Thursday, October 1, 2009


Here's as good a response to that ridiculous charge the right has been throwing at Obama since before he even got elected. It's also one voice representing a different "Christian" perspective on these issues. And no, I don't agree with everything in this article (I rarely agree with everything in any link I put up, with the exception usually of Jon Stewart!).


JIm said...

Not only is the good professor’s article tripe it ignores Obama’s actions in bank, auto, health government takeovers. Obama has never claimed to be a socialist. He knows that is unacceptable to the American people. Instead he proposes socialism but gives it a more acceptable name. By the way Mike, you should do a little more research on your sources. Professor Jensen is the same person who praised Ward Churchill, the creep pro terrorist from University of Colorado, who urged students to commit acts of terror against the government,” Jensen said of Churchill,” I have read much of Ward Churchill’s work and find it indispensable in my research. Churchill’s writing is notable for its breadth and depth, as he”. Churchill's “work” was found by a board of his peers to be not only deficient but fraudulent. Happily, after a long legal process Colorado got rid of this offense to humanity. Jensen’s comments on Churchill are at the end.

Excerpts from the Jensen article:
“As with any complex political idea, socialism means different things to different people. But there are core concepts in socialist politics that are easy to identify, including
1. worker control over the nature and conditions of their work;
2. collective ownership of the major capital assets of the society, the means of production; and
3. an egalitarian distribution of the wealth of a society.
Obama has never argued for such principles, and in fact consistently argues against them, as do virtually all politicians who are visible in mainstream U.S. politics. This is hardly surprising, given the degree to which our society is dominated by corporations, the primary institution through which capitalism operates.”

Robert Jensen, Professor, School of Journalism, University of Texas at Austin: “As a professor of journalism who writes often about race, politics, and history, I have read much of Ward Churchill’s work and find it indispensable in my research. Churchill’s writing is notable for its breadth and depth, as he moves between history, political analysis, legal research, and cultural criticism. In all these arenas, his scholarship is grounded in thorough research and clear logic. Beyond that, I have always found Churchill’s willingness to engage in discussion and activism around contemporary political issues to be exemplary. He is willing to apply his scholarly work to the world outside the academy, something I believe should be more common among professors. Churchill does it with honesty and commitment. . . . I believe the current attempts to force Churchill out of his university position are part of a larger project that seeks to tame academics and discourage the independent inquiry that often leads to critique of powerful institutions in society. This constitutes not only a threat to Churchill’s career, but to academic freedom.”

Butch in Waukegan said...

The article Michael cited makes cogent arguments, bolstered by facts, that Obama is not a socialist.

You argue that Obama is a socialist because the author of the article once wrote a nice thing about Ward Churchill.

Is that the kind of logic taught by the High Street fathers? Seems more akin to yelling “witch, witch!”

JIm said...

Government take over of industries is by definition socialism. Obama has taken over significant parts of the Auto industry and has expanded control of the finance industry and has abrogated bankruptcy law along the way. He now proposes the government take over of health care. If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck it most likely a duck or a socialist in this case. I believe the good fathers would be able to follow the logic. I appreciate the fact that a liberal may not be able.

Butch in Waukegan said...

A keen insight from the little soldier:
Government take over of industries is by definition socialism. Government take over of industries is by definition socialism.

Quack, quack. Bush is a socialist! Under Bush the government (at Goldman Sachs' behest) took an 80% stake in AIG - sinking a $182 million of our tax dollars. Quack, quack.

You should be pleased with Obama. Goldman Sachs is still firmly in control.

JIm said...

I never tried to say Bush did not act socialistically with the financial bailout. I have even said I, grudgingly, agreed with it, since I believe the entire international system was on a knife's edge. We have a mixed capitalist and socialist system now; I just don't want to see it get any more socialistic and in fact would favor a roll back of the level of socialism and high taxation that currently exists. Our international competitors are discovering and rediscovering the effectiveness of capitalism and lower taxation. I just do not want the good old US of A left behind economically. I also abhor the loss of individual freedom and choice that socialism brings.

Butch in Waukegan said...

I never tried to say Bush did not act socialistically with the financial bailout. I have even said I, grudgingly, agreed with it, since I believe the entire international system was on a knife's edge. We have a mixed capitalist and socialist system now.


You haven’t responded to even one of the points made by the article Michael cited. Instead you make things up to fit your own myopic world view. When presented with facts that challenge your ignorant assertions you tweak your definitions. Bush is a good socialist!

Goldman Sachs and the rest of the bankers are firmly in control of our economy - under Obama as they were under Bush.

You, Beck, Limbaugh (like your forbears The John Birch Society and McCarthy) use epithets as a cudgel to recruit the ignorant.

This venue doesn’t seem like fertile ground for you. Time for your own blog? I’ll even suggest a title: Bloviators Boulevard.

JIm said...

Nastiness must be part of the modern liberal creed. Reagan and Tip O'Neal disagreed vehemently yet had a genuine friendship. That is obviously behavior of a by gone age. I must confess that I react poorly when called a right wing nut, rightwad, racist, bloviator, a John Birch Society sympathizer etc., but I would like to think I at least aspire to better behavior. The modern liberal does not seem to have those aspirations. Oh well every one has their cross to bear. Mine must be to attempt to enlighten those who will not see.

Ed Baker said...

I may be wrong

(I thought that) Government Take Over was Fascism)

.. I think you're wonderful.

Butch in Waukegan said...

Nastiness must be part of the modern liberal creed.

This from the man who last week called me an a**hole. (I guess I would rather be called that than a "liberal.")

While your at it, messiah, why don't you aspire to move beyond the right wing tripe you now parrot.

Re Ed’s point:
Benito Mussolini: ”Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power."

JIm said...

I believe you are correct. The Nazis was socialist fascists.

Butch in Waukegan said...

Ed, I believe you are correct. The Nazis was socialist fascists.

Because they were “National Socialists", get it?

And North Korea (the Democratic People's Republic of Korea) is a democracy. Another example of penetrating analysis from wingnutville.

Ed Baker said...



time for me to revisit

Democracy in America.

oh, don't have to.. here is short summary

The Idiot's Guide to Democracy in America.

MORE freedoms to choose:

1. read the book it s self the summary
3. watch To Have and to Have Not
4.write another stupid-fucking poem
5. use my new Ryobi (made in China) electric 4-ton log splitter, drink beer, and pile up 2 cords of diner-time

JIm said...

Butch, You seem to have taken more than your normal amount of nasty pills. I believe as a general rule, their is an inverse relationship between the number of slurs in an argument and the depth of understanding of the slurer.You seem to have a problem with definitions. Hopefully this will help.
National Socialism is a political term that is both vague and ambiguous. As the name suggests, features of nationalism and socialism are combined and interrelated to form an overall National Socialist ideology, although the combination process is neither obvious nor straightforward. The term most typically refers to Nazism, which was the ideology of the German Nazi Party (National Socialist German Workers' Party, or Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP)), which was led by Adolf Hitler.
As a generic concept, National Socialism opposes capitalism, communism, democratic socialism and liberalism.[1] It may also oppose certain nations, ethnicities and other groups that are deemed to be enemies of the specific ethnicity to which it is applied. Several political parties other than the Nazis in Germany have used the name National Socialist Party or National Socialist Movement, and the name has been adopted since then by neo-Nazi groups in other countries.

Anonymous said...

pooling wealth and distributing it among the members of the communoty as it was needed is in Acts 1

JIm said...

"Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's and unto God that which is God's" is also in there someplace.

PS Hopefully the Obamasiah will sell his health care package as well as he sold the Chicago Olympic bid.

Butch in Waukegan said...


Do you even try to work out the implications of what you write before you hit Publish?

The proposition put forward by this post, and the article cited, is that Obama is not a socialist. The article offers several specific factors defining socialism, and argues persuasively that Obama’s policies do not fit these definitions.

You, on the other hand, offer no specifics. Like your teabagging comrades, you use “socialist” as an epithet, and when called out on your assertions you add another layer to your “analysis”. Now you’ve dug yourself into a large hole.

You were forced to admit that under your own standards Bush is “socialistic”. Now you paste a quote from Wiki that includes this: National Socialism opposes capitalism, communism, democratic socialism and liberalism.

This just makes you look foolish. According to you Obama is a socialist and Bush is socialistic. You claim Nazis are socialist but then you quote Wiki saying Nazis opposed democratic socialism.

You can’t seem to get it together. A better name for your upcoming blog would be “Clueless Cul-de-Sac”.

[I’ll leave it to the 1 or 2 still following this thread to decide who displays the “depth of understanding” on this topic.]

JIm said...

I disagree with the article and am unpursuaded, since I think Obama's socialist actions speak louder than any denial of socialism. The specifics offered were his actions in the Auto, Finance and Health industries to expand government control. I thought tea bagging had some sort of homosexual connotation. I have been to a number of Tea Parties where we objected to the expansion of government control and taxation. I didn’t observe any extra curricular sexual activity. I might add that there was no racism and or hate, but only concern for the socialist direction of the country. You may take the term socialist or liberal as an epithet, but it is just a label for a philosophy of thought or economic and political governance, as conservative is usually thought of as advocating free enterprise and adherence to the Constitution as written. I certainly did not feel forced to admit that Bush acted socialistically by expanding government control during the financial crises. That was self evident. I even said I agreed with the action and hope it is only temporary. If it is foolish to acknowledge history and recognize that Nazis opposed democratic socialism and communism, then I am foolish. That the Nazis had their own form of socialism which included the tyranny and terror of the state, is just a fact of history. Obviously, not all socialistic countries or systems have those ugly traits.

You only had two personal attacks in your latest post, which shows improvement for the inverse relationship of personal attacks to reasoning.