The presidential address 15-June-2010

[spanko]

".....All of these approaches have merit, and deserve a fair hearing in the months ahead. But the one approach I will not accept is inaction. The one answer I will not settle for is the idea that this challenge is somehow too big and too difficult to meet. You know, the same thing was said about our ability to produce enough planes and tanks in World War II. The same thing was said about our ability to harness the science and technology to land a man safely on the surface of the moon. And yet, time and again, we have refused to settle for the paltry limits of conventional wisdom. Instead, what has defined us as a nation since our founding is the capacity to shape our destiny -– our determination to fight for the America we want for our children. Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like. Even if we don’t yet know precisely how we’re going to get there. We know we’ll get there......"
"Even if we’re unsure exactly what that looks like."
Translation - I uh, don't, uh, have a clue what I am talking about.
Even if we don’t yet know precisely how we’re going to get there.
Translation - I uh, don't, uh, have a plan
We know we’ll get there
Translation - Just have faith in the federal government!
Your thoughts?

 

[lovethesea]

This is what I heard........
blah,blah,blah. You remember when Charlie Browns teacher talked in that muffled sound? wah, wah, wah. Its so funny how his arse is backed up against a wall with just like Bush was with Katrina. This governmt that he wants to make bigger and bigger, he is finding how horrid it is to get even a small cog in the wheel to move, much less the ENTIRE wheel.
OH, and we also got a little snippet of how this is a perfect launch pad for a new expensive energy plan. He still hasnt gotten the expensive health care plan ironed out.
ugh!!

 

[spanko]

I think it is deeper than that. He is a leftist progressive that during his college years was always "that guy". The guy reading excerpts from Rules for Radicals, and the Communist Manifesto while they all sat around smoking joints and trying to figure out how to overthrow the government. His has a desire for total political power at whatever expense to the "common folk", higher taxes, generating problems then stepping in as the government to fix them, and I truly believe he would not blink an eye at people dying if it somehow got him a win at his agenda. The man is evil.

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by spanko
http:///forum/post/3279208
I think it is deeper than that. He is a leftist progressive that during his college years was always "that guy". The guy reading excerpts from Rules for Radicals, and the Communist Manifesto while they all sat around smoking joints and trying to figure out how to overthrow the government. His is a desire for total political power at whatever expense to the "common folk", higher taxes, generating problems then stepping in as the government to fix them, and I truly believe he would not blink an eye at people dying if it somehow got him a win at his agenda. The man is evil.
What has he done to make you believe this way?

 

[spanko]

Excerpts from Alinsky;
"What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away"
"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."
"According to Alinsky, the organizer — especially a paid organizer from outside — must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate."
He fits these things to a "T". You can see it in his actions.
and to his incessant lying about things; "An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...."
Just these few excerpts so seem to me to be his tact on being in the office he is in. That and his associations throughout his life with the very radicals that also espouse these ideas.
The idea of him sitting around smoking joints was my own literary license. But I am a child of the 60's and 70's. I remember people like him and the discussion of how awful the government was, the Vietnam war being criminal etc. etc. Whiole he is not as old as I am, his associates are, and I remember their kind.

 

[fishtaco]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3279214
What has he done to make you believe this way?
I've seen tons of pics of him dressed as Che and Hitler. LOL
Fishtaco

 

[fishtaco]

My thoughts are that you cannot seperate big business and politics no matter who is in charge.
Fishtaco

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by spanko
http:///forum/post/3279223
Excerpts from Alinsky;
"What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away"
"There's another reason for working inside the system. Dostoevski said that taking a new step is what people fear most. Any revolutionary change must be preceded by a passive, affirmative, non-challenging attitude toward change among the mass of our people. They must feel so frustrated, so defeated, so lost, so futureless in the prevailing system that they are willing to let go of the past and change the future. This acceptance is the reformation essential to any revolution. To bring on this reformation requires that the organizer work inside the system, among not only the middle class but the 40 per cent of American families – more than seventy million people – whose income range from $5,000 to $10,000 a year [in 1971]. They cannot be dismissed by labeling them blue collar or hard hat. They will not continue to be relatively passive and slightly challenging. If we fail to communicate with them, if we don't encourage them to form alliances with us, they will move to the right. Maybe they will anyway, but let's not let it happen by default."
"According to Alinsky, the organizer — especially a paid organizer from outside — must first overcome suspicion and establish credibility. Next the organizer must begin the task of agitating: rubbing resentments, fanning hostilities, and searching out controversy. This is necessary to get people to participate."
He fits these things to a "T". You can see it in his actions.
and to his incessant lying about things; "An organizer working in and for an open society is in an ideological dilemma to begin with, he does not have a fixed truth -- truth to him is relative and changing; everything to him is relative and changing.... To the extent that he is free from the shackles of dogma, he can respond to the realities of the widely different situations...."
Just these few excerpts so seem to me to be his tact on being in the office he is in. That and his associations throughout his life with the very radicals that also espouse these ideas.
The idea of him sitting around smoking joints was my own literary license. But I am a child of the 60's and 70's. I remember people like him and the discussion of how awful the government was, the Vietnam war being criminal etc. etc. Whiole he is not as old as I am, his associates are, and I remember their kind.
and this leads you to believe he would allow loss of life if it were to further his political agenda how?

 

[spanko]

Because I believe he is a Marxist, and being so he believes in what Alinsky wrote "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."
If you look at the rise of dictators, and of communism, history is replete with people dying so that the regime can attain power.
Again these are my opinions of the man, based on what I see of him and his policies publicly. I am afraid I would be afraid to see what happens inside his mind, his thoughts of what he is doing and how he will accomplish it.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by spanko
http:///forum/post/3279237
Because I believe he is a Marxist, and being so he believes in what Alinsky wrote "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."
If you look at the rise of dictators, and of communism, history is replete with people dying so that the regime can attain power.
Again these are my opinions of the man, based on what I see of him and his policies publicly. I am afraid I would be afraid to see what happens inside his mind, his thoughts of what he is doing and how he will accomplish it.
When has Obama ever hinted or shown that he would purposely want to end capitalism? It's radical thinking like yours that's turned this country and our political system upside-down. Obama is by no means perfect, and has made some very poor decisions regarding the direction this country needs to go regarding the economy. But to say a sitting President would even fathom the idea of directing this country towards Communism, Marxism, or even Socialism is borderline ridiculous. These are MY opinions of your political views.

 

[spanko]

Thanx bionicarm, because I believe the political system needs to be turned upside down. When those in power take an oath to uphold the constitution, then disregard the text because they believe their interpretation of it is what matters. Since when do words not matter. The constitution is written so anyone can understand its words and meaning. There is no interpretation needed. Oh but Spanko it is a living document!!! Yes it is and as such the founders put in a way to allow it to live. It is called the amendment process. If you don't like the 18 enumerated powers and the control it puts on what you can do as the people in office, amend it. They were put there to limit what government can do. That was the purpose!
"During an interview on a Chicago radio station Obama stated that "i view the current Constitution as being a negative document. In that it does not go far enough to grant powers to the federal government "
How can he take an oath to uphold the constitution when he doesn't even believe in it!

 

[darthtang aw]

Originally Posted by spanko
http:///forum/post/3279237
Because I believe he is a Marxist, and being so he believes in what Alinsky wrote "A Marxist begins with his prime truth that all evils are caused by the exploitation of the proletariat by the capitalists. From this he logically proceeds to the revolution to end capitalism, then into the third stage of reorganization into a new social order of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and finally the last stage -- the political paradise of communism."
If you look at the rise of dictators, and of communism, history is replete with people dying so that the regime can attain power.
Again these are my opinions of the man, based on what I see of him and his policies publicly. I am afraid I would be afraid to see what happens inside his mind, his thoughts of what he is doing and how he will accomplish it.
How is he more evil than Bush? Bush allowed many people to die to push a political agenda. Democracy in Iraq is a political agenda. So would you say bush is evil as well?

 

[spanko]

Pick this up later, end of the work day gotta go fight traffic.
Good stuff guys, thanx for the participation.

 

[slice]

Originally Posted by Darthtang AW
http:///forum/post/3279255
How is he more evil than Bush? Bush allowed many people to die to push a political agenda. Democracy in Iraq is a political agenda. So would you say bush is evil as well?
while spanko is driving home....
I'm sure you will get responses that are worded more eloquently, but IMO, the difference boils down simply.
The goal of the Iraq "Nation Building" is to foster self rule by the Iraqi people. Our cost in blood is a selfless act to help others (and in doing so, help ourselves to added world security).
The Progressive Socialist agenda is to set up their elite as rulers of others, a purely selfish act.
Now time for me to also fight traffic...then do a water change...

 

[reefraff]

I believe Obama is open to a lot of the Marxist agenda based on his own words. He purposely took classes from Marxist professors when he was in college, he hangs out with people who support a Marxist agenda and has appointed at least self avowed socialists/marxists to his cabinet.

 

[beaslbob]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3279239
When has Obama ever hinted or shown that he would purposely want to end capitalism?
...
Taking success from the successful and giving it to those who are less successful is wanting to end capitalism.

 

[spanko]

Ah, made it home, traffic was good, dinner was eggs over easy and toast. All is well.
I am sure we can agree the point of the thread was the current president and not a rehash of the "Bush Era". That said I have come to conclude that I believe Bush was stupid to go into Iraq when he did. Saddam Hussein would have made another move to expand his power and the world would have again put his butt down then.
I have also come to believe in this quote from Andrew Wilkow;
"your freedom to be you includes my freedom to be free from you."
You want to engage in activities that may cause problems for you later, don't expect me to pay for your medical coverage, your legal defense, paying for your food and or housing etc. etc. etc.
So in that I believe it was a stupid move to attack Iraq at the time we did.
Back to the current president, slice, Reef and Beaslbob all put it well. He is imposing things that are detrimental to other citizens so that some may gain. He and his congress and senate do not have the power to do this. Redistribution at the expense of the productive citizenry is wrong. The bailouts of banks and car companies in the effort to "take them over" is wrong. The thought that he can call in the CEO of another company from another company and "tell" him that he must set up an account administered by a third party is wrong. These are things that occur via the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong Il, Saddam Hussien, Lenin, Mao Zedong, Karl Marx. etc. etc.
Are these the paths we wish for the United States to follow? Can you not see they are the paths that Barak Obama is taking us?

 

[reefraff]

Just got this a while ago in an e-mail, timely
You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is the beginning of the end of any nation.
You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

 

[spanko]

Perfect Reef. Thanx for sharing that.
The goal of those in power seems to be to create a class of recipients, beholden to the government, at the expense of the producers. When the producers come to believe that it is a circle jerk they will go elsewhere. Case in point manufacturing jobs leaving the country to avoid high wages perpetuated by the unions, and high taxes imposed by the government. People moving out of New York and New Jersey and Michigan and and and to go to states that don't have the high tax rates like South Carolina, Florida, etc. etc.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3279239
When has Obama ever hinted or shown that he would purposely want to end capitalism? It's radical thinking like yours that's turned this country and our political system upside-down. Obama is by no means perfect, and has made some very poor decisions regarding the direction this country needs to go regarding the economy. But to say a sitting President would even fathom the idea of directing this country towards Communism, Marxism, or even Socialism is borderline ridiculous. These are MY opinions of your political views.

I would think him purposely seeking out the marxist professors while in college would be a big hint... Spread the wealth around argument... All you have to do is look. No one in their right mind would do the things he has done economically with the intention of enriching our country... That leaves 2 options one he's as smart as a box of rocks, or he's doing it on purpose.
And well no one is that dumb...