More government control. Take overs of private businesses. Destruction of middle class wealth. More solicialism. Only inforcing certain laws and ignoring others. It would be easier if you just read Rules For Radicals.

 

Can you give details vs just talking points?

 

 

Is President Bush a fan of Allinsky ie taking over private businesses? Destruction of middle class wealth?

 

Can you give examples of true socialism vs Fox News' version?

And that is?

 

Bill Ayers and Obama.

Can you give details vs just talking points?

 

 

Is President Bush a fan of Allinsky ie taking over private businesses? Destruction of middle class wealth?

 

Can you give examples of true socialism vs Fox News' version?

No talking points needed..Obamas record speaks for itself.. Or you could simply read the book and be your own judge.

No talking points needed..Obamas record speaks for itself.. Or you could simply read the book and be your own judge.

 

Once again you failed to offer specifics. Still sounds like talking points to me. Saying it doesn't make it so.

Personally, I'm not too concerned about either, but the comparison is downright awful.

 

As far as I can tell, Paul Ryan never met Ayn Rand, heck as others have mentioned he was 12 when she died. President Obama and Bill Ayers were actual acquaintances (not going to use the term friend because that may be a bit far-fetched).

 

If I were to give pause to either it would be the President's relationship with Mr. Ayers, but this was known and brought up during the previous election cycle. It had no impact then, so not sure why that would change this go round.

Can you give details vs just talking points?

 

 

Is President Bush a fan of Allinsky ie taking over private businesses? Destruction of middle class wealth?

 

Can you give examples of true socialism vs Fox News' version?

 

Can you give me your definition of 'true socialism' ??

 

 

Every socialistic country on the face of the earth has heavy regulated markets, spends boat-loads of money on social expenditures (welfare, unemployment, transportation, schooling, centralized banking, Social Security, government-ran healthcare, ect)

 

Obama's rhetoric clearly implicates he prefers social equality over individual freedoms. The epitome of socialism.

I will also add that republicans, such as Paul Ryan, have an awful record when it comes to spending. I would consider him a progressive. Not as bad as Obama on regulations and bureaucracies having power, but looking at the GOP voting past, its hard to tell at times the difference between the two parties.

Once again you failed to offer specifics. Still sounds like talking points to me. Saying it doesn't make it so.

If you haven't read Alinskys books then you can't possibly make a comparision because you don't know what you are tallking about.......

Can you give details vs just talking points?

 

 

Is President Bush a fan of Allinsky ie taking over private businesses? Destruction of middle class wealth?

 

 

What private business did the federal government take over during the Bush years? TSA may qualify. Others?

Obama did work for an organization that was directly related to Alinsky - Te Gamaliel Foundation.

 

Gamaliel Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"Gamaliel Foundation works in the community organizing tradition of Alinsky, who began his work in Chicago with the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council in 1939."

 

Barack Obama -- Gamaliel Foundation

 

"Obama took a break from his Harvard studies to travel to Los Angeles for eight days of intense training at Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation, a station of the cross for acolytes. In turn, he trained other community organizers in Alinsky agitation tactics. In 1988, he even wrote a chapter for the book "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois," in which he lamented organizers' "lack of power" in implementing change."

 

Of course Alinsky is best known for his book 'Rules for Radicals'.

 

The Union News.: Summary of Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals"

 

Some of the more interesting foundations from above:

 

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

...

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

...

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

...

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

 

Also from above. The 'ethics' of Alinsky:

 

2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. (Comment - ethics is relative?)

3. In war the end justifies almost any means. (Comment - there are no ethics when trying reach a goal. Geneva convention did not matter apparently.)

4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point. (Comment - again, ethics is relative.)

...

6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means. (Comment - ethics only matter if you have alternatives.)

7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. (Comment - is the message do not let ethic get in your way?)

8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory. (Comment - again, do not let ethics hinder victory apparently).

...

10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments. (Comment - apparently make everything a 'moral' issue to your favor.)

11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace." (Comment - spin it to sound good apparently.)

If you haven't read Alinskys books then you can't possibly make a comparision because you don't know what you are tallking about.......

 

You made general charges in post 15. You were asked for specific examples to match your charges. You have failed to do so. Your justification for not listing specifics is that others havn't read some book. Yeah, right.

Can you give me your definition of 'true socialism' ??

 

 

Every socialistic country on the face of the earth has heavy regulated markets, spends boat-loads of money on social expenditures (welfare, unemployment, transportation, schooling, centralized banking, Social Security, government-ran healthcare, ect)

 

Obama's rhetoric clearly implicates he prefers social equality over individual freedoms. The epitome of socialism.

 

I will also add that republicans, such as Paul Ryan, have an awful record when it comes to spending. I would consider him a progressive. Not as bad as Obama on regulations and bureaucracies having power, but looking at the GOP voting past, its hard to tell at times the difference between the two parties.

 

I'm far from intelligent on what is truly socialism. Apparently, I'm in the minority because many on here seem to KNOW what it is yet I'm seeing policy that reflects that.

If you haven't read Alinskys books then you can't possibly make a comparision because you don't know what you are tallking about.......

 

 

99% of us on here have not read the book. You have. Educate us as to what policy shows without question that our President is a socialist.

Obama did work for an organization that was directly related to Alinsky - Te Gamaliel Foundation.

 

Gamaliel Foundation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"Gamaliel Foundation works in the community organizing tradition of Alinsky, who began his work in Chicago with the Back of the Yards Neighborhood Council in 1939."

 

Barack Obama -- Gamaliel Foundation

 

"Obama took a break from his Harvard studies to travel to Los Angeles for eight days of intense training at Alinsky's Industrial Areas Foundation, a station of the cross for acolytes. In turn, he trained other community organizers in Alinsky agitation tactics. In 1988, he even wrote a chapter for the book "After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois," in which he lamented organizers' "lack of power" in implementing change."

 

Of course Alinsky is best known for his book 'Rules for Radicals'.

 

The Union News.: Summary of Saul Alinsky's "Rules For Radicals"

 

Some of the more interesting foundations from above:

 

5. Ridicule is man's most potent weapon.

...

9. The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.

...

11. If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside.

...

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.

 

Also from above. The 'ethics' of Alinsky:

 

2. The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent upon the political position of those sitting in judgment. (Comment - ethics is relative?)

3. In war the end justifies almost any means. (Comment - there are no ethics when trying reach a goal. Geneva convention did not matter apparently.)

4. Judgment must be made in the context of the times in which the action occurred and not from any other chronological vantage point. (Comment - again, ethics is relative.)

...

6. The less important the end to be desired, the more one can afford to engage in ethical evaluations of means. (Comment - ethics only matter if you have alternatives.)

7. Generally, success or failure is a mighty determinant of ethics. (Comment - is the message do not let ethic get in your way?)

8. The morality of means depends upon whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory. (Comment - again, do not let ethics hinder victory apparently).

...

10. You do what you can with what you have and clothe it in moral garments. (Comment - apparently make everything a 'moral' issue to your favor.)

11. Goals must be phrased in general terms like "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," "Of the Common Welfare," "Pursuit of Happiness," or "Bread and Peace." (Comment - spin it to sound good apparently.)

 

Sounds to me like both parties have read the book. Think swift boats in 2004. Think about the Iraq war justification. Think about Medicare fromm either side. Think about the discussion of the ACA.

What private business did the federal government take over during the Bush years? TSA may qualify. Others?

 

I am assuming that he was referring to the auto bailout.