History Reveals Progressives as Dupes!

[Ravi]

1.a-Look at the disaster one gay created under our punishing "don't ask, don't tell" policy. What else awaits America with the overturning of a policy that was probably put there for a reason (apart from being the only thing Bill Clinton ever did that I agreed with)?

b-Liberals don't care. Their approach is to rip out society's foundations without asking if they serve any purpose.

c-Why do we have immigration laws? What's with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards -- why not make heroin legal? Let's take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!

dFor liberals, gays in the military is a win-win proposition. Either gays in the military works, or it wrecks the military, both of which outcomes they enthusiastically support.

Welcome to AnnCoulter.com

2.Liberals are from mars, Conservatives are from Earth


[FONT=times new roman,times]a.One of the things I like so much about writing for American Thinker is the comments page. Readers offer so much: tips for books to read, quotes to ponder, spiritual inspiration. And then there are times when the comments absolutely floor me.
[/FONT]
[FONT=times new roman,times]b-I was shocked that readers were shocked about my previously viewing Marxism as sublime. I was astonished that readers were astonished about my young client's [/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times]freak-out about Styrofoam[/FONT][FONT=times new roman,times].
[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]c.I realized that liberals really do live on another planet. Sometimes I feel like I'm having a Close Encounter of the Political Kind. [/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]d.Conservatives can mistakenly assume that liberals think like they do, in a learned and rational way. This is an exercise in futility since liberalism is not based on logic.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]x.To become a conservative, I've had to learn a whole new language, one based on reason. If conservatives want to understand the liberal mind, they should consider becoming bilingual, too.[/FONT]

[FONT=times new roman,times]y.Liberals live in a stratosphere centered on emotions and magical thinking. If you've tried to reason with your daughter and she looks at you blankly; if your neighbor changes the subject during your compelling arguments; if your cousin says this about Obama: "I don't know why. I just like the guy"...that's why.
American Thinker: Liberals Are from Mars, Conservatives Are from Earth

i am egerly waiting four your rebuttal, leftists.
[/FONT]

That may be the best post, EVAH!!!

 

[NYcarbineer]

The day after Obama agrees to an uber-rightwing tax plan,

accusing him of being a Communist would be...

what?

...an extremely brilliant parody?

Considering the source, unfortunately, no...

Carby, you evince an amazing consistency: you never really contribute anything to a discussion....

At least it keeps you off the street corner.

Then tell us how Obama's tax plan is evidence of his Communist 'roots'.

Oh, I'm sorry. Times up.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The day after Obama agrees to an uber-rightwing tax plan,

accusing him of being a Communist would be...

what?

...an extremely brilliant parody?

Considering the source, unfortunately, no...

Carby, you evince an amazing consistency: you never really contribute anything to a discussion....

At least it keeps you off the street corner.

Then tell us how Obama's tax plan is evidence of his Communist 'roots'.

Carby, know why I look forward to your posts?

It's because they are so easy to skewer...

1. "Then tell us..."
Let's begin here. There are only three cases where the 'us' would be appropriate: a) if you were the editor of a newspaper, b) if you were royalty, or c) if you have a tapeworm...
I truly hope you recover.

2. When you have an oh-so-weak argument, try to pretend that the opponent has said something that you can defend, even if they have not said same....
but very juvenile.
For example....this is the operative passage from the OP...

"2. I have all of the weekly columns written by Obama’s mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, for the 1949-50 Honolulu Record, which was the CPUSA organ in Hawaii. These columns are unbelievably outrageous. Davis toed the Stalinist line unerringly, perfectly parroting every talking point of the Communist Party. This means that Davis demonized the Democratic Party leadership opposing Stalin at the time. Davis turned Harry Truman into a monster, … Our current president’s mentor in Hawaii in the 1970s was a pro-Soviet communist. Americans, voting for “change,” voted Davis’s pupil president in November 2008."

Your quibble is about "evidence of his Communist 'roots'" with the 'his' referring to President Obama.

Had you actual skill in reading, you would notice that nowhere does the phrase 'Obama's communist roots' appear.

Had you actual skill in comprehension, you would have noticed that the appellation of 'communist' belongs to Frank Marshall Davis.
Davis was the one with 'communist roots,' according to Dr. Kangor.


3. To make your post more pointed and appropriate, I would have first asked the opponent if he/she was suggesting that President Obama had 'communist' roots or inclinations...
That would have baited the hook, no?

4. And I do so appreciate you use of the term 'brilliant' in any connection with my posts...Why, I'm almost blushing.

5. But, sadly, Carby, once again "you never really contribute anything to a discussion...." just your usual carping and grousing.
Did you notice the wll constructed post that links info counter to the OP?
Learn from poster 'K."

But, hey, don't let that stop you...carry on with what ever ability you can muster!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Here is the extent of my research on just one card in the house of cards disinformation against the Davis-Obama relationship:

DISINFORMATION 105:

HONOLULU NAACP PILIKIA (TROUBLE) IN 1949

Just as an effective cover story requires consistency, so too does an effective disinformation campaign. Trying to convince people that your target is an atheist Muslim probably won’t work, nor would trying to convince them that he is a gay womanizer. According to conventional wisdom, certain traits are mutually exclusive. Internal consistency is the key to creating a credible illusion.

Inconsistency is always a threat to crude disinformation campaigns. Because illusions are often built by stacking lies upon other lies, the slightest misstep may cause the illusion to crumble. Although an illusion may not survive serious scrutiny by an objective analyst, it should still be plausible to those with the appropriate predisposition to believe. It should make sense to the casual observer. This is a cardinal rule of effective disinformation.

In the series of disinformation claims regarding Frank Marshall Davis’s encounter with the Honolulu Branch of the NAACP in 1949, Accuracy In Media (AIM) may have violated this cardinal rule. Perhaps Cliff Kincaid’s theoretical “mentor,” the head of the Soviet KGB’s “active measures” department, may be rolling over in HIS grave due to AIM’s mutually exclusive messages:

SYNOPSIS: By 1949, Roy Wilkins had become a vocal opponent of communist influence within the NAACP. According to board member Edward Berman, the Honolulu branch was also in conflict due to the infusion of purportedly “Stalinist” new members from the recently defunct Hawaii Association for Civil Unity (HUAC). Berman stated that Frank Marshall Davis appeared at ONE meeting to “propagandize the membership about our ‘racial problems’,” and was supported by the “Stalinist” group. Based on Berman’s one letter to the NAACP describing the situation, AIM fabricated four different versions of Davis’s encounter with the Honolulu NAACP:

Fabricated Version #1 (“Obama’s Red Mentor Praised Red Army”): In this version, Berman criticized Davis for allegedly sneaking into NAACP meetings, while allegedly having the “avowed intent” of converting the same meetings.

Fabricated Version #2 (“Obama Plays Reagan In Berlin, Al-Jazeera Journalist Funds Campaign”): Davis allegedly tries to take over meetings instead of sneaking into them.

Fabricated Version #3 (“Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists”): Roy Wilkins supposedly criticized Davis directly when he “rightly noted of Davis and his comrades: they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP."

Fabricated Version #4 (“AP Lies About Obama’s Red Mentor”): In this account Davis tried to take over the NAACP itself!

Obviously not all accounts can be true. Even without reviewing the testimony, it should be readily apparent to an objective observer that some must be misrepresentations. In fact, ALL are misrepresentations.


BACKGROUND:

In a report of Hearings Before The Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, April 17, 18, and 19 April 1950, page 2065 contains the testimony of Edward Berman, who testified [1]:

1. The Hawaii Association for Civic Unity (HACU) was organized back around 1946. It was supposed to be a liberal organization for the purpose of civic unity. He learned in 1947 that a lot of people had moved into the organization who were repugnant to the original membership. He was invited to see if something could be done to neutralize the group that entered into the organization, who had practically taken it over. As a result of the conflict between the left-wing and right-wing groups of the HACU, the organization just collapsed.

2. Sometime in 1948, he got a call from Mrs. Catherine Christopher (acting president of the Honolulu NAACP), and from Miss Mary Noonan, who was secretary of the local Republican Club, and they asked him if he would join the NAACP. The same elements who had once controlled HACU had moved into the NAACP.

3. He went to the first NAACP meeting, and found that the same group that had been in the HACU meeting had now moved over and had practically taken over the organization. They got a few more people in and were soon in a position where their groups strength was about equal to the other group. Both groups were trying to bring in people to offset each other.

4. He wrote a letter date September 26, 1949 TO Roy Wilkins, Acting Secretary, NAACP, which said:

a. He is a member of the executive committee, Honolulu Branch. He believes Mrs. Catherine Christopher, acting president of Honolulu Branch acted in good faith by not holding an election under prevailing circumstances.

b. He was at one of the election meetings at which Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii. He had just sneaked in here on a boat, and presto, was an “expert” on racial problems in Hawaii. Comrade Davis was supported by others who recently “sneaked” into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.

c. “These others were the same party liners who tried to take over and dominate an organization known locally as the Hawaii Committee for Civic Unity. The organization collapsed, due to their tactics. Having destroyed that organization they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP.”

d. “I am Caucasian.” “There is no segregation here.” “The point I am making is that the Communist Party was deliberately trying to stir up racism in an area where there is fine racial unity and harmony. It is better to have no organization than to have these tactics continue. Mrs. Christopher acted in good faith. She knew what was going on and it was her method of checking them. Already, scores of Negro members were frightened away from these meetings because of the influx of this element.”

Mr. Berman read the response of the NAACP to the Honolulu Branch: The board on November 14, 1949 voted to revoke the charter of the Honolulu branch for the following reasons:

“The officers of the Honolulu branch have, by their failure, refusal or neglect to complete the holding of the election of officers as required by the constitution and bylaws for branches and as ordered by the national office, been guilty of conduct inimical to the best interest of the NAACP.

The difference in the problems of racial discrimination in the continental United States and their solution as contrasted with the problems of the Territory makes difficult the applicability of techniques and methods used by branches and the national office to effect the policy of the association in the Territory.


SALIENT FEATURES OF BACKGROUND:

1. Berman was white, joined the NAACP the previous year, and believed there was NO segregation in Hawaii.

2. Berman was involved in an NAACP power struggle with “left-wing” members who had once controlled HACU. Both groups were trying to bring in people to offset each other. As a result, the acting president did not hold elections.

3. Berman wrote a letter to Wilkins, which stated:

a. Berman was at an election meeting at which Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii.” “He had just sneaked in here on a boat, and presto, was an “expert” on racial problems in Hawaii.”

b. Davis was SUPPORTED BY OTHERS who “recently “sneaked” into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.

4. As proof of Berman’s bias, please note that he claimed Davis “had just sneaked here on a boat.”

a. Reality disagrees: “In December 1948, several articles in the Honolulu Star- Bulletin and Honolulu Advertiser announced the Davis's imminent arrival, then their delay, and finally their belated arrival. Several were accompanied by photos of the two. The press presented Davis as a successful journalist, and as a poet and 1937 Julius Rosenwald Fellow. There were contradictory reports on the purpose of their trip. "Executive Editor of ANP Is Due Tonight" says that Davis is in Honolulu for a visit that will combine a vacation with business . . . [that he] is planning a story on racial groups in the Islands . . . [and that] Davis also plans to visit army and navy posts" (December 8, 1948). "Negro Press Executive Here" says that Davis "is here on an inspection and vacation tour of the islands . . . [and] will tour army and navy installations and other territorial institutions" (December 14, 1948, 10). "Davis Considers Hawai`i Advanced in Democracy" says the Davises are in Hawai`i "for a visit of not less than four months. Davis will write a series of articles on his observations of the island scene and also will work on a book of poetry which he hopes will capture the spirit of the islands in verse," although the photo caption accompanying the article says the Davises are "in Honolulu for an indefinite visit" (10). Davis's wife was presented as an artist, writer, and executive editor of a national press agency, who planned "to do watercolors of the islands during her stay" (Honolulu Star-Bulletin, December 10, 1948).” [7]

b. Please note that the above reference is from Dr. Takara, and cited in AIM’s initial attack against Davis in Feb 2008. Please note that local newspapers published articles anticipating and reporting his arrival. This is not “sneaking” here on a boat,” as misrepresented by Edward Berman.

c. Because Berman misrepresented the racial situation in Hawaii, and he misrepresented Davis’s arrival in Hawaii, Berman likely misrepresented Davis at the NAACP meeting. Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii” may also be an exaggeration.

d. As a journalist, Davis attended the Honolulu NAACP meeting. From this kernel of truth, three distinct webs of lies were built:
i. Berman exaggerated Davis’s actual actions to implicate Davis.
ii. AIM exaggerated Berman’s testimony to implicate Davis.
iii. AIM exaggerated Davis “actions” to implicate Obama.

5. Although AIM’s misrepresentation is built on Berman’s misrepresentation, Berman did not accuse Davis of sneaking into meetings, trying to take over meetings, or having the “avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.” Berman accused Davis of propagandizing the membership about “racial problems,” which is probably an exaggeration itself.

6. The NAACP revoked the Honolulu branch charter because they refused to hold elections, not to keep them from being dominated by communists.


A.I.M. SPECIFIC MISREPRESENTATION REGARDING 1949 NAACP:

Fabricated Version #1: In his report “Obama’s Red Mentor Praised Red Army,” AIM’s Cliff Kincaid claimed: “The House Committee on Un-American Activities (HCUA) took testimony in 1950 from a member of the Honolulu branch of the NAACP, Edward Berman, who referred to "Comrade Davis" as someone who "sneaked" into the NAACP meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line."[3] In this version, Berman criticized Davis for allegedly sneaking into NAACP meetings, while allegedly having the “avowed intent” of converting the same meetings.

FACTS:

a. Contrary to Kincaid’s claims, Berman’s testimony did NOT claim:
i. Davis “sneaked” into any meeting
ii. Davis attended more than this one meeting
iii. Davis had “the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.”

b. Kincaid’s claim is inherently absurd. If a person has “the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line,” they could hardly “sneak” into a meeting.

c. Berman’s letter stated that Davis WAS SUPPORTED BY OTHERS who RECENTLY "sneaked" into meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line. Kincaid misrepresented the others’ purpose as Davis’s purpose.


Fabricated Version #2 In his report “Obama Plays Reagan In Berlin, Al-Jazeera Journalist Funds Campaign,” Kincaid makes a slightly different claim. In this version, he states “We already knew Davis was a Stalinist. NAACP member Edward Berman testified that "comrade Davis" tried to take over meetings of the organization in Hawaii "for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line."[5] Note that in this version, Davis did not “sneak” into meetings. Instead he allegedly tried to take over meetings.

FACTS:

a. We do not know that Davis was a "Stalinist." He actually criticized Stalin, by name, in his writing. [2]

b. In this version, Kincaid changes his misrepresentation of Berman’s letter from saying that Davis “sneaked” into meetings, to saying that Davis “tried to take over meetings.” In fact, Berman’s letter did not say either of these.

c. Berman did NOT testify that Davis tried to take over meetings at all, much less taking over meetings "for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line."

d. Berman mentioned Davis at only one meeting, not “meetings,”

e. In Berman's words, the only action Davis took was when he "suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our `racial problems' here in Hawaii." Berman does NOT connect Davis with trying to convert “it into a front for the Stalinist line.”

f. Romerstein's research reveals that Berman said that at ONE meeting, Davis was SUPPORTED BY OTHERS who recently "sneaked" into the NAACP meetings "with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line. Kincaid therefore misrepresents the Berman testimony in at least four ways:
i. Berman testified about Davis's presence at one meeting, not "meetings" as falsely claimed by Kincaid.
ii. According to Berman, Davis did not try to "take over" this or any other meeting, as falsely claimed by Kincaid. He only "appeared on the scene to propagandize" about racial problems.
iii. Kincaid completely misrepresents Berman’s assessment of Davis’s purpose. Davis’s purpose, according to Berman, was to propagandize about racial problems. According to Berman, Davis did NOT attend the meeting "for the purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line.” Davis was only supported by OTHERS who had RECENTLY sneaked into meetings (not this meeting) with the "avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line." In changing the subject from “others” to Davis, Kincaid also changes “avowed intent and purpose” into just “purpose.” With this change, Kincaid completely misrepresents Berman’s assessment of Davis’s purpose.
iv. Further, Kincaid failed to mention the context of Berman's remarks, including the fact that Berman was a rookie member of the Board, and a Caucasian who believed there was NO segregation in Hawaii. Even decades later, some landlords refused to rent to people of certain ethnic groups.


Fabricated Version #3 (“Return of the Dupes and the Anti-Anti-Communists”): The most outrageous version comes from AIM guest columnist Paul Kengor: “Finally, if that doesn't concern liberals, they should understand how communists, including Frank Marshall Davis, used the civil-rights movement, and again and again exploited and undermined the NAACP. Romerstein lays this out at length in his report. He quotes Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, who rightly noted of Davis and his comrades: "they would now destroy the local branch of the NAACP." They would do so after having destroyed another good civil-rights organization. "Comrade Davis," wrote Wilkins, "was supported by others who recently ‘sneaked' into the organization with the avowed intent and purpose of converting it into a front for the Stalinist line." Wilkins knew well that this was a standard "tactic" by the communists; it was known by everyone involved in the NAACP at the time. Wilkins, like many civil-rights leaders of his time, refused to be duped by Davis and his comrades.”[4] Note that in this version, Roy Wilkins, instead of Berman, allegedly criticized Davis.

FACTS: The letter was written TO Roy Wilkins, not BY Roy Wilkins. Wilkins had a reputation of denouncing communists within the civil rights movement [36]. Falsely attributing these remarks to Wilkins greatly enhanced their credibility. I can find no evidence in this report that Wilkins had any opinion of Davis.

Fabricated Version #4: In his report “AP Lies About Obama’s Red Mentor,” Kincaid give a fourth version: “AP doesn’t note the evidence that Davis and his comrades tried to take over the NAACP in order to transform its Honolulu branch into a front for the Stalinist line.” In this account Davis tried to take over the NAACP itself!

FACTS: In fact, there is no such evidence. Kincaid is AGAIN misrepresenting the testimony of Edward Berman, rookie board member of the Honolulu NAACP! Romerstein’s research only indicates that Davis “suddenly appeared on the scene to propagandize the membership about our “racial problems” in Hawaii. According to Romerstein’s research, Davis did NOTHING to take over the NAACP or any of its branches to transform it into a front for the Stalinist line.



References (Add "www" to each url):

#1: usasurvival.org/docs/hawaii-obama.pdf
#2: books.google.com/books?id=kt5LMD-OnxoC&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=%22the+new+red+negro%22+communist+davis&source=web&ots=B-HaNJA9HW&sig=ZiOltjxuI1QwdjCAvvEC0f4NnGQ&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=2&ct=result
#3: aim.org/aim-column/obamas-red-mentor-praised-red-army/
#4: aim.org/guest-column/return-of-the-dupes-and-the-anti-anti-communists/
#5: aim.org/aim-column/obama-plays-reagan-in-berlin/
#6: aim.org/aim-column/ap-lies-about-obamas-red-mentor/
#7: 2.hawaii.edu/~takara/frank_marshall_davis.htm

Just curious, I could understand such a spirited defense of President Obama, for example, but what is your attachment to Davis?

 

[PoliticalChic]

LOL! PC and some newb exchange walls of text that no one reads. PC heaven!

I would not entirely discount the possibility that PC and Krakatoa whatever are the same person.

You know what's really funny about this post?

It's your inadvertent admission that you, or any on your side, are not capable
of this kind of post!

This is most fun when you guys trip yourself up!

You get the Cynthia McKinney Brilliant Democrat Award!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Whoa!!!

Obama’s father is Communist Frank Marshall Davis

Obama’s father is Communist Frank Marshall Davis | The Obambi.com Blog www.obambi.com

 

[NYcarbineer]

LOL! PC and some newb exchange walls of text that no one reads. PC heaven!

I would not entirely discount the possibility that PC and Krakatoa whatever are the same person.

You know what's really funny about this post?

It's your inadvertent admission that you, or any on your side, are not capable
of this kind of post!

This is most fun when you guys trip yourself up!

You get the Cynthia McKinney Brilliant Democrat Award!

We're not capable of cutting and pasting copious volumes of crap no one is actually reading?

Wanna bet? I'll bet you your presence on this forum against mine that I am in fact as capable at cutting and pasting crap as you are.

We'll agree on an impartial judge, and will be bound by our word that we'll will leave this forum forever if that judge decides against either of us.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Whoa!!!

Obama’s father is Communist Frank Marshall Davis

Obama’s father is Communist Frank Marshall Davis | The Obambi.com Blog www.obambi.com

In all seriousness, Carb, I know that you are posting this to, what....show it to be idiotic?...but I don't think that this is one that either side should give voice to.

It's an attack on his family that we should avoid.

It would be good if you could delete that post.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I would not entirely discount the possibility that PC and Krakatoa whatever are the same person.

You know what's really funny about this post?

It's your inadvertent admission that you, or any on your side, are not capable
of this kind of post!

This is most fun when you guys trip yourself up!

You get the Cynthia McKinney Brilliant Democrat Award!

We're not capable of cutting and pasting copious volumes of crap no one is actually reading?

Wanna bet? I'll bet you your presence on this forum against mine that I am in fact as capable at cutting and pasting crap as you are.

We'll agree on an impartial judge, and will be bound by our word that we'll will leave this forum forever if that judge decides against either of us.

I understand why you might wish that I leave, but can you actually think that I want you to leave???

After all, what good would this debate be without the human piñata?


While your suggestion expresses the pain I cause you, it documents you as truly juvenile.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I would not entirely discount the possibility that PC and Krakatoa whatever are the same person.

You know what's really funny about this post?

It's your inadvertent admission that you, or any on your side, are not capable
of this kind of post!

This is most fun when you guys trip yourself up!

You get the Cynthia McKinney Brilliant Democrat Award!

We're not capable of cutting and pasting copious volumes of crap no one is actually reading?

Wanna bet? I'll bet you your presence on this forum against mine that I am in fact as capable at cutting and pasting crap as you are.

We'll agree on an impartial judge, and will be bound by our word that we'll will leave this forum forever if that judge decides against either of us.

dude, it's hard work. you have to alferbetize the paragrpahs. and bold some sentecne3s.

you can spot the original contributions by their atrocious speleign stupididy.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I got this far and then I couldn't go on anymore. It was just too stupid.

Ayatollah (Iran) in 1979 — the latter’s Islamic revolution basically birthing modern Islamic terrorism

What started "modern Islamic Terrorism" was the discovery of "Middle Eastern Oil". Did that really need to be explained to right wing nitwits? Guess so. Talk about "dupes". I bet the majority of Republicans still believe Saddam was behind 9/11.

Deanie- you read? You actually read!!!
Hey...are you just braggin'?

I'm not sure what the Lexile rating is for this book, but I'm pretty sure it's beyond yours...you might want to check this out:

"Enter your Lexile measure, select your interests, and find books you'd like to read!"
The Lexile Framework for Reading | Lexile.com

He didn't say he READ that far. He said he GOT that far. I'm assuming that means his mommy had to stop at that point and go do something else, and hasn't come back to read him any more yet.

 

[Kaleokualoha]

Whoa!!!

Obama’s father is Communist Frank Marshall Davis

In all seriousness, Carb, I know that you are posting this to, what....show it to be idiotic?...but I don't think that this is one that either side should give voice to.

It's an attack on his family that we should avoid.

It would be good if you could delete that post.

Muckraker Andy Martin is the loudest voice for this Right-Wing Fantasyland myth. It's just another piece of disinformation against the Davis-Obama relationship.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Micky g, perseveration is rarely a sign of intelligence...

I take that to mean you don't know how those things make Davis Obama's trusted counselor or guide.

If you actually want the answer, one which clearly obliterates your premise, consult post #23 in this very thread.

First, explain how the post proves that Davis was Obama's trusted counselor or guide.

 

[midcan5]

"President Eisenhower describes his administration's political philosophy as 'dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive, dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive moderation,' then as 'moderate progressivism,' and then as 'positive progressivism.'" William Manchester



It is curious how ideas get lumped together in the minds of the wingnuts on the right. PC is the online version of Glenn Beck. One wishes history were so simple or so easy, but the reality is much too complicated for the right. They can only look back and see what they want to see and then move forward and stupidly act like there is some strange congruence. One of the larges ironies is PC will criticize educators and education while she follows blindly revisionist nonsense. Just amazing.

Words and Ideas in the wingnut world become sticks instead of study items. After a while of reading PC's posts one would think progressives were the fault of rainy days. But I guess that makes everything so simple. Put bad thing here, how easy.


This piece from Harpers is historically interesting even where I disagree or hope to disagree with his assumptions.

"Since the 1890s, Hoover and his contemporaries had promoted this brand of progressivism as an alternative not only to the political and corporate corruption of the Gilded Age but also to the furious class and regional warfare that progressivism’s predecessor, populism, seemed to promise. Progressivism aspired to be something of a political science itself, untrammeled by ideological or partisan influence: there was a right way and a wrong way to do things, and all unselfish and uncorrupted individuals could be counted on to do the right thing, once they were shown what that was.

There were plenty of progressives, led by Teddy Roosevelt, who understood that bringing real change meant fighting to bust up trusts, regain public ownership of utilities, and secure rights for labor, women, and others. But the great national effort inspired by World War I softened memories of the bitter class conflict that had characterized much of American politics since the Civil War, just as the rollicking prosperity of the 1920s erased memories of the postwar Red Scare and the crushing of labor unions. Throughout the decade, big business sought to co-opt any lingering labor resentments by forming “company unions” under what they called “the American Plan.” Volunteerism and boosterism would take care of the rest. Prosperity would come through an always rising stock market." Barack Hoover Obama: The best and the brightest blow it again?By Kevin Baker (Harper's Magazine)


By the way the first two progressive steps were: equality before the law and civil rights and the second, universal suffrage. For the thinkers among the readers here, check this book out. Excellent writing too. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Rhetoric-Reaction-Perversity-Futility-Jeopardy/dp/067476868X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246553514&sr=1-3]Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy (9780674768680): Albert O. Hirschman: Books[/ame]





History Outline, things do change, not always quickly or sensibly.

MIT OpenCourseWare | Political Science | 17.037 American Political Thought, Spring 2004 | Lecture Notes

'The New Inegalitarians, or the Descent of Man'

· 1870s-1900s
- Mark Twain called it the “Gilded Age.”
- Shift from a country of small farmers to large corporations and masses of workers.
- Characterized by a strengthened faith in science, inequality of income, unruliness of cities.
- Immigration seen as a threat to civic homogeneity; republicanism, and Protestantism.
· Darwin’s theory of evolution:
- Survival of the fittest
- Effects: notions of natural rights given by God became a fairy tale for many.
- Standards of conduct became relative.
· Politics of the time:
- Democrats: against civil service reforms, favored states’ rights, trumpeted White Protestantism.
- Republicans: emphasized strong economic growth, against regulation, split on race matters.
- Growth of third parties: Populists, Socialists/Workers’ Union, beginning of Progressives – combat corruption of established political parties and large corporations.
· No new civic ideologies emerged, but leading thinkers began to accept evolution, which reshaped their thinking on many issues."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Whoa!!!

Obama’s father is Communist Frank Marshall Davis

In all seriousness, Carb, I know that you are posting this to, what....show it to be idiotic?...but I don't think that this is one that either side should give voice to.

It's an attack on his family that we should avoid.

It would be good if you could delete that post.

Muckraker Andy Martin is the loudest voice for this Right-Wing Fantasyland myth. It's just another piece of disinformation against the Davis-Obama relationship.

K- I want to make it clear to all that, while I hinted at this rumor in an earlier post- to you- I neither posted this story nor do I find the topic appropriate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

"President Eisenhower describes his administration's political philosophy as 'dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive, dynamic conservatism,' then as 'progressive moderation,' then as 'moderate progressivism,' and then as 'positive progressivism.'" William Manchester



It is curious how ideas get lumped together in the minds of the wingnuts on the right. PC is the online version of Glenn Beck. One wishes history were so simple or so easy, but the reality is much too complicated for the right. They can only look back and see what they want to see and then move forward and stupidly act like there is some strange congruence. One of the larges ironies is PC will criticize educators and education while she follows blindly revisionist nonsense. Just amazing.

Words and Ideas in the wingnut world become sticks instead of study items. After a while of reading PC's posts one would think progressives were the fault of rainy days. But I guess that makes everything so simple. Put bad thing here, how easy.


This piece from Harpers is historically interesting even where I disagree or hope to disagree with his assumptions.

"Since the 1890s, Hoover and his contemporaries had promoted this brand of progressivism as an alternative not only to the political and corporate corruption of the Gilded Age but also to the furious class and regional warfare that progressivism’s predecessor, populism, seemed to promise. Progressivism aspired to be something of a political science itself, untrammeled by ideological or partisan influence: there was a right way and a wrong way to do things, and all unselfish and uncorrupted individuals could be counted on to do the right thing, once they were shown what that was.

There were plenty of progressives, led by Teddy Roosevelt, who understood that bringing real change meant fighting to bust up trusts, regain public ownership of utilities, and secure rights for labor, women, and others. But the great national effort inspired by World War I softened memories of the bitter class conflict that had characterized much of American politics since the Civil War, just as the rollicking prosperity of the 1920s erased memories of the postwar Red Scare and the crushing of labor unions. Throughout the decade, big business sought to co-opt any lingering labor resentments by forming “company unions” under what they called “the American Plan.” Volunteerism and boosterism would take care of the rest. Prosperity would come through an always rising stock market." Barack Hoover Obama: The best and the brightest blow it again?By Kevin Baker (Harper's Magazine)


By the way the first two progressive steps were: equality before the law and civil rights and the second, universal suffrage. For the thinkers among the readers here, check this book out. Excellent writing too. Amazon.com: The Rhetoric of Reaction: Perversity, Futility, Jeopardy (9780674768680): Albert O. Hirschman: Books





History Outline, things do change, not always quickly or sensibly.

MIT OpenCourseWare | Political Science | 17.037 American Political Thought, Spring 2004 | Lecture Notes

'The New Inegalitarians, or the Descent of Man'

· 1870s-1900s
- Mark Twain called it the “Gilded Age.”
- Shift from a country of small farmers to large corporations and masses of workers.
- Characterized by a strengthened faith in science, inequality of income, unruliness of cities.
- Immigration seen as a threat to civic homogeneity; republicanism, and Protestantism.
· Darwin’s theory of evolution:
- Survival of the fittest
- Effects: notions of natural rights given by God became a fairy tale for many.
- Standards of conduct became relative.
· Politics of the time:
- Democrats: against civil service reforms, favored states’ rights, trumpeted White Protestantism.
- Republicans: emphasized strong economic growth, against regulation, split on race matters.
- Growth of third parties: Populists, Socialists/Workers’ Union, beginning of Progressives – combat corruption of established political parties and large corporations.
· No new civic ideologies emerged, but leading thinkers began to accept evolution, which reshaped their thinking on many issues."

1. Midcan, earlier your posts were erudite, extensive, and had a light-hearted banter to them. Sadly, this has changed, and you now never miss an opportunity to insert the barbs that one expects from lesser members of the board. That, and the metronomic regularity of the cliched 'wingnuts' suggest to me that my posts have taken a toll on your confidence in your worldview...and with good reason.

I have no problem pointing out that your posts paint you as a toe-the-line leftist, and at least as far to that end of the spectrum as I am to the right.

The difference, of course, is that my view is correct, while yours is delusional.

2. "PC is the online version of Glenn Beck. "
I'll tell you how pleased I am with that comparison as soon as you name the Beck-bestsellers that you have read.

Nor would it surpise me if your opinion of Mr. Beck is as empty as your political philosophy, and, if you have not read any...it certainly doesn't stop you from your strong opinion, does it.

3. "One of the larges ironies is PC will criticize educators and education..."
Ah, there it is!
You have taken criticisms of the educational system personally!
You do realize that I have never included your spouse in said critiism, and, incidently you might want to have her to check your spelling.

And try to be more objective in the future.


4. Yours is such a petulent little post...I'll wait for you to state specific problems you have with mine before I slice them up...

5. "By the way the first two progressive steps were..."
Self-serving....and wrong.

Actually, the first steps of the progressives were:

a) Throwing aside the restrictions placed on the government by the Constitution, and, as Wilson suggested, "...stripped off and thrown aside like a garment..."
Karl Marx And Liberal Fascism Tarpon's Swamp

b) and sneering at the concept of people having unalienable rights: “No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, ..." From his 1890 essay 'Leaders of Men.'

I'll continue to pound the concepts of intrusive government, progressive philosophies that require activist judges since the American people will not validate their agendas, and tax policies that discourage economic growth...

you guys can't stand debate, can you?

...how ironic that just this week your champion agreed with GOP tax doctine, proving that the right has been correct all along...

could that be why you're so testy?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Micky g, perseveration is rarely a sign of intelligence...

I take that to mean you don't know how those things make Davis Obama's trusted counselor or guide.

If you actually want the answer, one which clearly obliterates your premise, consult post #23 in this very thread.

First, explain how the post proves that Davis was Obama's trusted counselor or guide.

Since you cannot be that dense, i.e. Post #23, your post must be the equivalent of shuttting your eyes and covering your ears, and shouting 'I can't hear you- so you're not talking..."

Glad to see you working to ability.

Grow up.
Wise up.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know what's really funny about this post?

It's your inadvertent admission that you, or any on your side, are not capable
of this kind of post!

This is most fun when you guys trip yourself up!

You get the Cynthia McKinney Brilliant Democrat Award!

We're not capable of cutting and pasting copious volumes of crap no one is actually reading?

Wanna bet? I'll bet you your presence on this forum against mine that I am in fact as capable at cutting and pasting crap as you are.

We'll agree on an impartial judge, and will be bound by our word that we'll will leave this forum forever if that judge decides against either of us.

I understand why you might wish that I leave, but can you actually think that I want you to leave???

After all, what good would this debate be without the human piñata?


While your suggestion expresses the pain I cause you, it documents you as truly juvenile.

So that's a no, I take it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Micky g, perseveration is rarely a sign of intelligence...

I take that to mean you don't know how those things make Davis Obama's trusted counselor or guide.

If you actually want the answer, one which clearly obliterates your premise, consult post #23 in this very thread.

First, explain how the post proves that Davis was Obama's trusted counselor or guide.

It doesn't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You know what's really funny about this post?

It's your inadvertent admission that you, or any on your side, are not capable
of this kind of post!

This is most fun when you guys trip yourself up!

You get the Cynthia McKinney Brilliant Democrat Award!

We're not capable of cutting and pasting copious volumes of crap no one is actually reading?

Wanna bet? I'll bet you your presence on this forum against mine that I am in fact as capable at cutting and pasting crap as you are.

We'll agree on an impartial judge, and will be bound by our word that we'll will leave this forum forever if that judge decides against either of us.

dude, it's hard work. you have to alferbetize the paragrpahs. and bold some sentecne3s.

you can spot the original contributions by their atrocious speleign stupididy.

Not to mention the tedious hours spent scouring the online thesaurus, so in the event she actually attempts to inject an original thought into the mix, she can put a couple long words into it,

for pseudo-intellectual ornamentation.