"If you've got a business, you didn't build that."

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

Would that require an amendmening of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution?

Richard

Ammendments aren't necessary to a POTUS to whom the Constitution is immaterial.

[GratefulCitizen]

Collective success implies collective failure.
The buck stops with you.

He's making an excuse as to why his schemes aren't working.
It's the people's fault; they just aren't smart enough to grasp his wisdom.

[BKKMAN]

The current course of events and narratives have some eerie parallels to the storyline of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged...

Some of my favorite quotes...

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another--their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.”

“...through all the generations of political extortion, it was not the looting bureaucrats who had taken the blame, but the chained industrialists, not the men who peddled legal favors, but the men who were forced to buy them; and through all those generations of crusades against corruption, the remedy had always been, not the liberating of the victims, but the granting of wider powers for extortion to the extortionists. The only guilt of the victims, he thought, had been that they accepted it as guilt.”


"He knew no weapons but to pay for what he wanted, to give value, to ask nothing of nature without trading his effort in return, to ask nothing of men without trading the product of his effort."


"The symbol of all relationships among such men, the moral symbol of respect for human beings, is the trader. We, who live by values, not by loot, are traders, both in matter and in spirit. A trader is a man who earns what he gets and does not give or take the undeserved."


"The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law."


“Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value.”

[mark46th]

The most telling aspect of Obama's politico-social agend is the constant rhetoric about class warfare. This, above all else, shows his core belief about society in America. If it quacks like a duck, he is a socialst if not marxist at heart...

From Wikipedia...

Marx largely focuses on the capital industrialist society as the source of social stratification, which ultimately results in class conflict.[13] He states that capitalism creates a division between classes which can largely be seen in manufacturing factories. The proletariat, is separated from the bourgeoisie because production becomes a social enterprise. Contributing to their separation is the technology that is in factories. Technology deskills and alienates workers as they are no longer viewed as having a specialized skill.[13] Another effect of technology is a homogenous workforce that can be easily replaceable. Marx believed that this class conflict would result in the overthrow of the bourgeoisie and that the private property would be communally owned.[13] The mode of production would remain, but communal ownership would eliminate class conflict.[13]

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by mark46th

The most telling aspect of Obama's politico-social agend is the constant rhetoric about class warfare. This, above all else, shows his core belief about society in America. If it quacks like a duck, he is a socialst if not marxist at heart...

If talking about class conflict defines one as a Marxist, what then is to be said about Alexander Hamilton and other statesmen of the early Republic?

[alelks]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

If talking about class conflict defines one as a Marxist, what then is to be said about Alexander Hamilton and other statesmen of the early Republic?

He doesn't just talk about it it PROMOTES IT!

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by alelks

He doesn't just talk about it it PROMOTES IT!

So did Jefferson and Madison.

[tonyz]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

So did Jefferson and Madison.

Are they running this cycle?

[afchic]

Originally Posted by Richard

Would that require an amendmening of Article 2 Section 1 of the Constitution?

Richard

Tell me where in the Consitution is states that candidates need to release xxx years of tax returns? It's not there, but we still pressure every candidate to do it.

[tonyz]

I have suggested on this BB that we, as individuals, can often be examined by reviewing an accumulation of our own unique life experiences.

Similarly, Obama is an accumulation of his own life experiences and in the rare, unguarded, moment he telegraphs or projects some of his true life experiences to his audience. It is not just what he says but how he says it. Listen to the clip that is the subject of the OP. He really believes some of his own nonsense.

"...police acted stupidly, better off when we spread the wealth, if you've got a business you didn't build that."

IMO, Obama has enjoyed a great deal of life's fruits that he has not "earned" - at least not earned in a traditional sense...Obama's land deal in Chicago, the Nobel Peace Prize...If we had his high school, college, and law school transcripts, I suspect that I could go on.

In this latest instance, I believe that Obama spoke from his heart, again. He telegraphed his own life experience. And that ought to give most everyone pause. When the leader of the free world undermines (either overtly or covertly) the value of the business owner's individual contribution to society...in this economy...I think we know why he has chosen certain policies, to date and rejected others. I think we can reasonably expect few true pro-business policies out of this administration.

MOO, if educated, intelligent, otherwise successful folks can't see this person for what he is - can't see how economically untenable and divisive this president and his policies are - folks, then we are circling the bowl as a nation.

[mark46th]

It was redefined by Karl Marx and implemented by the Russians and Chinese in a manner that would have been completely unacceptable to Hamilton, Madison and Jefferson. These men were all small government proponents, Obama wants to have an IRS agent sleeping between you and your wife.

[Paslode]

Originally Posted by Richard

I disagree.

Call him deceptive...and then explain why.

Call him inept...and then explain why.

Call him disunifying...and then explain why.

Call him an ineffectie leader...and then explain why.

But calling him a communist, a fascist, a racist, a Marxist, a radical, etc, only fuels the political rhetorical piss pot, distorts and obfuscates the issues, and turns people away.

But maybe that's what people really want - a political process that draws them to the baser elements of our societal processes...like the crowd of teens watching two teenage girls fighting over a boy in the hallway in junior high or a bored voting public watching the 'Real Politicians of DC' on the CW.

Richard

On this board we have for several years now discussed in detail Obama's radical ties, agendas, etc..etc...so when Dusty for example, simply labels Obama as a Commie or a Marxists, many on the board do not need an explanation because they have read his thoughts for some time.....and they haven't changed from what I can tell.

I understand what you are saying though, you are going to get a better reception with some if you expand on the label and/or explain why you believe the way you do then they will be more apt to listen and possibly understand where you are coming from.

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Sigaba

So did Jefferson and Madison.

lol Sig, you're as random as a wild goose.

We're talking about the POTUS. An admitted protege of Frank Marshall Davis, William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn. Buds with Rashidi, Lezko and other scum (about which I've been bitching since before the last election). We're not talking about the f.cking 1700's, we're talking about the future of the Country going down the tubes in 3 months if he's re-elected.

So, why do you keep diverting focus away from the true problem?

[Sigaba]

Originally Posted by tonyz

Are they running this cycle?

My broader point is this. Earlier in this thread, USANick7 and I briefly discussed how much time Romney and the GOP should invest in developing a larger narrative to counter the incumbent's rhetoric. IMO, he made a fundamental point with which I agree.

Originally Posted by USANick7

The larger narrative is important, especially this time around.

However, the reason why I think we should not have this debate now is because we are not ready. Members of the American political right want to appoint themselves the guardians of this nation's history, its traditions, and its conventions. Regrettably, some members of this contingent increasingly display a dizzying ignorance of the history and the political philosophy they seek to protect.

For example, it is fashionable to assert that the current president is uniquely un-American because he says this and does that. However, these allegations do not take into account the many instances in which American politicians and statesmen have done and said the same things. Were they also libs/socialists/Marxists? Or were they Americans who sought ways to match the basic concepts of American political philosophy to the changing demands of a growing society in an increasingly complex world?

Rather than pursuing the more difficult task of proving that the president is a "Marxist" (which, in my opinion, requires actual research rather than "duck tests"), why not pick the low hanging fruit by reverse engineering the president's policy preferences and rhetoric within the framework of American political philosophy? From there, one could go to a different floor of the local library and find examples of how those preferences and rhetoric did not work out as well as hoped, and/or brought unforeseen change.

Here's my concern. What's at stake is not only the 2012 presidential election, but the very relevance of the Republican Party and the American political right. Right now, because of our increasingly shrill rhetoric and ideological blinders, we are presenting the opposition with a golden opportunity to destroy our intellectual credibility by turning the nation's attention to our view of history. (There are several Americanists who, if they were to marshal their resources, could bring such a work to market by October.*)

While some among us would scoff at the "Marxists" for their revisionist view of history, the judicious use of primary source materials would leave many cringing and most of us reeling as the GOP fell into oblivion.

MOO, the memory of Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush the Elder deserve much better than the following.

I'll take political trivia for $400.

A.: The last Republican candidate to get elected president in the twenty first century.

Q: Who was George W. Bush?

My $0.02.


__________________________________________
* Gordon Wood, Sean Wilentz, Daniel Walker Howe, Eric Foner, George Herring, and Steven Hahn come immediately to mind. Heaven help us if Carol Smith-Rosenberg or Emily S. Rosenberg were to throw their hats into the ring.

[mark46th]

I agree , the right shouldn't be pointing out POTUS as a socialist/marxist. He does that for himself with regularity. Also, it won't change anyone's mind on the left. The left knows who he is and embraces it. We should pin Obama's ears back on the economy and his lack of awareness there of, every time he goes off topic...