Obama has very few associates that are not radicals.
What in the world makes you think that he doesn't? Just because the rags you read haven't bothered to identify other associates doesn't mean that your list is a complete list of his associates. He's a prominent and affable man. He has networked widely. He has lots and lots of associates.
You may choose to misperceive my position, and I expect you to.
I can only perceive your position from what you post. If you post leaps as conclusions, conclusions not supported by any kind of reason, then I treat your attempts at persuasion accordingly. And hope that you are never on a jury, where notions of reasonable doubt and preponderance of evidence are supposed to rule. You don't judge a man as a radical because among his vast array of associates he has a couple of dozen progressives and a few radicals.
His interview with the SF Chronical on January 17, 2008 is evidence of that
No it's not radical. It's mainstream environmental protection.
Taking people out of context is very disrespectful. I expect better from you.
If I have failed to follow your point, I am sorry. But that would not be from disrespect but from a communication problem. I can only go by what you post.
I understood you to say that I don't understand "them." That really understanding them means understanding them according to the piece you linked, which framed them as acting at the behest of the Devil. That because I reject the notion of the Devil, I don't understand them.
Then you suggest that my failure to adopt this new understanding of yours will lead to the loss of freedoms. "Now I understand the people Obama and his cronies are. You and I are his enemies. If you wish to be last to lose your freedoms you will be just as enslaved at the end of the day." I acknowledge that the shift from my understanding in your first sentence and my freedoms in the last was strange so maybe that wasn't what you were suggesting but it seemed so. I don't know what else that last sentence could have meant in that context.
So, that's my sense of the context. If I have taken anything out of context, it's not disrespect but lack of clarity.
Michelle Obama has quoted lines from Saul Alinsky's radical manifesto called Rules for Radicals.
First of all, it's just a quote. I have been known to quote from the Bible. Would you conclude that I must be a Christian or a Jew? That conclusion would not be supported. The reality is that there are useful bits in many books. That doesn't mean the rest of the book is equally worthwhile.
Secondly, even if that made Michelle a radical, it wouldn't mean that her husband is one.
And third, there's nothing radical about the statement she quoted. It may be a statement in a book written by a radical but the statement isn't radical.
Remember that Rush is an entertainer. He's not a professor of critical thinking. He makes outrageous statements and he speaks to the choir, which laps them up.
I will not argue that Alinsky isn't a radical, only that everyone who associates with him, has quoted him, or has gone to school off him as a community organizer is not inherently a radical. The guy wrote the book on community organizing. He's the superstar. Anyone in that biz has studied him and learned from him. That doesn't mean that they bought into him lock, stock and barrel no more than any student does any teacher. You take away what you can use and ignore the rest.
Take this bit from his book, for example: "All of us driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won't do -- that we have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be." Here you and I are on this thread arguing that this health care proposal "just won't do," arguing for a "world as it should be," free of oppressive and ineffectual government control. That doesn't make us radicals. It's what engaged humans do.
|
