Obama's Socialism Exposed

[MaggieMae]

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.

 

[MaggieMae]

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".

They have an obligation to do what their Articles of Incorporation or charters SAY they're going to do, which usually means keeping a work force in place to accomplish their goals, and not to line the pockets of their head honchos by squeezing their workers into lower classes and often poverty.

 

[Sallow]

Curses..PC ferreted out a socialist..for the 1 ballizionth time.

Now if she can convince that many people to vote against him..

 

[Sallow]

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!

 

[Sallow]

3. But, alas, Americans chose Reagan, over Stalin.
.

When did Stalin run?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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 borrowers—for 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?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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

Silly Rabbit, Tricks are for Kids!

Mags, possibly you would like to comment on the following:
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..."

Kurtz does an excellent job of putting the pieces together, connecting the dots, and producing a theory that not only holds water, but is predictive of the the kind of administration that the Obama presidency has revealed.

Of course, I'm not surprised that you guys on the left fail to be able to connect the same dots....I even predicted it in my 'Liberal Playbook:'
So, you get full credit for Rule #2, Rule 5e, and 6b.
Bravo!

2. Refuse to accept the statements of any opposing view, from individuals or media, unless reliably liberal.

5. If you find yourself in a debating ‘box,’ where the true answer will sink a liberal talking point, either
b. Claim that the question is ‘above my pay grade.’
c. Look astounded, and claim that the questioner is a racist, sexist or homophobe. Or fascist, or, always good, nazi.
d. Make up any term as opprobrium, as long as it sounds ominous.
Learn phrases such as ‘it’s time to move on,” or ‘let’s put this behind us.”
e. This was started by a [conservative, republican, earlier] administration.
f. If all else fails, shrug your shoulders and say “I’m only interested in discourse.”
g. If and when totally busted, jam hands down into side pockets, gaze up at the sky, whistle softly, and amble off into the sunset.

6. Claim to misunderstand, obfuscate, deflect and change the subject, and, if all else fails, allege that you misspoke.
a. Remember, left-wingers may make a ‘mistake,’ for right-wingers, it is a lie!
b. When relating a series of events that lead to a conclusion, if it is a right-wing conclusion, we must never see the connection!c. Any exposure of detrimental information must be referred to as either ‘fear-tactics,’ or ‘red-baiting.’
d. No matter how strong the opposition argument or data, always respond with “you falsely claimed…” or “I exposed your lies…” of “I destroyed your argument…” or 'that's just your opinion' etc.


More proof? The tizzy that it throws you lefties into!

Tell me...and I know you to be honest, if misdirected,...do you think the election of '08 would have had the same outcome if the Fourth Estate had done the job they left to Stanley Kurtz?

Kind of telling, eh?

 

[Sallow]

Conservative expertise on the economy..

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

I am always pleased to help you with your history...

1.A few years after Port Huron, its organization’s 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 Huron’s professions of love and brotherhood turned to rage and attack when society would not accept ‘brotherhood’ on SDS’s terms. But when the country refused to second their emotions—when the country elected President Nixon in 1968 and again, by larger margins, in 1972—the 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 today’s culture, and everything has become, ultimately, political. The result of the politicization of the culture is that one’s 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?

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The 'socialist' Obama becomes president in the depths of a severe recession, financial crises throughout the business community, a stock market that has not shown a net gain for the EIGHT YEARS that an allegedly pro-business capitalism loving president has been in office,

and two years later you have a stock market hitting mult-year highs, and record corporate profits,

and through it all, the mindless rightwing propaganda-programmed braindead drone on - socialist socialist Marxist socialist communist socialist blah blah blah blah blah...

...lol, with enemies like Obama, why does corporate America need friends?

 

[Sallow]

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 organization’s 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 Huron’s professions of love and brotherhood turned to rage and attack when society would not accept ‘brotherhood’ on SDS’s terms. But when the country refused to second their emotions—when the country elected President Nixon in 1968 and again, by larger margins, in 1972—the 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 today’s culture, and everything has become, ultimately, political. The result of the politicization of the culture is that one’s 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".

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservative expertise on the economy..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4KY39jLdu4

Hold on...didn't you say you were going to vid a conservative?

You have McCain here instead???

 

[NYcarbineer]

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!

They've gotten a jobless recovery - the rightwingers that is - and still they complain. A jobless recovery is capitalism at its finest. Record profits without the burden of labor costs.

 

[Sallow]

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.

Well maybe you can get a second Scalia appointee.

Or Zombie Reagan!

 

[Sallow]

Conservative expertise on the economy..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4KY39jLdu4

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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 organization’s 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 Huron’s professions of love and brotherhood turned to rage and attack when society would not accept ‘brotherhood’ on SDS’s terms. But when the country refused to second their emotions—when the country elected President Nixon in 1968 and again, by larger margins, in 1972—the 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 today’s culture, and everything has become, ultimately, political. The result of the politicization of the culture is that one’s 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".

1. Classical liberalism, the optimistic doctrine that gave us liberty, democracy, progress, was a moral project. It held that human society could always better itself by encouraging the good and diminishing the bad. It rested, therefore, on a very clear understanding that there was a higher cause than self-realization: that there were such things as right and wrong and that the former should be preferred over the latter. But the belief that autonomous individuals had the right to make subjective judgment about what was right for them in pursuit of their unchallengeable entitlement to happiness destroyed that understanding.
Progressives interpreted liberty as license, thus destroying the moral rules that make freedom a virtue.
Ideas from “The World Turned Upside Down,” by Melanie Phillips. p.284

2. You might find this enlightening as well.
From Herbert Croly:
The remedy for ‘chaotic individualism of our political and economic organization’ was a ‘regeneration’ led by a heroic-saint who could overthrow the tired doctrines of liberal democracy in favor of a restored and heroic nation. Herbert Croly, “The Promise of American Life,”p.14

Croly, at that time- before he realized the error of his ways, was a Progressive. He changed, so there is hope for you.

Sally...do not read any further! It will cause you to become a conservative!

3. In 1937, at the height of the New Deal, Walter Lippmann, a repentant progressive, noted that:
“Throughout the world, in the name of progress, men who call themselves communists, socialists, fascists, nationalists, progressives, and even liberals, are unanimous in holding that government with its instruments of coercion must by commanding the people how they shall live, direct the course of civilization and fix the shape of things to come. . . . [T]he premises of authoritarian collectivism have become the working beliefs, the self-evident assumptions, the unquestioned axioms, not only of all the revolutionary regimes, but of nearly every effort which lays claim to being enlightened, humane, and progressive.

So universal is the dominion of this dogma over the minds of contemporary men that no one is taken seriously as a statesman or a theorist who does not come forward with proposals to magnify the power of public officials and to extend and multiply their intervention in human affairs. Unless he is authoritarian and collectivist, he is a mossback, a reactionary, at best an amiable eccentric swimming hopelessly against the tide. It is a strong tide. Though despotism is no novelty in human affairs, it is probably true that at no time in twenty-five hundred years has any western government claimed for itself a jurisdiction over men’s lives comparable with that which is officially attempted in totalitarian states. . . .

Nearly everywhere the mark of a progressive is that he relies at last upon the increased power of officials to improve the condition of men.

4. What worried Lippmann the most—and what should worry us still—was the failure of those who considered themselves progressives to “remember how much of what they cherish as progressive has come by emancipation from political dominion, by the limitation of power, by the release of personal energy from authority and collective coercion.”https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/digital/rahe/default.asp

 

[PoliticalChic]

Conservative expertise on the economy..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e4KY39jLdu4

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.

Well, I'm thinkin' I'll decide what 'my own' is....

I learned that from Zora Hurston

Zora Neale Hurston, who was black, said “All your skin folks ain’t your kin folks. And all your color ain’t your kind!” Hurston was a Republican who was generally sympathetic to the Old Right and a fan of Booker T. Washington's self-help politics. She disagreed with the philosophies (including Communism and the New Deal) supported by many of her colleagues in the Harlem Renaissance.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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!

Now, Sal, you know how much I like you, so, as a show of friendship, I'm gonna suggest
that you try to limit your posts to terms you understand.

Corporatism?

1. “Corporatism” was a term for dividing up industry into cooperative units, and associations, that would work together under the rubric of “national purpose.” Corporatism simply seemed a more straightforward attempt at what social planners and businessmen had been moving toward. It embodied a new sense of national purpose that would allow business and labor to put aside their class differences and hammer out what was best for all. It represented an exhaustion with politics and a newfound faith in science and experts. Goldberg, "Liberal Fascism," p. 296

2. Corporatism has many of its roots in Catholic doctrine. In 1891, the papal encyclical ‘Rerum novarum’ proposed corporatism or syndicalism in response to the Industrial Revolution. As a backbone of progressive Catholic social thought, the Church thought that corporatism was the best way to revive medieval social arrangements, giving man a greater sense o meaning in his life.Leo XIII - Rerum Novarum

3. The intellectual descendants of those who worshipped Bismarck’s Prussia or Mussolini’s Ministry of Corporations…the lodestar of enlightened economic policy….in a quest for the holy grail of government-business ‘collaboration.’

4. Robert Reich, proponent of the form of corporatism known as the Third Way movement, wrote in “The Next American Frontier,” in 1983, and championed, in exchange for ‘restructuring assistance’ from the government, businesses would agree to ‘maintain their old work forces intact.’

5. There is a great explanation of corporatism in Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism" but I can see why you'd be afraid of your friends seeing you reading it.

I think you can see why I would not find corporatism 'good.'

 

[MaggieMae]

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 borrowers—for 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?

Right there is a complete misstatement concerning the CRA, which simply required that banks END red-lining loan applications based on location, i.e., poverty neighborhoods. Yet you apparently ONLY read what YOU want which justifies YOUR position, as usual. Straight from your own echo chamber, I might add.

Imagine, if you will, that the discredited far right meme is actually correct: Assume that the CRA was a prime cause of the mortgage, credit and housing related crises.

CRA Thought Experiment | The Big Picture

Yes, he typed, it was all the CRA’s fault. (Stay with me here).

Assume arguendo that CRA legislation forced banks into making high risk, ill advised loans. And, let’s 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.

You might check out all the comments in the above blog, where you'll find a variety of opinions. Always a good idea if you want to remain seen as an intellectual yourself. Barry Ritholz isn't your garden variety blogger either. He wrote the book "Bailout Nation," and others.