Why do conservatives call Obama a socialist marxist etc?
hes not, if you say he is please tell me why you think he is? what policies of his are socialist, who does he "surround" himself with who is socialist? please tell me, its really annoying and i want to know why people say these things...
Comments
I don't. I call him a statist. And a failure, but that's a different discussion.
ANYONE who believes that the government can make better decisions for people than they can for themselves is s statist. And every policy that BO has implemented dramatically demonstrates that he believes in the power of the state.
Most people don't make the distinction between socialism and marxism so that over time they have morphed grammatically into the same thing. We know they're not, but that doesn't change the perception. But one thing that both those philosophies have in common is the belief that the state can make better decisions than the individual. And as I pointed out, everything that BO does demonstrates his statist tendencies. Making the "leap" from "statist" to "socialist/marxist" is not that far fetched.
And you can't be serious about not knowing who the socialists are that he surrounds himself with. Here's a hint: there aren't that many who are not. Do your own research on the subject. Try starting with his wife. Who hangs out with bernadette Doors (or however you spell it), who's the wife of Bill Ayers, noted socialist and the man who served on the same board as BO and in whose living room he began his political career.
A system that transfers the wealth of those who have worked and earned their money to those who have not worked as hard is a socialist system.
Don't take it wrong, there are cases where welfare is needed and deserved by those who because of factors beyond their control need help. They should be helped, but there are a growing number that should not be in the system and are stealing from those who deserve help. They nearly match in numbers the true needy. Obama supports the system as is without changes. He has threatened the California Democrat legislature if they make cuts in the entitlement system of their state.
His associates that had communist affiliations like Van Jones, Holder, Solis, Bloom, Dunn, Lloyd and Ayers a domestic terrorist and involved in the founding of the Weather Underground movement. Also his statement that the Supreme Court had failed to address the transfer of wealth and in his own books he states that he sought out the most radical and Marxists as associates.
He has claimed the title of a progressive liberal which is also another term for those who espouse Marxism as a preferred government/societal model.
His health care law is also an expensive entitlement program that takes from those who work and give it to those who will not work, again there are some that deserve help but many more that should not be in the system.
Do some research and you will find much more documentation including his statements in his books that reference his associations with Marxists and radicals. He has never disavowed or denied these people as associates and friends.
YOU CAN EASILY CHECK THESE FACTS FOR YOURSELF ! JUST BECAUSE YOUR LIBERAL BIAS` MEDIA WON`T REPORT IT < DOESN`T MEAN IT DIDN`T HAPPEN !Obama and the New Party : by Erick Erickson 06/10/2008
Two weeks ago at Red State, we documented Obama’s 1996 endorsement by the New Party. A review of the New Party establishes that not only was the party an amalgamation of far left groups, but Barack Obama knew that when he sought the party’s endorsement I’ve been able to piece this together.
The seeds, however, had been sown all the way back in 1988. Quoting John Nichols in the March 22, 1998 issue of In These Times, “The roots of the New Party go back to the aftermath of Jesse Jackson’s run for president in 1988. At that time, Dan Cantor, who had served as labor coordinator for the Jackson campaign, and University of Wisconsin sociology professor Joel Rogers began talking about how to formulate an alternative between the increasingly indistinguishable Democratic-Republican monolith.”
Joel Rogers sought to use the idea of “fusion” as a way to get the New Party into power.
Fusion is a pretty simple concept. A candidate could run as both a Democrat and a New Party member to signal the candidate was, in fact, a left-leaning candidate, or at least not a center-left DLC type candidate. If the candidate -- let’s call him Barack Obama -- received only 500 votes in the Democratic Party against another candidate who received 1000 votes, Obama would clearly not be the nominee. But, if Obama also received 600 votes from the New Party, Obama’s New Party votes and Democratic votes would be fused. He would be the Democratic nominee with 1100 votes.
The fusion idea set off a number of third parties, but the New Party was probably the most successful. A March 22, 1998 In These Times article by John Nichols showed just how successful. “After six years, the party has built what is arguably the most sophisticated left-leaning political operation the country has seen since the decline of the Farmer-Labor, Progressive and Non-Partisan League groupings of the early part of the century …. In 1996, it helped Chicago’s Danny Davis, a New Party member, win a Democratic congressional primary, thereby assuring his election in the majority-black district …. The threat of losing New Party support, or of the New Party running its own candidates against conservative Democrats, would begin a process of forcing the political process to the left, [Joel] Rogers argued.”
Fusion, fortunately for the country, died in 1997. William Rehnquist, writing for a 6-3 Supreme Court, found the concept was not a protected constitutional right. It was two years too late to stop Obama.
On December 1, 1994, after the Gingrich revolution swept the Democrats from congress and forced Bill Clinton to triangulate, the Chicago Tribune ran an article by Steve Mills entitled “Looking for the Left: The Old Progressives and Marxists Still Breathe Idealist Fire, but They’re Too Splintered to Generate Any Heat.”
“‘The Left is in crisis, and it has been for some time,’ said Carl Davidson, the former national secretary for the radical Students for a Democratic Society. ‘I don’t know if it’s even bottomed out yet,’” he reported to Mr. Mills. Mills continued, “The Socialist Workers Party is in this corner; the International Socialist Organization is in this one. The [communist group Committee of Correspondence] is in another. The radicals, or even the liberals with some radical leanings -- so-called ‘soft radicals’ -- seem to find it hard to abandon individual issues for a broader movement.”
In 1995, the New Ground, the newsletter of the Chicago Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America, noted, “In Chicago, the New Party's biggest asset and biggest liability is ACORN. “Like most organizations, ACORN is a mixed bag. On one hand, in Chicago, ACORN is a group that attempts to organize some of the most depressed communities in the city. Chicago organizers for ACORN and organizers for SEIU Local 880 have been given modest monthly recruitment quotas for new New Party members. On the other hand, like most groups that depend on canvassing for fundraising, it's easy enough to find burned out and disgruntled former employees. And ACORN has not had the reputation for being interested in coalition politics -- until recently and, happily, not just within the New Party.”
Naturally, Barack Obama was an active part of ACORN at the time, helping it legally in court and helping it organize voters. By 1996, ACORN and the New Party were essentially the same body. Along with the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his State Senate bid.
Obama began seeking the New Party endorsement in 1995.
I don't think Obama is a Socialist/Marxist.
I think that He is a Fascist.
Obama's Mentors were all Communist, and His friends are all Communist.
But I believe that He is more of a Fascist.
Anyway, He certainly Despises America.
He might not be but many people around him are. The thing I would like to know is why do you think he isn't. I would like to ask that to everyone here. Its not about republican or democrat. Its about America and how we were formed. I would encourage everyone to learn the facts and not trust the media. That means ABC NBC MSNBC and even FOX. If you look enough and hard enough you will see it is obvious what is happening. If you watch news and you see something that you don't believe look it up and find out for yourselves. Everyone should create their own opinion and not take others that are usually wrong.
Because of the socialist things he says and does.
My attitude is that if the economy’s good for folks from the bottom up, it’s gonna be good for everybody … I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.
The Warren court, he said, failed to "break free from the essential constraints" in the U.S. Constitution and launch a major redistribution of wealth. But Obama, then an Illinois state lawmaker, said the legislative branch of government, rather than the courts, probably was the ideal avenue for accomplishing that goal.
The Health care bill nationalized our health insurance system, in that same bill he nationalized student loans. Our government OWNS GM and Chrysler thus "controlling the means of production".
http://reasonenforcer.blogspot.com/2010/05/youve-m...
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/64245
http://reasonenforcer.blogspot.com/2010/03/al-shar...
http://reasonenforcer.blogspot.com/2010/02/obamas-...
(The blogspot ones are videos and images)
And now for his friends.
http://reasonenforcer.blogspot.com/2010/04/howard-...
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/197182/alexan...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Cuban-leader-applaud...
http://reasonenforcer.blogspot.com/2010/03/ed-schu...
http://reasonenforcer.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-is-...
http://reasonenforcer.blogspot.com/2010/03/were-go...
I'm going to make a prediction now. I'm going to use my vast psychic powers to predict your answer to my post. You're going to ignore all of these sources and call me a racist.
well to be honest it is my belife that conservatives have parrots trained by glenn beck in there skulls lol.
ok on to a serious note well i my self am a marxist as anyone who lives in a capitalist system as we do
the founder of marxisim belived that anytime a person has to work more than thay are paid as most americans do today creates a system of transitory serfdom which meens for the majority of americans who live pay check to pay check r inslaved which is the marxist view of capitalism. but i went off on my own tangent sry to answer your question specificly i would have to say that conservatives are or at least must be retarded and biggoted hypocrates who fail to see how the world truly operates and thay refuse to take responsibility for the irreversable damage thay have done to the younger generations so thay ignore all reasoning and logic and just spout off what ever thoughts sounds as if it gets there point across or if glenn beck or sarah palin says
Government control of GM and Chrysler.
Government control of 500 banks.
Obamacare.
Carol Browner
Van Jones (dismissed)
Hilda Solis
Anita Dunn
And from his own mouth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRPbCSSXyp0&feature...
"..spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."
Read "The Roots of Obama's Rage" by Dinesh D'Souza. It explains things the best that I have yet seen.
They've been told that was the case by their leaders, & thus are unable to realize the truth, their leaders told them that because they needed to mobilize their base the best way to do so is to unite t them around the opposition as an enemy, most people living above legal age to vote had fear of socialism & communism drilled into them as children as a result of the cold war & thus if you can convince them the opposition is a communist or socialist they will be driven into rage.
"To win a battle one must rally their troops to rage"
Sun Tzu