McCain booed after trying to calm anti-Obama crowd

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

And whichever way you slice it, socialists have never done very well at all in elections. That's the bottom line. It's why I say Americans have generally not seen "socialism" or "socialists" as a good thing for America.

Agreed. Most americans don't see socialism at all and yet, they hear of it in the form of oversight committes, oversight finacial committes [i know, they are passe]...they just don't know it. The media has not done it's job in educating the public.

Well, I know socialism first-hand, at least in the form of working in a socialist organization. I personally knew leaders in it, including the presidential candidates in the party in 1972. I have continued to study Marx and Lenin and Trotsky and to read the socialist publications in the US. So I am not dependent on mass media.

The problem today is that the educational system is not doing its job in teaching the young people about American history. I know this personally because I have two daughters in the public school system, one having just graduated from high school. For instance, they are taught very little about many key American figures and events that go to the issues of why we have the form of government we have today.

Would you like to see this country become a socialist state in which the government owns most industries, the primary means of production, and manages the economy?

[John317]

.....And I think that Sanders has always had tendancys that were socialist in nature, and he as always discribed himself as a democratic socialist. But I tend to believe that is more because he saw the failings of capitalism.

Capitalism has always had failings, Neil. But if you value the government of the US and you care about what our nation is, you don't change it just because there are some problems with the economy. I would rather see the economy fail and flounder for a while than change the foundations of our country.

We are having difficulties now, at least to a large extent, not because of capitalism per se but because people in the government who had poor judgment got involved in the banking industry. It began happening back in the Carter years, but it became rampant during the Clinton administration when the the government told the banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford to repay it or to be in the homes they bought.

Quote:

And yes, he and Obama have voted pretty much the same way. And yet, he is not concidered as liberal as Obama....according to your sources....There is something wrong with your sources if they did not concider Sanders as liberal or more so than Obama....

Doesn't that rather tell you something of how liberal Obama is, that he would be considered more liberal than a self-declared socialist?

If you read their votes in the Senate, you will see why Obama is considered more liberal. The article contains the analysis about that very point. For instance:

Quote:

The ratings system -- devised in 1981 under the direction of William Schneider, a political analyst and commentator, and a contributing editor to National Journal -- also assigns "composite" scores, an average of the members' issue-based scores. In 2007, Obama's composite liberal score of 95.5 was the highest in the Senate. Rounding out the top five most liberal senators last year were Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., with a composite liberal score of 94.3; Joseph Biden, D-Del., with a 94.2; Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., with a 93.7; and Robert Menendez, D-N.J., with a 92.8.

Clinton, meanwhile, tied as the 16th-most-liberal senator in 2007 with Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich.; both had a composite liberal score of 82.8. Clinton's home-state colleague, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., was the 15th-most-liberal, with a composite score of 83.

[Neil D]

All Economics 101. Nothing here that contradicts anything I've been saying all along. My point is simply that Obama is very liberal, indeed the most liberal Senator, and that he is a socialist.

I believe that Obama's socialist views are related to the fact that he spent 20 years in a church where Marxist-based Black Liberation Theology is taught. It's hard to imagine his choosing that church and remaining in it all those years if he disagreed with the fundamental views being expressed.

Quote:

You associate socialism with communism.

Not necessarily. I have never said that the connection between them is necessary. In fact, I've said clearly that Obama is a reformist socialist. That is the same as a democratic socialist. Socialism in Australia, Canada, England, as well as modern Germany, France and Italy takes the reformist form of socialism.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

All Economics 101. Nothing here that contradicts anything I've been saying all along. My point is simply that Obama is very liberal, indeed the most liberal Senator, and that he is a socialist.

I believe that Obama's socialist views are related to the fact that he spent 20 years in a church where Marxist-based Black Liberation Theology is taught. It's hard to imagine his choosing that church and remaining in it all those years if he disagreed with the fundamental views being expressed.

Quote:

You associate socialism with communism.

Not necessarily. I have never said that the connection between them is necessary. In fact, I've said clearly that Obama is a reformist socialist. That is the same as a democratic socialist. Socialism in Australia, Canada, England, as well as modern Germany, France and Italy takes the reformist form of socialism.

But look at how you have posted it. You can not post something about Obama being socialist without some form of identification that there was "Marxist-based Black Liberation Theology" or your experience as with communism. The two are never separated. As a result, you have painted Obama as someone who is as close to communist without declaring himself as one.

Being influenced by Marxism doesn't make one a communist. I don't believe Obama is a communist.

What I said is true about the church being influenced by Black Liberation Theology. Obama went to that church and chose to stay there for 20 years. It is also true that Black Liberation Theology is heavily influenced by Marxism. It is also true that I was in a communist organization. This is all true.

I am saying Obama is a socialist. I am not saying he is a communist.

Maybe you don't like these things. But I believe them to be true on the basis of the weight of evidence.

Do I think Obama would be bad for America? Yes, I certainly do.

I don't want a socialist America. Maybe you do. And maybe all America will join you in that. It could happen, but if it does I want to be sure that all America knows what they are getting if they vote for Obama. They will be getting a president who is more liberal than all the past liberal presidents. More liberal than FDR, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and more liberal than Gore would have been. That is his record.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

....Again, however, most of socialist parties in the US are of the revolutionary type, having more in common with Trotsky, Lenin, and even Mao's views. All you have to do is do a search of the various socialist organizations and this becomes evident.

What does communistic leaders have to do with Obama's or Sanders democratic socialism...The american kind?

My point is that Obama's democratic/reformist type of socialism is not what one generally finds among the political parties aligned with socialism in this country.

If you had been in Denver, you would have heard the socialists there talking about how Obama is a politician who shares their socialistic beliefs but who is more interested in winning than in staying true to his socialist principles.

The speakers at the rallies-- where they had pro-Obama signs and anti-McCain signs-- talked of how the socialists would have to put pressure on Obama to make him remember his promises. They felt that Obama was already forgetting and changing his socialist ideals, which included immediate withdrawal from Iraq and other changes which he made just before he won the primaries.

[Neil D]

Originally Posted By: Neil D

.....And I think that Sanders has always had tendancys that were socialist in nature, and he as always discribed himself as a democratic socialist. But I tend to believe that is more because he saw the failings of capitalism.

Capitalism has always had failings, Neil. But if you value the government of the US and you care about what our nation is, you don't change it just because there are some problems with the economy. I would rather see the economy fail and flounder for a while than change the foundations of our country.

[Neil D]

My point is that Obama's democratic/reformist type of socialism is not what one generally finds among the political parties aligned with socialism in this country.

If you had been in Denver, you would have heard the socialists there talking about how Obama is a politician who shares their socialistic beliefs but who is more interested in winning than in staying true to his socialist principles.

The speakers at the rallies-- where they had pro-Obama signs and anti-McCain signs-- talked of how the socialists would have to put pressure on Obama to make him remember his promises. They felt that Obama was already forgetting and changing his socialist ideals, which included immediate withdrawal from Iraq and other changes which he made just before he won the primaries.

Liberal voting record he may have [not saying that he does] but that doesn't make him a socialist.

As for "If you had been there in Denver" comment, you are right. I wasn't there. And what I see is thru YOUR eyes and you probably didn't see everything. And yes, I don't trust your view point due to the colour of your glasses...a color that is anti-democrat or pro-republican or even perhaps anti-socialistic.

But if Obama is forgetting his socialistic ideals, the question is where is he going with that?

[Neil D]

My point is that Obama's democratic/reformist type of socialism is not what one generally finds among the political parties aligned with socialism in this country.

[Robert]

.... for you as a Republican to not get over Ayers' past and consider his reformed and rehabilitated life now is no different than to always and forevermore tag you with the most derogatory homosexual identity and labels of your past life that you have left behind. Have you changed from what you were in your past? It would seem that if you can change and leave your past life, certainly Bill Ayers would be able to leave his past too.

Excellent point!

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

That be me....

I wish Huchabee was on the ticket....

Of course' date=' Huckabee believes in capitalism and is no socialist. There is a big difference between Huckabee and Obama. Huckabee wants McCain to win. [/quote']

Huchabee wanted to do something about the labor exploitation from the so called "free trade agreements". A good Republican wouldn't do that. In fact he claimed that they were "unfair agreements".

Capitalism, I believe, will fail before Socialism. Why? Let's go back to these trade agreements (NAFT, CAFT). What's behind these agreements? A good Capitalist would say "a window of opportunity", but in reality it is called exploitation!

They go to Countries like China, India and Mexico for the cheap Labor. And here in the states millions of both white and blue collar jobs are lost. What happens to these folks? Their wages and benefits are dumbed down to compete with the poor in the rest of the world. So while wages in other countries are coming up a bit, folks in the US are experiencing dramatic wage reductions. Who benefits? The super wealthy. As the saying goes, the rich are getting richer and the poor, poorer!

So what does Capitalism do? It exploits! I don't understand why a Christian would support such a system?

[Robert]

Would you rather live under socialism than free enterprise?

Free? Who are you kidding? What I see is exploitation!

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Tom Wetmore

.... for you as a Republican to not get over Ayers' past and consider his reformed and rehabilitated life now is no different than to always and forevermore tag you with the most derogatory homosexual identity and labels of your past life that you have left behind. Have you changed from what you were in your past? It would seem that if you can change and leave your past life, certainly Bill Ayers would be able to leave his past too.

Excellent point!

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

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Would you rather live under socialism than free enterprise?

Free? Who are you kidding? What I see is exploitation!

You want the US to become socialist, then?

[Robert]

Socialism can be seen in Venezuela...I for one don't want that for America.

[John317]

But there'll be communism in heaven! The big difference is that it won't be at the point of a gun. It will come natural. A glimpse of heaven was witnessed in the "early church":

Kind of a major difference, I'd say.

Ask Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, or Mao. They'd tell ya.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: Taylor

Socialism can be seen in Venezuela...I for one don't want that for America.

Socialism can be seen in France.

You been there? It is really a mixed economy in France, and they are returning to more capitalism since the early 1990s.

Wikipedia--

France's economy combines extensive private enterprise (nearly 2.5 million companies registered) with substantial (though declining) government intervention (see dirigisme). The government retains considerable influence over key segments of infrastructure sectors, with majority ownership of railway, electricity, aircraft, and telecommunications firms. It has been gradually relaxing its control over these sectors since the early 1990s.

[Robert]

It began happening back in the Carter years, but it became rampant during the Clinton administration when the the government told the banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford to repay it or to be in the homes they bought.

Spoken like a true Republican!

1] Loans were encouraged, not enforced.

2] Our problems began with deregulation, which basically says - give the rich guys a break and in turn they'll create more good paying jobs and put money in your pockets.

Well, Reaganomics has produced exploitation. What the rich did was bribe Washington, though the their lobbyist, to enact trade laws so that they could exploit folks in 3rd world Countries.

Who wins? The super rich...the minority!

Who loses? Americans...the masses!

Yes, Clinton started this mess, but I'll give him a break because "on paper" it looked good. Bush knows better, but he keeps on selling America out for that cheap labor. Why? For his rich, corporate buddies! That's Capitalism at its best, huh?

Capitalism must be heavily regulated for it to work. Finding the sweet spot between Socialism and Capitalism is where we need to be....

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Excellent point![/quote']

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

So says who...the Republican spin doctors?

[John317]

[

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.

Quote:

In early youth, Marx was a Christian. The first of Marx’s known works was entitled, “Unity of believers in Christ according to the Gospel of John 15:1-14: Unity’s meaning, unconditional necessity, and influence.” Here we find the following words: “Union with Christ is found in a close and living fellowship with Him and in the fact that we always have Him before our eyes and in our hearts. And at the same time that we are possessed by the greatest love of Him, we direct our hearts to our brothers, with whom He bound us closely, and for whom He sacrificed Himself.”

So Marx was aware of the way in which people may show brotherly love towards each other, that is, through Christianity.

He continues: “Therefore, unity with Christ internally exalts, comforts in trials, and makes the heart open to love people, not because of our pride or thirst for fame, but because of Christ.”

At the about the same period of time, he writes in his work entitled: “Thoughts of a young man before choosing a profession”:

“Religion teaches us the Ideal to Whom we all aspire. He has sacrificed Himself for all mankind. Who will dare to deny such assertions? If we have chosen a profession at which we may give our best to mankind, then we won’t falter under its burden, because it is a sacrifice for all.”

When he graduated from high school, his diploma contained the following in the category “Religious knowledge”:

“His knowledge of Christian teachings and principles is clear and properly based. He also knows the history of Christian church to a great extent.”

Soon after receiving of his diploma, something very mysterious happened. Even before Moses Gess led Marx to socialistic persuasions in 1841, he had become a zealous atheist. This change character could be seen in his later student years.

In one of his verses, Marx wrote: “I long to take vengeance on the One Who rules from above.” Marx believed that “the One that rules from above” in fact existed. He contended with Him, although God never harmed him. Marx was from a relatively wealthy family. He didn’t starve in his childhood and in his student years he lived much better than his friends. So what caused his fierce hatred towards God?

Personal motivations are not available to us. Maybe Marx was only somebody’s else speaker in this defiant assertion?

During this period, the following lines are taken from him from the poem entiled: “Conjuration of falling into despair.”

I’ll set up my throne above,

Cold and terrible will be the peak of it.

Superstitious trembling is at its base,

Master – most black agony.

The one who will look with healthy looks,

Will turn away, turn pale and deadly mute.

Possessed by blind and cold deathness,

will prepare a tomb with his happiness.

The words “I’ll set up my throne” and his confession that agony and fear will go forth from the one who is sitting upon the throne, remind us Lucifer’s proud boast: “I will ascend to heaven, higher than God’s stars I will set up my throne” (Isiah 14:13).

Why did Marx need such a throne? The answer for this question is in an infamous drama written by Marx in his student years. The drama is called “Oulanem.” There is a mention of a satanic “Black mass,” a ritual conducted by a priest at midnight in which a Bible is burned. All present promise to commit all the seven deadly sins mentioned in the Roman Catholic catechism and to never perform any good works. An orgy follows after that.

Worship of Satan is very old. In Deuteronomy we read that the Jews “made sacrifices to demons” (32:17). Later, the king of Israel, Jeroboam, set up priests of the high places and of the goats and bulls that he made”(2 Kings 12:25-33).

The “Oulanem” can be understood if we read with Marx’s bizarre confession made in the verse “Nidler”:

Hellish evaporations rise and fill my brains,

Until I will go mad and my heart will not change dramatically.

See this sword?

The King of darkness

sold it to me.

These lines have special meaning when we take into account that during the rituals of higher dedication into a satanic cult, a bewitched sword that guarantees a success is sold to the candidate. He pays for it by signing with his blood taken from his vein the contract which makes his soul belong to Satan after death.

And now I’ll quote “Oulanem”:

For he is marking time and giving signs.

Bolder and bolder I play the dance of death.

And they too: Oulanem, Oulanem.

This name sounds like death,

Sounds until won’t stop in miserable shapes.

Halt! Now I have it. It rises from my soul,

Clear as air, hard as my bones.

And still, you personified mankind,

I may take you by the power of my mighty hands and crush with fierce force

In the meantime, as the abyss gapes before me and you in the darkness,

You will fall in it and I’ll follow you,

Laughing and whispering into your ear: “Come down with me, friend!”

The Holy Scripture, which Marx learned in high school, says that devil was cast down by an angel into the abyss (Rev. 20:3). Marx wanted to send all mankind into this abyss prepared for the devil and his angels.

Who speaks for Marx in this drama? Is it reasonable to expect this from such a young man – that he would dream that mankind would fall into the abyss (the “outer darkness” as the Bible calls it), and that he himself laughing will follow those who were ensnared by unbelief? Nowhere in the world is this idea cultivated except in the rituals of dedication into the higher degrees of the Satanic church.

The time to die has come for Oulanem. These are his words:

Perished, perished. My time is over.

The clock has stopped, the tiny building has fallen.

Soon I’ll squeeze eternity to me, and with a wild cry

Will speak out a curse to all mankind.

Marx liked to repeat Mephistopheles’ words from Goethe’s “Faust”: “all existing is worthy to be destroyed.” All, including the worker and those who fought for communism in battle. Marx liked to quote these words and Stalin acted according to these words and destroyed even his own family.

Members of Satan’s cult are not materialists. They believe in life after death. Oulanem, the person whose character Marx assumes, does not deny life after death. But acknowledges it as a life full of hate to the highest degree. I should mention that “eternity” means “torture” to demons. This is the reason why demons rebuked Jesus: “And so they cried out: what do you have to do with us, Jesus, Son of God? Have you come to torture us before our time” (Matt. 8:29).

Marx says the same thing:

Hah, eternity, our eternal pain,

Indescribable, unmeasurable death!

Disgusting, artificially conceived,

To despise us – We, who ourselves, as a clock mechanism

Blindly mechanical, created to be

Foolish calendars of time and space,

Without any purpose,

Besides accidental appearance for destruction.

We begin to realize what happened to young Marx. He used to have Christian ideals, but he didn’t applying them to his life. His correspondence with his father testifies of spending of large amounts of money for entertainment that caused endless conflicts with his parents. In this situation, he possibly was entangled in the snare of a secret Satanic cult and went through the ritual of dedication. Satan is seen by his followers in hallucinations during the orgies and speaks through their mouths. Marx is just Satan’s voice when he proclaims “I want to take vengeance on the One who is above.”

Let’s go to the end of “Oulanem” drama:

Hah! Tortured on the burning wheel,

I must happily dance in the circle of eternity:

If there would be anything beyond it,

I’d jump into it, even if I had to destroy the world for it.

Build between it and me!

It must be destroyed with curses.

I’ll supress stubborn existence by my hands.

Embracing me, it should calmly fade out.

And then – down to nowhere.

Completely disappear, and not to be – that would be – the life.

In the “Oulanem” drama Marx, in fact, does the same thing as the devil. He curses all humanity.

“Oulanem” is probably the only drama in the world in which all the players are so sure of their sinfulness and revel in it as on a holiday. There is neither white nor black, neither Claudio and Ophelia, Iago and Desdemona. Everything is black in it, and every one appeared to have Mephistopheles’ character. All of it’s players are demonic and doomed to perish.

When Marx was writing “Oulanem,” the young genius was 18. His plan for his life was very clear by that time. He had no illusions about serving mankind, the proletariat or socialism. He wanted to destroy the world, set up a throne for himself that would be based upon the world’s shocks, throes and convulsions.

At this stage, Marx’s views were developing. Some mysterious things appear in his correspondence with his father. For instance, the son writes: “The cover has fallen, my Holy of Holies was emptied and there was a need to put new gods there.” This was written on November 10, 1837 by the young fellow who previously professed to be a Christian. He used to profess that Christ inhabited in his heart. Suddenly this turned upside-down. What new gods replaced Christ’s place?

Marx’s father replied (February 10, 1838): “I didn’t demand any explanations about such a mysterious thing, though it seems to be very controversial.” What was that mysterious thing? No biographer has been able to explain these puzzling words.

What suddenly caused young Marx’s father to express anxiety for controversial influences on his young son?

In a poem, Karl Marx wrote:

I have lost heaven,

And know that for sure.

My soul, once faithful to God,

Now is destined for hell.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

It began happening back in the Carter years, but it became rampant during the Clinton administration when the the government told the banks to give loans to people who couldn't afford to repay it or to be in the homes they bought.

Spoken like a true Republican!

1] Loans were encouraged, not enforced.

Who said loans were "enforced"?

Actually yes, I am a Republican. Is that OK? Are you a Democrat? That is OK. I used to be a registered Democrat. I do hope it is still OK to be a Republican in our country.

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

Free? Who are you kidding? What I see is exploitation!

You want the US to become socialist' date=' then?

[/quote']

Hey, if you don't like your Socialism, then when you retire have them send me your SOCIAL Security!....My address is....

And please, don't benefit from any of that redistribution of the wealth. It's called taxes. Please don't use the Socialist interstate roads.....In fact let's just have a free for all. Let's have no limitations on personal greed. Yeah, that's the ticket. Oh, that's right, it's already happened! Can you say, "Wall Street"? Yes, I think you can....

Rob

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Would you rather live under socialism than free enterprise?

Free? Who are you kidding? What I see is exploitation!

Quote:

JOHN3:17-- You want the US to become socialist, then?

Quote:

Hey, if you don't like your Socialism, then when you retire have them send me your SOCIAL Security!....My address is....

And please, don't benefit from any of that redistribution of the wealth. It's called taxes. Please don't use the Socialist interstate roads.....In fact let's just have a free for all. Let's have no limitations on personal greed. Yeah, that's the ticket. Oh, that's right, it's already happened! Can you say, "Wall Street"? Yes, I think you can....

Rob

No, I don't like socialism in America.

Do you want the US to become a socialist nation?

[Robert]

Originally Posted By: Robert

But there'll be communism in heaven! The big difference is that it won't be at the point of a gun. It will come natural. A glimpse of heaven was witnessed in the "early church":

Kind of a major difference, I'd say.

Ask Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, or Mao. They'd tell ya.

And there most definitely won't be any Capitalism in heaven also. IF we let the Capitalist up there, how long would it be before the perils and golden streets were up for sale?

No, Lucifer was the first great politician/capitalist. He invented the love of self, as opposed to God's agape love.

Communism was attempt (a godless attempt) to rid men of his selfishness. The problem is that he isn't selfish by his environment...he is selfish by nature.

That's why in this world Capitalism works better because it is based in iniquity. Only by placing limits on greed can Capitalism work. Limit's on greed is called Socialism. That's my definition!

So my version of Socialism allows personal wealth, but it doesn't overlook the needs of the many. It caps greed. No CEO walking off with zillions as the business crumbles and hard working folks lose their jobs. And yes, if a man doesn't work (and can) he goes to the soup kitchen.

Rob

[John317]

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.

[John317]

Originally Posted By: John317

Kind of a major difference' date=' I'd say.

Ask Stalin, Pol Pot, Castro, or Mao. They'd tell ya. [/quote']

And there most definitely won't be any Capitalism in heaven also.

Yes, you are right there.

Do you want the US of A to become a socialist nation?