College acquaintance: Obama total Marxist
- Thread starter fossten
- Start date
mespock
Marxists - Socialists
Cool I knew there was a great reason why I like this guy ...
MonsterMark
Dedicated LVC Member
I can't wait until conservatives take over the Congress and we can start pulling money away from all you overpaid government public servants.
Because he was a radical marxist in college?
Seriously, do you think that the person relating the story is lying or that his actions in college have little to do with his current world and economic view?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Cal, don't let mespock bother you. He's the quintessential troll.
Cal - how about that 15 minutes of fame - think it is working out for Mr Drew?
And how many people have changed their world view since college? Look at your hero Reagan - he underwent quite a change from his younger days to when he became president.
This interview is hearsay and should be viewed with that in mind.
So you think the guy is not telling the truth because he wants "15 minutes of fame?" And that's because the MSM media is going to pick up this story and he'll be interviewed on Dateline NBC or 60 Minutes?
Does the interview really say anything that Obama didn't allude to his biographies?
It's interesting, foxpaws, in the first part of your post your imply the guy is lying or just looking for attention.
Then you go on to reference Reagan and imply that Obama has changed his views since college. Has Obama ever spoken of such a change? Was that in either of his biographies?
So, foxpaws, do you think he was a Marxist in college?
And if you don't think he is one now, what do you think he is and when did he change?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
^^^And Cal closes the net...
I don't know Mr Drew's motives - however, I always question hearsay... especially about public figures. And yes, I do think he is going for his 15 minutes of fame - and no MSM won't be covering this - or even Fox - because of the validity issue. He sort of missed that fact - there isn't any corroboration... But, he got his little internet minute anyway.
One of the other people at the dinner said this...
“If that’s what John Drew said, that’s what he (Drew) said,” Chandoo commented. “I can’t remember Obama ever talking like that. It sounds a bit absurd to me, but that’s my opinion. I can’t remember him ever expressing an interest in being a Marxist.”
The other person at the dinner can't be reached for comment...
They will put up any sort of junk on the internet - so long as it is anti-obama and links him to Marxism.
Heck, Drew even states he held Marxist's views at the time, obviously he 'saw the light' - right Cal? He said in '83 and '84 he got better.. and now, miraculously he is a conservative. He met Obama at one dinner - and suddenly he is the expert on Obama's Marxist's leanings?
It is internet wild fire - and should be treated as such.
Mencken had a good quote that with just a small change (used to say newspaper instead of internet) works great for this..
The internet is a device for making the ignorant more ignorant and the crazy crazier.
And Obama isn't a Marxist - as much as you would like to paint him as one Cal - he will not be nationalizing all business, he will not be shutting down Wall Street, he will not be nationalizing our energy production et al. In fact, in some areas he is seeking to privatize government institutions, such as promoting charter schools.
He is for the downtrodden, the poor, has stated it in his books, however, being for the working man or the impoverished doesn't make you a Marxist Cal.
This idea that if you have certain ideas when you are 19 (Obama's age at this 'dinner'), and somehow you don't grow away from or change those ideas is ludicrous. Once again, Reagan was a very different man in the White House than he was when he was in his 20s. I wouldn't doubt that Obama explored Marxism - then set it aside, like most people do when they are in college. You look at Mao, you look at Jefferson, you look at Rousseau and Montesquieu, Machiavelli, Locke, Lenin, Chanakya, Herodotus and Jesus... The list is almost endless.
I think at times Obama is very Machiavellian... and others times like Montesquieu. He certainly has a lot of JFK in him, and some Teddy Roosevelt.
And Foss - bringing out the pompoms so soon? Your cheer-leading is so endearing.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
:bowrofl: The funniest part is that you might actually believe this particular bit of tripe, race baiter.
Perpetuating an 83% employment policy doesn't help the downtrodden or poor one little bit.
So how do you infer the true character and principles of a would-be elected official?
In the technical sense, I would agree. He is a socialist.
However, your and my understanding of what qualifies as Marxism may very well be different then what this guy views as Marxism. Most people view "Marxist" and "socialist" as interchangeable. In that sense, Obama is a Marxist.
So, you infer someone's views simply by what they say? Many would call that naive when trying to infer the principles of someone running for office...
Machiavellian: Attempting to achieve their goals by cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous methods.
I would say that most of the time he is very Machiavellian.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
By his associates.
Tony Rezko
Auchi
Raila Odinga
William Ayers
The New Black Panther Party
La Raza, Farrakhan
Reverend Jeremiah Wright
Van Jones
tax cheats like Geithner
Rashid Khalidi
Bernardine Dohrn
Frank Marshall Davis (Communist)
Father Michael Pfleger
George Soros
ACORN
Kwame Kilpatrick
Marilyn Katz
Jim Johnson
Valerie Jarrett
...and the list goes on...
Tony Rezko
Auchi
Raila Odinga
William Ayers
The New Black Panther Party
La Raza, Farrakhan
Reverend Jeremiah Wright
Van Jones
tax cheats like Geithner
Rashid Khalidi
Bernardine Dohrn
Frank Marshall Davis (Communist)
Father Michael Pfleger
George Soros
ACORN
Kwame Kilpatrick
Marilyn Katz
Jim Johnson
Valerie Jarrett
...and the list goes on...
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Can I infer from your statement that since Obama has stated that he used 'blow' in college recreationally, that he is a cokehead?
Can I also infer from your statement that since he called his own grandmother a 'typical white person,' Obama is a racist?
Doubtful, not in the classic definition of the term either... I don't think he has collective ownership of everything in mind. I doubt if he wants to nationalize and 'equalize' everything. I would say that he would like to tax the rich more - similar to Clinton. But, I don't think he is for creating an equalized society.
Did you think Clinton was a socialist-Obama and Clinton are similar on many issues.
However Drew stated he was a Marxist. Do you think he would misunderstand it to that point - he must have been one for at least 3 to 4 years - from the time of the dinner to '83 to '84 when he got 'better'. I think if you are a Marxist - you know what the term implies.
Perhaps, it is how most politicians are. I think his Machiavellian tendencies are at the 'pretty average' level for his strata of political office.
I think Obama was talking about his grandmother being typical with regards to how whites view someone on the street that they don't know. That she would probably be more fearful of a black man walking towards her than a white man. He sees that as a typical reaction. I don't think that is racist, but, realist. An ingrained reaction to an unknown entity.
And I am not sure how you define cokehead - recreational use could be in your definition Foss.
I really do think that he is for improving the plight of the poor and working poor in this country. This year he pushed for more money for the earned income credit - and the working poor are getting more back from their taxes/government.
Only in the Marxist sense does socialism require collective ownership. In the broader post-Marx sense of the term it does not require collective ownership.
His actions indicate that he supports social justice and egalitarianism on almost every level; even internationally.
You don't need to be a Marxist to understand marxism.
However, Marxist (and socialist) rhetoric is characterized by it's misrepresentation of anything and everything to fit into the theory.
Hardly.
So, what sort of definition are you going with when you label Obama as a socialist - under what 'sense'. Who's school of socialism are you putting Obama in?
egalitarianism -so, equally politically and socially, that is OK - I would imagine that you are inferring economically as the big bad wolf? I don't think he has indicated he wants everyone to be equal economically. I would say that he is bothered by the extremes at both ends - the massively wealthy and the destitute. But the vast middle - from the moderately wealthy to the lower middle class - I don't think he wants to do any 'equalization' there.
However, if you are a marxist - don't you think you should understand it. Drew (the guy in the video) states he was a Marxist, so I think he should know what the term is. He specifically labeled Obama as a marxist - it takes one to know one - right?
Our viewpoint on the degree of 'Machiavellian' will probably always differ. Nixon was at the top of the heap in my opinion. Haig was a shining example. Rahm is way up there.
you are missing the point.
What two factors run throughout the political philosophy of socialism of any stripe and set it apart from the major political philosophy of the time of Marx; Classical Liberalism? What is the goal of socialism and how does it attempt to achieve that goal?
I said egalitarianism. It doesn't have to mean that "everyone be made equal", but simply that policies work toward creating more equality in economics and other areas
There are plenty of people who claim to be Liberal or Conservative today that don't intricately understand the two. They are familiar with the general understanding of the two views and get the basics right but are not as clear on the specifics.
You don't know his motives, but when it's convenient you're more than eager to ascribe negative attributes to them.
So what you're saying is that he isn't going to get any "fame," your acutely aware of this, yet you made the charge anyway.
It sounds absurd that a man who's parents were communists, who was mentored by the communist Frank Marshal Davis, and clearly states in his autobiography that he "chose (his) friends carefully...The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
This sounds absurd, and you quote it?
I don't know if he did or not, he certainly could have.
Are you now arguing that Obama saw the light and has wholly rejected all Marxist philosophy?
Are you arguing that Obama didn't embrace Marxist philosophy while in college? You're making excuses and distractions, but despite all of these words, you're not really addressing the point.
No, it's not.
It's not an isolated piece of information, it's an additional piece of information that continues to demonstrate and confirm the unspoken, unexplored, President's political identity.
And it is also a remarkably effective way to for information and news to reach the general public, going over the heads of the Presidents image makers and defenders in the mainstream, legacy, media.
That's not the question. I'll restate it for you-
the question here is DID OBAMA EMBRACE MARXIST PHILOSOPHY WHILE IN COLLEGE- it's not, does he identify himself as a Marxist today.
And do you think he ever whole hearted REJECTED the philosophy.
I'm not going to get into the game of defining specifically which "ist" or "ism" he specifically embraces. That's a quagmire that can't be won and serves no point. I will argue, regardless the title we attribute to him, that he is for expanding the power of the National government and redistributing wealth. He calls himself a progressive like FDR and Wilson. I think that's a sufficient enough description.
Charter schools aren't private schools. They are exclusively publicly funded. So, while I'm glad he says he supports them, this doesn't support your argument in any way.
What does being "for the downtrodden, the poor" mean?
Taking the income from one person and giving it to them?
I don't know of anyone that isn't "for the downtrodden," how we chose to help the person can be used to identify what philosophy we're inclined to embrace.
Obama bemoans that the COURTS have not aggressively addressed “the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society.”
That doesn't sound like a guy who really embraces capitalism.
Nor does it sound like a man with much regard for our Constitution either.
Again- are you arguing that he was an aggressive Marxist at the time or not? Sounds like you acknowledge that he probably was, but it's not convenient or political expedient for you to do so.
It's interesting, but NONE of my friends were Marxists in college, nor are they Marxists now.
But maybe I'm unusual. Then again, both of my natural parents were not communists. I wasn't mentored by a communist. I didn't deliberately associate with radicals and Marxists while in college. And as an adult, I haven't spent my entire career working with radical groups like ACORN led by Wade Rathke, a Marxist who was also a member of SDS. I never deliberately selected a church to attend that was lead by a Marxist preacher who embraces Black liberation theology either. And radical marxists in the Weather Underground never held a party for me.....
Reagan wasn't a communist. In fact, he was very anti-communist, even early in his career. As he aged, he refined his world and political views, but his core values never changed.
The great shift you keep misrepresenting is that Reagan MISTAKEN identified himself as a Democrat when he was younger. But as he began to understand what the party had become, he realized he didn't belong there.
He long said, ""I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me." Reagan's world view never changed, it was merely his party identification. That's VASTLY different than being a radical Marxist and suddenly embracing free market capitalism and the U.S. Constitution.
But since you now seem to be expressing that it's likely that Obama WAS a radical Marxist in college, can you tell me when he abandoned and rejected those principles?
You're making excuses again......
When did he "set it aside."
What possible reason do you have for thinking he "set it aside."
That's really a rhetorical question. Both you and I know that he didn't.
Don't forget Woodrow Wilson.
And maybe a touch of Hitler, but that's redundant once you've added the Wilson.
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Ah, okay, so if I use the phrase 'typical black person' but have a good explanation for it, it's ok?
How would you define it?
Yay for proof by assertion! You said it twice, so it must be true!!!!!ONE11!ELEVENTY11!!! Goebbels would be so proud. Give me a break. As I've already said and you haven't even bothered to challenge, 83% employment policy is UNFRIENDLY to the 'working poor.' How do you answer that fact?
Also, since the 'working poor' don't actually pay taxes, that would actually fall under the category of 'transfer of wealth', or in other words,
'stealing from those who contribute and giving it to those who don't.'
In other words, Marxism.
Shag - I am still at a loss here - goal of socialism - fair allocation of resources? Is that the goal you are talking about.
Certainly not like the old soviet model - where the government directs supply and demand?
Maybe more like Norwegian socialism? Redistribution with taxes, subsidies, not having economic extremes (destitute poor and ultra wealthy), but without government ownership, perhaps achieving it with government intervention.
Norway is doing just fine - 3% unemployment. High on the democracy and happiness charts (in the top 5 for both). 10 Olympic medals this winter (great for a country of 4 million people) all time leader for winter games... Go Ole - silver in the 20k biathlon..:drunk: .
Oh - note to cal - regarding region vs country on the other thread - I would choose Norway - I probably know enough about it to use it in comparison.
So, what two 'factors' are you talking about - I really have no idea about that at all. Maybe a clue?
egalitarianism means equality, not just trying to creating 'more' equality - it usually means working for a goal in total 'absolute' equality. So, yes, I think Obama wants to raise up the poor, and somewhat at the expense of the ultra wealthy by taxing them more... cutting off the extreme ends - that isn't egalitarianism by the standard definition. Egalitarianism traditionally means creating a state where everyone is equal. No one has more than anyone else. Do you have a different definition.
Don't you think that someone who claims to be a Marxist would know what that entails? It is an odd thing to claim to be, unlike 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Marxist is pretty defining and daunting.. I can see someone saying, yep I am conservative, and perhaps not know the specifics - but 'marxist'? Especially someone just out of college, Drew, who appears to be implying that he was discussing marxism on some pretty specific levels. I don't think Drew was confusing Marxism and Socialism.
He embraced parts of socialism Cal - New Deal and beyond when he was young - I am tired - and off for the family ski and shoot event for the weekend - but I just couldn't let this slip by - you have really misrepresented Reagan - And I thought you had read 'An American Life', maybe you just blocked this out because it didn't fall into your blind hero worship of the man.
From American Intellectual Conservatism - First Principles
Reagan was a New Deal Democrat. He joked that he had probably become a Democrat by birth, given that his father, Jack, was so devoted to the Democratic Party. The younger Reagan cast his first presidential vote in 1932 for Franklin Roosevelt, and did so again in the succeeding three presidential contests. His faith in FDR remained undimmed even after World War II, when he called himself “a New Dealer to the core.” He summarized his views in this way: “I thought government could solve all our postwar problems just as it had ended the Depression and won the war. I didn’t trust big business. I thought government, not private companies, should own our big public utilities; if there wasn’t enough housing to shelter the American people, I thought government should build it; if we needed better medical care, the answer was socialized medicine.” When his brother, Moon, became a Republican and argued with his sibling, the younger Reagan concluded “he was just spouting Republican propaganda.”
note- quote cross checked here
Of course, Reagan was to change his views drastically in the coming years, but even when one examines his later comments about Franklin Roosevelt and the New Deal, one comes away with the sense that he never got over his youthful admiration of a man he considered a great leader. He would carefully parse his criticisms of the New Deal, often focusing on the honorable intent of the heart over the practical effect of the policies. Critique and praise would be mixed together as he attempted to separate the man from his programs.
So cal, obviously Reagan had very liberal, very socialist ideals when he was younger, heck, he was still voting for FDR when he was 33 years old. He thought we should nationalize power companies - have socialized medicine if necessary - give the poor housing. He thought FDR solved the great depression...
So, he was able to set aside those and embrace the exact opposite end of the political spectrum.
I don't think Obama was ever a Marxist - as shag would tell you, that is extremely radical, and very few people embrace the whole. Did he have socialist ideals - probably (I wasn't there - but, i would wager he did). So to move from perhaps socialist 'lite' to liberal democrat isn't a huge move on the political spectrum... it certainly isn't anywhere near the movement that Reagan undertook - from borderline socialist to conservative god... heck that is from one end to the other - Obama just moved within one end... why do you find that so hard to comprehend. You accept Reagan could have taken a complete about face, but Obama couldn't move toward the center from the left?
Once again Cal - why can you believe Reagan could take such a huge leap, and yet Obama can't take a much smaller step? I would understand if you questioned that Obama could go from what he was in his youth to die-hard conservative - but to move a few rungs down on the political scale - child's play compared to what Reagan was able to do, which you don't question at all. You accept that Reagan could do it, and to a much greater degree.
Ah, okay, so if I use the phrase 'typical black person' but have a good explanation for it, it's ok?
Yep, if it isn't stereotyping... what Obama did wasn't stereotyping...
Amy Winehouse
Than all taxes are marxist foss... And do you have a link to the 83% employment policy you have referred to repeatedly - got the White House link for that?
fossten
Dedicated LVC Member
Don't you mean 'then?'
No, all taxes aren't Marxist, but redistribution of wealth IS Marxist. Nice try, but you FAIL again in your straw man argument.
I don't have to link something to demonstrate it. Moving the goalposts much?
You are consistently dishonest, I'll give you that.
Obama has been in charge for a year. We have moved to 83% employment. His stimulus bill/slush fund has failed to generate jobs. He wants to borrow more money for another slush fund. Thus, perpetuation of the same policy of shrinking the private sector.