• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Marxist?

Mike

Well-known member
Barack Obama laughs off charges of socialism. Joe Biden scoffs at references to Marxism. Both men shrug off accusations of liberalism.

But Obama himself acknowledges that he was drawn to socialists and even Marxists as a college student. He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.

Obama's affinity for Marxists began when he attended Occidental College in Los Angeles.

"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

After graduating from Columbia in 1983, Obama spent a year working for a consulting firm and then went to work for what he described as "a Ralph Nader offshoot" in Harlem.

"In search of some inspiration, I went to hear Kwame Toure, formerly Stokely Carmichael of …Black Panther fame, speak at Columbia," Obama wrote in "Dreams," which he published in 1995. "At the entrance to the auditorium, two women, one black, one Asian, were selling Marxist literature."

Obama supporters point out that plenty of Americans flirt with radical ideologies in college, only to join the political mainstream later in life. But Obama, who made a point of noting how "carefully" he chose his friends in college, also chose to launch his political career in the Chicago living room of Ayers, a domestic terrorist who in 2002 proclaimed: "I am a Marxist."

Also present at that meeting was Ayers' wife, fellow terrorist Bernardine Dohrn, who once gave a speech extolling socialism, communism and "Marxism-Leninism."

Obama has been widely criticized for choosing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, an anti-American firebrand, as his pastor. Wright is a purveyor of black liberation theology, which analysts say is based in part on Marxist ideas.

Few political observers go so far as to accuse Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, of being a Marxist. But Republican John McCain has been accusing Obama of espousing socialism ever since the Democrat told an Ohio plumber named Joe earlier this month that he wanted to "spread the wealth around."

Obama's running mate, Biden, recently contradicted his boss, saying: "He is not spreading the wealth around." The remark came as Biden was answering a question from a TV anchor who asked: "How is Senator Obama not being a Marxist if he intends to spread the wealth around?"

"Are you joking? Is this a joke? Or is that a real question?" an incredulous Biden shot back. "It's a ridiculous comparison."

But the debate intensified Monday with the surfacing of a 2001 radio interview in which Obama lamented the Supreme Court's inability to enact "redistribution of wealth" -- a key tenet of socialism. On Tuesday, McCain said Obama aspires to become "Redistributionist-in-Chief."

Obama has managed to cultivate the image of a political moderate in spite of his consistently liberal voting record. In 2006, he published a second memoir, "The Audacity of Hope," that leaves little doubt about his adherence to the left.

"The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact," Obama wrote in "Audacity." "Much of what I absorbed from the sixties was filtered through my mother, who to the end of her life would proudly proclaim herself an unreconstructed liberal."

National Journal magazine ranked Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate. The publication is far from conservative, employing such journalists as Linda Douglass, who resigned in May to become Obama's traveling press secretary.

Bill Sammon is the Washington deputy managing editor for FOX News Channel.
 

nonothing

Well-known member
Larrry said:
Is Hussein Obamrt gonna spread the wealth of his campaign fund. His sharing check must be in the mail

Do you all not share the wealth already?Do you pay different income tax depending on your income?....Do you not share road construction costs,or millatray costs or paychecks to the goverment employees..You all pay taxes ,some more some less...Is that not wealth distribution?
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
nonothing said:
Larrry said:
Is Hussein Obamrt gonna spread the wealth of his campaign fund. His sharing check must be in the mail

Do you all not share the wealth already?Do you pay different income tax depending on your income?....Do you not share road construction costs,or millatray costs or paychecks to the goverment employees..You all pay taxes ,some more some less...Is that not wealth distribution?

Neither you nor don know the difference between funding government and redistribution of wealth.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
nonothing said:
Larrry said:
Is Hussein Obamrt gonna spread the wealth of his campaign fund. His sharing check must be in the mail

Do you all not share the wealth already?Do you pay different income tax depending on your income?....Do you not share road construction costs,or millatray costs or paychecks to the goverment employees..You all pay taxes ,some more some less...Is that not wealth distribution?

Neither you nor don know the difference between funding government and redistribution of wealth.

But you do :???: :roll:
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
nonothing said:
Do you all not share the wealth already?Do you pay different income tax depending on your income?....Do you not share road construction costs,or millatray costs or paychecks to the goverment employees..You all pay taxes ,some more some less...Is that not wealth distribution?

Neither you nor don know the difference between funding government and redistribution of wealth.

But you do :???: :roll:

It's a pretty easy distinction. I don't understand what the confusion is about.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Neither you nor don know the difference between funding government and redistribution of wealth.

But you do :???: :roll:

It's a pretty easy distinction. I don't understand what the confusion is about.

So if the taxpayer funds go to the fatcat bankers and oil company CEO's to pay multi million $ salarys and golden parachutes- along with Iraqi Mullahs and hiring every Kuwaiti/Muslim in the mideast to rebuild the infrastructure of Irag thats fine and dandy :roll: -- but putting out a dime to fund rebuilding America and American industry and American jobs is "wealth distribution" :???: :roll: :(

You go ahead and vote for the "biggest freetrader in the world" and send the rest of our money and jobs to China or Honduras or Bookoo Egypt- or for our packing/feeding industry to be owned by the Brazillian government- or the Argentianians to ship in Foot and Mouth diseased beef and have free run to ruin our cattle industry.... Not me.....I don't drink the Koolaid anymore..
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
Oldtimer said:
But you do :???: :roll:

It's a pretty easy distinction. I don't understand what the confusion is about.

So if the taxpayer funds go to the fatcat bankers and oil company CEO's to pay multi million $ salarys and golden parachutes- along with Iraqi Mullahs and hiring every Kuwaiti/Muslim in the mideast to rebuild the infrastructure of Irag thats fine and dandy :roll: -- but putting out a dime to fund rebuilding America and American industry and American jobs is "wealth distribution" :???: :roll: :(

You go ahead and vote for the "biggest freetrader in the world" and send the rest of our money and jobs to China or Honduras or Bookoo Egypt- or for our packing/feeding industry to be owned by the Brazillian government- or the Argentianians to ship in Foot and Mouth diseased beef and have free run to ruin our cattle industry.... Not me.....I don't drink the Koolaid anymore..

Here's what your candidate says:

There are some who believe that we must try to turn back the clock on this new world; that the only chance to maintain our living standards is to build a fortress around America; to stop trading with other countries, shut down immigration, and rely on old industries. I disagree. Not only is it impossible to turn back the tide of globalization, but efforts to do so can make us worse off.

Rather than fear the future, we must embrace it. I have no doubt that America can compete--and succeed--in the 21st century. And I know as well that more than anything else, success will depend not on our government, but on the dynamism, determination, and innovation of the American people.

Source: Speech in Flint, MI, in Change We Can Believe In, p.245-6 Jun 15, 2008
 

nonothing

Well-known member
TexasBred said:
Oldtimer said:
Sandhusker said:
It's a pretty easy distinction. I don't understand what the confusion is about.

So if the taxpayer funds go to the fatcat bankers and oil company CEO's to pay multi million $ salarys and golden parachutes- along with Iraqi Mullahs and hiring every Kuwaiti/Muslim in the mideast to rebuild the infrastructure of Irag thats fine and dandy :roll: -- but putting out a dime to fund rebuilding America and American industry and American jobs is "wealth distribution" :???: :roll: :(

You go ahead and vote for the "biggest freetrader in the world" and send the rest of our money and jobs to China or Honduras or Bookoo Egypt- or for our packing/feeding industry to be owned by the Brazillian government- or the Argentianians to ship in Foot and Mouth diseased beef and have free run to ruin our cattle industry.... Not me.....I don't drink the Koolaid anymore..

Here's what your candidate says:

There are some who believe that we must try to turn back the clock on this new world; that the only chance to maintain our living standards is to build a fortress around America; to stop trading with other countries, shut down immigration, and rely on old industries. I disagree. Not only is it impossible to turn back the tide of globalization, but efforts to do so can make us worse off.

Rather than fear the future, we must embrace it. I have no doubt that America can compete--and succeed--in the 21st century. And I know as well that more than anything else, success will depend not on our government, but on the dynamism, determination, and innovation of the American people.

Source: Speech in Flint, MI, in Change We Can Believe In, p.245-6 Jun 15, 2008


Yes he wants america to be a more of a seller and less of a buying in the world market.That is the difference between him and Bush/McCain...
 

TexasBred

Well-known member
nonothing said:
TexasBred said:
Oldtimer said:
So if the taxpayer funds go to the fatcat bankers and oil company CEO's to pay multi million $ salarys and golden parachutes- along with Iraqi Mullahs and hiring every Kuwaiti/Muslim in the mideast to rebuild the infrastructure of Irag thats fine and dandy :roll: -- but putting out a dime to fund rebuilding America and American industry and American jobs is "wealth distribution" :???: :roll: :(

You go ahead and vote for the "biggest freetrader in the world" and send the rest of our money and jobs to China or Honduras or Bookoo Egypt- or for our packing/feeding industry to be owned by the Brazillian government- or the Argentianians to ship in Foot and Mouth diseased beef and have free run to ruin our cattle industry.... Not me.....I don't drink the Koolaid anymore..

Here's what your candidate says:

There are some who believe that we must try to turn back the clock on this new world; that the only chance to maintain our living standards is to build a fortress around America; to stop trading with other countries, shut down immigration, and rely on old industries. I disagree. Not only is it impossible to turn back the tide of globalization, but efforts to do so can make us worse off.

Rather than fear the future, we must embrace it. I have no doubt that America can compete--and succeed--in the 21st century. And I know as well that more than anything else, success will depend not on our government, but on the dynamism, determination, and innovation of the American people.

Source: Speech in Flint, MI, in Change We Can Believe In, p.245-6 Jun 15, 2008


Yes he wants america to be a more of a seller and less of a buying in the world market.That is the difference between him and Bush/McCain...

And what do we have for sale that the world can afford that we're not already selling??????
 
Top