Obama's Real Strategy

[Guest]

I'd like to share an analytical article that I read in the American Thinker, which was written by James V. Capua who, among other things served at the U.S. Department of Education under then Secretary William Bennett. He also served as Vice President of the Institute for Educational Affairs, and also as Special Assistant to the Chancellor and Assistant Professor of history at the University of Rochester.

He describes the Obama strategy as a seemingly classic Marxist one. Creating what Marxists call "internal contradictions". Evidenced by our race to $5.00 a gallon gasoline and Obama's relentless campaign against increased domestic oil and energy production, and the administrations huge and continuing push for greater command and control not withstanding their sound defeat in the mid-term elections.

Then there is his redefining of our foreign policy and defense policies irregardless of past alliances, coupled with an embrace of fringe utopian ideas of an "internationalist order".

He also relates what he describes as a "Cold War" strategy of "talk talk, fight fight". The talk element of the strategy is to waste time and to hide their maneuvers, and then to divide the opposition and to divert attention to decoy issues. Then there is the "fight" element of the strategy which can be executive and fiscal measures calculated to bring the nation to such a high state of anxiety that the electoral majority is unwilling to change presidents.

I hope you find it as fascinating and thought provoking as I did.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/obamas_real_strategy.html

[Guest]

I'd like to share an analytical article that I read in the American Thinker, which was written by James V. Capua who, among other things served at the U.S. Department of Education under then Secretary William Bennett. He also served as Vice President of the Institute for Educational Affairs, and also as Special Assistant to the Chancellor and Assistant Professor of history at the University of Rochester.

He describes the Obama strategy as a seemingly classic Marxist one. Creating what Marxists call "internal contradictions". Evidenced by our race to $5.00 a gallon gasoline and Obama's relentless campaign against increased domestic oil and energy production, and the administrations huge and continuing push for greater command and control not withstanding their sound defeat in the mid-term elections.

Then there is his redefining of our foreign policy and defense policies irregardless of past alliances, coupled with an embrace of fringe utopian ideas of an "internationalist order".

He also relates what he describes as a "Cold War" strategy of "talk talk, fight fight". The talk element of the strategy is to waste time and to hide their maneuvers, and then to divide the opposition and to divert attention to decoy issues. Then there is the "fight" element of the strategy which can be executive and fiscal measures calculated to bring the nation to such a high state of anxiety that the electoral majority is unwilling to change presidents.

I hope you find it as fascinating and thought provoking as I did.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/obamas_real_strategy.html

This is what you read? Do a little research on this esteemed expert and you will find that he has less credibility on this subject than the guy who stands in the median in front of Walmart. I searched his bio (and you know who provided that) and came up with almost nothing. He has worked for some rich guys foundation since 1987. He writes in right-wing Internet based media only. Read his other stuff - he is way out there. Do you know what he did at the Department of Education? You can't even find him in Wikipedia. Do you know that when you can't pay someone enough money you often can get away with giving them a title. This is especially true in academia.

Xavier

[Guest]

This is what you read? Do a little research on this esteemed expert and you will find that he has less credibility on this subject than the guy who stands in the median in front of Walmart. I searched his bio (and you know who provided that) and came up with almost nothing. He has worked for some rich guys foundation since 1987. He writes in right-wing Internet based media only. Read his other stuff - he is way out there. Do you know what he did at the Department of Education? You can't even find him in Wikipedia. Do you know that when you can't pay someone enough money you often can get away with giving them a title. This is especially true in academia.

Xavier

:1rotfl:

[Guest]

:BigApplause::1rotfl:

[Guest]

They are so gullible.

[Guest]

Apparently, Harry Alford who is the president and CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce has a similar opinion of this President.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecdf4RSVe1Y&feature=player_embedded

[Guest]

Good read Richie. It goes right along with the Progressives' Rules for Radicals.

[Guest]

Ayers, Wright, Soros, Alinsky....birds of a feather flock together and I didn't even attend University of Rochester....Obama is out to get the man...but he forgets he is the man:1rotfl: You are right on richielion Obama can't push the green agenda unless and until gas continues upward.

[Guest]

I'd like to share an analytical article that I read in the American Thinker, which was written by James V. Capua who, among other things served at the U.S. Department of Education under then Secretary William Bennett. He also served as Vice President of the Institute for Educational Affairs, and also as Special Assistant to the Chancellor and Assistant Professor of history at the University of Rochester.

He describes the Obama strategy as a seemingly classic Marxist one. Creating what Marxists call "internal contradictions". Evidenced by our race to $5.00 a gallon gasoline and Obama's relentless campaign against increased domestic oil and energy production, and the administrations huge and continuing push for greater command and control not withstanding their sound defeat in the mid-term elections.

Then there is his redefining of our foreign policy and defense policies irregardless of past alliances, coupled with an embrace of fringe utopian ideas of an "internationalist order".

He also relates what he describes as a "Cold War" strategy of "talk talk, fight fight". The talk element of the strategy is to waste time and to hide their maneuvers, and then to divide the opposition and to divert attention to decoy issues. Then there is the "fight" element of the strategy which can be executive and fiscal measures calculated to bring the nation to such a high state of anxiety that the electoral majority is unwilling to change presidents.

I hope you find it as fascinating and thought provoking as I did.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/obamas_real_strategy.html

and very typical of you to swallow this nonsense. BTW, irregardless is a word ignorantly used by some people to say regardless.

[Guest]

This is what you read? Do a little research on this esteemed expert and you will find that he has less credibility on this subject than the guy who stands in the median in front of Walmart. I searched his bio (and you know who provided that) and came up with almost nothing. He has worked for some rich guys foundation since 1987. He writes in right-wing Internet based media only. Read his other stuff - he is way out there. Do you know what he did at the Department of Education? You can't even find him in Wikipedia. Do you know that when you can't pay someone enough money you often can get away with giving them a title. This is especially true in academia.

Xavier

The insipid responses I get from the resident liberals are mind boggling. Do research on the author? I started off my thread with research on the author. Your comment that he "only" writes for online media is very condescending and also very 19th century; especially considering we're here communicating online. Wake up to the 21st century media brother, because in print publications are fast being replaced.

Also the brilliant analysis of the article speaks for itself in illustrating the correlation of Obama's actions with tried and true marxist principles that anyone with a brain can follow, and to disagree with if you have a mind to do so, instead of just trying to discredit the author.

I won't even address the other libs who've posted here because it's just too sophomoric.

[Guest]

The insipid responses I get from the resident liberals are mind boggling....I won't even address the other libs who've posted here because it's just too sophomoric.You vote the way you want in 2012, Richie. I'll decide which candidates make most sense to me. In the meantime, try not to suggest that anyone who doesn't totally agree with you is sophomoric or responds in an insipid way. That shouldn't make you feel any better and it really p_sses of those who don't share your political idealogy.

As far as my voting choices are concerned, all I'll say that if the qualifications and political platforms of the candidates for a particular federal office are similar, the incumbent will be at a dramatic disadvantage as far as I'm concerned.

[Guest]

The insipid responses I get from the resident liberals are mind boggling. Do research on the author? I started off my thread with research on the author. Your comment that he "only" writes for online media is very condescending and also very 19th century; especially considering we're here communicating online. Wake up to the 21st century media brother, because in print publications are fast being replaced.

Also the brilliant analysis of the article speaks for itself in illustrating the correlation of Obama's actions with tried and true marxist principles that anyone with a brain can follow, and to disagree with if you have a mind to do so, instead of just trying to discredit the author.

I won't even address the other libs who've posted here because it's just too sophomoric.

:1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl::1rotfl: It's time to check you medication.

[Guest]

Equating the rising gas prices to Obama being a Marxist is simply wrong. Richie you and your cohorts are being fooled by the oil lobbies and are just plain being lied to by the republicans. Please follow the following:
Canada produces 3.3 million barrells a day and consumes 2.2 million barrells.They produce more than they use yet the price og gas has also gone up in Canada. Canada with its vast resources and small population can't drill its way out of price runups because they are also chained to the global oil marketplace. And so are we. We cannot drill our way out.

[Guest]

They are so gullible.

I see sarcasm went right by you.

[Guest]

You vote the way you want in 2012, Richie. I'll decide which candidates make most sense to me. In the meantime, try not to suggest that anyone who doesn't totally agree with you is sophomoric or responds in an insipid way. That shouldn't make you feel any better and it really p_sses of those who don't share your political idealogy.

As far as my voting choices are concerned, all I'll say that if the qualifications and political platforms of the candidates for a particular federal office are similar, the incumbent will be at a dramatic disadvantage as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, so you're "outing" yourself as one of the resident liberals I guess by this response?

I was talking about the childish posts of 2 other posters, and I guess you're aligning yourself with them? I have to say I'm surprised. You normally have well reasoned posts, but you've failed in this one.

I challenge you to reread this entire thread from the beginning and tell me where I was wrong in my analysis of the substance-less responses I received from all the liberals, except Xavier who I answered directly.

[Guest]

Canada produces 3.3 million barrells a day and consumes 2.2 million barrells.They produce more than they use yet the price og gas has also gone up in Canada. Canada with its vast resources and small population can't drill its way out of price runups because they are also chained to the global oil marketplace. And so are we. We cannot drill our way out.

In Canada, on average, about one-third of the total price of gas at the pump is tax. Ditto for Europe. Believe tax on gas is less in US than one-third of price so it's not an apples to apples argument.

[Guest]

Gee Richie how do you feel about the president of the united states now that osama bin laden has been KILLED UNDER HIS WATCH!!! And by the way I voted twice for reagan twice,and tricky dick twice.:ho:

[Guest]

Gee Richie how do you feel about the president of the united states now that osama bin laden has been KILLED UNDER HIS WATCH!!! And by the way I voted twice for reagan twice,and tricky dick twice.:ho:

Welcome! We hope to see more of you around here. It feels good to come over from the dark side! :welcome:

Of course, Richie won't think so.

Xavier

[Guest]

Gee Richie how do you feel about the president of the united states now that osama bin laden has been KILLED UNDER HIS WATCH!!! And by the way I voted twice for reagan twice,and tricky dick twice.:ho:

I'm glad bin Laden was taken out on anybody's watch and the President as Commander-in-Chief certainly gets credit.

If you are what you say you are why are you trying to bait me? Did you also get tingly sensations down your leg?

[Guest]

I am what I say I am A tried and true " Independent" I also voted for obama and am very proud of that for now.Two years from now we'll see what happens,might have to go back to the dark side again.

[Guest]

I am what I say I am A tried and true " Independent" I also voted for obama and am very proud of that for now.Two years from now we'll see what happens,might have to go back to the dark side again.

Oh, so you do get the tinglies. Well good for you. Independent to me means "Which way is the wind blowing". I'm sure we'll talk more. You do have an interesting way of introducing yourself.

I'm glad Obama gave the order, but Obama is still a socialist.

[Guest]

I'd like to share an analytical article that I read in the American Thinker, which was written by James V. Capua who, among other things served at the U.S. Department of Education under then Secretary William Bennett. He also served as Vice President of the Institute for Educational Affairs, and also as Special Assistant to the Chancellor and Assistant Professor of history at the University of Rochester.

He describes the Obama strategy as a seemingly classic Marxist one. Creating what Marxists call "internal contradictions". Evidenced by our race to $5.00 a gallon gasoline and Obama's relentless campaign against increased domestic oil and energy production, and the administrations huge and continuing push for greater command and control not withstanding their sound defeat in the mid-term elections.

Then there is his redefining of our foreign policy and defense policies irregardless of past alliances, coupled with an embrace of fringe utopian ideas of an "internationalist order".

He also relates what he describes as a "Cold War" strategy of "talk talk, fight fight". The talk element of the strategy is to waste time and to hide their maneuvers, and then to divide the opposition and to divert attention to decoy issues. Then there is the "fight" element of the strategy which can be executive and fiscal measures calculated to bring the nation to such a high state of anxiety that the electoral majority is unwilling to change presidents.

I hope you find it as fascinating and thought provoking as I did.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/04/obamas_real_strategy.html

I wouldn't characterize the linked article as "analytical". Political, yes. Polemic, yes. Well reasoned, no. It contained false dichotomies, false and/or unsubstantiated statements and allegations, and vague and meaningless generalities among other "crimes against logic".

I'm not an Obama fan. But it is simply inaccurate to say that that he "campaigned relentlessly against domestic energy production". Sorry. The article then uses this inaccuracy and calls it an "internal contradiction" in the face of rising gas prices. And then argues that internal contradictions are evidence of Marxism.

Hmm. Let's use some analogies to analyze both "internal contradictions" and the Marxist leap. Personally, I'm in favor of domestic drilling. However, those who oppose it do so for reasons other than the rise and fall of gas prices. To make their case against drilling for completely other reasons, and then support drilling when the price of gas fluctuates, would be an "internal contradiction". To be "pro life" and pro death penalty could be deemed an "internal contradiction"-- even though it's certainly understandable and respectable to hold both views. To be adamantly tough on crime but want compassion for a wayward loved one is an "internal contradiction," but doesn't make someone a Marxist. To want to slash federal jobs but "not in my district" is an "internal contradiction" but certainly doesn't make Speaker Boehner a Marxist.

So against "domestic energy production" (not true) = internal contradiction = evidence of Marxism.

Sounds good-- 'til you think about it.

Redefining our foreign policy and defense policies (regardless) of past alliances? Although our stated foreign policy has always been about promoting freedom around the world, in other ways, Obama as well as other U.S. presidents have done so without a doubt. For example, we supported, then opposed, Noriega. We on-again and then gratefully off-again at times aided former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. We opposed, normalized relations with and opposed again Gaddafi. Obama can be faulted with having a foreign policy at odds with his campaign, though the article doesn't address this.

"Coupled with embrace of fringe utopian ideas of an 'internationalist order'"? Gee, that sort of calls for some backup content. What fringe utopian ideas specifically. What "internationalist order" ? The former President stated that he hoped democracy movements would break out in the Middle East. Is that a, "utopian internationalist order"? Without supplying supporting evidence, this is not analysis but merely political rhetoric.

The "talk, talk; fight, fight" line sounds like (a) both party's political playbook; (b) the high school cheer leading squad; (c) all of the above. Polemicists used to argue equally without substantiation that the former administration raised terror alert levels to increase the anxiety level so the electorate wouldn't change horses. (And BTW, talk radio could be described as "talk, talk," but what of it?)

I do agree the article was fascinating, especially it's placement in The American Thinker. Like so many political articles on both sides of the fence, it seems to be targeted primarily to people who don't think critically for themselves.

If, as Richie stated,
"...the brilliant analysis of the article speaks for itself in illustrating the correlation of Obama's actions with tried and true marxist principles that anyone with a brain can follow"
Then I must throw my lot with Scarecrow, go to the Wizard and plead, "If I only had a brain"!

[Guest]

Pturner; I think if you research Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Racicals", you'll have a better idea of the impetus behind the article.

[Guest]

Pturner; I think if you research Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Racicals", you'll have a better idea of the impetus behind the article.

That's all you got?

[Guest]

That's all you got?

Obama's inspirational mentor Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" is not enough?

[Guest]

I went to the web page for The American Thnker and just about puked. It is filled with more racist garbage than I have seen in 40 years. If that is where Richie's article came from, Richie should be ashamed of using that as a source. Richie, you know better than to read that tripe. I know that Villagers are not racist people but are open and accepting of all races.

Go to this link, Richie and others, and tell me if you think it is just a racist diatribe. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/obamas_slave_ship.html

If I am terribly wrong about your character, please, let's cancel our congratulatory Yeunglings (for either person) come November. If not, I look forward to you buying me a couple of beers.

[Guest]

pturner,that might be the best response to a post I have ever read. No name calling or bashing just a great rebuttal to a slanted post. Thanks

[Guest]

Obama's inspirational mentor Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" is not enough?

... and that's your response to Pturner's seriously thought out and accurately worded piece. Then you have nothing. It's no secret now. Gladstone (see below) was spot on.

Xavier

[Guest]

I went to the web page for The American Thnker and just about puked. It is filled with more racist garbage than I have seen in 40 years. If that is where Richie's article came from, Richie should be ashamed of using that as a source. Richie, you know better than to read that tripe. I know that Villagers are not racist people but are open and accepting of all races.

Go to this link, Richie and others, and tell me if you think it is just a racist diatribe. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/11/obamas_slave_ship.html

If I am wrong about your feelings of race, please, let's cancel our congratulatory Yeunglings (for either person) come November. If not, I look forward to you buying me a couple of beers.

something. That website is filled with racist garbage, and anyone who quotes it or uses it to argue a point has a serious problem.

[Guest]

I'm glad bin Laden was taken out on anybody's watch and the President as Commander-in-Chief certainly gets credit.

If you are what you say you are why are you trying to bait me? Did you also get tingly sensations down your leg?The guy that should really get the credit is the Seal who put the little red dot on Osama's left eye and then squeezed one off.

[Guest]

Obama's inspirational mentor Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals" is not enough?Re-read Rules For Radicals and then go back and see how many of those rules were used by both parties and both Presidential candidates in the 2012 election. Actually, in the context of the election campaign, I'd even say that John McCain used Alinsky's principles more than did Barack Obama.

Before you say, no, no, no...re-read the rules and then think back to the campaign. Both parties and lots of candidates used the rules because they work!

[Guest]

I wouldn't characterize the linked article as "analytical". Political, yes. Polemic, yes. Well reasoned, no. It contained false dichotomies, false and/or unsubstantiated statements and allegations, and vague and meaningless generalities among other "crimes against logic".

I'm not an Obama fan. But it is simply inaccurate to say that that he "campaigned relentlessly against domestic energy production". Sorry. The article then uses this inaccuracy and calls it an "internal contradiction" in the face of rising gas prices. And then argues that internal contradictions are evidence of Marxism.

Hmm. Let's use some analogies to analyze both "internal contradictions" and the Marxist leap. Personally, I'm in favor of domestic drilling. However, those who oppose it do so for reasons other than the rise and fall of gas prices. To make their case against drilling for completely other reasons, and then support drilling when the price of gas fluctuates, would be an "internal contradiction". To be "pro life" and pro death penalty could be deemed an "internal contradiction"-- even though it's certainly understandable and respectable to hold both views. To be adamantly tough on crime but want compassion for a wayward loved one is an "internal contradiction," but doesn't make someone a Marxist. To want to slash federal jobs but "not in my district" is an "internal contradiction" but certainly doesn't make Speaker Boehner a Marxist.

So against "domestic energy production" (not true) = internal contradiction = evidence of Marxism.

Sounds good-- 'til you think about it.

Redefining our foreign policy and defense policies (regardless) of past alliances? Although our stated foreign policy has always been about promoting freedom around the world, in other ways, Obama as well as other U.S. presidents have done so without a doubt. For example, we supported, then opposed, Noriega. We on-again and then gratefully off-again at times aided former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. We opposed, normalized relations with and opposed again Gaddafi. Obama can be faulted with having a foreign policy at odds with his campaign, though the article doesn't address this.

"Coupled with embrace of fringe utopian ideas of an 'internationalist order'"? Gee, that sort of calls for some backup content. What fringe utopian ideas specifically. What "internationalist order" ? The former President stated that he hoped democracy movements would break out in the Middle East. Is that a, "utopian internationalist order"? Without supplying supporting evidence, this is not analysis but merely political rhetoric.

The "talk, talk; fight, fight" line sounds like (a) both party's political playbook; (b) the high school cheer leading squad; (c) all of the above. Polemicists used to argue equally without substantiation that the former administration raised terror alert levels to increase the anxiety level so the electorate wouldn't change horses. (And BTW, talk radio could be described as "talk, talk," but what of it?)

I do agree the article was fascinating, especially it's placement in The American Thinker. Like so many political articles on both sides of the fence, it seems to be targeted primarily to people who don't think critically for themselves.

If, as Richie stated,
"...the brilliant analysis of the article speaks for itself in illustrating the correlation of Obama's actions with tried and true marxist principles that anyone with a brain can follow"
Then I must throw my lot with Scarecrow, go to the Wizard and plead, "If I only had a brain"!:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

[Guest]

I guess you believe what you want to believe. The truth will out itself in the end. I'm not up to the daunting task of debating all the misconceptions and will leave my prior statements as my final opinion on this subject.

[Guest]

I guess you believe what you want to believe. The truth will out itself in the end. I'm not up to the daunting task of debating all the misconceptions and will leave my prior statements as my final opinion on this subject.
If your mind's made up and if we all agree to disagree, why are we continuing the conversation?

[Guest]

If your mind's made up and if we all agree to disagree, why are we continuing the conversation?

Richie hasn't got anything. Can you imagine - NOTHING! No substance. No links. NOTHING! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

Xavier

[Guest]

have got to give PTurner an "atta-girl".....I could not have said it better...
Unfortunately, as is true of this forum, NOTHING will change....Unless the wizard gives RLion an "OPEN-minded" Brain....:MOJE_whot::MOJE_whot:

[Guest]

PTurner is one of the few people that I have met in my life who is very bright, very fair and very reticent to stir the waters. When she speaks I listen...in awe.

She hasn't ever shown that she has an ax to grind and above all she uses the English language to communicate well and she communicates sensibly. I find her one of the most kind and one of the smartest and one of the fairest persons I have ever met....But most of all, she has common sense.

[Guest]

Richie hasn't got anything. Can you imagine - NOTHING! No substance. No links. NOTHING! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE

Xavier

You're pathetic. I at least give my opinion. You just throw bombs. Grow up.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=217661

[Guest]

You're pathetic. I at least give my opinion. You just throw bombs. Grow up.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=217661

No, you give other people's opinion. :boom: (that was the bomb)

Xavier

[Guest]

How about a taste of reality. Obama and Hillary are both Progressives folks. They are hell bent on changing this country to follow socialism. That isn't a guess on my part or a theory. It is what they say. Some people don't think there is anything wrong with this. Others, like myself, pray to God that it doesn't happen and will do everything in my power to see that it doesn't happen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html

[Guest]

I love these people who rail against socialism while they happily collect social security and participate in Medicare.

[Guest]

How about a taste of reality. Obama and Hillary are both Progressives folks. They are hell bent on changing this country to follow socialism. That isn't a guess on my part or a theory. It is what they say. Some people don't think there is anything wrong with this. Others, like myself, pray to God that it doesn't happen and will do everything in my power to see that it doesn't happen.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html

The last sentence of the last paragraph says it all with Gregory Galluzzo's thoughts about Obama and Hillary Clinton:

"By either one of them being in office," he said, "we're going to have a government that's more responsive to the ordinary people."

Thanks for the link. I loved it.

Xavier

[Guest]

I love these people who rail against socialism while they happily collect social security and participate in Medicare.


I think I paid into both programs and continue to do so. I had no vote on whether I wanted it or not.

[Guest]

PTurner is one of the few people that I have met in my life who is very bright, very fair and very reticent to stir the waters. When she speaks I listen...in awe.

She hasn't ever shown that she has an ax to grind and above all she uses the English language to communicate well and she communicates sensibly. I find her one of the most kind and one of the smartest and one of the fairest persons I have ever met....But most of all, she has common sense.:BigApplause::BigApplause::BigApplause:

[Guest]

I love these people who rail against socialism while they happily collect social security and participate in Medicare.


You equate a supposed insurance, that most employed people paid into their entire working career as socialism?

But, what you are really saying is, that you are a Socialist. Which is a polite term for Marxist, which is a polite term for Communist.

So now we understand, and it is no real necessity to converse with you in the future, as you just continue the old dogma, and just throw junk on white screen.

[Guest]

Blue Heron - You call the liberal (left of center) thinking people Communists. By your same way of thinking, the conservative (right of center) thinking people are Nazis. Are you a Nazi, Blue Heron, and are you calling all the other conservatives Nazis? I really do not think they are going appreciate you doing that - but you did just that by stating liberals are Communists.

You go back to the time of Franklin Roosevelt and the passage of Social Security and you will see how many people thought he was a Socialist with this idea of a Nanny State. Go back to Lyndon Johnson and the passage of Medicare and you will see the same thing. Yes, Blue Heron, you rail against Socialism but you do not want your benefits taken away. Take away your veteran benefits, too? Why not? That is a government entitlement program, isn't it?

[Guest]

Blue Heron - You call the liberal (left of center) thinking people Communists. By your same way of thinking, the conservative (right of center) thinking people are Nazis. Are you a Nazi, Blue Heron, and are you calling all the other conservatives Nazis? I really do not think they are going appreciate you doing that - but you did just that by stating liberals are Communists.

You go back to the time of Franklin Roosevelt and the passage of Social Security and you will see how many people thought he was a Socialist with this idea of a Nanny State. Go back to Lyndon Johnson and the passage of Medicare and you will see the same thing. Yes, Blue Heron, you rail against Socialism but you do not want your benefits taken away. Take away your veteran benefits, too? Why not? That is a government entitlement program, isn't it?

:BigApplause:

[Guest]

You equate a supposed insurance, that most employed people paid into their entire working career as socialism?

But, what you are really saying is, that you are a Socialist. Which is a polite term for Marxist, which is a polite term for Communist.

So now we understand, and it is no real necessity to converse with you in the future, as you just continue the old dogma, and just throw junk on white screen.

:blahblahblah:

[Guest]

The last sentence of the last paragraph says it all with Gregory Galluzzo's thoughts about Obama and Hillary Clinton:

"By either one of them being in office," he said, "we're going to have a government that's more responsive to the ordinary people."

Thanks for the link. I loved it.

Xavier


I'm glad you enjoyed it Xavier. If you are interested, read up on Gregory Galluzo and the Gamaliel Foundation and the work they are doing to redistribute the wealth, bring down America and bring about their form of social justice. You know, the kind of work and responsiveness his friend Reverend Wright preaches or his other friends Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn have undertaken that has resulted in bloodshed.

[Guest]

I'm glad you enjoyed it Xavier. If you are interested, read up on Gregory Galluzo and the Gamaliel Foundation and the work they are doing to redistribute the wealth, bring down America and bring about their form of social justice. You know, the kind of work and responsiveness his friend Reverend Wright preaches or his other friends Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn have undertaken that has resulted in bloodshed.

Read my signature line below. It is sooooo spot on. :D

Xavier

[Guest]

Blue Heron - You call the liberal (left of center) thinking people Communists. By your same way of thinking, the conservative (right of center) thinking people are Nazis. Are you a Nazi, Blue Heron, and are you calling all the other conservatives Nazis? I really do not think they are going appreciate you doing that - but you did just that by stating liberals are Communists.

You go back to the time of Franklin Roosevelt and the passage of Social Security and you will see how many people thought he was a Socialist with this idea of a Nanny State. Go back to Lyndon Johnson and the passage of Medicare and you will see the same thing. Yes, Blue Heron, you rail against Socialism but you do not want your benefits taken away. Take away your veteran benefits, too? Why not? That is a government entitlement program, isn't it?

at least not in a logical manner. He'd rather call people names that support his fringe positions.

[Guest]

Is it really your position that all people who voted for Obama in the past election are communist,are you REALLY going to stand by that staetment.If you are I pity you.

[Guest]

This thread has gotten to the point where I don't know what people are talking about or who they're addressing.

[Guest]

I was addressing blue heron fan Richie.Read his posts then tell me you agree with him or hopefully disagree.

[Guest]

I am hoping that Richie will agree with my statement of "American Thinker" and their article on President Obama which is totally racist and that anyone who agrees with it is also a racist. Richie brought this publication up so he should also repudiate it's hateful writings. Come on, Richie, man up.

Blue Heron is now the 2011 model of Joseph McCarthy. Ooooo, I see Communists coming out of the woodwork.

[Guest]

I was addressing blue heron fan Richie.Read his posts then tell me you agree with him or hopefully disagree.

You can disagree with Blue Heron's opinion in his last post on this thread, which I'm not sure I quite understood, but I don't see where he said everyone who voted for Obama is a communist.

I also, in reference to Bugs last post, think that it's hogwash. If you criticize Obama and provide reasons for your belief that he is following classic marxist stratagems to advance a socialistic political agenda, it does not make you racist.

[Guest]

Richie,

Thank you. I have no problem with your thoughts (except they are wrong) about President Obama's political agenda since you are basing them on your "vast" reasons other than race.

Looks like another great day in The Villages. Enjoy it!