How are we to determine...

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bible-boy, Dec 4, 2008.

  1. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    How are we to determine where a politician stands on the political spectrum?

    In a thread designed to focus on whether or not it is appropriate to refer to President-elect Obama as a Socialist or a Marxist based upon comparing/contrasting his proposed plans for the government with the proposed governmental philosophies and ideas of an avowed Communist organization the following side discussion sprang up:



    To which I replied (in part):



    To which LeBuick replied:



    Is this a valid critique of my response quoted above? First, I’m not quite sure if LeBuick is disagreeing with my point about Christians and non-Christians with respect to “doing good works” as opposed to being a born again follower of Jesus Christ (I sincerely hope he is not).:eek: Second, I don’t know if he is only disagreeing with my point about our being able to judge where a politician stands in the political spectrum (with a Government controlled Communism on the left and a Democratic-Republic Capitalism on the right) based upon the political philosophies and ideas he/she espouses and embraces.:rolleyes:

    Now according to LeBuick,


    What is the error in that statement? First, Obama’s proposed plans were published on his official campaign website well before the current “financial crisis.” Second, Obama delivered speeches in which he espoused socialist philosophies and ideas since his days in college and well before the current “financial crisis.” Third, Obama’s proposed social policies such as socializing or nationalizing US industries, Cap in Trade to limit US carbon emissions, free college tuition for everyone, making minimum wage a “livable wage,” expanding public housing, and universal healthcare are not about correcting the problems that resulted in the current “financial crisis” they are aimed at soothing the feelings of a certain section of the US population in order to garner their votes in an election, and as a way of imposing one political party’s philosophical agenda upon the entire country.

    Finally, we are told that we cannot determine if Obama is a Socialist or a Marxist based upon his associations with avowed Socialists and Marxists, or the fact that he worked as a Community Organizer under an organization founded by an avowed Marxist (carrying on the political agenda of that avowed Marxist). Now we are being told that we cannot determine if Obama is a Socialist or a Marxist based upon the political philosophies and ideas he espouses and embraces. So we can’t judge where the man stands on the political spectrum based upon his associations and we can’t judge where he stands on the political spectrum based upon his actions and proposed plans for the government. If this is the case how are we, the American people whom he seeks to lead, to determine where he stands on the political spectrum? Are we to just take his word (and that of the radical leftist DNC leadership) and swallow their Socialist agenda no questions asked?
     
    #1 Bible-boy, Dec 4, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 4, 2008
  2. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782
    Obama:

    1. Has been mentored by a couple of Marxists
    A. Frank Marshal Davis
    B. Rev. Wright

    2. Maintains Marxists friends

    3. Admits to having attended socialist meetings

    4. Espouses to most if not all of the values of the communist party.

    There is no doubt he is a communist.
     
  3. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it's a question of black and white. There is a political spectrum and people fall in somewhere along that spectrum. I would say that we need to define Marxism in terms of its economic characteristics rather than its totalitarianism. There are other political systems which are not socialist but are totalitarian. I suppose the best example was Nazi Germany.

    So, I would define Marxism in that regard as state control of the means of production with workers having the most political power as opposed to capitalists. Most if not all western democracies (U.S., UK. France, Germany, etc.) have taken some steps in that direction but I would not regard them as socialist countries. Its a question of degree. Of the ones I mentioned France is probably the most socialist and the U.S. the least but all have socialist characteristics. The current economic crisis has driven all more in the socialist direction to stave off a depression. For instance, the U.S. government now owns an insurance company (AIG).

    Similarly, politicians are each somewhere along the political spectrum. At what point do we call them socialist? That depends on your perspective. Is anyone who supported the Financial bailout or Social Security or Medicare a pure capitalist? I'd say no.

    Is Obama a radical socialist like Marx, Lennin or Stalin? It's clear to me he is not. Nobody here has provided any evidence to the contrary.
     
  4. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    So according to your statement above politicans who espouse the socializing or nationalizing of US industries would fall into the Socialist camp. Do I understand you correctly?

    If so, here are links to examples of three elected Democrats serving in Congress right now as well as Obama himself suggesting that very thing:

    Sounds like Maxine Waters is already squarely planted in the Socialist/Communist camp on this issue.

    But wait what are other Democrats saying?




    Sounds like Paul Kanjorski wants to end the control of private ownership of wealth in America. Guess who else wants to do so? That’s right… the Communist Party USA through its proposed institution of Socialism in America (see quoted material above).

    Here’s Congressman Maurice Hinchey actually suggesting we “nationalize” the oil industry: Link: http://jeremysarber.com/2008/06/23/maurice-hinchey-maxine-waters-and-nationalizing-the-oil-business/

    Obama has called for a cabinet level position for a Chief Technology Officer (CTO) and the socializing of the Broadband Industry in America. Source: http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/21/obamas-plan-to-socialize-the-broadband-industry/ and http://mashable.com/2008/10/21/national-cto/
     
    #4 Bible-boy, Dec 4, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 4, 2008
  5. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Don't forget he worked for a Chicago Community Organizing organization that followed the teachings of, and pushed the political aganda of, avowed Marxist Saul Alinsky.

    I'm right there with ya on this one...:thumbs:
     
  6. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782
    Over and over again we have.
     
  7. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    During the election the Obama campaign ran adds against John McCain saying that a vote for McCain was a just a vote for the continuation of the Bush Administration because John McCain had voted 90% of the time in favor of the Bush Administration's policies.

    Therefore, is it not fair to say that because President-elect Obama has publically espoused and/or agreed with at least 90% of the Communist Party USA's "Bill of Rights Socialism" he is indeed a Socialist/Communist?
     
    #7 Bible-boy, Dec 4, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 4, 2008
  8. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, you don't understand me correctly. My argument was there is no "Marxist/socialist" camp and no purely capitalist camp with nothing in between. I think I saw a post of yours in which you argued that politics is not like Christianity. You're either a Christian or you're not. I argue that's not the case with defining someone on the political spectrum.

    While I would agree that Maxine Waters is on the liberal side you took her comment out of context. This was the context:

    In a grilling of oil executives by a House panel yesterday, Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., threatened to nationalize the industry if it didn't do something about the rising prices at the pump.


    This was with the backdrop of $4.00/gal. gas. Actually, the drop to $44/barrel for oil is potentially more dangerous in my view because I think it's symptomatic of extreme deflation leading potentially to a depression. Once again, the world is not as cut and dried as you try to make it.

    As I've said before here, we've already partially nationalized the insurance business, banks, investment companies and potentially will do the same with auto companies. We're in a crisis and strong measures need to be taken to ward off a depression. I hope it doesn't go much farther but that depends on the world economy.
     
    #8 JustChristian, Dec 4, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 4, 2008
  9. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Who has attempted to make such an argument? I called it a political spectrum with Government controlled Communism on the left and Democratic-Republic Capitalism on the right. The term spectrum implies that there are gradations between the extremes.

    I agree. My argument there was against the idea that Lebuick attempted to put forward that unsaved people doing good works at homeless shelters are espousing Christian values but we don't call them Christians. I was showing that his argument was comparing apples to oranges where talking about political philosophies and ideas.

    I took nothing out of context. I provided the quote of what she said and the link to the entire exchange that occurred in Congress. Bottomline, Waters popped off and said that she would support the socializing of the oil industry (i.e. a communist political philosophy). She quickly realized what she had said on the record and tried to start backpeddling. Too late the cat's out of the bag. I also provided quotes and links to two other Dems saying basically the same thing. Then I provided links to two articles that address Obama's call for a cabinet level position of CTO and his call to socialize the Broadband Industry in the US which you have ignored.
     
    #9 Bible-boy, Dec 4, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 4, 2008
  10. JustChristian

    JustChristian
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2007
    Messages:
    3,833
    Likes Received:
    0

    No you haven't. You have tried but failed. if after Obama becomes President he calls for the nationalism of all private business, suspends the Constitution and Bill of Rights and establishes concentration camps for his political enemies I will agree.
     
  11. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just because a person's viewpoints are to the left of Rush Limbaugh does not make such a person a Communist. :laugh:
     
  12. Revmitchell

    Revmitchell
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2006
    Messages:
    38,292
    Likes Received:
    782
    You do not know what the neo-communism is.
     
  13. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is a neo-communist a kissing cousin to a neo-conservative?
     
  14. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0

    We have provided quotes and links from avowed Communists which reveal their political positions, political philosophies, and their political ideas with respect to how they would like to see American Capitialism defeated and replaced by their "uniquely American brand of Communism" based upon their so called "Bill of Rights Socialism." Additionally, we have provided direct quotes and links to sources where Obama has made statements that are in full agreement with at least 90 percent of what the avowed Communists say. No one has successfully refuted any of the material we have provided and in most cases no one has even attempted to directly refute the material; you all have only tried to redirect the debate to some other side issue. So how can you possiblly say that we have tried but failed? If there has been any failure in this debate it has been on the part of the Obama supporters to adequately address each point we have raised with clear evidence and sources that contradict what we have argued. Basically all the Obama supporters have done is tell us we are wrong, ignored our evidence and sources, and continued to sing Obama's praises.



    Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it too. In a post above you just said,


    In this quote you suggest that we should define Marxism in term of its economic characteristics rather than its totalitarianism. Okay, so I provided you with several quotes, articles and links where elected Democrat Party officials and Obama himself have publicly called for the socialization or nationalization of certain US industries (oil and broadband). This information has basically been ignored (except for a week claim that one quote was taken "out of context").

    And now you throw up a bunch of totalitarian tactics as examples of what Obama must do before you'll agree that we have a point! To paraphrase an old Seinfeld episode "No cake for you, 5 years!" :D
     
    #14 Bible-boy, Dec 5, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 5, 2008
  15. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    When a person's viewpoint fully agrees with at least 90 percent of the viewpoints expressd by avowed Communists does that make them a Communist? Rush Limbaugh and his views do not figure into the debate since he is not a Communist.:laugh: Let's stay on topic here.
     
    #15 Bible-boy, Dec 5, 2008
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 5, 2008
  16. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    If I were to engage in the nonsense that the anti-Obama people in this forum are engagin in I would refer to Rush Limbaugh as a Fascist, not a Communist. But since I am not going to get into the nonsense that the anti-Obama people in this forum are engaging in, I won't do that.
     
  17. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Either discuss the topic of the thread in a open, honest, straight forward way, or just read and don't post. However, please do not try to derail the discussion threads by posting material and comments that have nothing to do with the subject of the OP.
     
  18. KenH

    KenH
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2002
    Messages:
    32,485
    Likes Received:
    0
    I tell you what, Bible-boy, as soon as the moderators start holding every poster, including themselves, to that standard please let me know.
     
  19. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    I am a moderator on the BB. However, I am not a moderator of this specific forum (meaning I can't edit/delete other people's posts here). I do hold myself to that standard and I am asking you to hold yourself to it as well. If you feel that someone (anyone including BB Mods and Admins) have made bad posts that violated the published BB Posting Rules and/or User Agreement please feel free to report the post by clicking on the "Report Bad Post" icon located in the top right corner of every post on the BB. Then wait for the BB Mods and/or Admins to address the issue. However, just because you feel that some other poster has in some way violated the BB Posting Rules and/or User Agreement it does not free you to respond in like fashion.

    Now, if you would like to address the on-topic issues raised in this thread please do so. However, please do not attempt to derail the thread by introducing unrelated off-topic material or comments.
     
  20. Bible-boy

    Bible-boy
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,254
    Likes Received:
    0
    Now back to the discussion of the topic of the OP:

    During the election the Obama campaign ran adds against John McCain saying that a vote for McCain was a just a vote for the continuation of the Bush Administration because John McCain had voted 90% of the time in favor of the Bush Administration's policies.

    Therefore, is it not fair to say that because President-elect Obama has publically espoused and/or agreed with at least 90% of the Communist Party USA's "Bill of Rights Socialism" he is indeed a Socialist/Communist?
     

Share This Page

Loading...