McCain booed after trying to calm anti-Obama crowd

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Acts 4:32 And the congregation of those who believed were of one heart and soul; and not one of them claimed that anything belonging to him was his own; but all things were common property to them.....

This was Karl Marx's ideal, too. It is where he got it. Only thing is Karl Marx became an atheist and worshipper of Satan while he was in college.

Do you know why?

Because during the industrial revolution in Europe the rich were exploiting the poor. They held them down in order to reap greater profits.

And then they would turn around and build these huge, expensive Cathedrals. They told the masses...you just keep working for us and in the end you too will have mansions and golden streets.

Karl, as a young man, saw this religious exploitation. That's when he termed religion as the "opiate of the masses". In other words get the poor hooked on bad religion and they'll do anything for you!

That's why Karl turned against God....Can't blame him, for if God was like that I might become a atheist too. This is why Communism started...it was a revolt against the religion of that day.

[Robert]

No, I don't like socialism in America.

[Taylor]

Originally Posted By: John317

No, I don't like socialism in America.

Of course you don't because it limits your love of self...your greedy nature..... It places limits on you!

Quote:

Do you want the US to become a socialist nation?

We have historically been both. However, we are becoming more Capitalistic. That's why there's so much exploitation! In pure Capitalism you have a handful of folks with all the money while the masses are living in abject poverty!

Do you want a purely Capitalistic nation?

Wow so if we don't agree that taking wealth from the wealthy by force is "right" then we are greedy? Greed is taking wealth by force no matter the "pure motives" of doing so to "help others". God never forces! God inspires change in the human heart and behaviour. That is a clear difference. It isn't selfish to not want to force others.

I travel a great deal and I have seen incredible opression in some countries where the rich definately exploit the poor. In some of those countries, socialism has come in to supposidly "force" the rich to reach the poor properly and I can tell you what the results are, the prices of food have gone up more 3-5 times in the last year, the exploitation has become even more severe than ever before. The only way to "somewhat survive" is to "sign up for the socialistic party" and then your food is only 40% higher or so than last year provided you stand in long lines and get substandard food from the government. Since socialism has taken over the price of gasoline has gone WAY up, religious freedoms are being trampeled upon all in the name of "socialism and equality".

Yes we MUST care about the poor in our society. We must do all we can to help them but we must inspire others to give not force them to give. (And no in those countries it isn't dubbed as "communism" it is preached loudly and clearly as "Socialism" only and "reformed socialism" at that.)Socialism doesn't bring the utopia it promises. Those who are proporting it in these countries care about one thing only, and that is power...power to controll. Oh, are there some good things that come out of socialism....yes! But that doesn't negate the incredibly strong negatives of that system.

[Robert]

Greed is taking wealth by force no matter the "pure motives" of doing so to "help others".

[Neil D]

Taylor...

The honest truth is that I don't know where you have trodden...and therefore don't know what to make of the charge that socialism creates more poverty....I suspect that that type of socialism is different driven by dictatorships and labeled "socialism" to ease the masses.

The type of socialism that would be here, is one that Bernie Sanders has championed. And truth be told, his is not a socialism at all, but rather responsible politics of the american order and as evidenced by the Vermont Progressive Party who he helped cofounded. It is capitalistic but there is a responsiblity that is current not checked. As evidenced by our current dilemma , Sanders has said that The wealthiest people, who have benefited from Bush's policies and are in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all. This is absurd. This is the most extreme example that I can recall of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor. I have to agree with that.

The question of the government "forcing" people to pay taxes is a form of socialism is an exercise in semantics. It is the governments responsibility to enforce the constitution of the US, which includes to protect its citizens. This takes money. Therefore, the government has every right to require a contribution of money from the individual to pay for those services. The question is always "how much?". Is this "contribution" a forced measure? To some degree the answer is yes. My personal bias is that if someone is actively avoiding/rebelling against taxes, he should be deported and removed from this country, and forfit all his posession that he made while here. Where he goes to is his choice.

I have not seen anything that indicates that Obama is socialist in nature. I have seen that he favors more of a welfare state [as John puts it], and I see no problem with that. I do see the need for the taxes in our country to encourage strongly new roads of economy, ie a green electrical grid to help us get off the dependence of foreign oil. I see a need for the masses/middle class to convert to electrical cars and there needs to be more research in this area and upgrade our current technologies.

And while this will be a big boon to the economy, it is not the cure. Any CEO making more than 5/6 times his lowest paid worker needs to be taxed heavily. Profits need to be recycled into the company or into it's employees.Even doctors in socialist countrys only make 3-4 times the average worker wages.

But That's my opinion....

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

So, according to you, what type of socialist is Obama?

Same kind as his friend Bernie Sanders for whom Obama campaigned. Reformist or democratic socialists.

Obama also campaigned for a socialist in Kenya. Raila Odinga. Odinga has said several times that Obama is a relative, but Obama's campaign has denied it. Odinga was educated in East Germany when it was a communist state, and Odinga has an older brother who was named after Fidel Castro.

[Taylor]

Taylor...

The honest truth is that I don't know where you have trodden...and therefore don't know what to make of the charge that socialism creates more poverty....I suspect that that type of socialism is different driven by dictatorships and labeled "socialism" to ease the masses.

The type of socialism that would be here, is one that Bernie Sanders has championed. And truth be told, his is not a socialism at all, but rather responsible politics of the american order and as evidenced by the Vermont Progressive Party who he helped cofounded. It is capitalistic but there is a responsiblity that is current not checked. As evidenced by our current dilemma , Sanders has said that The wealthiest people, who have benefited from Bush's policies and are in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all. This is absurd. This is the most extreme example that I can recall of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor. I have to agree with that.

The question of the government "forcing" people to pay taxes is a form of socialism is an exercise in semantics. It is the governments responsibility to enforce the constitution of the US, which includes to protect its citizens. This takes money. Therefore, the government has every right to require a contribution of money from the individual to pay for those services. The question is always "how much?". Is this "contribution" a forced measure? To some degree the answer is yes. My personal bias is that if someone is actively avoiding/rebelling against taxes, he should be deported and removed from this country, and forfit all his posession that he made while here. Where he goes to is his choice.

I have not seen anything that indicates that Obama is socialist in nature. I have seen that he favors more of a welfare state [as John puts it], and I see no problem with that. I do see the need for the taxes in our country to encourage strongly new roads of economy, ie a green electrical grid to help us get off the dependence of foreign oil. I see a need for the masses/middle class to convert to electrical cars and there needs to be more research in this area and upgrade our current technologies.

And while this will be a big boon to the economy, it is not the cure. Any CEO making more than 5/6 times his lowest paid worker needs to be taxed heavily. Profits need to be recycled into the company or into it's employees.Even doctors in socialist countrys only make 3-4 times the average worker wages.

But That's my opinion....

I apreciate your input. I have never thought that Obama is a socialist..but I have heard accusations that he is. I too am ready for some type of change. I just felt that some here were saying that "socialism" in general is a good thing and I just had to say what I have seen in other countries and it is far from good. (The premise and idealism may be good but in practice it seems to turn out as anything but.) But yes, we do need some sort of change, and yes the business community must be responsible. If there had been responsibility, we wouldn't be 700 billion more in debt today than we were a couple of weeks ago...there were not enough checks and balances. I am not a "greenie" but I agree we need to get off our dependence on foreign oil. We need to take care of our planet.

I just felt compelled to make a comment about socialism in general because I have seen "socialisms" effects clear and personal affecting the lives of people I have come to care about.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

No, I don't like socialism in America.

Of course you don't because it limits your love of self...your greedy nature..... It places limits on you!

It has nothing to do with me personally. It has everything to do with what America has been. It has to do with America's history and ideals, what the nation was designed to be, and the will of the people.

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- Do you want the US to become a socialist nation?

Quote:

ROBERT-- We have historically been both. However, we are becoming more Capitalistic. That's why there's so much exploitation! In pure Capitalism you have a handful of folks with all the money while the masses are living in abject poverty!

Do you want a purely Capitalistic nation?

We have never been a socialist nation, nor is there any evidence that the US is becoming more Capitalistic.

From wikipedia on the economy of the US--

"The United States has a capitalist mixed economy, which is fueled by abundant natural resources, a well-developed infrastructure, and high productivity."

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Bill Ayers claims he is glad he did those acts and he wishes he had done more of them. Big difference.

And this was taken out of context. You don't know what he was saying. Which acts was he refering to? Bombings? He was not talking about that. He was talking about resisting the Vietnam War and the policys. That is according to Factcheck.org.

That's called a spin, Neil. Bill Ayers said he did not "regret setting bombs." Can't get any clearer than that. Did he mean he did not regret setting bombs? Yes, if English means anything at all, that is what it means.

September 11, 2001 “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers is quoted in NYT article. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F02E1DE1438F932A2575AC0A9679C8B63

There's no statute of limitations on terrorist bombings, Neil. He's never said that he did the wrong thing or that he wants Americans or anyone to forgive him for doing those things.

Watch interview of the Ayers and of their saying that they wished they had bombed more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxRi4gfupi8

The record below of the weatherground bombings, of which the Ayers were a big part. Whichever way you want to slice it, the Ayers say they wish there had been more of the same.

I don't know about you but I remember them like they happened yesterday:

Quote:

For those who have forgotten or weren’t born yet here is a list of a few of the activities. Just think if this were happening today:

7 October 1969 – Bombing of Haymarket Police Statue in Chicago, apparently as a “kickoff” for the “Days of Rage” riots in the city October 8–11, 1969. The Weathermen later claim credit for the bombing in their book, “Prairie Fire.”

8 October-11, 1969 – The “Days of Rage” riots occur in Chicago in which 287 Weatherman members from throughout the country were arrested and a large amount of property damage was done.

6 December 1969 – Bombing of several Chicago Police cars parked in a precinct parking lot at 3600 North Halsted Street, Chicago. The WUO stated in their book “Prairie Fire” that they had did the explosion.

27 December-31, 1969 – Weathermen hold a “War Council” meeting in Flint, MI, where they finalize their plans to submerge into an underground status from which they plan to commit strategic acts of sabotage against the government. Thereafter they are called the “Weather Underground Organization” (WUO).

13 February 1970 – Bombing of several police vehicles of the Berkeley, California, Police Department .

16 February 1970 – Bombing of Golden Gate Park branch of the San Francisco Police Department, killing one officer and injuring a number of other policemen.

6 March 1970 – Bombing in the 13th Police District of the Detroit, Michigan. 34 sticks of dynamite are discovered. During February and early March, 1970, members of the WUO, led by Bill Ayers, are reported to be in Detroit, during that period, for the purpose of bombing a police facility.

6 March 1970 – “bomb factory” located in New York’s Greenwich Village accidentally explodes. WUO members Theodore die in t. The bomb was intended to be planted at a non-commissioned officer’s dance at Fort Dix, New Jersey. The bomb was packed with nails TO INFILICT MAXIMUM CASUALTIES UPON DETONATION.

30 March 1970 – Chicago Police discover a WUO “bomb factory” on Chicago’s north side. A subsequent discovery of a WUO “weapons cache” in a south side Chicago apartment several days later ends WUO activity in the city.

10 May 1970 – Bombing of The National Guard Association building in Washington, D.C..

21 May 1970 – The WUO under Bernardine Dohrn’s name releases its “Declaration of a State of War” communique.

6 June 1970 – The WUO sends a letter claiming credit for bombing of the San Francisco Hall of Justice; however, no explosion actually took place. Months later, workmen in this building located an unexploded device which had apparently been dormant for some time.

9 June 1970 – Bombing of The New York City Police Headquarters .

27 July 1970 – Bombing of The Presidio army base in San Francisco. [NYT, 7/27/70]

12 September 1970 – The WUO helps Dr. Timothy Leary, break out and escape from the California Men’s Colony prison.

8 October 1970 – Bombing of Marin County courthouse. [NYT, 8/10/70]

10 October 1970 – Bombing of Queens traffic-court building . [NYT, 10/10/70, p. 12]

14 October 1970 – Bombing of The Harvard Center for International Affairs [NYT, 10/14/70, p. 30]

1 March 1971 – Bombing of The United States Capitol . ” [NYT, 3/2/71]

April, 1971 – abandoned WUO “bomb factory” discovered in San Francisco, California.

29 August, 1971 – Bombing of the Office of California Prisons . [LAT, 8/29/71]

17 September 1971 – Bombing of The New York Department of Corrections in Albany, NY [NYT, 9/18/71]

15 October 1971 – Bombing of William Bundy’s office in the MIT research center. [NYT, 10/16/71]

19 May 1972 – Bombing of The Pentagon . [NYT, 5/19/72]

18 May 1973 – Bombing of the 103rd Police Precinct in New York

28 September 1973 – Bombing of ITT headquarters in New York and Rome, Italy . [NYT, 9/28/73]

6 March 1974 – Bombing of the Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare offices in San Francisco

31 May 1974 – Bombing of The Office of the California Attorney General.

17 June 1974 – Bombing of Gulf Oil’s Pittsburgh headquarters .

11 September 1974 – Bombing of Anaconda Corporation (part of the Rockefeller Corporation).

29 January 1975 – Bombing of the State Department in (AP. “State Department Rattled by Blast,” The Daily Times-News, January 29 1975, p.1)

16 June 1975 – Bombing of Banco de Ponce (a Puerto Rican bank) in New York .

September, 1975 – Bombing of the Kennecott Corporation .

October 20, 1981 – Brinks robbery in which several members of the Weather Underground stole over $1 million from a Brinks armored car near Nyack, New York. The robbers murdered 2 police officers and 1 Brinks guard. Several others were wounded.

1981 “Guilty as hel*. Free as a bird. America is a great country,” Ayers said when interviewed by David Horowitz.

September 11, 2001 “I don’t regret setting bombs. I feel we didn’t do enough.” Ayers is quoted in NYT article

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

No, I don't like socialism in America.

Of course you don't because it limits your love of self...your greedy nature..... It places limits on you!

Check this essay out--

http://www.capitalismcenter.org/Philosophy/Essays/The_Moral_Basis_of_Capitalism.htm

[John317]

Oh, found another example of what Bernie feels to be socialism...or maybe what is NOT socialism...

Now, having mismanaged the economy for eight years as well as having lied about our situation by continually insisting, "The fundamentals of our economy are strong," the Bush administration, six weeks before an election, wants the middle class of this country to spend many hundreds of billions on a bailout. The wealthiest people, who have benefited from Bush's policies and are in the best position to pay, are being asked for no sacrifice at all. This is absurd. This is the most extreme example that I can recall of socialism for the rich and free enterprise for the poor.

Here is what socialists are saying about Bernie Sanders. It goes a long ways toward explaining why Obama is considered more to the Left than Sanders is. This is an example of why the revolutionary socialists, and even many reformist socialists, don't like Sanders. They believe he betrays most socialist causes and positions:

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Nov06/Smith15.htm

Quote:

While it was fantastic to see Tarrant humiliated, Sanders� election to the Senate doesn�t represent a radical departure from politics as usual. He may have a portrait of Eugene Debs hanging in his office, but his politics have little in common with that great American socialist.

In the 1980s, as Burlington�s mayor, Sanders mounted a challenge to the Democrats and Republicans, maintaining a consistent anti-imperialist position in solidarity with the Nicaraguan Revolution and trying to implement pro-worker policies.

But that was long ago. Now Sanders is independent in name only -- he in fact supports the Democratic Party.

As his long-time antagonist and now ally, Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean, said on the NBC�s Meet the Press, �He is basically a liberal Democrat, and he is a Democrat at that -- he runs as an Independent because he doesn�t like the structure and money that gets involved... The bottom line is that Bernie Sanders votes with the Democrats 98 percent of the time.� Ironically, that�s more often than most Democrats vote with the Democrats.

Sanders� voting record is also not so very left wing; one study found that 38 other congressional representatives had a more progressive voting record.

Sanders� relationship to the Democrats has been developing for many years. In 1992, he supported Bill Clinton as a �lesser evil,� though he later abandoned this impolite phrase to unapologetically endorse Democrats for the White House ever since.

In the 2006 Senate election, he didn�t even really run as an independent. The Democrats cut a deal with Sanders -- they wouldn�t run a candidate against him, in exchange for him supporting Democrats in other races. The Democrats backed up their word by nominating Sanders in their primary, which he refused to accept to preserve his nominal independence. But Sanders did accept support from national Democrats like Chuck Schumer, Harry Reid, Barack Obama and Barbara Boxer. He also accepted a large donation from Hillary Clinton�s Political Action Committee, HILLPAC, which featured him as one of its most important candidates.

Sanders in turn backed Democrats against third-party alternatives. In the election to fill his House seat, he and his supporters helped dissuade Progressive Party hopeful David Zuckerman from running, and went on to support the Democrat Peter Welch, who eventually won.

Sanders� endorsement of the Democrats no doubt helped him build his war chest of about $5 million, over 80 percent of which came from out of state.

To put an exclamation point on his all-but-declared membership in the Democratic Party, Sanders celebrated his election victory, contrary to his tradition of hosting a separate party, with the Democrats. He has promised to caucus with the Democrats in the Senate, and the media thus takes him for granted as part of the new majority in the Senate.

For veteran Sanders watchers, this capitulation to the corporate Democrats and their apparatchiks is nothing new. He has made it one of his missions to agitate against voting for Ralph Nader, the Green Party and, in some cases, Vermont�s Progressive Party.

During the 2004 election, Sanders announced on Vermont Public Television, �Not only am I going to vote for John Kerry, I am going to run around this country and do everything I can to dissuade people from voting for Ralph Nader... I am going to do everything I can, while I have differences with John Kerry, to make sure that he is elected.�

The political consequence of his capitulation to the Democrats has been a long list of unnecessary compromises and outright betrayals that will only mount in the Senate.

Despite his own claims, Sanders has not been an antiwar leader. Ever since he won election to the House, he has taken either equivocal positions on U.S. wars or outright supported them. His hawkish positions -- especially his decision to support Bill Clinton�s 1999 Kosovo War -- drove one of his key advisers, Jeremy Brecher, to resign from his staff. Brecher wrote in his resignation letter, �Is there a moral limit to the military violence you are willing to participate in or support?�

So outraged were peace activists over Sanders� support of the Kosovo War that they occupied his office in 1999. Sanders had them arrested. Under the Bush regime, Sanders� militarism has only grown worse. While he called for alternative approaches to the war on Afghanistan, he failed to join the sole Democrat, Barbara Lee, to vote against Congress� resolution that gave George Bush a blank check to launch war on any country he deemed connected to the September 11 attacks.

Ever since, he has voted for appropriations bills to fund the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, despite their horrific toll on the occupied peoples as well as U.S. soldiers.

Sanders has been critical of the war on Iraq, but he has supported pro-war measures -- such as a March 21, 2003, resolution stating, �Congress expresses the unequivocal support and appreciation of the nation to the President as Commander-in-Chief for his firm leadership and decisive action in the conduct of military operations in Iraq as part of the ongoing Global War on Terrorism.�

He also opposes immediate withdrawal from Iraq, despite the fact that a majority of residents in his home city of Burlington voted for such a position in a town meeting resolution in February 2005.

[John317]

during the industrial revolution in Europe the rich were exploiting the poor. They held them down in order to reap greater profits.

And then they would turn around and build these huge, expensive Cathedrals. They told the masses...you just keep working for us and in the end you too will have mansions and golden streets.

Karl, as a young man, saw this religious exploitation. That's when he termed religion as the "opiate of the masses". In other words get the poor hooked on bad religion and they'll do anything for you!

That's why Karl turned against God....Can't blame him, for if God was like that I might become a atheist too. This is why Communism started...it was a revolt against the religion of that day.

It was much more than a revolt against the religion of that day. It was part of the campaign of the king of the South, which is referred to in Daniel 11. Marxist atheism was a continuation of the French revolution which was also atheistic and was prophesied in Rev. 11.

It is not coincidental that Marxism got its start in 1848, about the same time as Darwin's Evolutionary theory. In fact, Marx asked Darwin if he could dedicate Das Kapital to Darwin but Darwin declined.

What else happened about that time? 1844 and the beginning of the rise of God's remnant church.

[Neil D]

I watched the video, I noticed the cut ...I will stil maintain that you don't have context. Here is what I have from Factcheck.org-

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/he_lied_about_bill_ayers.html

Despite the fairly mainstream life he lives now, though, Bill Ayers' image took a hit with an article that appeared in the New York Times on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. Ayers was quoted in the lead paragraph as saying, ''I don't regret setting bombs'' and "I feel we didn't do enough." The interview had been conducted earlier, in connection with the publication of Ayers' memoir of his years as a fugitive. But when the quotes appeared on the same day thousands died at the World Trade Center and elsewhere, they enraged his critics.

Ayers called the story a deliberate distortion of his views. In a response on his blog, Ayers wrote:

Ayers: My memoir is from start to finish a condemnation of terrorism, of the indiscriminate murder of human beings, whether driven by fanaticism or official policy. ...

I said I had a thousand regrets, but no regrets for opposing the war with every ounce of my strength.

That's hardly an apology, referring as it does to the U.S. role in the Vietnam War as "terrorism." Ayers has maintained a public silence since then, refusing all requests for interviews.

I am sure that there were at least a few of the interviews that said what you said....but in the context of the vietnam war, and what he said/believed, I still say that he is refering to something else...that something else is protesting...whether in peace or in violence, Bill Ayers was protesting the war and making war on those who made war.

I am not defending the man, I am explaining why he did what he did. It is NOT spin...It is his story.

And if you have a problem with HIS story, then take it up with him....

Just don't try to make Obama his point man....

[Neil D]

Here is what socialists are saying about Bernie Sanders. It goes a long ways toward explaining why Obama is considered more to the Left than Sanders is. This is an example of why the revolutionary socialists, and even many reformist socialists, don't like Sanders. They believe he betrays most socialist causes and positions:

You are not hearing much of what you are saying, do you....

If the socialist don't like Bernie, a "self-proclaimed socialist", then there is a good chance that Bernie's "socialism" is not socialism...but rather a mix of capitalism and responsible eithics...like a welfare state..?

This puts Bernie squarely in the camp of capitalism. And if you say that you think Obama's socialism is like Bernies, well, then Obamas is also squarely in the middle of capitalism.

And you, are seeing the world thru replublican rose glasses...

[John317]

I am not defending the man, I am explaining why he did what he did. It is NOT spin...It is his story.

And if you have a problem with HIS story, then take it up with him....

Just don't try to make Obama his point man....

I understand about Ayers. I was involved in the peace and antiwar movement at that very time. Most of the antiwar activists during those days wanted nothing to do with the Weatherman org., because they gave the peace movement a bad reputation. The whole reason we were in the movement was love for our country. The Weathermen and others like that seemed to be marching to an altogether different drummer. If you read their story from their own mouths, you can see that they were a violent group.

I'm not saying Obama is his point man by any means. But even people who now support him have said that they have trouble with the idea that Obama didn't dissociate himself from Ayers. I can't imagine past presidents like Truman and John Kennedy, etc., doing what Obama did that way.

I don't believe Ayers later explanation of what he said. What he originally said was, "I don't regret setting bombs." He has a good motive to try to put that in the best light because of how it was affecting his favorite presidential candidate.

Is there any record or evidence of Ayer's saying, "I apologize for setting bombs"? Why do you think there isn't? I suspect it may have to do with the fact that he doesn't regret it, just like he said in the interview.

[carolaa]

Maybe you just meant the U.S., but I believe Indira Ghandi was in power when she was killed.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Here is what socialists are saying about Bernie Sanders. It goes a long ways toward explaining why Obama is considered more to the Left than Sanders is. This is an example of why the revolutionary socialists, and even many reformist socialists, don't like Sanders. They believe he betrays most socialist causes and positions:

You are not hearing much of what you are saying, do you....

If the socialist don't like Bernie, a "self-proclaimed socialist", then there is a good chance that Bernie's "socialism" is not socialism...but rather a mix of capitalism and responsible eithics...like a welfare state..?

This puts Bernie squarely in the camp of capitalism. And if you say that you think Obama's socialism is like Bernies, well, then Obamas is also squarely in the middle of capitalism.

And you, are seeing the world thru replublican rose glasses...

The socialists we are talking about have the same view of Obama. They believe that both Sanders and Obama have sold them out.

But that doesn't mean that Sanders and Obama are not socialists.

What I gave you is the viewpoint of revolutionary socialists who oppose reformists socialists.

Revolutionary socialists believe that reformists are really traitors. That doesn't mean the reformist socialists aren't socialists. It just means that the revolutionary socialists and the reformists have disagreements over tactics and over how to reach the goals.

They both want the same general goals: a socialist America.

PS. Would it be OK if I join in your style of posting and say that you are not hearing much, or perhaps not thinking things through much, that you say?

Or that you are only seeing through democratic rose glasses?

I detest that kind of posting and I sincerely ask that you forgive me for saying it, because I do not even mean it. But I do want you to see how that looks when it is directed at you.

[Neil D]

[carolaa]

[John317]

[Neil D]

I'm not saying Obama is his point man by any means. But even people who now support him have said that they have trouble with the idea that Obama didn't dissociate himself from Ayers. I can't imagine past presidents like Truman and John Kennedy, etc., doing what Obama did that way.

Just what is it that Obama was to dissassociate from?????

Again, from factcheck.org-

[1] The same year the two men met through the Annenberg Challenge,[color:#000000][2] Ayers hosted a meet-and-greet coffee for Obama, who was running for state Senate and who lived three blocks away from him. [3]Obama and Ayers also were on the board of an antipoverty charity, the Woods Fund of Chicago, where their service overlapped from 2000 to 2002. And Ayers contributed $200 to Obama's campaign for the Illinois state Senate on March 2, 2001.

There are 3 incidences where the men met. Now how can you say that is "pallin' around"? Aquaintances, yes. Friends, no. On friendly terms, Yes.

At what point do you say that there is an association where they are more than just aquaintences?

I would submit to you that there were probably 10 meetings total over a 5 year period, either thru chance or arranged for some associations that they were working on.

And Obama not dissassociating himself from the weathermen???? How many times does the man have to say this-

This is from ABC News with Charley Gibson-

Obama, Oct. 8: This is a guy [Ayers] who engaged in some despicable acts 40 years ago when I was eight years old. By the time I met him, 10 or 15 years ago, he was a college professor of education at the University of Illinois. ... And the notion that somehow he has been involved in my campaign, that he is an adviser of mine, that ... I've 'palled around with a terrorist', all these statements are made simply to try to score cheap political points.

[carolaa]

The question of the government "forcing" people to pay taxes is a form of socialism is an exercise in semantics. It is the governments responsibility to enforce the constitution of the US, which includes to protect its citizens. This takes money. Therefore, the government has every right to require a contribution of money from the individual to pay for those services. The question is always "how much?". Is this "contribution" a forced measure? To some degree the answer is yes. My personal bias is that if someone is actively avoiding/rebelling against taxes, he should be deported and removed from this country, and forfit all his posession that he made while here. Where he goes to is his choice.

I have not seen anything that indicates that Obama is socialist in nature. I have seen that he favors more of a welfare state [as John puts it], and I see no problem with that. I do see the need for the taxes in our country to encourage strongly new roads of economy, ie a green electrical grid to help us get off the dependence of foreign oil. I see a need for the masses/middle class to convert to electrical cars and there needs to be more research in this area and upgrade our current technologies.

And while this will be a big boon to the economy, it is not the cure. Any CEO making more than 5/6 times his lowest paid worker needs to be taxed heavily. Profits need to be recycled into the company or into it's employees.Even doctors in socialist countrys only make 3-4 times the average worker wages.

But That's my opinion....

I like a lot of your ideas. But, of course, if the highest paid worker only makes roughly double what the lowest paid worker makes, then you have to make sure there is no expensive education for the higher paid employee to spend the rest of his life trying to pay off. If one cannot make significantly more by getting a higher education, then there is little incentive to do so.

[Woody]

Quote:

There are 3 incidences where the men met. Now how can you say that is "pallin' around"? Aquaintances, yes. Friends, no. On friendly terms, Yes.

So ... let me understand this one. They on friendly terms but by no means were they pals?

Give me a ...

Break

What is the big diff.

Friendly terms can get one in a heap a trouble.

[carolaa]

Yes, I thought of her, but since she wasn't actually in power, and I wasn't sure what Neil was referring to, I did not mention her. But, yes.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Of course you don't because it limits your love of self...your greedy nature..... It places limits on you! [/quote']

Check this essay out--

http://www.capitalismcenter.org/Philosophy/Essays/The_Moral_Basis_of_Capitalism.htm

"The businessman's dedication to thought, persuasion, and reason is a virtue—a virtue that our lives and prosperity depend on. The only way to respect this virtue is to leave the businessman free to act on his own judgment. That is precisely what capitalism does."

And this is precisely why we have a mess. Human nature is self-seeking...it is selfish. It can't be fully trusted. Hence, regulation and oversight.

"Government regulation, by contrast, operates by thwarting the businessman's thinking, subordinating his judgment to the decrees of government officials."

Do you know how much our trade deficit is with China and Mexico?

Do you know how many manufacturing jobs have been lost because of the "free market"?

Do you realize that the wages are coming down in America?

Do you know why?

Answer: Because we have left "the businessman free to act on his own judgment."

Rob