Obama Confirms Relationship With Marxist Mentor

Bottom line: you haven't given any proof for your claim.

Bottom line: you haven't given any proof for your claim.

Again, nothing. How convenient for you that you can simply come out here in this forum and throw out unfounded accusations and offer nothing in the way of proof. Oh, how I wish you had been in my debate course in college.....

Since you show no inclination for offering any proof for your contentions, and are comfortable with that, I will let your posts speak for themselves.

Bottom line: on more than one occasion you have claimed that Obama is a communist, and have not offered any quotes where he is extolling communist ideals.

One last easy yes/no question: do you listen to Hannity and Limbaugh?

 

Ahh, but this is how the Communist works:

 

I am amazed at how hard this concept is for people to grasp. Socialism was a means to an end for communists. That's all, nothing more.

I am not sure what you are saying here, are you averse to socialism? Think about that before you answer.

 

Yes, when it is socialism enforced upon the people by government.

No, when it is voluntary as we see practiced by the Church in Acts.

 

So, are you against public education?
How about fire departments / police departments?
What about public utilities?
What about public highways?
Should we discontinue public assistance with respect to healthcare, welfare, etc?

 

No, you didn't. It's right there in your posts. You have offered nothing. Your proof is nothing more than guilt by association.

Wow: you wrote all of that in response to a simple yes/no question.
I will try again: yes or no - do you listen to Hannity / Limbaugh?

It isn't that hard - just a simple yes/no......................................

 

Well, since our Constitution provides for some of those things under Section 8 The Powers of Congress:

The Congress shall have Power To... provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States [This would include Fire and Police protection, and public utilities.] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes; [This would include public highways] Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#A1Sec8

Welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution. Source: http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE

While there is no provision in the Constitution specifically for public education I believe that it could fall under the use of the term "welfare" as defined above. However, I am a big supporter of removing this responsibility from the federal government and returning it solely to the people at the state and local level.

Likewise, I am not against the provision of healthcare for the most needy among us. This clearly falls within the idea of "welfare" as defined above. However, I am flat against a government imposed national socialized healthcare system in which everyone must participate with no recourse for providing individual care provided at personal expense. Rather, I say get government out of the way and let the free market do what it does best.

Finally, these social issues you have raised here do not really fall into the classic Socialist agenda of government imposed redistribution of wealth. These are simply a means for meeting the common need. These agencies (other than the NEA) aren't used to tax the wealthy and redistribute that money to masses. They simply provide a service to all.

So now we have chased another red herring which has nothing to do with BHO's self admission that he was mentored by a known member of the Communist Party. Again, does it not concern you that BHO was mentored by a member of the Communist Party. Likewise, he has a connection to Marxist Saul Alinsky through his work as a "community organizer" in Chicago. More about Alinsky here: http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm

Do these radical connections and associations cause concern for you?

 

That would still be a form of socialism. The responsibility at the federal level could be used to ensure that there is some sort of standard, as well as a level playing field. For example, federal funding could be used to make sure that poorer areas of the country can still have the same access to education (i.e. poorer rural areas of the Deep South, or large urban areas such as Detroit).

The last sentence is interesting: the mess we have right now is a result of the free market. But that is a good topic for another thread.

Isn't that the definition of socialism?
BTW, I have yet to see anyone calling for the "redistribution of wealth."

I have answered this: no - why should it?
Obama may have had connections to a member of the Communist Party. As I have already shown, several people have been tutored/mentored/advised/otherwise by Communists, Socialists, and Marxists. This doesn't always create cause for concern, especially given the fact that I don't hear Obama espousing communist ideals. Has anyone given us quotes from Obama where he is advocating communism? Nope.

What exactly is your issue with this?

An honest question,
BiR

 

Socialism is 1) any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2) a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. 3) a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done. Source: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

BHO's proposed "windfall profits tax on big oil" and using that tax money to issue $1,000.00 to every citizen is a government enforced redistribution of wealth.

Okay so now I know where you stand in your thinking regarding political candidates. Your thoughts on BHO and his connections and associations with known radical socialists and communists seem to be either naïve, uneducated, or willfully ignorant. It is not true that no one has pointed out BHO’s support for communist ideals. I have twice now pointed out that BHO's "windfall profits tax on big oil" and using that tax money to issue $1,000.00 to every citizen is a government enforced redistribution of wealth, which is a classic doctrine of both Socialism and Communism.

I have a problem with it because it fits the exact scenario described by Winston Churchill:

BHO is a weak inexperienced politician, having served only 143 days as a US Senator before running for President, who has been mentored by and who freely associates with known Communists, Socialists, Marxists, and self-admitted unrepentant terrorists. See Obama Nation for the evidence and sources that support this information.

 

What then was Bush's tax rebate to support the financial markets? And what was the preferential treatment given to failing financial institutions who had gambled and lost? Why should those who got mortgages they couldn't afford and then proved that to be the case given government support. Why will the government support the risky behavior of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? Sounds like socialism to me. A free market economy would have let them sink as they deserved to do.

 

Was it to "support financial markets" or to "stimulate the economy?" Likewise, the "tax rebates" did not come from funds raised by a government enforced tax on a specific business sector, like "big oil," supposedly the money came from our income taxes.

I wholeheartedly agree. This stuff should not have happened. However, our Liberal Democratic (read that Socialist) led Congress shares in the blame for this mess.

 

More evidence of Obama’s Socialist Agenda in the New York Times On-line Magazine:

So here we see in BHO’s own words that he thinks Buffett’s idea of getting government out of the way and letting the market work and then “just tax the heck out of people at the end and just redistribute it” is a good idea. All that other stuff he then says about letting the people have a sense of control and determining their own paths is just a bunch of window dressing to hide his Socialist agenda. Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/m...9410310-UJtCJ2u5 VTrHyRMeqvBtw&pagewanted=all

 

So are you calling Warren Buffett a socialist/communist, Bible-boy?

 

Apparently, according to BHO his friend and supporter, Warren Buffett, espouses a core dctrine common to both Socialists and Communists regarding taxing the heck out of the people and then redistributing it on the other end. I didn't make this up. It is what it is.

 

Sorry but I am having a bit of difficulty understanding your sentence. You are calling Warren Buffet a Communist?

 

It has never ceased to amaze me that Bush, who got into the Air National Guard only through his father's influence (jumped ahead of a waiting list of 100) and then went AWOL while he was still in the guard, was able to paint Kerry who actually served in Viet Nam as unpatriotic. A terrific job of character assassination.

 

What does any of this stuff about John Kerry and President Bush have to do with the fact that BHO admits to being mentored by a known and self-adimitted Communist Party member?

You are just throwing up red herrings to try and shift the focus off of BHO. Please debate the issue of the OP and stop introducing off topic nonsense.