitrary and should eventually be
replaced by regional political blocs then world
government.

2) Ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural homogeneity
(sameness) in a nation causes war, so it must be
subverted with socialist party-supporting immigrants,
until the dominant ethno-linguistic group and its culture
have become a minority in their country. This is
advanced in the political realm by supporting
multiculturalism.

3) Immigrants in combination with a nation’s leftists will
be politically powerful enough to create a permanent
socialist one party state.

4) The advance to socialism must be continual. When
socialists are in power they must acutely advance
socialism. When they are not in power they must
prevent any retrenchment from socialism. Most
conservatives will abide the status quo, whatever it
is, and only a minority will seek to reverse the advances
of socialism. They must be vilified and driven out of
power by any means.

5) Only one out of every ten persons is capable of being
a ruling elite, because they grasp the superiority of
socialism. The other nine out of ten are inferior persons
who must be cajoled or coerced into perpetual service
to the elite. It would not be undesirable for the vast
majority of these inferiors to die, as they are
overpopulated and their numbers need to be reduced.

6) All resources must be owned and rationed by the
state, as any resource in abundance can become a de
facto currency, undermining state control. Thus, strong
efforts must be made to prevent abundance where it
exists, until it is controlled by the state.

7) Children must be raised to accept their roles in
society. If they are elites, they must be taught their
socialist purpose; and if inferiors, they must be taught
of the inevitability and desirability of socialism. The only
other education needed by the inferiors is to obey and
to perform whatever tasks are needed of them.

The Democrat Party doesn’t exist anymore. Name
ONE ‘Democrat’ who would today approve of JFK’s
Inauguration speech? Name ONE? Today’s ‘Democrats’
calling themselves ‘Democrats’ is the biggest farce of
the 21st century. They are SOCIALISTS and commit
their destruction as they hide behind a more ‘publicly
acceptable’ word. Republicans and conservatives who
use the word ‘Democrat’ are only aiding and abetting
the Socialist’s agenda.

obama-dogs.jpg


Obamacare-Tough-Love.jpg
 
#71
#71
While Marx's platform sounds about right (generally speaking and not specifically necessarily), I would be skeptical of the ten ideological axioms you provide and their source. That read to me more like the musings of an anti-immigration nativist who would have us believe socialism/communism were about the destruction of the dominant group. We know from looking at Russia and China that this is not the case; in fact, the opposite. Maybe multiculturalism is what that source is claiming they're trying to do here, and, truthfully, there are some strong currents in socialism/communism that seek worker's solidarity across racial/ethnic lines, although that's not exactly party orthodoxy (at least in Marx). As a matter of fact, though, if you want the exemplar of multiculturalism and ethnic heterogeneity, look no further than the free market capitalism that many on this board seem to very much like. In many cases, this is the worst kind of multiculturalism because it doesn't necessarily promote enlightenment and understanding across racial/ethnic lines so much as it does cultural appropriation.

Anyhow, I'm skeptical of any social/political/ideological theory or approach that attempts to explain the entire world and offer a solution. That goes for not only socialism but Republicanism, libertarianism, anarchism, Democratic-party-ism, fascism, and just about any other ism we may find out there. They often run the risk of portraying the world in a limited manner, even though each of these pretty much pretends it can explain everything and possibly even justify anything that seems to fit its agenda.
 
Last edited:
#72
#72
By the way, gsvol, and this is not to attack you, but I get the sense that you post some of these things just to be controversial. I could be wrong though. I haven't been on the politics board very long, so I'm still getting adjusted to each poster's personality and posting traits/character.
 
#73
#73
volprof said:
As a matter of fact, though, if you want the exemplar of multiculturalism and ethnic heterogeneity, look no further than the free market capitalism that many on this board seem to very much like. In many cases, this is the worst kind of multiculturalism because it doesn't necessarily promote enlightenment and understanding across racial/ethnic lines so much as it does cultural appropriation.
Click to expand...
Is "cultural appropriation" the new term in academia for "melting pot" or to use the Latin phrase "E pluribus unum"?
 
#74
#74
volved said:
Is "cultural appropriation" the new term in academia for "melting pot" or to use the Latin phrase "E pluribus unum"?
Click to expand...

I don't know the exact relationship between the first two terms you mention (and there are different definitions offered for these terms according to what critic or school of thought you read), but there are analogies between the two certainly, although I don't think they're quite the same. "Cultural appropriation," while perhaps producing a new cultural product superficially, doesn't exactly lead to a real heterogeneity but just the dominant group's use of minority/immigrant/foreign cultures for its own expedients, exotic interests, fads, etc. Unlike with the "melting pot," which seems to imply assimilation, cultural appropriation doesn't necessarily imply acculturating the "outsider" group into the dominant one. Rather, the relationship between the two just remains a gap. For instance, the kids you see around Knoxville wearing dreads or listening to Reggae music, or something like Taco Bell, for instance. Neither one of these examples is an actual incorporation of an outsider group into the culture; rather, it's either an exotic appropriation of one culture (dreads and reggae) or some sort of perversion of that culture (Taco Bell). Neither one of these examples mean that Americans have gained any better insights/relations with the outsider group, although that is not to say that their is necessarily anything malicious here.

So, in a sense, I don't know that we can completely conflate the two terms. However, there may be scholars/critics who do.

I'm not sure what exactly the relationship is between "E pluribus unum" and culture. I don't know if that is meant to suggest a social process that makes everyone the same essentially or if it's simply meant to suggest unity even with our differences (a proto-multiculturalism even). My guess would be the latter though.
 
#75
#75
opzotk.jpg



volprof said:
By the way, gsvol, and this is not to attack you, but I get the sense that you post some of these things just to be controversial. I could be wrong though. I haven't been on the politics board very long, so I'm still getting adjusted to each poster's personality and posting traits/character.
Click to expand...

So what do you think Obama means when he says he wants to 'fundamentally transform' America?

Do you think he means it like his friend, associate, mentor and neighbor Loopy Looie Farrakhan uses it to talk about how Mao 'fundamentally transormed' China?

Did the once head of the world socialist movement say; "our number one enemy in the world is the Judea-Christian culture?'
(He did, although culture isn't the word he used, I can't think of the right word just now mi scusi.)

Do you not think that Barack Hussein Obama is a devout communist through and through?

1zvtk74.jpg


359n7sg.jpg


21174tk.jpg


2vbk2u0.jpg
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top