MaggieMae
Reality bits
- Apr 3, 2009
- 24,043
- 1,635
- 48
Damned Community Organizers!
Its all a plan for ACORN to establish a New World Order
Acorn is small potatoes
compared to the influence of the US Chamber of Commerce.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Damned Community Organizers!
Its all a plan for ACORN to establish a New World Order
Was this posted the same day Obama was off kissing the ass of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce?
Has there been an 'irony of the week' thread yet?
...oh...right...
Kissing ass?
He displayed his usual complete and utter lack of comprehension of business and economics. The overall theme of his message was that businesses have an obligation to "spread around the wealth".
Socialism at its core is nothing more or less than an attempt to alleviate the gap between rich and poor.
Since conservatives revere that gap with an almost religious fervor of adoration,
OF COURSE they revile anything that remotely resembles socialism in any quantity.
3. But, alas, Americans chose Reagan, over Stalin.
.
Awwww. The obvious response to getting called out. I guess, PC, you thought you'd slide the twisty part past us at the beginning so the slight of hand wasn't discovered.
But yeah, definitions only work when the meaning is shared by everyone. Might want to bone up on your deconstructionism/Derrida. When you throw the word socialist out there...for the discussion to have any meaning...we have to be talking about the same socialism.
I'm sure if felt all warm and fuzzy to troll post with a title about socialism...and bigrebnc probably creamed his pants over it...but to anyone actually reading and internalizing, we had to call bullshit from the beginning.
ACORN controls the banking sector? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
Socialism without goverment control? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
*cough**choke**cough* oh wait, you're trying to be serious??
Your Obama Derangement Syndrome is showing. Might want to go get a shot.
Wow!
All those scary words like:
"involvement", "radicalism", "nationalization", and OMG, "Socialism".
[Lions, Tigers and Bears, Oh my!]
Anyone ever thought about the fact that Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment Insurance, Veterans Benefits are one kind of "Socialism"?
Maybe we need to focus more on issues than words. You claim to have evidence of Obama's "Socialism", but overlook that fact that these govt institutions have been in place long before Obama came to the White House.
Stop watching FOX News and listen to responsible News broadcasts. You have OTHER news options!
"involvement", "radicalism", "nationalization", and OMG, "Socialism".
[Lions, Tigers and Bears, Oh my!]"
So, one should pay no attention to these terms, and, what..., behave as though they were 'freedom,' and 'liberty', and represented American values?
You sound like a child.
Probably a very nice person, but one who is afraid to confront the reality of what these words, or rather, the individuals to whom they correspond, suggest for our nation.
Did you miss the results in nations that succumbed to 'radicalism' and 'socialism'?
Here are a couple of other words that apply: 'murder,' 'slavery.'
Pick up a book, and stop learning you history from what you call the 'OTHER' news options, you know, the ones that neglected to inform you of the aspects of Barack Obama that you can learn from "Radical-in-Chief" by Stanley Kurtz...
now, now...put aside your fear of learning the truth.
Do you need a push? Consider this:
If the subject were as inocuous as you seem to imply, why did our President run and hide from it?
Why did Van Jones have to resign?
Why did he lie about barely knowing Bill Ayers- "just some guy in my neighborhood..."
Best of luck in your journey.
As usual, PC, you're only seeing with one eye. Stanley Kurtz is notorious for embellishing fiction to create his "facts." Take the time to Google the many pages dismissing his intended distortions, along with his latest.
Why Is Stanley Kurtz Calling Obama a Socialist? - Ta-Nehisi Coates - Politics - The Atlantic
Kurtz, if you're not familiar with his work, is a loyal soldier of the conservative movement. And for the last few years, he has devoted himself to exposing Obama's socialism and radical beliefs. As you can imagine, this is shoddy work. To wit: his definition of socialist is impossibly broad--encompassing everything from European social democrats to Rubinite neo-liberals--and his scant evidence comes from tenuous links and huge generalizations about Obama's motivations and drive. In Kurtz's narrative, Obama joined Jeremiah Wright's church out of Marxist solidarity and not the stated combination of professional obligation and spiritual need.
The truth, as we all know, is that Obama is a conventional American liberal, and like most conventional American liberals, Obama wants to account and compensate for the market's failures. The Affordable Care Act, financial reform--these aren't nefarious plots for socialist domination, they are attempts at reforming capitalism to save it.
And more about Obama's alleged "Socialism":
Obama's No Socialist. I Should Know. - washingtonpost.com
just addressing your first point---- a different definition of socialism.
well I have a different definition of socialism to...
socialist----one who supports government control of sexual/bedroom activities.
using this definition then most conservatives are socialists...
you dont get to change a definition just to suit your purposes.
calling Obama a sociialist means you dont know what socialism is.
Possibly you were pressed for time, and merely perused the OP...I admit it required a bit of thinking.
"you dont get to change a definition just to suit your purposes."
Here, let me help you to understand.
Were you a student of history, you would be aware of the original intentions of SDS and the other radicals of the '60's. You see, this knowledge is essential to begin to understand today's morass.
The origins are in the Port Huron meetings.
1. One member gave this prescription: four-square against anti-Communism, eight-square against American-culture, twelve-square against sell-out unions, one hundred and twenty against an interpretation of the Cold War that saw it as a Soviet plot and identified American policy fondly. Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage, p. 109-110
2. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962. It sets forth an agenda for changing human nature, the nation, and the world. In it, one can hear the ignorance and arrogance so inherent in adolescents: the euphoria due to being convinced of their own wisdom, moral purity, and ability to change everything.
3. But, alas, Americans chose Reagan, over Stalin.
Once these radicals understood that Americans did not believe in this political direction, rather than give up, they altered their strategies to bring socialism from the bottom up, rather than the top down.
So, you see, it is not Kurtz, or myself, who changed the terminology, it was the radicals themselves.
Now, you can understand that, can't you? Certainly your comprehension can keep up with changes in reality.
One would hope.
Item 3 contradicts item 2. You seem to believe that the radical 60's continue to trend through the 2000's. Obviously they did not. How many "radicals" of the 60's (those who didn't make headlines) went on to become educated businessmen in pinstriped suits and wingtips? Plenty.
Curses..PC ferreted out a socialist..for the 1 ballizionth time.
Now if she can convince that many people to vote against him..
Possibly you were pressed for time, and merely perused the OP...I admit it required a bit of thinking.
"you dont get to change a definition just to suit your purposes."
Here, let me help you to understand.
Were you a student of history, you would be aware of the original intentions of SDS and the other radicals of the '60's. You see, this knowledge is essential to begin to understand today's morass.
The origins are in the Port Huron meetings.
1. One member gave this prescription: four-square against anti-Communism, eight-square against American-culture, twelve-square against sell-out unions, one hundred and twenty against an interpretation of the Cold War that saw it as a Soviet plot and identified American policy fondly. Todd Gitlin, The Sixties: Years of Hope, Days of Rage, p. 109-110
2. A draft of the meeting can be found at Port Huron Statement of the Students for a Democratic Society, 1962. It sets forth an agenda for changing human nature, the nation, and the world. In it, one can hear the ignorance and arrogance so inherent in adolescents: the euphoria due to being convinced of their own wisdom, moral purity, and ability to change everything.
3. But, alas, Americans chose Reagan, over Stalin.
Once these radicals understood that Americans did not believe in this political direction, rather than give up, they altered their strategies to bring socialism from the bottom up, rather than the top down.
So, you see, it is not Kurtz, or myself, who changed the terminology, it was the radicals themselves.
Now, you can understand that, can't you? Certainly your comprehension can keep up with changes in reality.
One would hope.
Item 3 contradicts item 2. You seem to believe that the radical 60's continue to trend through the 2000's. Obviously they did not. How many "radicals" of the 60's (those who didn't make headlines) went on to become educated businessmen in pinstriped suits and wingtips? Plenty.
I am always pleased to help you with your history...
1.A few years after Port Huron, its organizations offshoot and legitimate heir, the Weathermen, organized the Days of Rage riots in Chicago. At a subsequent War Council, Tom Hayden led the Weathermen in a workout of karate jabs and kicks for a strenuous fifteen minutes in preparation for armed struggle. Collier and Horowitz, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties, p. 96
a. Port Hurons professions of love and brotherhood turned to rage and attack when society would not accept brotherhood on SDSs terms. But when the country refused to second their emotionswhen the country elected President Nixon in 1968 and again, by larger margins, in 1972the SDS grew bitter and increasingly alienated from the cause of democratic reform.
b. SDS grew from 600 in 1963 to over 100,000 in 1968 but fell apart by 1969, finally many hostile factions, until there remained only a small group of Maoists. It is interesting to compare them to the disciplined and programmed Old Left, the Communist Party.
2. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover. Collier and Horowitz, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties, p. 294-295.
3. The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence. Robert H. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p. 51
a. O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist.
4. [The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood. Ibid p. 53
5. The youthful radicals propelled a new set of values from the fringes to the midst of contemporary social conflict. Rothman and Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left, p. 392-394 Thus the themes and traits of the New Left have become prominent in todays culture, and everything has become, ultimately, political. The result of the politicization of the culture is that ones opponents are not merely wrong, but are morally evil, and, therefore, one may wish every affliction to befall them.
6. Modern liberals no longer have to break heads, as they control many of the institutions they once attacked, but lie they must, and do, as they could not get elected advertising their actual agenda. And, Maggie, that brings us full circle to the exposure of the Obama's political odyssey and Stanley Kurtz's exposure of same, does it not?
Do you find any errors above?
Socialism at its core is nothing more or less than an attempt to alleviate the gap between rich and poor.
Since conservatives revere that gap with an almost religious fervor of adoration,
OF COURSE they revile anything that remotely resembles socialism in any quantity.
It's a zombie rote thing..
Socialism..bad.
Corporatism..good!
Curses..PC ferreted out a socialist..for the 1 ballizionth time.
Now if she can convince that many people to vote against him..
I'm too late!
The President himself has already done that!
Shucks.
Hold on...didn't you say you were going to vid a conservative?
You have McCain here instead???
Item 3 contradicts item 2. You seem to believe that the radical 60's continue to trend through the 2000's. Obviously they did not. How many "radicals" of the 60's (those who didn't make headlines) went on to become educated businessmen in pinstriped suits and wingtips? Plenty.
I am always pleased to help you with your history...
1.A few years after Port Huron, its organizations offshoot and legitimate heir, the Weathermen, organized the Days of Rage riots in Chicago. At a subsequent War Council, Tom Hayden led the Weathermen in a workout of karate jabs and kicks for a strenuous fifteen minutes in preparation for armed struggle. Collier and Horowitz, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties, p. 96
a. Port Hurons professions of love and brotherhood turned to rage and attack when society would not accept brotherhood on SDSs terms. But when the country refused to second their emotionswhen the country elected President Nixon in 1968 and again, by larger margins, in 1972the SDS grew bitter and increasingly alienated from the cause of democratic reform.
b. SDS grew from 600 in 1963 to over 100,000 in 1968 but fell apart by 1969, finally many hostile factions, until there remained only a small group of Maoists. It is interesting to compare them to the disciplined and programmed Old Left, the Communist Party.
2. The radicals of the sixties did not remain within the universities They realized that the apocalypse never materialized. they were dropping off into environmentalism and consumerism and fatalism I watched many of my old comrades apply to graduate school in universities they had failed to burn down, so they could get advanced degrees and spread the ideas that had been discredited in the streets under an academic cover. Collier and Horowitz, Destructive Generation: Second Thoughts About The Sixties, p. 294-295.
3. The radicals were not likely to go into business or the conventional practice of the professions. They were part of the chattering class, talkers interested in policy, politics, culture. They went into politics, print and electronic journalism, church bureaucracies, foundation staffs, Hollywood careers, public interest organizations, anywhere attitudes and opinions could be influenced. And they are exerting influence. Robert H. Bork, Slouching Toward Gomorrah, p. 51
a. O'Sullivan's First Law (a.k.a. O'Sullivan's Law), paraphrased by George Will as stating that any institution that is not libertarian and classically liberal will, over time, become collectivist and statist.
4. [The radicals] did not go away or change their minds; the New Left shattered into a multitude of single-issue groups. We now have, to name a few, radical feminists, black extremists, animal rights groups, radical environmentalists, activist homosexual organizations, multiculturalists, organizations such as People for the American Way, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), the National Organization for Women (NOW), and Planned Parenthood. Ibid p. 53
5. The youthful radicals propelled a new set of values from the fringes to the midst of contemporary social conflict. Rothman and Lichter, Roots of Radicalism: Jews, Christians, and the New Left, p. 392-394 Thus the themes and traits of the New Left have become prominent in todays culture, and everything has become, ultimately, political. The result of the politicization of the culture is that ones opponents are not merely wrong, but are morally evil, and, therefore, one may wish every affliction to befall them.
6. Modern liberals no longer have to break heads, as they control many of the institutions they once attacked, but lie they must, and do, as they could not get elected advertising their actual agenda. And, Maggie, that brings us full circle to the exposure of the Obama's political odyssey and Stanley Kurtz's exposure of same, does it not?
Do you find any errors above?
Well aside from all of it.
There is no such thing as "Classical Liberal". That's conservative bullshit that basically means "Hey..we were really a part of the American Revolution".
Hold on...didn't you say you were going to vid a conservative?
You have McCain here instead???
Eating your own?
Not good PC..not good.
Socialism at its core is nothing more or less than an attempt to alleviate the gap between rich and poor.
Since conservatives revere that gap with an almost religious fervor of adoration,
OF COURSE they revile anything that remotely resembles socialism in any quantity.
It's a zombie rote thing..
Socialism..bad.
Corporatism..good!
Awwww. The obvious response to getting called out. I guess, PC, you thought you'd slide the twisty part past us at the beginning so the slight of hand wasn't discovered.
But yeah, definitions only work when the meaning is shared by everyone. Might want to bone up on your deconstructionism/Derrida. When you throw the word socialist out there...for the discussion to have any meaning...we have to be talking about the same socialism.
I'm sure if felt all warm and fuzzy to troll post with a title about socialism...and bigrebnc probably creamed his pants over it...but to anyone actually reading and internalizing, we had to call bullshit from the beginning.
ACORN controls the banking sector? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
Socialism without goverment control? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
*cough**choke**cough* oh wait, you're trying to be serious??
Your Obama Derangement Syndrome is showing. Might want to go get a shot.
1. You know, Vanquished, my fav part of debating with lefties is how you guys reveal your insecurities...
"...you thought you'd slide the twisty part past us ..."
C'mon, don't be afraid of standing up by yourself....if you have confidence in your opinion, than the 'us' stuff wouldn't be necessary.
That's why conservatives do so much better in debates, we're used to dealing with the liberal echo chamber that you grew up in.
2. Next, the "ACORN controls the banking sector? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!
Socialism without goverment control? BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"
Now, I'll evisorate your attack on the premise that ACORN was not a major factor in the mortgage meltdown:
a. In 1986, when the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (Acorn) threatened to oppose an acquisition by a southern bank, Louisiana Bancshares, until it agreed to new flexible credit and underwriting standards for minority borrowersfor example, counting public assistance and food stamps as income.
b. In 1987, Acorn led a coalition of advocacy groups calling for industry-wide changes in lending standards. Among the demanded reforms were the easing of minimum down-payment requirements and of the requirement that borrowers have enough cash at a closing to cover two to three months of mortgage payments (research had shown that lack of money in hand was a big reason some mortgages failed quickly).
c. ACORN then attacked Fannie Mae, the giant quasi-government agency that bought loans from banks in order to allow them to make new loans. Its underwriters were strictly by-the-book interpreters of lending standards and turned down purchases of unconventional loans, charged Acorn. The pressure eventually paid off. In 1992, Congress passed legislation requiring Fannie Mae and the similar Freddie Mac to devote 30 percent of their loan purchases to mortgages for low- and moderate-income borrowers.
Obsessive Housing Disorder by Steven Malanga, City Journal Spring 2009
Did that wipe the "BAHAHAHAHAHAABAHAHAHAABABAJAJAJAJAJAJAJAJA!"
off your keyboard?
I guess she who laughs last laughs best, huh?
3. "definitions only work when the meaning is shared by everyone."
Didn't you notice how the Egypt crisis has led to a new definition of 'democracy' vis-a-vis the Muslim Brotherhood?
Those not too bright are often stuck when conditions change...and I guess that indicates you, huh?
Oh, and the answer to the change in the definition of socialism is in the post just before yours.
Now, write soon, hear?
Yes, he typed, it was all the CRAs fault. (Stay with me here).
Assume arguendo that CRA legislation forced banks into making high risk, ill advised loans. And, lets further assume a huge percentage of these government mandated mortgages have gone bad. The buyers who could not legitimately afford these homes or otherwise qualify for other mortgages have defaulted, and these houses are either in default, foreclosure or REOs.
What would this alternative nation look like?
Given the giant US housing boom and bust, this thought experiment would have several obvious and inevitable outcomes from CRA forced lending:
1) Home sales in CRA communities would have led the national home market higher, with sales gains (as a percentage) increasing even more than the national median;
2) Prices of CRA funded properties should have risen even more than the rest of the nation as sales ramped up.
3) After the market peaked and reversed, Distressed Sales in CRA regions should lead the national market downwards. Foreclosures and REOS should be much higher in CRA neighborhoods than the national median.
4) We should have reams of evidence detailing how CRA mandated loans have defaulted in vastly disproportionate numbers versus the national default rates;
5) CRA Banks that were funding these mortgages should be failing in ever greater numbers, far more than the average bank;
6) Portfolios of large national TARP banks should be strewn with toxic CRA defaults; securitizers that purchased these mortgages should have compiled list of defaulted CRA properties;
7) Bank execs likely would have been complaining to the Bush White House from 2002-08 about these CRA mandates; The many finance executives who testified to Congress, would also have spelled out that CRA was a direct cause, with compelling evidence backing their claims.
So much for THAT thought experiment: None of these outcomes have occurred.
Zero.