Is Obama a Socialist?

[denuseri]

Progressives is that they seek to work in the shadows and hide their true intent.

No more so than any other political entity.

That intent is clearly describe thus; "While the Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms.

If it is not then how does one expect anything to get done? And exactly which reforms are you speaking about?

The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy.

Which is exactly what the founding fathers intended. That our government be able to change from within without the need to have a blood spilling confrontation at every turn. No one is saying anything about abolishing the Consitution eaither or the entire system of government...only following the elastic clauses that our Founding Fathers put into it on purpose so that it could grow without threatening the abolishment of the state. There is no Biblical warning for fear of revelation in the Constitution saying that we all go to hell if we change anything. The founding fathers never ment for the document to be unchangeable or become stangnent. Sounds like common sence to me.

At the same time, the old system was to be opened up and made more democratic; hence, the direct elections of Senators, the open primary, the initiative and referendum. It also had to be made to provide for more revenue; hence, the Sixteenth Amendment and the progressive income tax.

Hence all amendments, the Founding Fathers themselves even saw the need to be able to change right from the get go, any close study of the Constitution and or the Federalist Papers or written history can tell anyone that.

Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction -- the vision -- needed for true progressive government. 'All that progressives ask or desire,' wrote Woodrow Wilson, 'is permission -- in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word -- to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.'"

And that was aplicable back when Wilson said it...it may or may not still be aplicable today that remains to be seen. We are just as mindful as any other American of the need to avoid lapsing into somthing that is not desirable. We do not want a totalitarian state. We do not want things that will be bad for our country or it's people for we the people are the state.

Surely Progressives believe these things are good. But even the simplest of their ideas, throwing away the Constitution and let the Government do what it will can be seen as a bad row to hoe. If one is honest that is what Washington is now trying to do. Also I have never identified Progressives as associated with either major political party. They are in fact neither.

No I a will stop there.

Blinks....no one wants to throw away the Constitution least of all the Progressives!

The main problem with all this anti-progressiveness that stems from the more consevative side of the party is that instead of listening they are too busy pushing or spouting their agenda. They seem to refuse to step back from the fear mongering for just a second and see that the people they are debating with are indeed fellow Americans.

So for a change why don't you set the example for your constituents and actually listen without pre-judging what is said; that way instead of trying to put words into the other persons mouth or use sophistry to twist what was said into somthing that was not after the fact we can actually move forward.

[steelish]

Here!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ppC0uc5R5A&cc=1#t=2958s

Thank you so much for finding that. I couldn't remember the keywords I used to find it in the first place. BTW - I didn't realize you needed to show a driver's license to purchase an ice cream cone. Huh. Go figure.

[steelish]

Blinks....no one wants to throw away the Constitution least of all the Progressives!

If you identify yourself as a Progressive and that's the way you feel, that's wonderful. Unfortunately, those in power (he ones who CAN destroy what this country was founded on) sure behave and show WITH THEIR ACTIONS that this is exactly what they are trying to do.

To put it into perspective, focus on what puts states with progressive policies at greater risk than states with more conservative ideals — and who is in deeper trouble.

Obviously a tsunami is going to put basically everyone under water and, as you'd expect, the greatest crisis since World War II means that right now 48 states are in trouble. But there's a big difference between states that will almost always be at risk for going under water and then those that are better able to weather the storm. And that is based on how progressive their policies are.

If you look at the states that the Pew Center ranks as most failing, you will tend to see something in common: They are like California, in terms of budget deficit and several other key factors.

Rhode Island, Michigan and Oregon are all very progressive states. If you go down the list, some conservative states pop up.

You might wonder why are Arizona and Nevada so high on that list. Well, despite conservative policies, the real estate market collapse most seriously affected Arizona and Nevada. Like I said, a tsunami puts everyone under water.

The other states, meanwhile, were running into trouble even in good times. Why?

Look at their policies, particularly their progressive taxes and other anti-business practices. These states not only heavily tax the rich and spread the wealth, but they also spend like times are always going to be good. They don't have rainy day funds that can help them get through tough times.

No, they pretty much need times to always stay good and probably even get better, just to stay in good shape — progressively ramping up their spending.

You can put it this way, "as goes California, so goes the nation." And so it's not really any surprise that California's high taxing, high spending and obliviousness to future concerns sounds just like... well, exactly what the federal government has done.

But unlike the government which can borrow money from the Fed, states start to shut down and start issuing IOUs. In each case, these progressive states counted on the high earners' revenue and the big bonuses and when they didn't come through... big trouble.

New York's foreclosure rate happened to be really low because it's so tough actually buying property and so they weren't nearly as high on the Pew Center's list as you'd expect. They're still in huge trouble, along with New Jersey.

Actually, with all these states that are reliant on heavy earners, not only do you see a lot of volatility based on market swings like we're in now, but also millionaires' taxes don't work. Look at the volatility of California. Look at how the tech bubble and the housing bubble totally wrecked their plans.

They drive people out of the states. Rich people are rich partly because they know how to protect their money. And if all the states become too progressive, they'll just take their money overseas. All this leads to the Northeast being known as "America's Economic Black Hole."

Compare the financial situations of those states in the most trouble with the states that are in tougher times than usual, but far closer to recovery. What you'll find in states like Texas, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana and North Dakota is that generally they are better able to weather the storm, because they have conservative principles.

States with broad-based taxes with low rates will go through downturns, but they are so much less reliant on the rich people continuing to earn. You'll also find much less of a union influence than those progressive states. Some other states that saved when times were good are Florida and Indiana and they are doing much better now as a result.

Here's something else to look at: If you look at the 10 states that rely most on individual income taxes — states like Oregon, New York, California — you see once again how the states with progressive income tax are generally in worse shape, due to that volatility I just spoke of.

And then check out the 10 states that concentrate their spending on public welfare. Well, what a surprise, New York again. And Rhode Island, whose progressive social policies mean they are more likely spending and spreading the wealth than they are saving that wealth or keeping money in the hands of individuals.

Even more dramatic is the volatility of taxes collected: From 1990, compare California, which has the highest personal income tax rate in the country, with Texas to see whose total tax collected is more stable. (By the way, Texas has no state personal income tax.) It's obvious which state sees more fluctuations and which is much more stable.

The main problem with all this anti-progressiveness that stems from the more consevative side of the party is that instead of listening they are too busy pushing or spouting their agenda. They seem to refuse to step back from the fear mongering for just a second and see that the people they are debating with are indeed fellow Americans.

Do you watch ALL news avenues and read/research everything you can? I do. I watch mainstream media IN ADDITION to watching Fox News and researching things. I find it ironic that although mainstream media out and out lies about things many of the times, (things that can be proven as lies) that Americans who do not broaden their horizons simply take them at their word. I definitely would not watch one or two sources of information and consider myself well-informed. As to fear mongering, isn't it fear mongering for Obama to tell people they will be harassed while out getting an ice cream cone? Isn't it fear mongering for the administration to threaten doom and gloom if a specific bill doesn't get passed?

It's not fear mongering if you are simply stating facts. Nothing I've posted (with references, I might add) has raised a red flag for you?????? THAT is scary. It's almost like we're on a ship navigating iceberg filled waters, the captain is aiming for an iceberg and those of us who realize it are planning ahead for what we can do to save ourselves, but everyone else believes the captain who is saying, "We're fine. We're strong. We can withstand it" even though you can see his staff scrambling to save themselves.

So for a change why don't you set the example for your constituents and actually listen without pre-judging what is said; that way instead of trying to put words into the other persons mouth or use sophistry to twist what was said into somthing that was not after the fact we can actually move forward.

Well, for one thing I do not have a constituency. I am not a public official nor do I ever aspire to be. I'm not sure who you are referring to here.

[denuseri]

When you make refrences to scources that are hardly unbiased or take what others have said completely out of context and or twist them around to suit your own agenda what do you expect for me to say?

Like the whole Cloward-Piven thing...which btw was not implemented at all in the way in which it was presented nor with the intention of producing all of the effects postulated.

Nor does it represent the Progressive or the Socialist movements as a whole in any way shape or form. Especially the Republicans who identitfy themselves as such. Whose intentions I clearly stated straight from their web site and you and Duncan appear to have ignored.

As for the topic...namely Obama and weather or not he is or is not a Socialist and what that could mean for us the American people and the world.

Do you honestly think he is personally out to destroy eaither of the above?

He may be just as suckie, perhaps even worse in some peoples eyes (certianly mine I was against him all through the election if you recall) than his immediate predessesor, but some evil genius working for radical islamic communist jihadists group bent on destruction of the world...give me a break seriously.

As for where I get my news...sighs...first off, I double and triple check anything I hear from any media source main stream or otherwise sometimes with boolean searches becuase its been my experience that sophistry is alive and well and contemporary journalists have little or no compunction against using it.

As for who my statements referenced in the quote you provided were intended for...I was addressing Duncan initially in that post though that paticular part wasnt nessesarally to him personally; I was however refering to any and all people who resort to such...so if you feel like the shoe fits you too honey, well then maby I was speaking to you as well.

In any event I can see that any other participation by myself in this paticular thread will be utterly useless...so in the words of perhaps one of the last principled journalists to ever grace the airwaves ...

"Good night, and good luck".

[steelish]

When you make refrences to scources that are hardly unbiased or take what others have said completely out of context and or twist them around to suit your own agenda what do you expect for me to say?

How is it "out of context" to point out that Obama says if you want to know how he thinks and feels, look at who he surrounds himself with. I then point out that he surrounds himself with Chavez and Mao Zedung supporters and believers. He surrounds himself with people who were American terrorists in the '60s. He surrounds himself with people who believe that Capitalism is a joke and political power comes from the barrel of a gun. He surrounds himself with people who believe American populations should be regulated by putting birth control chemicals in our drinking water.

This is not stuff that is untrue. It's simple facts that can be found by research. They don't hide their beliefs. They state them openly. There are video clips of some of them saying this stuff in their own words and can be found on YouTube!

And what the hell is this speech really about? Oh, BTW - XBox 360s don't provide information. Neither do iPods unless it's an iPod Touch with internet access. Who is fear mongering???? What is he saying? Too much information for Americans? All of us are too stupid to make up our own minds? I think he's saying, "Here...let me make it for you. Trust me. I will be the only honest one."

None of this raises red flags for you?

[DuncanONeil]

Originally Posted by DuncanONeil
Progressives is that they seek to work in the shadows and hide their true intent.

No more so than any other political entity.

Not quite Progressives actually “prefer” the shadows for two reasons. They know that the people would not willingly accept what they want and they espouse the “end justifies the means”.

That intent is clearly describe thus; "While the Progressives differed in their assessment of the problems and how to resolve them, they generally shared in common the view that government at every level must be actively involved in these reforms.

If it is not then how does one expect anything to get done? And exactly which reforms are you speaking about?

Which reforms? Any of them! All of them! That which is directed to be reformed from the Halls of Government! Perhaps actively involved was a weak statement. The position is that ONLY the Government is capable of effecting reform. And the only way for that to occur is for the Government to control that being reformed.

The existing constitutional system was outdated and must be made into a dynamic, evolving instrument of social change, aided by scientific knowledge and the development of administrative bureaucracy.

Which is exactly what the founding fathers intended. That our government be able to change from within without the need to have a blood spilling confrontation at every turn. No one is saying anything about abolishing the Consitution eaither or the entire system of government...only following the elastic clauses that our Founding Fathers put into it on purpose so that it could grow without threatening the abolishment of the state. There is no Biblical warning for fear of revelation in the Constitution saying that we all go to hell if we change anything. The founding fathers never ment for the document to be unchangeable or become stangnent. Sounds like common sence to me.

Here I must vociferously disagree. No one can deny that the Declaration of Independence is a founding document. That document clearly states; “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. “ Hence the position that the only redress that the founders foresaw was “our government be able to change from within without ... confrontation at every turn.” is not accurate. Further if the founders had intended to create a readily elastic document as apparently many believe, well the process would not be so stringent. Yes the Constitution can and has been changed but not on a whim. Something that has been occurring all to often of late without even the input of Congress let alone the people. Unchangeable and stagnant are neither in the lexicon of the Progressive, they perceive the Constitution as obsolete and an impediment to Government.

At the same time, the old system was to be opened up and made more democratic; hence, the direct elections of Senators, the open primary, the initiative and referendum. It also had to be made to provide for more revenue; hence, the Sixteenth Amendment and the progressive income tax.

Hence all amendments, the Founding Fathers themselves even saw the need to be able to change right from the get go, any close study of the Constitution and or the Federalist Papers or written history can tell anyone that.

Changeable is different that free to be interpreted in any manner a person sees fit are not the same thing. Way too much of the power of our modern government can be traced to an unfettered interpretation of the phrase “provide for the common welfare”? For me to apply that small phrase would require something applying to the people as a whole not a small portion of the people to the detriment of the rest.

Presidential leadership would provide the unity of direction -- the vision -- needed for true progressive government. 'All that progressives ask or desire,' wrote Woodrow Wilson, 'is permission -- in an era when development, evolution, is a scientific word -- to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.'"

And that was aplicable back when Wilson said it...it may or may not still be aplicable today that remains to be seen. We are just as mindful as any other American of the need to avoid lapsing into somthing that is not desirable. We do not want a totalitarian state. We do not want things that will be bad for our country or it's people for we the people are the state.

But it is just exactly that. The Progressive movement will lead to a totalitarian state. It can do no less as the position is that ONLY the Government knows what is the correct thing to do. For that to occur the Government has to impose actions on the people, the very definition of totalitarian.

Surely Progressives believe these things are good. But even the simplest of their ideas, throwing away the Constitution and let the Government do what it will can be seen as a bad row to hoe. If one is honest that is what Washington is now trying to do. Also I have never identified Progressives as associated with either major political party. They are in fact neither.

No I a will stop there.

Blinks....no one wants to throw away the Constitution least of all the Progressives!

How is it that “the Constitution is an impediment to Government” eludes you? How can that be interpreted in any manner than the Constitution is in the way and needs to be removed?
“The Constitution was written and ratified to secure liberty through limited government. Central to its design were two principles: federalism and economic liberty. But at the beginning of the 20th century, Progressives began a frontal assault on those principles. Drawing on the new social sciences and a primitive understanding of economic relationships, their efforts reached fruition during the New Deal when the Constitution was essentially rewritten, without benefit of amendment. In a new Cato book, Richard Epstein traces this history, showing how Progressives replaced competitive markets with government-created cartels and monopolies. Please join us for a discussion of the roots of modern government in the Progressive Era. “ (http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=2655)
“One of the most telling moments in the healthcare reform debate occurred when Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s trademark expression of perpetual astonishment kicked into hyper-drive after a reporter inquired about the constitutional status of ObamaCare. Pelosi paused and asked, “Are you serious?”
The shocking nature of the question jarred her sufficiently to repeat her response, pushing out something like a rhetorical hiccup. The subtext was impossible to ignore: progressives simply do not take the Constitution seriously, a point that also informed the statement issued by her office later, which assured all interested parties that the federal government can do pretty much what it wants through the commerce clause.” (http://www.thecitizen.com/blogs/dr-m...y-constitution)

The main problem with all this anti-progressiveness that stems from the more consevative side of the party is that instead of listening they are too busy pushing or spouting their agenda. They seem to refuse to step back from the fear mongering for just a second and see that the people they are debating with are indeed fellow Americans.
Unlike the liberal side that “instead of listening they are too busy pushing or spouting their agenda. They seem to refuse to step back from the fear mongering for just a second and see that the people they are (shouting) with are indeed fellow Americans.” Add to all that direct personal attacks and insults. Present company excluded! Some credit for that surely accrues to Tantric.

So for a change why don't you set the example for your constituents and actually listen without pre-judging what is said; that way instead of trying to put words into the other persons mouth or use sophistry to twist what was said into somthing that was not after the fact we can actually move forward.
My constituents? I assure you I have many inputs. I receive correspondence from the Democrats, Media Matters, Huffington, several news sources (although papers are the least of these) such as Broadcast news and news magazines (and several specialty magazines).

[DuncanONeil]

When you make refrences to scources that are hardly unbiased or take what others have said completely out of context and or twist them around to suit your own agenda what do you expect for me to say?

This is one of the biggest problems in any discussion of this type. Each side, at least the more radical, are always accusing the other of using biased sources.

Finding a true unbiased source, at least that will be accepted as such by all, is very difficult. But at the same time having all of these different sources with a different take on a subject should at the very least present us with a position that is not settled. Some others in the world actually take a position and no matter what is said against that position accept nothing that does not support their position. When I encounter such, mostly elsewhere, I wonder if they are being intellectually honest with themselves. As an example many of the comments posted at Huffington fall into this category.

[DuncanONeil]

And followers of Saul Alinsky. Not to mention the close advisers and friends that Were in the SDS and Weather underground, and founded the new SDS in 2006. "Students for a Democratic Society is a radical, multi-issue student and youth organization working to build power in our schools and communities" But never forget that it was founded by formenr SDS radicals of the 60s. SDS developed from the Student League for Industrial Democracy (SLID), the youth branch of a socialist educational organization known as the League for Industrial Democracy (LID). LID descended from the Intercollegiate Socialist Society, started in 1905. Early in 1960, SLID decided to change its name into SDS. Unlike SDS-RYM and the Weathermen, SDS-WSA strongly opposed bombing and terrorism. In 1971, SDS-WSA published a pamphlet titled Who Are The Bombers? (following the like attached to this title leads to a Communist page)

How is it "out of context" to point out that Obama says if you want to know how he thinks and feels, look at who he surrounds himself with. I then point out that he surrounds himself with Chavez and Mao Zedung supporters and believers. He surrounds himself with people who were American terrorists in the '60s. He surrounds himself with people who believe that Capitalism is a joke and political power comes from the barrel of a gun. He surrounds himself with people who believe American populations should be regulated by putting birth control chemicals in our drinking water.

This is not stuff that is untrue. It's simple facts that can be found by research. They don't hide their beliefs. They state them openly. There are video clips of some of them saying this stuff in their own words and can be found on YouTube!

And what the hell is this speech really about? Oh, BTW - XBox 360s don't provide information. Neither do iPods unless it's an iPod Touch with internet access. Who is fear mongering???? What is he saying? Too much information for Americans? All of us are too stupid to make up our own minds? I think he's saying, "Here...let me make it for you. Trust me. I will be the only honest one."

None of this raises red flags for you?

[Lion]

And what the hell is this speech really about? Oh, BTW - XBox 360s don't provide information. Neither do iPods unless it's an iPod Touch with internet access. Who is fear mongering???? What is he saying? Too much information for Americans? All of us are too stupid to make up our own minds? I think he's saying, "Here...let me make it for you. Trust me. I will be the only honest one."

None of this raises red flags for you?

Recently, a woman got fired because of comments she made in a speech. The fools who reacted to heavily to her words decided that a small snippet of her speech was enough to make a decision. I say we learn from that mistake and not judge Obama's speech the same way.

[steelish]

Recently, a woman got fired because of comments she made in a speech. The fools who reacted to heavily to her words decided that a small snippet of her speech was enough to make a decision. I say we learn from that mistake and not judge Obama's speech the same way.

That's rich. Obama and his administration are the one's who overreacted!

[Lion]

That's rich. Obama and his administration are the one's who overreacted!

Yep....as I said, fools

[steelish]

Yep....as I said, fools

I quite agree. Instead of watching the entire speech and realizing she was telling the story of her "Aha" moment, they reacted to a single portion of it.

Even listening to Obama's entire speech to the Hampton grads doesn't explain what he said! He's telling them that there is TOO MUCH INFORMATION out there. That there's too much to process. That there are liars out there. (Well, duh) He's practically implying that they're too stupid to process the information themselves and come to their own conclusion.

Whether you agree with him or not is moot. The point being, in America you can believe what you want, whether you're right or wrong and it's your right to listen to whatever source of information you want to, whether it's your XBox (what a joke) or your iPod or a newspaper...and for a President to tell young adults that this is wrong is ridiculous.

[chuck]

it's your right to listen to whatever source of information you want to, whether it's your XBox (what a joke) or your iPod or a newspaper...

~sigh~ a newspaper (also... "what a joke").

[steelish]

~sigh~ a newspaper (also... "what a joke").

I agree as most newspapers (and news channels) nowadays are very biased and it's difficult to find news sources that report things from an unobjective standpoint.

[chuck]

I agree as most newspapers (and news channels) nowadays are very biased and it's difficult to find news sources that report things from an unobjective standpoint.

Objective or not, it would help if they reported and asked questions about topics I think are important. All forms of media will have a bias... it's unavoidable. It's when they exclude information and distort other views that it changes from being a news outlet to a propaganda outlet.

[TantricSoul]

... It's when they exclude information and distort other views that it changes from being a news outlet to a propaganda outlet.

I completely agree with you here chuck, so called "card-stacking" is rampant in today's media no matter which direction one turns.

[leo9]

In any event I can see that any other participation by myself in this paticular thread will be utterly useless...so in the words of perhaps one of the last principled journalists to ever grace the airwaves ...

"Good night, and good luck".

I agree, dipped in briefly and can see that this is a dialogue of the deaf, people are not going to let their beliefs be confused by facts.

The really sad thing is that these people's fears have not changed substantially since they were saying the same things about the New Deal or the Kennedys.

"He surrounds himself with people who believe American populations should be regulated by putting birth control chemicals in our drinking water."

Remember General Jack D. Ripper, who wanted to start a nuclear war because the Commies were poisoning Americans by fluoridating drinking water? Someone really should do a study on the way these paranoid fantasies survive from generation to generation with only the superficial details changed.

[denuseri]

Ok I lied..I have returned...not to debate anything...only to thank leo for his words of wisdom and Tantric for his moderation.

One should study history so that one does not repeat it.

[DuncanONeil]

In America the "ruling" class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist,greedy, and above all stupid. ... The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey." (Angelo M Codevilla Professor emeritus of International Relations at Boston U.)

How is it "out of context" to point out that Obama says if you want to know how he thinks and feels, look at who he surrounds himself with. I then point out that he surrounds himself with Chavez and Mao Zedung supporters and believers. He surrounds himself with people who were American terrorists in the '60s. He surrounds himself with people who believe that Capitalism is a joke and political power comes from the barrel of a gun. He surrounds himself with people who believe American populations should be regulated by putting birth control chemicals in our drinking water.

This is not stuff that is untrue. It's simple facts that can be found by research. They don't hide their beliefs. They state them openly. There are video clips of some of them saying this stuff in their own words and can be found on YouTube!

And what the hell is this speech really about? Oh, BTW - XBox 360s don't provide information. Neither do iPods unless it's an iPod Touch with internet access. Who is fear mongering???? What is he saying? Too much information for Americans? All of us are too stupid to make up our own minds? I think he's saying, "Here...let me make it for you. Trust me. I will be the only honest one."

None of this raises red flags for you?

[DuncanONeil]

It fits in again, perhaps more appropriately;
"In America the "ruling" class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist,greedy, and above all stupid. ... The rulers want the ruled to shut up and obey." (Angelo M Codevilla Professor emeritus of International Relations at Boston U.)

I quite agree. Instead of watching the entire speech and realizing she was telling the story of her "Aha" moment, they reacted to a single portion of it.

Even listening to Obama's entire speech to the Hampton grads doesn't explain what he said! He's telling them that there is TOO MUCH INFORMATION out there. That there's too much to process. That there are liars out there. (Well, duh) He's practically implying that they're too stupid to process the information themselves and come to their own conclusion.

Whether you agree with him or not is moot. The point being, in America you can believe what you want, whether you're right or wrong and it's your right to listen to whatever source of information you want to, whether it's your XBox (what a joke) or your iPod or a newspaper...and for a President to tell young adults that this is wrong is ridiculous.

[DuncanONeil]

I agree as most newspapers (and news channels) nowadays are very biased and it's difficult to find news sources that report things from an unobjective standpoint.

Anyone wonder if they are being paid by the DNC?

[DuncanONeil]

You mentioned facts. Then I am to presume that; "Remember General Jack D. Ripper, who wanted to start a nuclear war because the Commies were poisoning Americans by fluoridating drinking water? Someone really should do a study on the way these paranoid fantasies survive from generation to generation with only the superficial details changed." was meant to be facetious?

I agree, dipped in briefly and can see that this is a dialogue of the deaf, people are not going to let their beliefs be confused by facts.

The really sad thing is that these people's fears have not changed substantially since they were saying the same things about the New Deal or the Kennedys.

"He surrounds himself with people who believe American populations should be regulated by putting birth control chemicals in our drinking water."

Remember General Jack D. Ripper, who wanted to start a nuclear war because the Commies were poisoning Americans by fluoridating drinking water? Someone really should do a study on the way these paranoid fantasies survive from generation to generation with only the superficial details changed.

[DuncanONeil]

Only one thing wrong! Leo9 is studying movies not history!!

Ok I lied..I have returned...not to debate anything...only to thank leo for his words of wisdom and Tantric for his moderation.

One should study history so that one does not repeat it.

[leo9]

You mentioned facts. Then I am to presume that; "Remember General Jack D. Ripper, who wanted to start a nuclear war because the Commies were poisoning Americans by fluoridating drinking water? Someone really should do a study on the way these paranoid fantasies survive from generation to generation with only the superficial details changed." was meant to be facetious?

Inasmuch as one has to laugh about these things so as not to start screaming. And yes, as it happens, I was aware that he was a fictitious character: I was also aware that he was a not very exagerated satire on a very real and widespread scare among the right wing of the time. I followed it in its day with wonder and incredulity, which is why I was so fascinated by its new incarnation.

[leo9]

One should study history so that one does not repeat it.

Speaking of history, it strikes me that this single theme of panics about drinking water would be material for a thesis. I recall that in the Middle Ages, one of the recurrent excuses for pogroms against the Jews was the claim that they were causing the Plague by poisoning wells.

The fact that the more recent versions have so much involved threats to men's fertility and potency suggests the Freudian association between water and sexuality.

It also offers the familiar spectacle of the Right pointing its guns in exactly the wrong direction, since the real and well documented threat to men's fertility in the developed world is the prevalence of oestrogen analogues in factory-farmed meat and milk. And the same people who fear the government secretly medicating them would rise up to defend industry from regulation to prevent its free-enterprise hidden medication.

[leo9]

"In America the "ruling" class wears on its sleeve the view that the rest of Americans are racist,greedy, and above all stupid. " (Angelo M Codevilla Professor emeritus of International Relations at Boston U.)

Amazing. What could possibly give them such a totally groundless and unsupported impression? Don't they watch the news?

[Lion]

Anyone wonder if they are being paid by the DNC?

Ever wonder if Fox is being paid by the RNC? As right wing as they are, I highly doubt that

[steelish]

Ever wonder if Fox is being paid by the RNC? As right wing as they are, I highly doubt that

You're right, they're not. However, NBC is owned by General Electric - a company that heavily funds the Democratic party. (Gee, imagine that.) ABC is owned by the Walt Disney Company - I'm sure poor Walt is turning over in his grave right now. He was heavily anti-Communist and against many of the policies the current administration is backing and ABC is reporting on as "good". CBS is owned by Sumner Redstone - a Democratic supporter.

Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch - an Australian-born American who has many British holdings. He has (big shock) Conservative leanings. The real difference here though, is that the Fox news programs encourage people to investigate what is being reported. ABC, CBS and NBC do not do that.

[TantricSoul]

"NBC is owned by General Electric - a company that heavily funds the Democratic party. (Gee, imagine that.)"
Actually according to this information

http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summ...?id=D000000125

one can see the GE funded the GOP more so than the DNC between 1996 and 2008. Seems as though they "heavily fund" whichever party is in power. As do most major political contributors, because thats what corporations and large donors care about ... power, they don't really care who wields it just as long as its used in the donors favor.

As far as whether Walt is upset about politics in the afterlife, I'll leave that for the psychics to determine.

Fox news "fair and balanced?" ... heres an interesting section from Rupert Murdoch's wikipedia page:
In early summer 2008, a "tentative truce" was brokered during a once secret meeting between Barack Obama, Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes (President of the Fox News Channel) at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. Obama had initially resisted Murdoch's propositions, despite senior News Corp. executives having recruited the Kennedys to act as go-betweens. Obama resented Fox News's portrayal of him "as suspicious, foreign, fearsome – just short of a terrorist", while Ailes, according to American journalist Michael Wolff, said, "it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand."

Roger Ailes has been very close to the GOP, involved in several Republican administrations, as can be seen here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ailes

But seriously folks if you are caught up in left vs right fight.
liberal = good/bad or conservative = good/bad ...
you are falling for the distraction.

You are just like the citizens of Rome, watching the games while the Empire dissolves.

Forty four percent of members of congress are millionaires ... millionaires represent one percent of the US population.

Wake up!

Respectfully,
Tantric

[DuncanONeil]

"a very real and widespread scare among the right wing of the time."
I do not believe it was that limited. I lived through most of that, including the Atomic Bomb drills. I even was taking cover when the cities weekly test of the alarms was activated.
Just in case there is an inclination, I grew up in Chicago in the family of a worker for the CTA and related to Richard J Daley.