Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Liberalism: Do You Agree We've Had Enough of It?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: TideGlider who wrote (64413)	5/5/2009 9:47:43 AM
From: FJB	Read Replies (1) of 224749

I think Obama may. He DOES think that decisions should be outcome based. It's part of his commie belief system. ------------------------------------------------------------------ 2001 OBAMA QUOTE: TRAGEDY THAT "REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH’ NOT PURSUED BY SUPREME COURT" Below is a 2001 Radio interview where Obama talks about how the Supreme Court should have been used (abused) to subvert the Constitution and have government forcibly redistribute wealth. This is a 2001 radio interview with Barack Obama where he discusses how the subversion of the Constitution can be used to allow government to forcibly redistribute wealth in America. Every country that has tried this nonsense has resulted in a big mess. Much of Western Europe and Eastern Europe are history’s testimony of this simple truth, but those who buy into Marxism just never learn from history and are often busy rewriting it. Often people this far to the left try to hide it, but now some are opening up since they are so confident in their victory on the upcoming election. The far left blogs say that using terms such as Marxist, socialist or communist are smears, but the simple truth is that the views that Obama expresses in this interview reflect classic textbook Marxist philosophy. They call the term “Marxist” a smear because they are trying to confuse people and rewrite “the American Way” in a manner that is consistent with the Communist Manifesto. At too many universities, instead of being taught the classics, Marxism is pounded over and over in liberal arts education, but much of the time it is taught as “academic truth” and the students are often not fully aware that a great deal of other philosophy exists and they are not always informed thatw hat is being taught is Marxist philosophy. Obama’s peer group when he worked at the University of Chicago was this Marxist group of academics including the now infamous William Ayers and other self professed Maoists. Don’t know hat a Maoist is students, well take a look HERE. People in these peer groups consider Marxism as the only academic truth, in spite of the fact that attempts to practice it have resulted in economic stagnation to human disaster. Think about it liberal arts majors, how much reading of Aristotle’s books of Rhetoric and Ethics have you actually had to put in your hands and go over? Or Cicero on politics? Or the very writings of this nations Founders?……yet almost very semester in my classes I get substantial amounts of Marxist theory, and odds are so do you. The simple truth is that many normal citizens have no idea how subversive much of academia has become. Many citizens actually think that socialists and communists are not allowed to teach on college campuses. My upcoming book on on academia will have chapters on this very subject. Any serious student of politics can see that Obama’s campaign play book is “Rules for Radicals” by Saul Alinsky. Oh wait…. most poli-sci and communications students are not asked to read that book…. you might want to pick it up and give it a read and ask yourself just why that is. Anyway, on to the radio interview for you to hear for yourself. I find it interesting that Obama doesn’t seem to recognize the limits on Congress that are expressed in Article I Section VIII of the Constitution. Obama also seems to believe that the only things that the government CAN’T do is what is in the Bill of Rights. This is completely against what the Founders believed in. In fact many people who opposed the Constitution such as the great Patrick Henry believed that others would come who would interpret the Constitution to mean that the rights penned are the only ones you have and can be repealed by government…. just like Obama indicates in this interview. iusbvision.wordpress.com

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next