A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

Socialism

Posted: Jul 12, 2010

I would like some information from those more with their fingers on the pulse of the politics in our country. I've heard over and over that Obama is a "socialist", yet the socialist party doesn't even support him, denies that his policies or intended policies are anything near socialism. I've heard he and his party called "coporatists" also.

By definition of the two he is neither, nor is he a liberal. Why are there so many people jumping on the "Obama is a Socialist" bandwagon without even really knowing the true definition of this or of the others?

(I am 18, just wanting some information here) Thanx!

;

Here's a few articles - An Independent

[ In Reply To ..]
It's good to ask where to find some information. Talking about Obama and whether he is a socialist or not could go on and on forever. His ideas are socialist/Marxist/Communist. He and his group want to socialist health care, redistribute everyone's wealth (except theirs of course), and a whole slew of other ideologies. They are against Americans building a future for themselves and are in the process of destroying everything our country worked towards.

To understand him you should read up on Karl Marx and especially Saul Alinsky. Those are his mentors. Here's a couple articles you might find interesting:

http://federalist.wordpress.com/2008/09/09/is-obama-a-socialist/

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/why_obamas_socialism_matters_1.html

http://foro.univision.com/t5/WQBA-1140-AM/OBAMA-RADICAL-SAUL-ALINSKY-AND-MARXIST-LIBERATION-THEOLOGY/m-p/232873496

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/obamas_radical_revolutionits_a.html

There are many many more articles you can read. Just Google Is Obama a socialist (or marxist, or communist), type in Obama and Alinsky, Marxist, etc into google and tons of links come up.

Read everything whether or not its from a conservative or liberal website because each has different views.

Also one other show that I find very informational (even though the haters will spit fire at the mention of his name) is Glen Beck. He doesn't go after Obama personally, he just points out what is going on in our government. He has guest speakers on who are very interesting, and every Friday is Founding Father's day where they discuss important people in our history. One Friday they talked about a lot of important black people of that time, another Friday was important women of that era. Just very very informational. He also has a web site where you can read a lot of information. Whether or not you like how he presents the material (he's a bit theatrical at times), one of the things he is really good at is researching and putting the dots together.

Hope this helps and that you find what you are looking for.

Obama - Lea

[ In Reply To ..]
It really doesn't matter who the president is, if you REALLY REALLY do your research on the internet, you will find that the true people running our country are the Bilderberg group and the families of the Illuminati (of which the Bush family is a subgroup of).

Obama and Hiliary secretly attended the meeting when they first took office, and the Bushes are affiliated with their Skull and Bones cohorts. Do research on George Bush's grandfather, who did business with the Nazi's for profit.

People really believe that the president has all this power, but it is a farce. Just like people really believe the Federal Reserve is actually a branch of the government. It is a privately owned bank by guess who? The illuminati.

It kills me how people sit and argue over who should be president or in government...when if they only knew the true story they would be flabbergasted at the lies we have been told.

Don't forget, "some" of the news fed to our news agencies and reported to us is propaganda and subtle brainwashing. The majority of people in the world believe what they are told from what they believe to be sources that hold our best interests at heart, but this is rarely true.

Wake up people....stop being puppets!

read - Lea

[ In Reply To ..]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9270

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_family

http://www.illuminati-news.com/S&B-China.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8518

That ought to keep ya busy for awhile and its only the tip of the iceberg....

Do you really believe these articles? Let me quote a few paragraphs from Illuminati, then - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]

tell me if you believe this? I don't because of this following:
"These people on top, who basically are of Royal Bloodlines, is currently working on reducing the world population in order to easier maintain their control, and ultimately the strive towards a centralization of power, which will include the whole world."

[This author talks about ancestors of my husband and they are NOT of 'Royal Bloodlines.' In fact, they couldn't be further from it.]

Also, in talking about controlling the world's population, you must realize that it does need to be controlled so we don't run out of resouces; land, water, etc.

Next, the author gives a disclaimer:

"Everything presented on this website is a result of my own research into the subject of the Illuminati and the New World Order. Just because you read it here, don't see it as being the ultimate truth. This is a presentation of my own personal research and conclusions, and I encourage you to read and study it. However, while doing so, don't forget to be skeptical and make up your own mind. In no way is my intention to force my reality upon anybody else. Quite the contrary; I encourage the reader to do his/her own research on these topics, and hopefully some of the material presented here can be useful for present and future references."

Next, the author gives a biography which states in part:

. . .In the early 70s I joined the hippie movement, mostly because it was anti-war. I let my hair grow and expressed my feelings about the Vietnam war. . . ."

"To me, the 80s was a dark era in the history of mankind. The hippie movement had died out, except for some lingering hippies whom were stuck on drugs and since long had abandoned their ideas of a solution. People seemed to wander around aimlessly, without goals; the music industry promoted hard rock and heavy metal, which eventually developed into the pure satanic death metal. I was playing in a band in the early 80s, and we were playing a mix of traditional rock and hard rock. At least at first. I left the group when the rest of the band members wanted to play more heavy rock music, which I didn't like. I started writing my own songs instead, which were almost purely political, or rather anti-political. . . .

In 1985 I was pretty confused about life. I was single, drank quite a lot of alcohol, and thought that life had lost its meaning, more or less. Then, by accident, I stumbled upon a secret society. At this time, for personal reasons, I prefer not to say which one. All I can say is that this society is promoting a New World Order and a One World Government, and it is occult and satanic. . . By 1988 I got married to a female member of the group, and I had by the end of that year advanced all the way to the highest grade in this secret society in record speed. I read a lot of confidential material and practiced a lot of magic on my way up. I was able to remote view, leave my body at will and had some extraordinary occult powers due to the "rituals" that were practiced within the society.. . ."

. . ."I wish you all the luck on your spiritual journey, away from this trap we call the 'third dimension'."

NOTE: I find this author living in the land of paranoia. As an aside, I noted he has not updated his web page since 2005. I wonder why.

Can you say gang mentality? How about cult? - Thanks, but no thanks. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

You are 100% right on - it's what I've said - An Independent

[ In Reply To ..]
many times here. Just didn't want to repeat it again. But you are right...Mr. Bo is not the one in charge. It's really sickening when you find out what's really going on.

So you speak out of both sides of your mouth? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
One posting above, you pain Obama as evil incarnate, Lenin, Marx, Castro, and every other socialist/marxist/communist threat rolled into one. But now in this post, suddenly Obama has no authority and cannot do anything. And if you're getting your enlightenment from Glenn Beck, you really need to change your handle, because independent you are not.

Did you come here just to start an argument? - An Independent

[ In Reply To ..]
Maybe if you actually read my messages instead of getting on the defense because I don't worship and praise Mr. Bo you might have actually understood what I wrote. So, since you didn't I'll try to make it real clear.

1. I did NOT say Obama is evil so stop trying to put words in my mouth. I said that his ideas are Marxist/Socialist/Communist because they are. If you did any research and looked at things independently and not with glazed over eyes you might be able to understand this. Read up on his policies and ideas. Who he's "placing" into positions and their background (can we say...Van Jones?) Read up on who he looked up to, and whose ideologies he follows. I also did not say Lenin or Castro (your words not mine). I said Karl Marx and Saul Alinsky. Those are who he follows and where he takes his direction from - their writings. They also happened to be Hillary Clinton's mentors (her words even).

2. In my first message (that you evidently did not read) I said that Obama follows Marx and Alinsky. In the second message I was replying to the person who wrote about who runs our country. Two different topics. Ya might want to keep the two issues separate. But they are both the truth.

3. I knew the mere mention of Glen Beck's names would have some people spitting fire. Maybe foaming at the mouth would have been a more accurate statement. Beck haters attack. Its what they do best. They attack without knowledge. Funny how the people who attack him are the people who don't even watch his show or even know what goes on or who his guests are.

Also, never said I got "enlightenment" from him. Sure I may watch his show. Never said I got "enlightenment" though. Another bad choice of words you chose. His is one of many shows/websites I watch and read. That is where I learn a lot of very interesting information from the guests he has on TV. I stated in my post that he has guest speakers on who are very interesting, and every Friday is Founding Father's day. They discuss important people in our history. One Friday they talked about a lot of important black people of that time, another Friday was important women of that era. So what's wrong with that? You have something against important black people in our history and us learning about them? Sure sounds like it.

But again, all you did was read the name Glen Beck and made an assuming statement.

4. I specifically stated in my post "Read everything whether or not its from a conservative or liberal website because each has different views". But then again goes to show you didn't read my post. You just saw the words "Glenn Beck" and went on a rant.

So you think you know what political party I belong to from my post. Funny...I didn't mention anything about gay issues, religious beliefs, my viewpoints on the war, taxes, homeless, unemployment, etc, etc, etc. You don't know who I voted for or what political people I support.

An independent is not someone who totes the party line. An independent is a free thinker. Listens to both sides and makes up their own mind. An independent will vote for both democrats or republicans depending on the person, or not vote at all if they feel there is no good choice. An independent will even vote outside the 2 main parties. But since you don't know who I voted or how I vote in each election making a statement that I am not an independent just goes to show how strong ignorance is in this country.

So...before you talk about "speaking out of both sides of the mouth" you might want to at least first, read the message and understand it (even if you have to read it slowly) or at least appear that you know what you are talking about. Otherwise it just goes to show how true that statement is about people who "assume".

Looks like you are the one itching for a fight. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
You are replying to someone who threw your own message back at you. I agree 100 percent with the impression she got from your posts. It is how you come across. Instead of getting all indignant and defensive, why not try to soften your edge and come up with some original ideas instead of upchucking whacko fringe website drivel and chastising everyone who comes along and does not march lockstep to your droning dirge?

She should have used a different subject line - She's the one looking for a fight

[ In Reply To ..]
You don't start off a post telling someone they are "speaking out of both sides of the mouth". That's a sure sign someone wants to cause trouble.

Has manners on this board gotten so bad that because people are anonymous they can type rude and insulting posts like that. (don't answer - it wasn't a question).

Since when is telling the truth rude? She was speaking - out of both sides of her mouth. nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

so you don't think - She's the one looking for a fight

[ In Reply To ..]
Coming out and starting a post with "So you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth" is not rude???? Really???? Yeah, maybe it was her opinion, but she could have worded it nicely. No wonder the poster was upset. Telling someone they are speaking out of both sides of their mouth is rude. It may have been her opinion but it is rude and was uncalled for (IMHO). But I see you agree with her so of course you are going to think it's okay to be rude like that.

She would have gotten a better response if she had worded the post differently and spoke better. I don't see why people think that because they are anonymous it gives them the reason to treat others rudely and with disrespect.

If you disagree with someone just come out and say I respectfully disagree and explain why. Not use fighting words.

On top of that she was wrong. The OP was talking about the ideas of the current person in office. Her second post was agreeing with the person who talked about the people who are really making the decisions. They are two different subjects and therefore she was correct in her posts. It looks like the rude poster just didn't like the fact that she was pointing out the obvious.

Excuse me, but let me show you - what fighting words look like.

[ In Reply To ..]
Let us not mince words here. Independent starts her contribution to the thread by casually pronouncing that President Obama has socialist/Marxist/Communist ideas, that his "group" wants socialist health care, to redistribute everyone's wealth (except theirs of course), and a whole slew of other ideologies." She further states that, "They are against Americans building a future for themselves and are in the process of destroying everything our country worked towards." We are then further subjected to the yada yada yada of, " ...Karl Marx and especially Saul Alinsky...are his mentors.

There are many, many people in Obama's "group" (those vague third-person "theys" she refers to) who not only believe this is ignorant and obnoxious, but also take immediate personal offense when this kind of utter nonsense is encountered. In other words, from the get go, Independent (yeah, right, I am so sure)) appears to be spoiling for a confrontation. Maybe she is oblivious to this fact (as you seem to be) but nonetheless, this is how she comes across.

It is not unusual in anonymous chat rooms for people to behave like this. IMO, rude not only begets rude, but also deserves rude.

Independent further compounds the utter nonsense factor by reversing her inferred and implied claim that President Obama aspires toward communist takeover (whether she will admit to that or not, it is easily understood) by claiming just the opposite and voicing support for the ooo-weee-ooo Bilderberg group/Illuminati conspiracy theorists, implicitly relegating President Obama to the ranks of a pawn in their game. No surprise there, since she appears to be an avid admirer of Glen Beck.

SM comes along and states this obvious contradiction, in keeping with the confrontational tone already set by Independent in her first post. So for those reasons, I do not find SM's comment to be the least bit rude, not because I agree with her, but because they did not occur in a vacuum. I think Independent got exactly what she came here looking for. If not, then she probably needs to dial it back a notch or two next time.

By the way, the only reason you take offense at this is because you agree with Independent's views, as you so clearly indicate in you parting shots. I am in the habit of choosing my battles carefully. Further involvement with the pot calling the kettle black would not be one of them and trying to root rude out of chat rooms is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time.

My reply - An Independent - see message

[ In Reply To ..]
Okay, if you don't want to "mince words". Yes it was posted that he has socialist/Marxist/Communist ideas in his group and that is the truth. Read his books, read Hillary's books. I wrote my opinion, which is what I have read even written by people in the democrat party. And I have every right to post my opinion as does the one you are defending. I did not make my post personal, but SM did.

You conveniently left out the fact that I told the OP of the thread to read everything...whether or not its liberal or conservative. That is because there are always two sides of the story, two viewpoints, and a very large population (and still growing) independents in this country deserve to hear both sides and learn the truth, whether it is coming from a liberal or a conservative web site.

Whether someone watches Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann makes no difference. Just because you hate one of them does not mean that what they have to say is not important. Beck has a huge audience, and I'm talking HUGE with capital letters. He's doing the research and informing the people of this country what is going on in their government. If you don't like that then there is nothing that can be done about that. I heard someone interviewed and they said they don't particularly like Beck, however, they said the information he is telling people about is the truth and he is doing a good service. He's also having guests on his show that are talking about our history and very important people in our history and that is what a lot of people like. We are learning things from his guests that we never learned in school about the history of our country. So I guess that makes me an avid Beck admirer. Nothing to be ashamed of about that. In fact I'm proud to say that. It just makes me one of the many people in this country who are well informed about what is happening in our government.

Also, my first post I spoke about the ideologist of your dear leader, and Hillary too. I'm not the only one who has said this or wrote about it. If you don't like it then there is nothing that can be done about that. Maybe you should complain to Hillary and all of them because they even wrote that they are their mentors. So don't know what to tell you bout that...maybe try supporting a party who doesn't follow those ideologies if you don't like them? That's the only solution I can think of. In my first post I didn't "casually pronounce" it. I just plain ol stated it like it's been talked about before and in various articles by both democrats and republicans (you should read what democrats and democrat strategists say). They don't sweet-talk it, they say it like it is. They are the ones who have earned my respect. The people who tell the truth no matter what party they belong to.

SM doesn't just "come along and state this obvious contradiction". She comes along and states I'm talking out of my a$$. And you don't find that rude??? Sorry, look it up on google. Telling someone they talk out of both sides of their face or their a@@ means the same thing, just in case you didn't know that, and it also says it IS very rude to tell someone that. But then again you agree with her so there we have it.

I simply replied to the OP with some links and information about what I have learned. My first post was different from my second post. Both were stating the truth. The first one talked about your dearest, the second one I commented about the groups behind him. If you would do any kind of research you would find out both posts tell the truth. But just because you don't agree with it is no reason to get rude (or defend someone who is rude). You can simply say to me...I respectfully disagree and explain why. Not tell me I'm talking out of my a@@ (mouth or whatever - had the same meaning).

No, I do not "need to dial anything back a notch or two". If you don't like what I wrote I think whoever disagrees needs to learn to have a little restraint on the insults. Especially since I did not insult the posters I replied to.

But if you feel the need to write nasties and defend those who do, that is a waste of my time.

BTW - I stand by both of my posts.

Your truth is - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
not only someone else's lies, but also their own personal outrage. Consider yourself informed of this and kindly refrain from assuming that the president's supporters have not read his book and drawn their own different informed conclusions. No one is arguing with your right to post your opinion. The thread discussed what may or may not be considered rude. You may think your post was not personal, but for those of us who are part of that "group" (those vague, third-party theys you refer to), they could not be more personal. Perhaps you would get a different reception if you tried taking your comments beyond the tiresome wingnut website name-calling regurg, most of which is instant replay of worn-out ineffective failed 2008 campaign rhetoric that resulted in defeat of the president's opposition,

Instead you might try giving some examples of what you consider to be socialist comments Obama has made, cite policies and specify the ideologies to which you refer, then back up your claims, explaining why you think they are socialist and post some articles reflecting contrasting viewpoints that invite more respectful, intelligent and more objective academic dialog. Your posts suggest that you most definitely possess the capacity to hold your own within these types of contexts.

I did not conveniently leave out anything. It was not my intent to rehash the content of your original post, only to point out how and why some readers would find it rude and offensive. After all, I was replying to the OP who was slamming SM for being rude. I simply posted my opinion that SM was responding, not initiating.

I did not address the "importance" (insert uncontrollable laughter here) of Glen Beck and could care less about how HUGE his audience is. You mentioned him and I related his notorious conspiracy theory spinning to the subject of the Bilderberg/Illuminati cult members. One further comment about your Beck defense may be useful to further illustrate this point: One person's truth can often be another person's lie. In politics, truth is always relative and certainly not universal. The same applies to history and the biased and subjective ways it can be presented, viewed and manipulated. If you are truly interested in respectful dialog, you will keep these things in mind and edit your posts accordingly. If not, you are perfectly free to post offensive and rude comments that undoubtedly meet the same fate as these...or simply get ignored.

I respect the pride you take in being an avid Beck admirer, but be aware that there are millions of people in the opposing party that view him as a snake oil salesman/charlatan, buffoon, idiot, juvenile, liar and opportunist who is willing to prostitute himself and the news for the sake of making a buck. None of them consider the "information" he provides to be reliable or valid and in fact regard the bulk of it as slanderous libelous lies and raw ignorance at its worst. Bringing his name into the dialog almost always ends up being inflammatory. I agree with the point you make. NEITHER side is wrong and is entitled to hold these opposite opinions.

In one of your posts above, you said something to the effect that you did not care what the source of information is (talking about the voter fraud issue). I think that is admirable, but certainly you are exceptional in that regard. To most folks, sources matter A LOT. For example, academic analysis of Obama's (and her own, for that matter) ideologies by Hillary Clinton that compare, relate and contrast socialist ideals probably would not be personally offensive to their supporters, while at the same time, they would be found most offensive coming from the right-wing conservative fringe who hurl these statements around as insults and weapons of fear-mongering (again, this being from the progressive point of view). In the same way, the words of Sarah Palin, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh may be music to some ears, while at the same time be intolerable drivel to others. Veracity of any set of facts in politics is most often a function of source and individual perspective. Bias is not a four-letter word. It is a fact of life that real adults learn to deal with effectively.

I have read Saul Alinsky, Joseph Stalin, Leon Trotsky, Karl Marx, the Communist Manifesto, Mao Tse Tung's Red Book and countless books by notable socialists authors, including Nelson Mandela, Mohandas Gandhi, Jawaharlal Nehru, Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, George Orwell, Bertrand Russell and Charlie Chaplain, to name a few, years and years ago. I have drawn on their works from time to time and maybe even been influenced to some degree by a few of their ideas, such as the promotion of peace and passive resistance. However, there really IS a difference between moderate, centrist and left-wing liberal democrat, progressive and socialist. I identify myself somewhere between left wing and progressive and there are miles and miles between my political beliefs and socialism. Having educated one's self on (and even admired) these teachings does not a communist or socialist make.

Obama is not my dear leader. He is my president. I consider him to be a centrist democrat, as do many progressives. I admire Hillary Clinton's accomplishments but did not and would not vote her into higher office unless there were no other alternative. I would be interested in any link (provided it is not some right-wing fringe website) that shows where "they" claimed that "they" were their mentors out of their own mouths and IN THEIR OWN WORDS. Without that, kindly refrain from presuming to tell me what party to support. By the way, in a democracy, socialists and communists live outside the closet and are actually allowed to form parties, promote platforms, write books, run for office and serve (as they have done in the past and are doing now).

I feel like I have given the content of your first post and this reply enough attention, especially considering you barely touch on the actual subject of the post to which you now reply. Rude is in the eyes of the beholder. I simply stated that I cannot see SM's comments as being rude, since they were in keeping with the confrontational tone you had already set, then proceeded to state my reasons. Again, please refrain from telling me who I can and cannot defend. If you feel compelled to reply to this, why not take your own advice and simply respectfully disagree?

In the meantime, I also stand by my post. Rude begets rude and deserves rude, as we can clearly see from this entire exchange.

We will just have to agree to disagree on this - An Independent

[ In Reply To ..]
I do agree with you on Hillary though. I did not and would never vote for her. If she's the only one then I won't vote.

As for all the other stuff I will just say we will never agree on these issues and that's the way it should be left.

I respect your opinion although I certainly don't share them or agree with your post.

Bravo. I can do that. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
My issues have to do with presentation, not content. We don't have to agree on anything, but what I find the most challenging and rewarding is having exchanges with opposing views that are informative, analytical and polite, though you could not possibly tell from this particular thread. We did better on the voter fraud thing.

I am very passionate about my beliefs, as you seem to be about yours, and I am the first to admit I have a lot of difficulty keeping a lid on it. There are only a few posters on this board with opposing views that I am able to have respectful exchanges with, but I do look forward to your posts next time around.

Ok - I do believe we are more and more alike - An Independent

[ In Reply To ..]
Your post just described me too. :-) I am very passionate about a lot of issues. My significant other has to tell me to "keep a lid on it". He's very private - actually was told by his little sister "if you say another bad thing about Hillary I'm going to report you to the authorities" (that was when she was running). I get very defensive on a lot of issues and if I feel I am being made fun of I'll lash out most of the time without thinking before I speak. I served in the US Army, and have voted in more elections than I want to admit to. I've voted for both democrats and republicans and even voted for a libertarian once (though he didn't get very far), so when I'm told by my own family that I don't know what I'm talking about (just a stupid ex-grunt in their eyes) you bet I get ticked. There is a lot I don't agree with my other half on but with him have learned to keep my opinions to myself (mostly on domestic issues).

Glad we agreed on the voter fraud issue. Which by the way I still haven't had time to read those articles. Been exhausted here, but I will and I will still let you know what I think once I read them. I guess I just get sick of the corruption in politics, voter fraud no matter what side it's on, and other issues. But that will have to be for another day. For now I'm shutting down and hitting the hay.

That part about getting defensive hits home, - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
especially the connection between lashing out and being made fun of by family members. Mine takes the form of dripping sarcasm and, in its extreme, mindless belittling and trivializing (something I hate when it is aimed at me). Sometimes I just cannot seem to help myself and that drives me crazy since I abhor do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do admonishments.

Being a dyed-in-the-wool pacifist, I hate war and have entrenched issues with the military industrial complex that stretch across decades. On the other hand, I cannot overstate my deep admiration for those who serve or have served in the military (my sister being one of them back in Viet Nam times). I could never, never buckle up under the weight of such discipline and, though I love my country, am too selfish to make the personal sacrifices serving requires. I guess that is why I ended up involved in political activism instead. Hats off to "ex-grunt" gal.

The only reason we were able to take our posts from locked horns to common ground is because in both cases you had the DISCIPLINE to dial back the rhetoric once it began getting really out of hand (from both sides) and I really appreciate that. I am not so sure I would or could do the same thing. My challenge is to try not to let them get to that place from the get-go.

This is not a place where you have to keep your opinions to yourself. Here's hoping the next time we go to the mat, we have a soft landing and can manage to come to a draw.

some links - hmmm

[ In Reply To ..]
May not like them, but here they are:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/24/AR2007032401152.html

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4784

http://www.hyscience.com/archives/2008/08/michelle_obama_4.php

Many many more links from writers other than Fox. I found the first link to be very interesting.

Your first link. - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Being offered a job by a reknown American writer and community organizer does not a socialist make. Turning down a job offer made by a reknown American writer and community organizer does not a socialist make. Poor people organizing to advocate for themselves does not make them socialist. Educating one\\\'s self on grass roots organization strategies does not a socialist make. Calling a competent political literate a competent political literate does not a socialist make.

Working to organize black youth to advocate for themselves using the tactics of an immensely successful community organizer does not a socialist make. Being an accomplished, recognized, revered political activist does not a socialist make. In fact, there is really nothing more democratic than political protest and challenging status quo. Being an independent free thinker who never joined a single political organization (or any of the ones he organized) does not a socialist make.

Alinsky was a leader, not a joiner. Both Obama and Clinton reject Alinsky's claim that goals are more effectively achieved from the outside the system. They both prefer to work within the system as your article clearly points out. The concept of social justice is not synonymous with the ideology of socialism. Promoting equality under the law is not synonymous with socialism either. In fact, few agenedas are more American than that. If you cannot make these distinctions, you most probably were either still in diapers during the 1960s or not even around yet and have no concept of institutionalized racial and gender inequality and its ugly day-to-day realities.

If being a member of a grass roots (protest) organizations or advocating for their cause is tantamount to being a socialist, what does that make the Tea Party?

You are asking excellent questions but have come - to the wrong place for answers. sm

[ In Reply To ..]
From someone old enough to be your grandmother, I can say without resevation that you demonstrate keen intellectual curiosity, broad based independent thinking and an impressive capacity for precise logical analysis, far beyond your chronological age. You also have good gut instincts. Otherwise, you would feel no need to question these characerizations.

You can never get a straight answer (especially to your last question) from Obama's fiercest detractors, many of which you will find on this forum. They will stop at nothing to portray him as the biggest and baddest boogeyman in the history of the universe. They are not aware of their own ignorance of even the most basic definitions to which you refer and are not the least bit interested in informed dialog. If you try to point this out, they will get their backs all up and start calling you names such as elitist, snob, superior, academic, intellectual, etc, all of which they consider to be deeply offensive insults.

You are absolutely correct to conclude that Obama is neither socialist nor corporatist. Any progressive can verify your assertion that he is not a liberal either. In fact, he is in many ways is a moderate democrat.

As to why posters get up here and spout all this nonsense, your guess is a good as mine. I suspect it has something to to do with the disarray of their own party, its leadership vacuum, factionalization, lack of party platform and principles, disconnect from main street political issues and dearth of viable solutions to the country's most pressing problems. I make no apologies to you when I admit that I am obviously biased in the opposite direction.

What I think you should do is to continue to trust and follow your own best instincts. Gather as much information as you can from as many sources as you can find and try to examine all viewpoints from all sides. I find global perspectives extremely helpful, i.e., articles written about US politics by British, European, Middle Eastern and Oriental sources.

Whatever the case, during this process your own political ideas and understanding will emerge and evolve over time. Ideally, they will not stagnate in one place or the other but rather remain dynamic and responsive to your own life circumstances and experiences you encounter along the way. Personally, I have remained politically engaged and active for more than 40 years, a pursuit that I have found richly rewarding.

I believe your answer was quite one-sided. We know what side of the fence you are on. ;-) (nm) - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
.

Yes it is. I freely admitted that - and made no apologies.

[ In Reply To ..]
The original poster has enough saavy to figure that out without you or me telling her so. My admission to bias was inserted to mitigate the inevitable replies that would jump in and try to belitte and discount any opposing view.

I am confident that the OP will know exactly how to handle my bias, or any bias she should encounter on this board for that matter. She can choose to accept or reject my comment and decide for herself whether or not it makes any valuable contribution toward finding the answers to her questions.

Bias is an inescapable feature of political dialog and plays a major role in the confusion she seeks to sort out. You have your two cents worth and I have mine and we are both free to throw down whenever the spirit moves us, aren't we? That's what makes free speech (and free will) so awesome. It's a great equalizer.

No apologies are necessary for your view but - Backwards Typist

[ In Reply To ..]
I just worry that the OP and others like him/her would take the word of one side of the issue. Both sides should be given and then the decision made.

Twice in one day we have agreed on something. - Awesome! nm

[ In Reply To ..]
nm

Similar Messages:

Nov 04, 2010
I'm in my late 30s, but went back to college and my professors were extremely liberal - One didn't believe in the pledge allegiance to the flag. Claims people in America are not treated equally and we need "social justice". Even said, "socialism" would not be a bad think in America..... really? I looked up to this professor and highly respected him, but I was shocked and unfortunately didn't speak up in class to rebut his statements....no one did. He was a ...

Apr 19, 2011
love the obama-biden t shirt. ...

Oct 01, 2012
Check out the results of corporatism (aka capitalism minus social programs). And some folks think the CEO guy needs another tax break! Some folks think the government has no business telling the CEO guy how much to pay his employees and even want to do away with the minimum wage requirement. Tax breaks, deregulation, and outsourcing... definitely a recipe for success for Mr. CEO; so don't think for one minute that Mr. CEO is f ...

Mar 22, 2010
FINALLY SOMEONE tells it like it is. B.O. is a flaming socialist, and Sharpton goes on to say that THAT is why Americans overwhelmingly elected hiim -- because YOU WANTED socialism. EVERYONE warned that this guy was a socialist (Fabian style if you ask me, but that's debatable). All one had to do was look at his voting record (available online) and his "comrades" all around him. Or stop a second and LISTEN to what the clown was saying. But no, libs, moderates, ...

Sep 12, 2015
Socialism without democracy is communism (Marxism-Leninism), capitalism without socialism is facism. Capitalism without ethics and concern for labor carries its own destruction. ...

Jan 20, 2016
democratic socialism. With socialism, the government hires their own workforce to build a high-speed rail system. With democratic socialism, the government takes bids from private companies and awards a contract to the winner. ...

Mar 13, 2010
The Beckster and his $upporter$ are desparately trying to equate the two in an attempt to have people reject the concept of social justice. He'll be successful to some degree; fortunately the vast majority of Americans know a skunk when they smell one. or is that a FOX? lol ...

Mar 22, 2014
I read some post below who said they want socialism. Also I remember Hillary talking about how great Venezuela is and how we should model our country after them. In this research I found this. So for all those wanting socialism, here's a short picture of what it would be like and under Hillary especially. http://capitalismisfreedom.com/joys-socialism-venezuela/ ...

Mar 01, 2016
Socialists: Get the message. However flowery the promises, however much class warfare it engenders, however much the blame and responsibility are shifted to everyone else other than YOU YOURSELF, socialism is dead and belongs on the trash heap of history. ...

Sep 15, 2015
Envy is the emotion that arises in the human heart "when a person lacks another's superior quality, achievement, or possession and either desires it (for themselves) or wishes that the other lacked it". This whole "income inequality" thing, at bottom, is about nothing more or less than envy. Being immediately recognized even to ourselves as an ugly thing, it's necessary to justify it, just as we have to justify to ourselves other forms of ugliness such as anger, pride or lust. ...

Dec 07, 2015
x ...

Nov 08, 2015
http://www.lifezette.com/referral/sanders-supporters-explain-socialism/?utm_content=buffer5c4a0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=laura_ingraham_buffer ...

Jul 17, 2017
what it is... ...

May 30, 2016
It's no surprise Democrat Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders is an advocate of socialism. He's openly advocated for socialist policies on the 2016 campaign trail and back in the 1980s, Sanders argued bread lines are a sign of economic progress. "You know, it's funny. Sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is when people are lining up for food. That's a good thing. In other countries, people don't line up for food. The rich get the food and th ...

Jul 26, 2016
It's kaput. Finito. Slurp City. Anyone who believes Sanders' smooth assertion that the "revolution will go on" can be found on Christmas Eve, waiting for Santa Claus to zip down the chimney. ...