Originally Posted by cordycord (Post 886824)

My question--unless liberals are ready to turn a blind eye to ALL this peripheral evidence of Obama's past, would they really CHOOSE to vote for a Socialist--in deed if not in name?

Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 886827)

What's the difference?

Originally Posted by cordycord (Post 886836)

If someone could prove to me that Bush started wars in order to enrich his oil buddies, I'd be first in line to vote his ass out of office.

Somehow I don't think that logic applies to the Left. They'd be quite happy to see that "fundamental transformation" of America take place, despite all the proof of Socialism's failure past and present.

Originally Posted by Obama 2001

If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.

I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. You know, the institution just isn’t structured that way.

Originally Posted by Michelle Obama

They don't want the whole pie. There are some who do, but most Americans feel blessed just being able to thrive a little bit. But that is becoming even more out of reach. If we don't wake up as a nation with a new kind of leadership, for how we want this country to work, then we won't get universal health care. The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.

Originally Posted by Obama

So we're going to provide a $4,000 tuition credit, every student, every year, but, students, you're going to have to give back something in return. You're going to have to participate in community service. You're going to have to work in a homeless shelter, or a veteran's home, or an underserved school, or join the Peace Corps

Originally Posted by Obama

And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren’t like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiments as a way to explain their frustrations

Originally Posted by Obama

We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK

Originally Posted by obama

It’s because you have an obligation to yourself. Because our individual salvation depends on collective salvation

Originally Posted by Obama

The great task before our founders was putting into practice the ideal that government could simultaneously serve liberty and advance the common good. and Government, he believed, had an important role to play in advancing our common prosperity

Originally Posted by Yang Chungui, The Marxist

the ultimate goal of socialism is common prosperity

Originally Posted by Obama

I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets

Originally Posted by Obama

Political discussions, the kind at Occidental had once seemed so intense and purposeful, came to take on the flavor of the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union

Originally Posted by Obama

Well, Charlie, what I’ve said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness

Originally Posted by Louis (Post 886885)

Well Said Mr B Well Said!

Originally Posted by Braineack (Post 887169)

I need to remember this defense:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/hold...ation-fast-and

Use code names for operations that are the same as other operations with code names.

Originally Posted by cordycord (Post 887297)

When do the political groupies on the Left finally hit themselves on the head with the hammer of common sense? I abandoned Bush in his second term because he didn't rein in the deficit, and had no problem with the growth of government. Boy was I in for a surprise...

Originally Posted by cordycord (Post 887475)

"The private sector is doing fine. Where we’re seeing weaknesses in our economy have to do with state and local government. Oftentimes cuts initiated by, you know, Governors or mayors who are not getting the kind of help that they have in the past from the federal government and who don’t have the same kind of flexibility as the federal government in dealing with fewer revenues coming in. " Barak Obama


Breathtakingly ignorant.

Originally Posted by Scrappy Jack (Post 887549)

At the risk of trying to bring some rationality to the bash-Obama-circle-jerk...

Is it breathtakingly ignorant? Can you give a breakdown on the contributors to / drags on GDP over the past couple of years?

The first sentence depends on how you are defining the private sector - corporate versus household. Much of the former is doing very well with profits higher than pre-global financial crisis. Households, not nearly as well.